S. HRG. 112–80, PT. 1 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND 

THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

S. 1253 

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

PART 1 

MILITARY POSTURE 

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND AND U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND AND U.S. AFRICA COMMAND 

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. FORCES KOREA 

THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM 

FEBRUARY 17; MARCH 1, 8, 17, 29, 31; APRIL 5, 7, 12; MAY 19, 2011 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM—Part 1 

MILITARY POSTURE

● U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND

● DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

● DEPARTMENT 

OF THE AIR FORCE

● U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND AND U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND

● DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

● U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND

● U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND AND U.S. AFRICA COMMAND

● U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. 

FORCES KOREA

● THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

68–084 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–80, PT. 1 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND 

THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

S. 1253 

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

PART 1 

MILITARY POSTURE 

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND AND U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND AND U.S. AFRICA COMMAND 

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. FORCES KOREA 

THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM 

FEBRUARY 17; MARCH 1, 8, 17, 29, 31; APRIL 5, 7, 12; MAY 19, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

DAVID M. MORRISS, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

MILITARY POSTURE

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

Page 

Gates, Hon. Robert M., Secretary of Defense; Accompanied by Robert F. 

Hale, Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller ................................................ 15 

Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff ....................... 25 

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND

MARCH 1, 2011

Olson, ADM Eric T., USN, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command .... 175 

Mattis, Gen. James N., USMC, Commander, U.S. Central Command ............... 182 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

MARCH 8, 2011

Mabus, Hon. Raymond E., Jr., Secretary of the Navy .......................................... 261 

Roughead, ADM Gary, USN, Chief of Naval Operations ..................................... 275 

Amos, Gen. James F., USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps ...................... 294 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

MARCH 17, 2011

Donley, Hon. Michael B., Secretary of the Air Force ............................................ 433 

Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff of the Air Force ....................... 456 

U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND AND U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND

MARCH 29, 2011

Stavridis, ADM James G., USN, Commander, U.S. European Command/Supreme Allied Commander, Europe ...................................................................... 543 

Kehler, Gen. C. Robert, USAF, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command ............. 587 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

MARCH 31, 2011

McHugh, Hon. John M., Secretary of the Army .................................................... 669 

Casey, GEN George W., Jr., USA, Chief of Staff of the Army ............................. 701 

U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND

APRIL 5, 2011

Winnefeld, ADM James A., Jr., USN, Commander, U.S. Northern Command 

and Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command ................... 757 

Fraser, Gen. Douglas M., USAF, Commander, U.S. Southern Command .......... 765 

Page

IV 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND AND U.S. AFRICA COMMAND

APRIL 7, 2011

McNabb, Gen. Duncan J., USAF, Commander, U.S. Transportation Command ..................................................................................................................... 842 

Ham, GEN Carter F., USA, Commander, U.S. Africa Command ....................... 852 

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. FORCES KOREA

APRIL 12, 2011

Willard, ADM Robert F., USN, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command ................. 926 

Sharp, GEN Walter L., USA, Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/U.S. Forces Korea ........................................................ 940 

THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM

MAY 19, 2011

Carter, Hon. Ashton B., Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics ............................................................................................ 999 

Fox, Hon. Christine H., Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, 

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 1009 

Gilmore, Hon. J. Michael, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 1012 

Van Buren, David M., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Air Force 

for Acquisition ...................................................................................................... 1017 

Venlet, VADM David J., USN, Program Executive Officer, F–35 Lightning 

II Program ............................................................................................................ 1053 

Burbage, Charles T. ‘‘Tom’’, Executive Vice President and General Manager, 

F–35 Program Integration, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company .............. 1054 

Sullivan, Michael J., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 1057 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

MILITARY POSTURE 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room SH– 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) 

presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, Chambliss, 

Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Collins, and Graham. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; Christine E. Cowart, chief clerk; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 

Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Gabriella E. Fahrer, counsel; Richard 

W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, 

counsel; Jason W. Maroney, counsel; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; Roy F. Phillips, 

professional staff member; John H. Quirk V, professional staff 

member; Russell L. Shaffer, counsel; and William K. Sutey, professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; Pablo E. 

Carrillo, minority investigative counsel; Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member; Diana G. 

Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, minority 

counsel. 

Staff assistants present: Kathleen A. Kulenkampff, Christine G. 

Lang, Brian F. Sebold, Bradley S. Watson, and Breon N. Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Ann Premer, 

assistant to Senator Nelson; Gordon Peterson, assistant to Senator 

2 

Webb; Tressa Guenov, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Jennifer 

Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to 

Senator Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; 

Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; and Ryan 

Kaldahl, assistant to Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

The committee welcomes this morning Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen for our hearing on the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) fiscal year 2012 budget request, the associated Future Years 

Defense Program (FYDP), and the posture of the U.S. Armed 

Forces. We also recognize Secretary Hale and welcome him here 

this morning as well. 

We are thankful to all of you and your families for your dedicated service to this Nation and to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 

marines at home and in harm’s way around the globe, and to their 

families. Your personal commitment to the welfare of our troops 

and their families shines through all that you do. The American 

people are grateful for that and we are grateful and eager to help 

wherever we can. 

DOD, like all Federal agencies, is currently operating under a 

continuing resolution (CR) that expires on March 4, 2011. If the 

current CR is extended for the whole year, then DOD’s base funding of $526 billion for fiscal year 2011 would be $23 billion below 

the original fiscal year 2011 request of $549 billion. Secretary 

Gates will describe to us this morning this situation as a crisis on 

his doorstep. I hope that we will soon, as a committee, be in a position to enact a full year appropriation at an appropriate level and 

that the full Senate will adopt such an appropriation. At a time when we face a budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion 

and many in Congress are convinced that we need steep spending 

cuts to put our fiscal house in order, no part of the Government, 

including DOD, can be exempt from close examination. The Secretary of Defense has subjected DOD’s budget to close examination. 

He has insisted on efficiencies, streamlining, cuts, and cancellations that we are told add up to $178 billion over the course of the 

next 5 years. The fiscal year 2012 base budget request of $553 billion is $4 billion higher than last year’s request but is a reduction 

in inflation-adjusted terms. We will be closely scrutinizing the Secretary’s efficiencies initiative and will be looking for additional efficiencies as we move through the legislative process. 

The total defense budget, which includes base funding for DOD 

and additional funding for overseas contingency operations 

(OCO)—that total defense budget declines from $708 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $671 billion in fiscal year 2012. That decline is due 

largely from our continued withdrawal from Iraq which results in 

the budget for the OCOs falling from $159 billion in 2011 to $118 

billion in fiscal year 2012. 

Even as the defense budget request reflects difficult choices, it 

rightly requests increased funding for military personnel and 

health care, including funding sufficient to continue initiatives supporting wounded and sick servicemembers, continued research into 

3 

traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD), and psychological health, and fully funds a variety of family support programs. Notably, the budget request would reduce Active Duty Army and Navy end strength by 7,400 soldiers and 3,000 

sailors, respectively. The Army has announced its plan to reduce its 

so-called temporary end strength by 22,000 soldiers over the next 

3 years, followed by an additional reduction of 27,000 soldiers between 2015 and 2017. As the Services resize their forces according 

to anticipated demand, we must ensure that any reductions avoid 

unnecessary increased risk or stress on our servicemembers. 

The budget request also prioritizes funding for ongoing major operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Senators Reed, Tester, and I 

heard during our visit to Afghanistan and Iraq last month, both of 

these conflicts are entering critical transition periods. 

In Iraq, our forces are implementing the decision by President 

Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, as set forth in the 2008 security 

agreement, to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 

2011. As we draw down, our goal is to leave behind an Iraq that 

is stable. Because Iraq will continue to need support in meeting its 

security needs, the budget request includes significant funds for 

starting up the Office of Security Cooperation within the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to make our security assistance available to Iraq. 

The transition from a DOD lead to a State Department lead for numerous bilateral activities in Iraq can only be successful if the Department of State (DOS) and our other civilian agencies receive the 

resources that they need to take on these missions. 

In Afghanistan, July 2011 will mark the date set by President 

Obama a little over a year ago for the Government of Afghanistan 

to take more and more responsibility for Afghan security and governance and by July 2011 for the beginning of reductions in U.S. 

forces in Afghanistan. The President’s decision to set the July 2011 

date has increased the urgency, as General Caldwell put it, of the 

efforts of Afghan leaders to prepare for this transition. General 

David Petraeus told us that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Afghan officials are preparing to provide President Karzai by the end of the month with a recommendation on 

which provinces and districts should be transferred to an Afghan 

security lead in the coming months. 

During our visit to Afghanistan, we saw significant signs of 

progress over the last 6 months, although great challenges remain. 

The Afghan army and police have surged by an additional 70,000 

over the last year and are on track to meet the current target of 

305,000 Afghan security forces by October of this year. President 

Obama’s budget request for fiscal year 2012 includes substantial 

resources to continue supporting those Afghan forces which will 

bring closer the day when Afghan troops will bear the major responsibility for their nation’s security, which in my judgment is 

and always has been key to success in Afghanistan. 

On February 15, 2011, in an op-ed that appeared in the Chicago 

Tribune, General Caldwell said that while the international community has expended tremendous blood and treasure for this just 

cause, the remarkable story of the surge of Afghans, of a people 

committing themselves to the defense of their country, is a reason 

to hope for a successful long-term outcome. 

4 

In an e-mail message to me, General Caldwell, who is in charge 

of training of Afghan forces, followed up that op-ed by saying: ‘‘It 

has become truly the untold story of the last 15 months. In that 

time, Afghan men and women have swelled the ranks of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) to levels more than double 

the U.S. and NATO surge.’’ He continued, ‘‘While the enormous increase in quantity is significant to the security of Afghanistan, our 

focus on the improvement of quality is even more important.’’ 

The op-ed and the e-mail message to me from General Caldwell 

will be made part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

5 


217ful1.eps
6 


217ful2.eps 217ful3.eps
7 

Chairman LEVIN. The administration is also considering a proposal to grow the Afghan army by 35,000 men and the Afghan police by a similar number, which would bring total Afghan security 

force levels of 378,000 by the end of 2012. These additional forces 

would add important enablers, logistics, engineering, and intelligence and others, that would reinforce and sustain the transition 

of responsibility for Afghanistan’s security to the Afghan security 

forces. I support this proposed increase. I know from our conversations that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen support it as well. 

I have urged President Obama, as recently as last Friday, to approve that request. 

In the field, Afghan security forces are partnered with coalition 

forces and deployed in the key regions of Helmand and Kandahar 

in equal or greater numbers than coalition forces. U.S., Afghan, 

and coalition forces are taking the momentum from the insurgency, 

particularly in former Taliban strongholds in the south. The Afghan army is increasingly in the lead in planning and executing 

operations. That is what the Taliban fear the most: Afghan security 

forces, as opposed to foreign forces, out in front providing security 

for the Afghan people. As support for the Afghan army and police 

grows, lower-level insurgent fighters are slowly beginning to reintegrate into Afghan society. 

Improving Afghan governance remains a major challenge to success. The government in Kabul is largely absent from Afghans’ 

daily lives and corruption and mismanagement remain major obstacles. 

We must ensure that our forces are prepared to address other 

threats in other places besides Iraq and Afghan. We obviously must 

remain attentive to those threats around that region and throughout the world. I outline those threats in some detail in the balance 

of my opening statement, but I will put that in the record rather 

than reading it at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Levin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

This morning, the committee welcomes Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, for our hearing on 

the Department of Defenses’ fiscal year 2012 budget request, the associated future 

years defense program, and the posture of the U.S. Armed Forces. 

We are thankful to you and your families for your dedicated service to the Nation 

and to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines at home and in harm’s way around 

the globe and to their families. Your personal commitment to the welfare of our 

troops and their families shines through all that you do. The American people are 

grateful for that and we are grateful and eager to help wherever we can. 

The Department of Defense, as are all Federal agencies, is currently operating 

under a continuing resolution (CR) that expires on March 4, 2011. If the current 

CR is extended for the whole year, then the Departments base funding of $526 billion for fiscal year 2011 would be $23 billion below the original fiscal year 2011 request of $549 billion. Secretary Gates will describe to us this morning this as a crisis on his doorstep. I hope that we will soon be in a position to enact a full year 

appropriation at an appropriate level. 

At a time when we face a budget deficit in excess of a trillion dollars and many 

in Congress are convinced that we need steep spending cuts to put our fiscal house 

in order, no part of the government, including the Department of Defense, can be 

exempt from close examination. The Secretary has subjected the Departments budget to close examination and insisted on efficiencies, streamlining, cuts and cancellations that, we are told, add up to $178 billion over the course of the next 5 years. 

The fiscal year 2012 base budget request of $553 billion is $4 billion higher than 

last years request but is a reduction in inflation-adjusted terms. We will be closely 

8 

scrutinizing the Secretary’s efficiencies initiative and will be looking for additional 

efficiencies as we move through the legislative process. 

The total defense budget, which includes base funding for the Department of Defense and additional funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, declines from 

$708 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $671 billion in fiscal year 2012. That decline is 

due largely from our continued withdrawal from Iraq which results in the budget 

for Overseas Contingency Operations falling from $159 billion in fiscal year 2011 

to $118 billion in fiscal year 2012. 

Even as the Defense budget request reflects difficult choices, it rightly requests 

increased funding for military personnel and health care, including funding sufficient to continue initiatives supporting wounded and sick service members, continue 

research into traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and psychological health, and fully fund a variety of family support programs. Notably, the 

budget request would reduce active duty Army and Navy end strengths by 7,400 soldiers and 3,000 sailors, respectively. The Army has announced its plan to reduce 

its so-called temporary end strength by 22,000 soldiers over the next three years, 

followed by an additional reduction of 27,000 soldiers between 2015 and 2017. As 

the Services for re-size their forces according to anticipated demand, we must ensure that any reductions avoid unnecessary increased risk or stress on our 

servicemembers. 

The budget request also prioritizes funding for ongoing major operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Senators Reed, Tester, and I heard during our visit to Afghanistan and Iraq last month, both of these conflicts are entering critical transition 

periods. 

In Iraq, our forces are implementing the decision by President Bush and Prime 

Minister Maliki, as set forth in the 2008 Security Agreement, to withdraw all U.S. 

forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011. As we drawdown, our goal is to leave behind 

an Iraq that is stable. Because Iraq will continue to need support in meeting its 

security needs, the budget request includes significant funds for starting up the Office of Security Cooperation within the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to make our security assistance available to Iraq. The transition from a DOD lead to a State Department lead for numerous bilateral activities in Iraq can only be successful if the Department of State and our other civilian agencies receive the resources they need 

to take on these missions. 

In Afghanistan, July 2011 will mark the date set by President Obama a little over 

a year ago for the Government of Afghanistan to take more and more responsibility 

for Afghanistans security and governance and for the beginning of reductions in U.S 

forces in Afghanistan. The Presidents decision to set the July 2011 date has added 

urgency, as General Caldwell put it, to the efforts of Afghan leaders to prepare for 

this transition. General David Petreaus told us that th North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Afghan officials are preparing to provide President Karzai by 

the end of the month a recommendation on which provinces and districts should be 

transferred to an Afghan security lead in the coming months. 

During our visit to Afghanistan last month, we saw significant signs of progress 

over the last several months, though great challenges remain. The Afghan Army 

and police have surged by an additional 70,000 over the last year, and are on track 

to meet the current target of 305,000 Afghan security forces by October of this year. 

The Presidents budget request for fiscal year 2012 includes substantial resources to 

continue supporting these forces, which will bring closer the day when Afghan 

troops will bear the major responsibility for their nations security, which is key to 

success in Afghanistan. 

On February 15, 2011, in an op-ed that appeared in the Chicago Tribune, General 

Caldwell said, While the international community has expended tremendous blood 

and treasure for this just cause, the remarkable story of the surge of Afghans, of 

a people committing themselves to defense their country, is a reason to hope for a 

successful long-term outcome. In an email message to me he followed up by saying, 

It truly has become the Untold Story of the last 15 months. In that time, Afghan 

men and women have swelled the ranks of the Afghan National Security Force to 

levels more than double the U.S. and NATO surge. He continued, While the enormous increase in quantity is significant to the security of Afghanistan, our focus on 

the improvement of quality is even more important. Without objection, the op-ed 

and General Caldwell’s email message to me shall be made a part of the record. 

The administration is also considering a proposal to grow the Afghan Army by 

35,000 and the Afghan police by a similar number, which would bring total Afghan 

security force levels to 378,000 by the end of 2012. These additional forces will add 

important enablers logistics, engineering and intelligence and others that will reinforce and sustain the transition of responsibility for Afghanistans security to the Afghan security forces. I support this proposed increase, and I know from our conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
9 

versations that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen support it as well. I have urged 

President Obama as recently as last Friday to approve this request. 

In the field, Afghan security forces are partnered with coalition forces and deployed in the key regions of Helmand and Kandahar in equal or greater numbers 

than coalition forces. U.S., Afghan, and coalition forces are taking the momentum 

from the insurgency, particularly in former Taliban strongholds in the south. The 

Afghan Army is increasingly in the lead in planning and executing operations. 

Thats what the Taliban fear most: Afghan security forces, as opposed to foreign 

forces, out in front providing security to the Afghan people. As support for the Afghan Army and police grows, lower-level insurgent fighters are slowly beginning to 

reintegrate into Afghan society. 

Improving Afghan governance remains a major challenge to success. The Government in Kabul is largely absent from Afghans daily lives and corruption and mismanagement remain major obstacles. 

We must ensure our forces are prepared to address other threats in other places 

besides Iraq and Afghanistan. We must remain attentive to the threats burgeoning 

from al Qaeda and its affiliates in places like Somalia, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, 

and West Africa. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has narrowly failed 

to strike the U.S. Homeland on two occasions these narrow misses, which were 

planned and executed by AQAP operatives in Yemen, have inspired them to develop 

new and creative ways to attack the United States and our interests. It is critical 

that we continue to work with our partners in the region to increase the pressure 

on AQAP and its associated forces. As protests in the Middle East continue to unfold, it is also critical that we urge our partners to as President Obama said earlier 

this week get out ahead of change. If countries like Yemen fail to do this, transitions 

could create a less favorable outcome for their people, for the region, and for the 

United States. 

Earlier this week, the President spoke of the hunger for freedoms among the peoples of the Middle East. The committee looks forward to hearing from Secretary 

Gates and Admiral Mullen on: the current situation in Egypt and the broader Middle East; our communications with Egyptian military leadership and their confidence in their commitment to truly democratic elections; and the future of U.S.- 

Egyptian military relations. The Egyptian people have been denied their democratic 

rights for too long and over the few plus weeks the Egyptian people demanded those 

fundamental rights. It is critical that the United States supports transition to democratic governance in the Middle East and the world. 

Across the Gulf of Aden, in Somalia and the Horn of Africa more broadly commerce continues to be impacted by threat of increasingly aggressive pirates, as well 

as certain elements of al Shabab that have expanded their violent attacks to include 

regional targets, most recently in July 2010 in Uganda. 

Iran clearly provides a challenge for the United States and the international community. While continuing to profess that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, all of Irans actions indicate otherwise. Iran continues to violate the directives 

of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and refuses to 

enter into meaningful negotiations with the P–5 plus 1 group of nations. The sanctions that have been imposed by the United States and most of the international 

community under the U.N. sanctions resolutions, as well as domestic laws, have had 

an effect. 

In recent days, domestically, Iran has demonstrated yet again its total disregard 

for the fundamental rights of its people when it once more violently oppressed the 

political opposition to its tyrannical rule. The Iranian people are demanding that 

their voices be heard, we should stand with them. 

I also wanted to highlight Admiral Mullens Guidance for 2011, which states that 

DOD would continue to plan for a broad range of military options should the President decide to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. While not the 

preferred option, it is important that Iran understands that military actions remain 

on the table. 

The Asia-Pacific region also requires increasing attention from the administration, 

Congress, and the U.S. military. Among the challenges we face are the unprovoked 

aggression from North Korea, questions raised by the continuing growth and modernization of Chinas military capabilities, and the destabilizing influences of violent 

extremism in South and Southeast Asia. As we confront these challenges, we must 

work closely with partners and allies, and make smart decisions about the U.S. military’s posture, presence, and capabilities throughout the region. 

In the area of missile defense, the budget request is $10.7 billion, an increase of 

$450 million from last years request, including funds for the Missile Defense Agency 

and the missile defense programs of the Army. There are likely to be two major 

focal points for missile defense this year: implementing the Phased Adaptive ApVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
10 

proach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe, and taking the steps necessary to make 

sure the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is on a path to being effective, 

reliable, and sustainable. 

On implementation of the European PAA, the key objective this year is to deploy 

Phase 1, which includes deployment of an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ship to 

the Mediterranean, and a forward-based radar in southeastern NATO Europe. 

These deployments will provide near-term protection against existing and future 

Iranian missile threats to NATO. Numerous capabilities for future phases of the European PAA are under development, particularly the enhanced Aegis missile defense 

elements for deployment on land and at sea. 

It is particularly noteworthy that last November at the Lisbon Summit, the NATO 

alliance agreed unanimously to adopt missile defense of its territory and population 

as a core mission, and NATO fully supports the European PAA as the U.S. contribution to NATOs missile defense mission. 

One of NATOs key objectives in this decision is to seek cooperation with Russia 

on missile defense, through the NATO-Russia Council. As President Obama described in his December 18 letter to the Senate on missile defense, such cooperation 

will not in any way limit United States or NATO’s missile defense capabilities. I 

hope our witnesses today will describe the types of cooperation they believe would 

be both useful and possible. 

As for the GMD system, I would note that the last two flight tests have failed 

to result in intercepts, and we want to make sure that the Department is taking 

the necessary steps to understand and fix the problem, and to ensure that the system will work effectively and reliably. It remains essential to test our missile defense programs in a realistic manner, and to demonstrate that those systems work 

properly before we deploy them. 

Turning to the readiness of our Armed Forces, the fiscal year 2012 budget request 

provides adequate levels of funding and an overall increase from fiscal year 2011 

levels, including support for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, 

the war funding request to reset and reconstitute equipment has decreased from 

$21.4 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $11.9 billion in fiscal year 2012. We must recognize that long term reset requirements must be supported with sustained funding 

for several years after forces have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. As operational tempo increases in Afghanistan, it is imperative that the vital readiness accounts are protected and fully funded. 

Lastly, I applaud the Department for recognizing the need to maintain robust 

funding for science and technology programs that will provide the underpinning for 

the technological superiority of our future military capabilities. These efforts, along 

with supporting a capable acquisition workforce and maintaining a vibrant national 

defense industrial base, will be crucial for the successful and timely development 

and fielding of the next generation of cost-effective and reliable weapons systems. 

Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, we look forward to your testimony. Now I will 

turn to Senator McCain for any opening remarks he may have. 

Chairman LEVIN. I will turn now to Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join you 

in welcoming Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen and Secretary 

Hale to discuss the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012 

and its impact on the FYDP for DOD. 

Secretary Gates, you were asked to return to public service at a 

time when this country was embroiled in the turmoil of an unpopular war and another deteriorating war, and Pentagon critics were 

abounding. Your historic tenure has been marked by a surge to victory in Iraq, a new strategy to defeat our enemies in Afghanistan, 

and DOD’s lead on humanitarian responses around the world. Your 

service will also be noted for the substantial reforms for the defense acquisition process and your decisive actions to stop wasting 

taxpayers’ funds on unneeded and outdated systems. On behalf of 

my fellow citizens, I want to thank you for your outstanding service. I view you as one of the greatest public servants that I have 

ever had the opportunity of serving with. 

11 

Today we are faced again with a demand for change. We are facing a harsh reality that runaway Federal spending has put this 

country on an unsustainable path. I agree with Admiral Mullen 

who observes in his written statement ‘‘our debt is our greatest national security threat.’’ The competing demands for our resources 

and the imperative we face to reduce our debt requires Congress 

to provide more leadership than it has shown in the past to restore 

fiscal responsibility. 

I believe we took a step in the right direction in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by stripping the earmarks from the bill. Since then, both House and Senate have imposed moratoriums on earmarks for 2011 and 2012. I commend my 

colleagues in advance for restraining themselves from using earmarks, and I know it is tough for some. Mr. Secretary, I hope you 

will reinforce the President’s commitment made during the State of 

the Union Address and recommend a veto of any 2012 defense bill 

that contains earmarks. 

I am concerned about the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). I know that 

you are. We have had many briefings, many discussions, but it has 

been a source of great frustration to you, to me, and to members 

of this committee, but most of all, it has been an incredible waste 

of the taxpayers’ dollars. It hurts the credibility of our acquisition 

process and our defense industry. It reinforces the view of some of 

us that the military industrial congressional complex that President Eisenhower warned us about is alive and well. I hope that you 

can make your position absolutely clear to the Senate today to prevent further wasteful action by Congress that will deny DOD the 

resources it really needs but, at the same time, give us the kind 

of assurance that the F–35 can be put on the right track. I believe 

that as we move to try to reduce the deficit and the debt, almost 

everything is going to be on the table. Overall the base budget request of $553 billion is $13 billion less 

than the amount projected last year. I commend your efforts to get 

out ahead of the cuts by finding ways to improve the efficiency of 

DOD. Your decisions to reduce the number of senior military and 

civilian officials, freeze civilian pay, and halt with some exceptions 

the process of expanding the civilian workforce are sound decisions. 

I worry that we might, however, do some things that might cause 

us to see what we saw in the 1970s and the 1980s. Reducing flying 

hours, deferring aircraft maintenance, and postponing needed facility repairs are not true savings, and I fear the possibility of a return to what we once knew as a hollow Army. 

I have long said DOD does not deserve a special pass from 

spending the American taxpayers’ dollars efficiently. But I have 

also said that the savings we identify must be reinvested in critical 

defense priorities. One example of this reinvestment is the increased efforts to combat the trafficking of drugs and illicit materials through Mexico. This has become an issue of national security. I look forward to working with you and our allies in Mexico 

to combat this scourge. 

Yesterday you stated, regarding the U.S. presence in Iraq ‘‘there 

is certainly on our part an interest in having an additional presence, and the truth of the matter is the Iraqis are going to have 

some problems that they are going to have to deal with if we are 

12 

not there in some numbers.’’ I agree. We are now scheduled to be 

completely out by the end of this year. I think it is time we engage 

in active discussions with the Iraqis as to their future needs as 

well as any threats there might be to our national security if there 

is a complete withdrawal by the end of this year. 

In addition to Iraq, we will still have 98,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan. I expect our troops will remain there until they are no 

longer needed. 

A couple of weekends ago, I was at Munich and our allies came 

up to me and said, you say you are beginning to withdraw in the 

middle of 2011. Why should we not go to our constituents and say 

we are beginning to withdraw? I think one of the worst announcements ever made, as far as the conflict in Afghanistan, was the 

statement that we would be beginning withdrawal in 2011. I am 

glad to see that 2014 is now the operative year, but it still is very 

unsettling to our allies and encouraging to our enemies. 

Success of our mission in Afghanistan must be assured to honor 

the sacrifices of our brave men and women, as well as coalition 

partners who have fought, died, and been injured there. 

Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Hale, we face many 

challenges in the year ahead which will require your continued 

skill and tenacity. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

We have a quorum here and in a moment I will ask approval of 

a number of nominations and the committee budget. Before I do 

that, though, I just want to say, Mr. Secretary, I join and concur 

with Senator McCain and his comments about you and your tenure 

here as Secretary of Defense. It has been an extraordinary number 

of years. You have brought great capability, objectivity, and 

thoughtfulness to the job and great strength, independence, and 

courage, and I very much commend you for it. I look forward to 

many more times when you will be before this committee, and I am 

sure that you do too. I do not want this to sound kind of like it 

is anywhere near the end of your tenure here. [Laughter.] 

I discussed the matter of the committee budget with Senator 

McCain, and I now would ask the committee to consider and approve a Senate resolution authorizing funding for our committee 

from March 1 of this year through February 28, 2013. The funding 

resolution is consistent with the joint majority leader and Republican leader’s February 3 agreement on committee funding and 

with the funding guidance provided to us by the Senate Rules Committee on February 7. This matter is time-sensitive. All committees 

have been asked to report their budgets to the Senate by no later 

than today. So I would now entertain a motion to favorably report 

this resolution. 

Senator MCCAIN. So moved. 

Chairman LEVIN. Second? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Second. 

Chairman LEVIN. All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.] 

Opposed, nay. [No response.] 

The ayes have it. 

Now, we have some discussion that lies ahead of us on our committee rules. I would ask everybody to read those rules during the 

13 

next week, and we will take up the matter of our rules on Monday 

or Tuesday after we return from the recess. 

We also have in front of us 670 pending military nominations. All 

of these nominations have been before the committee the required 

length of time. Is there a motion to favorably report those nominations? 

Senator MCCAIN. So moved. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is there a second? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Second. 

Chairman LEVIN. All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman LEVIN. Opposed, nay. [No response.] 

Chairman LEVIN. The motion carries. Thank you all. 

[The list of nominations considered and approved by the committee follows:] 

MILITARY NOMINATIONS PENDING WITH THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

WHICH ARE PROPOSED FOR THE COMMITTEE’S CONSIDERATION ON FEBRUARY 17, 2011. 

1. LTG Eric E. Fiel, USAF, to be lieutenant general and Commander, Air Force 

Special Operations Command (Reference No. 138). 

2. Col. Howard D. Stendahl, USAF to be brigadier general (Reference No. 139). 

3. LTG Dennis L. Via, USA to be lieutenant general and Deputy Commanding 

General/Chief of Staff, US Army Materiel Command (Reference No. 141). 

4. LTG Mark P. Hertling, USA to be lieutenant general and Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army (Reference No. 142). 

5. MG Susan S. Lawrence, USA to be lieutenant general and Chief Information 

Officer/G-6, Office of the Secretary of the Army (Reference No. 143). 

6. MG John M. Bednarek, USA to be lieutenant general and Commanding General, First US Army (Reference No. 144). 

7. MG Francis J. Wiercinski, USA to be lieutenant general and Commanding 

General, US Army Pacific (Reference No. 145). 

8. BG Renaldo Rivera, ARNG to be major general (Reference No. 147). 

9. BG William M. Buckler, Jr., USAR to be major general (Reference No. 148). 

10. BG Mark J. MacCarley, USAR to be major general (Reference No. 149). 

11. In the Army Reserve, there are eight appointments to the grade of colonel (list 

begins with Marc T. Arellano) (Reference No. 150). 

12. In the Army Reserve, there are six appointments to the grade of colonel (list 

begins with Gregrey C. Bacon) (Reference No. 151). 

13. In the Navy, there are two appointments to the grade of commander and 

below (list begins with John G. Brown) (Reference No. 153). 

14. Col. Arlen R. Royalty, USAR to be brigadier general (Reference No. 167). 

15. In the Marine Corps, there are 11 appointments to the grade of major general 

(list begins with Juan G. Ayala) (Reference No. 168). 

16. In the Air Force Reserve, there are three appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Erwin Rader Bender, Jr.) (Reference No. 171). 

17. In the Air Force, there are six appointments to the grade of lieutenant colonel 

and below (list begins with David M. Crawford) (Reference No. 172). 

18. In the Air Force Reserve, there are 175 appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Richard T. Aldridge) (Reference No. 173). 

19. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Sebastian A. Edwards) (Reference No. 174). 

20. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of colonel (Gregory R. 

Ebner) (Reference No. 175). 

21. In the Army Reserve there are 10 appointments to the grade of colonel (list 

begins with Curtis O. Bohlman, Jr.) (Reference No. 176). 

22. In the Marine Corps, there is one appointment to the grade of major (Timothy 

E. Lemaster) (Reference No. 178). 

23. In the Marine Corps, there are two appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with Dax Hammers) (Reference No. 180). 

24. In the Marine Corps, there are two appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with Richard Martinez) (Reference No. 181). 

25. In the Marine Corps, there are four appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with William Frazier, Jr.) (Reference No. 182). 

26. In the Marine Corps, there are four appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with Douglas R. Cunningham) (Reference No. 183). 

14 

27. In the Marine Corps, there are four appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with James E. Hardy, Jr.) (Reference No. 184). 

28. In the Marine Corps, there are five appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with Conrad G. Alston) (Reference No. 185). 

29. In the Marine Corps, there are five appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with David M. Adams) (Reference No. 186). 

30. In the Marine Corps, there are six appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with Stefan R. Browning) (Reference No. 187). 

31. In the Marine Corps, there are seven appointment to the grade of major (list 

begins with Joel T. Carpenter) (Reference No. 188). 

32. In the Marine Corps, there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Roger N. Rudd) (Reference No. 189). 

33. In the Marine Corps, there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Lowell W. Schweickart, Jr.) (Reference No. 190). 

34. In the Marine Corps, there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Katrina Gaskill) (Reference No. 191). 

35. In the Marine Corps, there are two appointments to the grade of lieutenant 

colonel (list begins with Sean J. Collins) (Reference No. 193). 

36. In the Marine Corps, there are three appointments to the grade of lieutenant 

colonel (list begins with William H. Barlow) (Reference No. 195). 

37. In the Marine Corps, there is one appointment to the grade of major (James 

H. Glass) (Reference No. 197). 

38. In the Navy, there is one appointment to the grade of captain (Richelle L. 

Kay) (Reference No. 198). 

39. In the Navy, there are two appointments to the grade of lieutenant commander (list begins with Chris W. Czaplak) (Reference No. 201). 

40. In the Navy, there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant commander 

(Scott D. Scherer) (Reference No. 202). 

41. In the Navy, there are two appointments to the grade of commander and 

below (list begins with Carlos E. Moreyra) (Reference No. 203). 

42. In the Navy, there are 30 appointments to the grade of lieutenant commander 

(list begins with David Q. Baughier) (Reference No. 204). 

43. In the Marine Corps, there are three appointments to the grade of major (list 

begins with Timothy M. Callahan) (Reference No. 206). 

44. MG Ellen M. Pawlikowski, USAF, to be lieutenant general and Commander, 

Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command (Reference No. 210). 

45. MG Michael J. Basla, USAF, to be lieutenant general and Vice Commander, 

Air Force Space Command (Reference No. 211). 

46. MG Rhett A. Hernandez, USA, to be lieutenant general and Commanding 

General, U.S. Army Forces Cyberspace Command (Reference No. 212). 

47. Col. Johnny M. Sellers, ARNG, to be brigadier general (Reference No. 214). 

48. Col. Janson D. Boyles, ARNG, to be brigadier general (Reference No. 215). 

49. In the Air Force, there are three appointments to the grade of major (list begins with Stephen L. Buse) (Reference No. 216). 

50. In the Air Force Reserve, there are three appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Thomas J. Collins) (Reference No. 217). 

51. In the Air Force Reserve, there are four appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Phillip M. Armstrong) (Reference No. 218). 

52. In the Air Force Reserve, there are five appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Lloyd H. Anseth) (Reference No. 219). 

53. In the Air Force Reserve, there are seven appointments to the grade of major 

(list begins with Kathleen M. Flarity) (Reference No. 220). 

54. In the Air Force, there are seven appointments to the grade of major (list begins with Melina T. Doan) (Reference No. 221). 

55. In the Air Force, there are 12 appointments to the grade of colonel (list begins 

with Villa L. Guillory) (Reference No. 223). 

56. In the Air Force Reserve, there are 14 appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Alfred P. Bowles II) (Reference No. 224). 

57. In the Air Force, there are 49 appointments to the grade of colonel (list begins 

with Brian F. Agee) (Reference No. 225). 

58. In the Air Force Reserve, there are 100 appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Earl R. Alameida, Jr.) (Reference No. 226). 

59. In the Army, there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant colonel (Edward J. Benz III) (Reference No. 227). 

60. In the Army Reserve, there is one appointment to the grade of colonel 

(Charles E. Lynde) (Reference No. 228). 

61. In the Army, there are four appointments to the grade of major (list begins 

with Ozren T. Buntak) (Reference No. 229). 

15 

62. In the Army, there are three appointments to the grade of major (list begins 

with Marcia A. Brimm) (Reference No. 230). 

63. In the Army there are 3 appointments to the grade of lieutenant colonel and 

below (list begins with Dustin C. Frazier) (Reference No. 231). 

64. In the Army Reserve, there are eight appointments to the grade of colonel (list 

begins with Robert L. Bierenga) (Reference No. 232). 

65. In the Army Reserve, there are 12 appointments to the grade of colonel (list 

begins with Don A. Campbell) (Reference No. 233). 

66. In the Marine Corps Reserve, there are seven appointments to the grade of 

colonel (list begins with Ernest L. Ackiss III) (Reference No. 234). 

67. In the Marine Corps Reserve, there are 74 appointments to the grade of colonel (list begins with Philip Q. Applegate) (Reference No. 235). 

68. In the Navy, there is one appointment to the grade of captain (Jeffrey K. 

Hayhurst) (Reference No. 238). 

69. In the Navy, there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant commander 

(Steven D. Elias) (Reference No. 239). 

70. In the Navy, there are two appointments to the grade of commander and 

below (list begins with Amy R. Gavril) (Reference No. 241). 

71. In the Air Force Reserve, there are seven appointments to the grade of colonel 

(list begins with Steven L. Argiriou) (Reference No. 242). 

72. In the Air Force, there are two appointments to the grade of major (list begins 

with Richard C. Ales) (Reference No. 243). 

73. MG Vincent K. Brooks, USA, to be lieutenant general and Commanding General, U.S. Army Central Command/Third U.S. Army (Reference No. 248). 

Total: 670. 

Chairman LEVIN. We will now call on you, Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT F. HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER 

Secretary GATES. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, members of 

the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

to discuss the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012. 

But first I want to thank the members of this committee for your 

outstanding support of DOD, but especially your support of the 

men and women in uniform serving in a time of war. I know you 

will join me in doing everything to ensure they have all they need 

to accomplish their mission and come home safely. 

The budget request for DOD being presented today includes a base budget request of $553 billion and an OCO request of $117.8 

billion. These budget decisions took place in the context of a nearly 

2-year effort by DOD to reduce overhead, cull troubled and excess 

programs, and rein in personnel and contractor costs, all for the 

purpose of preserving the global reach and fighting strength of 

America’s military at a time of fiscal stress for our country. 

In all, these budget requests, if enacted by Congress, will continue our efforts to reform the way DOD does business, funds modernization programs needed to prepare for future conflicts, reaffirms and strengthens our Nation’s commitment to care for the AllVolunteer Force, and ensure that our troops and commanders on 

the front lines have the resources and support they need to accomplish their mission. 

My submitted statement includes more details of this request. 

Now I want to take this opportunity to address several issues 

that I know have been a subject of debate and concern since I announced the outlines of our budget proposal last month: first, the 

serious damage our military will suffer by operating under a CR 

or receiving a significant funding cut during fiscal year 2011; second, the projected slowing and eventual flattening of the growth of 

16 

the defense budget over the next 5 years; third, the plan for future 

reductions in the size of the ground forces; and fourth, the proposed 

reforms and savings to the TRICARE program for working age retirees. 

I also would express the hope that the Senate will continue to 

reject the unnecessary extra engine for the F–35 as it did the last 

time the Senate spoke to this issue in 2009. 

I want to start by making it clear that DOD will face a crisis if 

we end up with a year-long CR or a significant funding cut for fiscal year 2011. The President’s defense budget request for 2011 was 

$549 billion. A full-year CR would fund DOD at about $526 billion. 

That is a cut of $23 billion. The damage done across the force from 

such reductions would be further magnified as they would come 

halfway through the fiscal year. 

Let me be clear, operating under a year-long CR or significantly 

reduced funding, with the severe shortfalls that entails, would 

damage procurement and research programs causing delays, rising 

costs, no new program starts, and serious disruptions in the production of some of our most high-demand assets, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Cuts in maintenance could force 

parts of our aircraft fleet to be grounded and delay needed facilities 

improvements. Cuts in operations would mean fewer flying hours, 

fewer steaming days, and cutbacks in training for home station 

forces, all of which directly impact readiness. 

Similarly, some of the appropriations proposals under debate in Congress contemplate reductions of up to $15 billion from the 

President’s original fiscal year 2011 request. I recognize that given 

the current fiscal and political environment, it is unlikely that 

DOD will receive the full fiscal year 2011 amount. Based on a number of factors, including policy changes that led to lower personnel 

costs and reduced activity forced by the CR, I believe DOD can get 

by with a lower number. However, it is my judgment that DOD 

needs an appropriation of at least $540 billion for fiscal year 2011 

for the U.S. military to properly carry out its mission, maintain 

readiness, and prepare for the future, which brings me to the proposed $78 billion reduction in the defense budget top line over the 

next 5 years. 

To begin with, this so-called cut is to the rate of predicted 

growth. The size of the base defense budget is still projected to increase in real inflation-adjusted dollars before eventually flattening 

out over this time period. 

More significantly, as a result of the efficiencies and reforms undertaken over the past year, we have protected programs that support servicemembers, readiness, and modernization. These efforts 

have made it possible for DOD to absorb lower projected growth in 

the defense budget without sacrificing real military capabilities. In 

fact, the savings identified by the Services have allowed our military to add some $70 billion beyond the program of record toward 

priority needs and new capabilities. Of the $78 billion in proposed 

reductions to the 5-year defense plan, about $68 billion comes from 

a combination of shedding excess overhead, improved business 

practices, reducing personnel costs, and from changes to economic 

assumptions. Only $10 billion of that 5-year total is directly related 

to military combat capability. $4 billion comes from restructuring 

17 

the JSF program, a step driven by the program’s development and 

testing schedule that would have taken place irrespective of the 

budget top line. The rest, about $6 billion, results from the proposed decrease in end strength of the Army and Marine Corps 

starting in 2015, a decision I will address now. 

Just over 4 years ago, one of my first acts as Defense Secretary 

was to increase the permanent end strength of our ground forces, 

the Army by 65,000 to a total of 547,000 and the Marine Corps by 

27,000 to 202,000. At the time the increase was needed to relieve 

the severe stress on the force from the Iraq war as the surge was 

getting underway. To support the later plus-up of troops in Afghanistan, I subsequently authorized a further temporary increase in 

the Army of 22,000, an increase always planned to end in 2013. 

The objective was to reduce stress on the force, limit and eventually end the practice of stop-loss and to increase troops’ home station dwell time. 

As we end the U.S. troop presence in Iraq this year, according 

to our agreement with the Iraqi Government, the overall deployment demands on our force are decreasing significantly. Just 3 

years ago, we had some 190,000 troops combined in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this calendar year, we expect there to be 

less than 100,000 troops deployed in both of the major post-September 11 combat theaters, virtually all of those forces in Afghanistan. 

This is why we believe that beginning in fiscal year 2015, the 

United States can, with minimal risk, begin reducing Army Active 

Duty end strength by 27,000 and the Marine Corps by somewhere 

between 15,000 and 20,000. These projections assume that the 

number of troops in Afghanistan will be significantly reduced by 

the end of 2014 in accordance with both the President’s and 

NATO’s strategy. If our assumptions prove incorrect, there is plenty of time to adjust the size and schedule of this change. 

It is important to remember that even after the planned reductions, the Active Army end strength would continue to be larger by 

nearly 40,000 soldiers than it was when I became Secretary of Defense 4 years ago. 

I should also note that these reductions are supported by both 

the Army and Marine Corps leadership. 

Finally, sharply rising health care costs are consuming an evenlarger share of DOD’s budget, growing from $19 billion in 2001 to 

$52.5 billion in this request. Among other reforms, this fiscal year 

2012 budget includes modest increases to TRICARE enrollment 

fees, later indexed to Medicare premium increases for working age 

retirees, most of whom are employed while receiving full pensions. 

All six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have strongly endorsed 

these and other cost-saving TRICARE reforms in a letter to Congress. 

I understand that any kind of change to these benefits prompts 

vigorous political opposition, but let us be clear. The current 

TRICARE arrangement, one in which fees have not increased for 

15 years, is simply unsustainable, and if allowed to continue, DOD 

risks the fate of other corporate and government bureaucracies that 

were ultimately crippled by personnel costs, in particular, their retiree benefit packages. 

18 

All told, the cumulative effect of DOD’s savings and reforms, 

combined with a host of new investments, will make it possible to 

protect the U.S. military’s combat power despite the declining rate 

of growth and eventual flattening of the defense budget over the 

next 5 years. As a result of the savings identified and reinvested 

by the Services, our military will be able to meet unforeseen expenses, refurbish war-worn equipment, buy new ships and fighters, 

begin development of a new long-range bomber, boost our cyber 

warfare capability, strengthen missile defense, and buy more of the 

most advanced UAVs. But I should note this will only be possible 

if the efficiencies, reforms, and savings are followed through to 

completion. 

In closing, I want to address the calls from some quarters for 

deeper cuts in defense spending to address this country’s fiscal 

challenges. I would remind them that over the last two defense 

budgets submitted by President Obama, we have curtailed or canceled troubled or excess programs that would have cost more than 

$300 billion if seen through to completion. Additionally, total defense spending, including war costs, will decline further as the U.S. 

military withdraws from Iraq. 

We still live in a very dangerous and often unstable world. Our 

military must remain strong enough and agile enough to face a diverse range of threats from non-state actors attempting to acquire 

and use weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated missiles to 

the more traditional threats of other states building up their conventional forces and developing new capabilities that target our 

traditional strengths. 

We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril. 

Retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could well lead 

to costlier and more tragic consequences later, indeed, as they always have in the past. Surely we should learn from our national 

experience since World War I that drastic reductions in the size 

and strength of the U.S. military make armed conflict all the more 

likely with an unacceptably high cost in American blood and treasure. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working through this next phase 

of the President’s defense reform effort with you and your colleagues in the weeks and months ahead to do what is right for our 

Armed Forces and what is right for our country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Gates follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. ROBERT M. GATES

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the President’s budget 

request for fiscal year 2012. I first want to thank the members of this committee 

for your support of the men and women in uniform who have answered the call in 

a time of war. I know you will join me in doing everything to ensure they have all 

they need to accomplish their mission and come home safely. 

The budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD) being presented today 

includes a base budget request of $553 billion and an Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request for $117.8 billion. These budget decisions took place in the 

context of a nearly 2-year effort by DOD to reduce overhead, cull troubled and excess programs, and rein in personnel and contractor costs—all for the purpose of 

preserving the fighting strength of America’s military at a time of fiscal stress for 

our country. The goal was not only to generate savings that could be applied to new 

capabilities and programs, but for our defense institutions to become more agile and 

effective organizations as a result. 

19 

In all, these budget requests, if enacted by Congress, will: 

• Continue our efforts to reform the way the department does business; • Fund modernization programs needed to prepare for future conflicts; • Reaffirm and strengthen the Nation’s commitment to care for the All-Volunteer Force; and 

• Ensure that our troops and commanders on the front lines have the resources and support they need to accomplish their mission. 

Before I further summarize the elements of the President’s budget request, I want 

to address three issues that I know have been a subject of debate and concern since 

I announced the outlines of our budget proposal on January 6: 

• First, the serious damage caused to our military by operating under a 

continuing resolution or receiving a significant funding cut during fiscal 

year 2011; 

• Second, the projected slowing and eventual flattening of growth of the defense budget over the next 5 years; and 

• Third, the planned future reductions in the size of the ground forces. 

I want to make clear that we face a crisis on our doorstep if DOD ends up with 

a year-long continuing resolution or a significant funding cut for fiscal year 2011. 

The President’s defense budget request for fiscal year 2011 was $549 billion. A fullyear continuing resolution would fund the department at about $526 billion. That’s 

a cut of $23 billion. Similarly, some of the appropriations proposals under debate 

in Congress contemplate reductions of $15 billion and more from what the President 

requested for defense in fiscal year 2011. The damage done across the force from 

such reductions would be magnified as they would come halfway through the fiscal 

year. 

Let me be clear, operating under a year-long continuing resolution or substantially reduced funding—with the severe shortfalls that entails—would damage procurement and research programs causing delays, rising costs, no new program starts 

and serious disruptions in the production of some our most high demand assets, 

such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The reductions would likely fall most heavily 

on our operations and maintenance accounts. Cuts in maintenance could force parts 

of our aircraft fleet to be grounded and delay needed facilities improvements. Cuts 

in operations would mean fewer flying hours, fewer steaming days, and cutbacks in 

training for home-stationed forces—all of which directly impacts readiness. That is 

how you hollow out a military—when your best people, your veterans of multiple 

combat deployments, become frustrated and demoralized and, as a result, begin 

leaving military service. 

Consider also that throughout this past decade of conflict, the Service Chiefs and 

Members of Congress have repeatedly voiced concerns about the lack of training opportunities for conventional high-end combat resulting from the operational demands of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are just now beginning to get the kind of dwelltime for our home stationed forces to allow that kind of training. If forced to operate 

under a continuing resolution or reduced funding, some of that full-spectrum training will not happen in fiscal year 2011. 

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that given the current fiscal and political environment, 

it is unlikely that DOD will receive the full amount originally requested for fiscal 

year 2011. Based on a number of factors—including policy changes that led to lower 

personnel costs and reduced activity forced by the continuing resolution—I believe 

the department can get by with a lower number. However, it is my judgment that 

DOD needs an appropriation of at least $540 billion for fiscal year 2011 for the U.S. 

military to properly carry out its mission, maintain readiness, and prepare for the 

future. 

Which brings me to the second issue—the proposed $78 billion reduction in the 

defense budget topline over the next 5 years. To begin with, this so-called ‘‘cut’’ is 

to the rate of predicted growth. The size of the base defense budget is still projected 

to increase in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, before eventually flattening out over 

this time period. 

More significantly, as a result of the efficiencies and reforms undertaken over the 

past year, we have protected programs that support military people, readiness, and 

modernization. These efforts have made it possible for DOD to absorb lower projected growth in the defense budget without, as Chairman McKeon warned last 

month, ‘‘leav[ing] our military less capable and less able to fight.’’ In fact, the savings identified by the Services have allowed our military to add some $70 billion 

towards priority needs and new capabilities. 

Of the $78 billion in proposed reductions to the 5-year defense budget plan, about 

$68 billion comes from a combination of shedding excess overhead, improving business practices, reducing personnel costs, and from changes to economic assumptions. 

20 

Only $10 billion of that 5-year total is related directly to military combat capability. 

$4 billion comes from restructuring the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, a step 

driven by the program’s development and testing schedule that would have taken 

place irrespective of the budget top-line. The rest, about $6 billion, results from the proposed decrease in end strength of 

the Army and Marine Corps starting in fiscal year 2015, a decision that I will address now. Just over four years ago, one of my first acts as Defense Secretary was 

to increase the permanent end strength of our ground forces—the Army by 65,000 

to a total of 547,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000 to 202,000. At the time, the 

increase was needed to relieve the severe stress on the force from the Iraq war as 

the surge was getting underway. To support the later plus up of troops in Afghanistan, I subsequently authorized a temporary further increase in the Army of some 

22,000. The objective was to reduce stress on the force, limit and eventually end the 

practice of stop-loss, and to increase troops’ home station dwell time. 

As we end the U.S. troop presence in Iraq this year, according to the agreement 

with the Iraqi Government, the overall deployment demands on our force are decreasing significantly. Just 3 years ago, we had some 190,000 troops combined in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this calendar year we expect less than 100,000 

troops to be deployed in both of the major post-September 11 combat theaters, virtually all of those forces being in Afghanistan. 

That is why we believe that, beginning in fiscal year 2015, the United States can, 

with minimal risk, begin reducing Army active duty end strength by 27,000 and the 

Marine Corps by somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. These projections assume 

that the number of troops in Afghanistan would be significantly reduced by the end 

of 2014, in accordance with the President’s strategy. If our assumptions prove incorrect, there’s plenty of time to adjust the size and schedule of this change. 

It is important to remember that even after the planned reductions, the active 

Army end strength would continue to be larger, by nearly 40,000 soldiers, than it 

was when I became defense secretary four years ago. I should also note that these 

reductions are supported by both the Army and Marine Corps leadership. 

I would note that prior to these budget decisions, the last Marine Commandant 

stated that he believed the Marine Corps was larger than it should be for the long 

term. The current Commandant, General Amos, has just completed a comprehensive 

force structure review for the post-Afghanistan security environment that is consistent with the out-year reductions projected in the President’s budget plan. 

REFORM—EFFICIENCIES

These budget decisions took place in the context of a nearly 2 year effort by DOD 

to reform the way the Pentagon does business—to change how and what we buy, 

to replace a culture of endless money with one of savings and restraint. To not only 

make every defense dollar count, but also become a more agile and effective organization in the process. 

Last spring, we launched a comprehensive effort to reduce DOD’s overhead expenditures. The goal was—and is—to sustain the U.S. military’s size and strength 

over the long-term by reinvesting those efficiency savings in force structure and 

other key combat capabilities. This process culminated in my announcement last 

month that summarized the impact of these reforms on the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

The Military Services conducted a thorough scrub of their bureaucratic structures, 

business practices, modernization programs, civilian and military personnel levels, 

and associated overhead costs. They identified potential savings that totaled approximately $100 billion over 5 years. More than $70 billion is being reinvested in 

high priority needs and capabilities, while about $28 billion is going to higher than 

expected operating costs—‘‘must pay’’ bills that would otherwise be paid from investment accounts. 

We then looked at reducing costs and deriving savings across the department as 

a whole—with special attention to the substantial headquarters and support bureaucracies outside the four Military Services—savings that added up to $78 billion 

over 5 years. 

As I mentioned earlier, $10 billion of that total came from restructuring the JSF 

program and reducing Army and Marine Corps end strength starting in fiscal year 

2015. 

The rest of the DOD-wide savings came primarily from shedding excess overhead, 

improving business practices, and reducing personnel costs. Key examples include: 

• $13 billion from holding the civilian workforce at fiscal year 2010 levels 

for 3 years, with limited exceptions such as growth in the acquisition workforce; 

• $12 billion through the government-wide freeze on civilian salaries; 

21 

• $8 billion by reforming military health programs to maintain high quality 

care while slowing cost growth; 

• $11 billion from resetting missions, priorities, functions for the defense 

agencies and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

• $6 billion by reducing staff augmentation and service support contracts 

by 10 percent annually for 3 years; 

• $2.3 billion by disestablishing Joint Forces Command and the Business 

Transformation Agency; 

• $1 billion by eliminating unnecessary studies and internal reports; • $4 billion in changed economic assumptions, such as a lower than expected inflation rate; 

• $100 million by reducing more than 100 flag officer and about 200 civilian senior executive positions; and 

• $11 billion in a variety of smaller initiatives across the department. 

To better track how and where taxpayer dollars are spent, the department is also 

reforming its financial management systems and practices—with the goal of having 

auditable financial statements by the congressionally mandated date of 2017. We 

are pursuing a streamlined approach that focuses first on the information we most 

use to manage the department. 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 BASE BUDGET REQUEST

The President’s request for the base defense budget is for $553 billion, which represents a 3.6 percent real increase over continuing resolution levels—and about 1.5 

percent real growth over the omnibus defense bill marked up by Congress last year. 

The four major components are: 

• $207.1 billion for operations, maintenance, logistics and training; • $142.8 billion for military pay and benefits; • $188.3 billion for modernization; and • $14.8 billion for military construction and family housing. 

MODERNIZATION

In all, the fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $188.3 billion for modernization in the form of Procurement, Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation. 

Key modernization initiatives include: 

• $4.8 billion to enhance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and buy more high demand assets, including the MC–12 surveillance aircraft, Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk UAVs—with the aim of 

achieving 65 Predator-class Combat Air Patrols by the end of fiscal year 

2013; 

• More than $10 billion to modernize our heavily used rotary wing fleet; • $3.9 billion to upgrade the Army’s combat vehicles and communications 

systems; 

• $4.8 billion to buy new equipment for the Reserves; • $14.9 billion to buy new fighters and ground attack aircraft; • $24.6 billion to support a realistic, executable shipbuilding and investment portfolio that buys 11 ships in fiscal year 2012 and modernizes existing fleet assets; 

• $10.5 billion to advance the modernization portion of the administration’s approach to ballistic missile defense (BMD)—including $8.4 billion for the 

Missile Defense Agency; and 

• $2.3 billion to improve the military’s cyber capabilities. 

Questions have been raised about whether we are too focused on current conflicts 

and are devoting too few resources to future possible high-end conflicts. This budget 

should put those questions to rest. The fiscal year 2012 base request provides for 

significant investments at the high end of the conflict spectrum, including: 

• $1 billion ($4.5 billion over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)) 

for a tactical air modernization program that would ensure that the F–22 

will continue to be the world’s preeminent air-to-air fighter. This effort will 

leverage radar and electronic protection technologies from the JSF program; 

• $204 million ($1.6 billion over the FYDP) to modernize the radars of F– 

15s to keep this key fighter viable well into the future; 

• $30 million ($491 million over the FYDP) for a follow-on to the Advanced 

Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, that would provide greater range, 

lethality and protection against electronic jamming; 

• $200 million ($800 million over the FYDP) to invest in technologies to 

disrupt an opponent’s ability to attack our surface ships; 

22 

• $1.1 billion ($2.2 billion over the FYDP) to buy more EA–18 Growlers than originally planned, plus $1.6 billion over the FYDP to develop a new 

jamming system, expanding our electronic warfare capabilities; 

• $2.1 billion ($14 billion over the FYDP) to fund Aegis-equipped ships to 

further defend the fleet from aircraft and missile attack and provide theater-wide tactical BMD; and 

• To improve anti-submarine capabilities, $2.4 billion for P–8 Poseidon air- craft ($19.6 billion over the FYDP) and $4.8 billion for procurement of Virginia-class attack submarines ($27.6 billion over the FYDP). 

The fiscal year 2012 budget also supports a long-range strike family of systems, 

which must be a high priority for future defense investment given the anti-access 

challenges our military faces. A key component of this joint portfolio will be a new 

long-range, nuclear-capable, penetrating Air Force bomber, designed and developed 

using proven technologies and with an option for remote piloting. It is important 

that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before 

the current aging fleet goes out of service. The budget request includes $10.6 billion to maintain U.S. supremacy in space, 

in keeping with the recently released National Security Space Strategy. This new 

strategy will help bring order to the congested space domain, strengthen international partnerships, increase resiliency so our troops can fight in a degraded 

space environment, and improve our acquisition processes and reform export controls to energize the space industrial base. 

As the Military Services were digging deep for excess overhead, they were also 

taking a hard look at their modernization portfolio for weapons that were having 

major development problems, unsustainable cost growth, or had grown less relevant 

to real world needs. 

The JSF program received special scrutiny given its substantial cost and its central place in ensuring that we have a large inventory of the most advanced fifth generation stealth fighters to sustain U.S. air superiority well into the future. The fiscal 

year 2012 budget reflects the proposed restructuring of the F–35 JSF program to 

stabilize its schedule and cost. The department has adjusted F–35 procurement 

quantities based on new data on costs, on likely orders from our foreign nation partners, and on realigned development and test schedules. The proposed restructuring adds over $4 billion for additional testing through 

2016. It holds F–35 procurement in fiscal year 2012 at 32 aircraft and reduces buys 

by 124 aircraft compared with last year’s plans. Even after these changes, procurement ramps up sharply to 108 aircraft by fiscal year 2016. This is the fastest that 

future procurement can prudently be increased. 

The F–35 restructuring places the Marine’s short takeoff and vertical landing variant on the equivalent of a two year probation. If we cannot fix this variant during 

this timeframe and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, 

then I believe it should be canceled. To compensate for any delays in F–35 deliveries, we propose buying 41 more F/A–18s between fiscal year 2012 to 2014. 

I also want to reiterate the President’s and my firm opposition to buying an extra 

engine for the F–35—a position echoed by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps 

leadership. We consider it an unnecessary and extravagant expense, particularly 

during this period of fiscal contraction. The Congress has not spoken with one voice 

on this matter and DOD has been operating this fiscal year under ambiguous guidance at best. Given the situation, I decided to continue to fund the JSF extra engine 

effort during this interim period to give Congress the opportunity to resolve this 

matter as part of its ongoing debate on the budget. However, this also means that the American taxpayers are spending $28 million 

a month for an excess and unjustified program that is slated for termination. The 

President, the military services and I continue to oppose this extra engine and, 

when the current CR expires, I will look at all available legal options to close down 

this program. It would be a waste of nearly $3 billion in a time of economic distress 

and the money is needed for higher priority defense efforts. 

This budget proposes cancelling the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and reallocating funds to existing Marine ground combat requirements, a decision based 

on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps. 

Ultimately, the Navy and Marine Corps leadership based their recommendations 

on two main principles: affordability and balance. The EFV, a program originally 

conceived in the 1980s, has already consumed more than $3 billion to develop and 

will cost another $12 billion to build. The EFV as designed would have cost many 

times more than the system it would replace, with much higher maintenance and 

service costs. If continued over the next two decades, the EFV program would consume fully half of all Marine Corps procurement dollars while swallowing virtually 

23 

the Corps’ entire ground vehicle budget—procurement, operations, and maintenance—with all the risk to readiness that entails. 

To be sure, the EFV would, if pursued to completion without regard to time or 

cost, be an enormously capable vehicle. But as with several other high end programs 

completed or cancelled in recent years—the F–22, the Army Future Combat Systems, or the Navy’s DDG–1000 destroyer—the mounting cost of acquiring this specialized capability must be judged against other priorities and needs. 

Let there be no doubt—we are committed to sustaining the Marine Corps amphib- ious mission. This fiscal year 2012 request proposes that the $2.8 billion previously 

budgeted to the EFV for the next 5 years instead be reinvested towards an integrated new vehicle program for the Marine Corps, including: 

• New armor, weaponry and engines, plus a life-extension program for the 

existing amphibious assault vehicles: 

• The development of a new, more affordable, sustainable and survivable 

amphibious vehicle; 

• Accelerated procurement of new personnel carriers; and • Enhancement of existing Marine vehicles such as the Abrams tank and 

Light Armored Vehicle. 

Throughout this process, we will harness the lessons learned—in terms of engineering, design, and testing—from the development of the EFV. 

PERSONNEL

The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $142.8 billion for military pay and 

benefits and continues our strong support for troops and their families. This includes funding for wounded, ill and injured care, enhancing the military health care 

system and supporting military families under stress. Examples in this request include: 

• $2.3 billion to provide care for our Wounded Warriors and their families; 

and 

• $8.3 billion for supporting families, including child care and school programs; and 

While the department continues to insist on and pay for the highest quality 

health care, we are also mindful of sharply rising health costs—which have risen 

over the last decade from $19 billion in 2001 to $52.5 billion in this budget request. 

The department has taken a comprehensive look at all facets of the military health 

care model—emphasizing the need to balance the number one priority of continuing 

to provide the highest care and service, while ensuring fiscally responsible management. 

One area we have identified are benefits provided to working-age retirees under 

the TRICARE program. Many of these beneficiaries are employed full time while receiving full pensions, often forgoing their employer’s health plan to remain with 

TRICARE. This should come as no surprise, given that the current TRICARE enrollment fee was set in 1995 at $460 a year for the basic family plan and has not been 

raised since. By comparison, the fees for a comparable health insurance program for 

Federal workers total roughly $5,000 per year. 

Accordingly, we propose a modest increase to TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for 

working age retirees: $2.50 per month for individuals and $5.00 per month for families in fiscal year 2012, and then indexed to Medicare premium increases in future 

years. 

We are proposing other health care initiatives such as efficiencies in pharmacy 

co-pays designed to provide incentives to make greater use of generic prescriptions 

and those ordered by mail. We also seek to phase out, over several years, special 

subsidies offered to a small group of hospitals that treat military families and retirees. Additionally, we are proposing providing TRICARE-for-Life to all Medicare-eligible retirees aged 65 and over, including future enrollees in the Uniformed Services 

Family Health Plan. It is important to note that none of these changes would affect 

health care benefits for active-duty personnel. 

SECURITY ASSISTANCE REFORM

The fiscal year 2012 request includes funding and authorization for a key step forward in a critical policy area: helping other countries to protect and defend themselves. The Pentagon and the State Department have agreed to a 3-year pilot pooled 

fund—called the Global Security Contingency Fund—that will be used to build partner capacity, prevent conflicts, and prepare for emerging threats. The proposed fund 

would incentivize interagency collaboration through a new business model. It would 

provide a more agile and cost effective way to reduce the risk of future conflicts by 

24 

allowing our government to respond to unforeseen needs and take advantage of 

emerging opportunities to help partners secure their own territories and regions. 

The request is modest, an initial $50 million State Department appropriation, 

along with a request for authority to transfer an additional $450 million into the 

fund from either department if needed. DOD intends to make significant contributions from its own resources into this pooled fund. We will be requesting in parallel 

an authorization for this initiative in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012. 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

Finally, this budget request includes $117.8 billion in fiscal year 2012 to support 

OCOs, primarily in Afghanistan, and to wind down our operations in Iraq—this is 

a significant reduction from the $159 billion request for OCO in fiscal year 2011. 

The request, which fully funds our wartime requirements, includes: 

• $86.4 billion for wartime operations and related costs; 

• $425 million for the Commander’s Emergency Response Fund; 

• $475 million for the Afghan Infrastructure Fund; 

• $2.6 billion to support counter-IED efforts; 

• $3.2 billion for mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, including the MRAP All Terrain Vehicles developed for Afghanistan; and 

• $11.9 billion to replace and restore worn, damaged, or destroyed equipment. 

• $12.8 billion for training and equipping of the Afghan security forces. 

CONCLUSION

All told, the cumulative effect of the department’s savings and reforms, combined 

with a host of new investments, will make it possible to protect the U.S. military’s 

global reach and fighting strength despite the declining rate of growth, and eventual 

flattening, of the defense budget over the next 5 years. As a result of the savings 

identified by the Services and reinvested, our military will be able to meet unforeseen expenses, refurbish war worn equipment, buy new ships and fighters, begin development of a new long-range bomber, boost our cyber-warfare capability, missile 

defense, and buy more of the most advanced UAVs. But, I should note, this will only 

be possible if the efficiencies reforms and savings are followed through to completion. 

Before closing, I want to address the calls from some quarters for deeper cuts in 

defense spending to address this country’s fiscal challenges. I would remind them 

that over the last two defense budgets submitted by President Obama, we have reformed and rebalanced the department’s spending habits and priorities, curtailing 

or canceling troubled or excess programs that would have cost more than $300 billion if seen through to completion. Additionally, total defense spending—including 

war costs—will decline further as the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq. 

We still live in a very dangerous and often unstable world. Our military must remain strong and agile enough to face a diverse range of threats—from non-state actors attempting to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated 

missiles, to the more traditional threats of other states both building up their conventional forces and developing new capabilities that target our traditional 

strengths. 

We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril. Retrenchment 

brought about by short-sighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later—indeed as they always have in the past. Surely we should learn 

from our national experience, since World War I, that drastic reductions in the size 

and strength of the U.S. military make armed conflict all the more likely—with an 

unacceptably high cost in American blood and treasure. 

Today, I ask your support for a leaner, more efficient Pentagon and continued sustainable, robust investments in our troops and future capabilities. Our troops have 

done more than their part, now it is time for us in Washington to do ours. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working through this next phase of the President’s defense reform effort with you in the weeks and months ahead—to do what’s 

right for our Armed Forces and what’s right for our country. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Admiral Mullen. 

25 

STATEMENT OF ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN, 

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

Admiral MULLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

and distinguished members of this committee, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 defense budget. 

Before I do, however, let me just echo Secretary Gates’ comments 

about the very real dangers inherent in failing to pass this year’s 

budget. The fiscal year 2011 CR, if carried forward, would not only 

reduce our account by $23 billion, it would deprive us of the flexibility we need to support our troops and their families. 

The Services have already taken disruptive and, in some cases, 

irreversible steps to live within the confines of the current CR. 

Steps that ultimately make us less effective at what we are supposed to do for the Nation. The Navy did not procure Governmentfurnished equipment for another Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The 

Army and the Marine Corps have curtailed or altogether frozen civilian hiring. All the Services are now prevented from issuing contracts for new major military construction projects. Some programs 

may take years to recover if the CR is extended through the end 

of September. 

So I urge you to pass the fiscal year 2011 defense bill immediately. Even at a reduced top line, it will provide us the tools we 

need to accomplish the bulk of the missions we have been assigned. 

Accomplishing those missions into the future demands as well 

support for the President’s fiscal year 2012 proposal. As the Secretary has laid out, this budget, combined with the efficiency effort 

he led, provides for the wellbeing of our troops and families, fully 

funds current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and helps balance global risk through streamlined organization, smarter acquisition, and prudent modernization. 

The Army, for instance, will cancel procurement of a surface-toair missile and the non-line-of-sight launch system, but it will continue production of the joint light tactical vehicle and spearhead 

the development of a whole new family of armored vehicles. The 

Navy will give up its second fleet headquarters, reduce its manpower ashore, and increase its use of multiyear procurement for 

ships and aircraft, allowing it to continue development of the next 

generation of ballistic missile submarine, purchase 40 new F/A– 

18s, and 4 littoral combat ships and another LPD–17. The Marines 

will cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and like the Army, 

reduce their end strength starting in 2015. But they will reinvest 

these savings to sustain and modernize the amphibious assault vehicle and the light armored vehicle, even as they advance a new 

concept of operations and restore much of their naval expeditionary 

skills. The Air Force will be able to continue development of the 

next tanker, a new bomber, and modernize its aging fleet of F–15 

fighters, all the while finding savings of more than $33 billion 

through reorganization, consolidation, and reduced facilities requirements. 

None of this balancing will come on the backs of our deployed troops. We are asking for more than $84 billion for readiness and 

training, nearly $5 billion for increased intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, and more than $10 billion to 

26 

recapitalize our rotary aircraft fleet. These funds plus those we are 

requesting to help build partner capacity in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen all speak to the emphasis we are 

placing on giving our troops and their partners in the field everything they need to do the difficult jobs we have asked of them. 

We must also give them and their families everything they need 

to cope with the stress and the strain of 10 years at war. That is 

why I am so pleased with the funds devoted in this proposal, almost three-quarters as much as the $200 billion budgeted for operations and maintenance (O&M), to personnel housing and health 

care issues. The chiefs and I penned a rare 24-star letter to Congress this week expressing our unqualified support for the military 

health care program changes included in this budget. We sought 

equity across all health care programs with beneficiaries and 

health care delivery providers having the same benefits and equivalent payment systems regardless of where they live or work. 

That, in turn, led us to propose increases in TRICARE enrollment fees for working age retirees. These increases are modest and 

manageable and leave fees well below the inflation-adjusted, outof-pocket costs set in 1995 when the current fees were established. 

We sincerely hope you will see fit to pass these increases. 

Please know that we will continue to invest wisely in critical care 

areas to include research, diagnosis and treatment of mental health 

issues and TBI, enhanced access to health services, and new battlefield technologies. We understand that changes to health care benefits cause concern among the people we serve and the communities 

from which we receive care, but we also understand and hold sacred our obligation to care completely for those who have born the 

brunt of these wars, as well as those for whom the war never ends. 

I am convinced that we have not begun to understand the toll in 

dollars and in dreams that war extracts from our people. As the 

grandsons and granddaughters of World War II vets still struggle 

to comprehend the full scope of the horror those men yet conceal, 

so too will our grandchildren have to come to grips with the 

wounds unseen and the grief unspoken unless, of course, we get it 

right. I believe the investments we are making in wounded care 

and family readiness will pay off in that regard, but it will take 

time and patience and money, three things we seem so rarely to 

possess in this town. 

That brings me back to this particular budget request. With limited resources and two wars in progress, we should be prudent in 

defining our priorities in controlling costs and in slaking our thirst 

for more and better systems. 

We should also be clear about what the joint force can and cannot do, just as we should be clear about what we expect from our 

interagency and international partners. Our global commitments 

have not shrunk. If anything, they continue to grow, and the world 

is a lot less predictable now than we could have ever imagined. You 

need look no further than Tahrir Square to see the truth in that. 

Foolhardy would it be for us to make hasty judgments about the 

benefits, tangible and intangible, that are to be derived from forging strong military relationships overseas such as the one we enjoy 

with Egypt. Changes to those relationships in either aid or assistance ought to be considered only with an abundance of caution and 

27 

a thorough appreciation for the long view, rather than the flush of 

public passion and the urgency to save a buck. The $1.3 billion we 

provide the Egyptian military each year has helped them become 

the capable professional force they are and, in that regard, has 

been of incalculable value. 

Of equal or greater value is increased appropriations for DOS 

and our request in this budget for the Global Security Contingency 

Fund, a 3-year pooled fund between DOD and DOS, that will be 

used to build partner capacity, prevent conflicts, and prepare for 

emerging threats. The request is modest, an initial $50 million appropriation, along with a request for authority to reprogram an additional $450 million if needed. But what it will buy us is an agile 

and cost effective way to better respond to unforeseen needs and 

take advantage of emerging opportunities for partners to secure 

their own territories and regions. 

We must get more efficient, yes, but we must also get more pragmatic about the world we live in. We can no longer afford bloated 

programs or unnecessary organizations without sacrificing fighting 

power, and we can no longer afford to put off investments in future 

capabilities or relationships that preserve that power across a spectrum of conflict. I have long said we must not be exempt in DOD 

from belt-tightening, but in truth, there is little discretionary about 

the security we provide our fellow citizens. Cuts can reasonably 

only go so far without hollowing the force. In my view then, this 

proposed budget builds on the balance we started to achieve last 

year and represents the best of both fiscal responsibility and sound 

national security. 

I would be remiss, indeed, if I did not close by lauding the incredible effort of our troops overseas and their families as they finish one war in Iraq and begin to turn corners in Afghanistan. I 

know you share my pride in them and their families and your support has been superb. I know you will keep them foremost in mind 

as you consider the elements of this proposal. I thank you for your 

continued longstanding support of our men and women in uniform 

and their families, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Mullen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the committee, 

it is my privilege to report on the posture of the U.S. Armed Forces. 

We remain a military at war. Yet, in the face of daunting challenges, our Armed 

Forces have successfully carried out their far-ranging missions over the past year. 

They have disrupted al Qaeda, improved security in Afghanistan, continued on a 

path to soon end the war in Iraq, promoted stability in the Pacific Rim, and provided humanitarian assistance when disasters struck. However, the cumulative 

stress of 9 years of war is growing and substantial. We will need your sustained 

support, even in the midst of fiscal difficulties, to reset the Joint Force needed to 

protect the American people. 

Our country is fortunate to be served by the best Armed Forces I have seen in 

over 42 years of wearing the uniform. Despite continuous deployments and combat 

operations, our men and women in uniform and their families have been resilient 

beyond all expectations. They are patriots who care deeply for this country and 

serve under very trying conditions. They are the most combat experienced and capable force we have ever had, and they continue to learn and adapt in ways that are 

truly remarkable. I am continuously humbled as I visit them around the country 

and the world. Time and again, these men and women and their families have proven that our All-Volunteer Force is the Nation’s greatest strategic asset. 

28 

This Force cannot thrive without the support of the American people. Everything 

we are and everything we do comes from them. I am grateful for Congress’ and the 

American people’s constant reminders that the service, heroism, and sacrifices of 

our servicemembers and their families are valued. However, I am concerned that 

because our military hails from a shrinking percentage of the population, some day 

the American people may no longer know us. We cannot allow this to happen. We 

will endeavor to stay connected and to maintain a strong and open relationship. 

As we look to our military’s posture and budget, we recognize that our country 

is still reeling from a grave and global economic downturn and is maintaining nearly historic fiscal deficits and national debt. Indeed, I believe that our debt is the 

greatest threat to our national security. If we as a country do not address our fiscal 

imbalances in the near-term, our national power will erode, and the costs to our 

ability to maintain and sustain influence could be great. To do its part, the Department of Defense (DOD) must and will become more efficient and disciplined, while 

improving our effectiveness. We must carefully and deliberately balance the imperatives of a constrained budget environment with the requirements we place on our 

military in sustaining and enhancing our security. 

Going forward our fundamental resourcing problem will be identifying where we 

can reduce spending while minimizing the additional risk we will have to take on. 

For too much of the past decade we have not been forced to be disciplined with our 

choices. This must change, and it already has. We have identified a number of efficiencies in our budget and have reduced spending, while also retaining the combat 

readiness, force structure, essential modernization, and personnel programs we 

need. We are proud of what we have done so far, identifying $100 billion in efficiency savings over the next 5 years. But we need to do more. 

Under the Secretary’s leadership, DOD has conducted two comprehensive reviews 

of our requirements. First, the Quadrennial Defense Review surveyed the strategic 

environment, identified the strategy for the Joint Force, and determined what we 

need to execute that strategy. Second, we reviewed our spending to ensure we can 

achieve the maximum security benefit for every defense dollar. We must be careful 

to not cut defense beyond prudent levels, below which U.S. Armed Forces would be 

unable to execute our defense strategy at acceptable risk. Given the challenges and 

complexity of the security environment and the breadth of our national security interest, the defense strategy is necessarily global, wide-ranging, and highly responsive. This is why it is expensive. 

At about 4.5 percent of GDP, the return on U.S. defense spending has been immense and historic: preventing world war between great powers, securing the global 

commons and the free flow of international trade and natural resources, combating 

terrorism across the globe, and protecting the American people and our allies. However, our operations have come with stresses and strains as well as costs to our 

readiness. For this reason, if we are to continue to execute the missions set out by 

our strategy, we must recognize that returning from war and resetting the force is 

costly and will require several years of continued investment. Congressional support 

is required for our forces, their families, their equipment and training, and our military infrastructure to ensure the success of our ongoing efforts and for us to be 

ready to respond to new and emerging security challenges. 

The President’s National Security Strategy, the recently released National Military Strategy, and the President’s Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan describe 

our military approaches and ongoing operations in great detail. This posture statement will focus on the strategic priorities for the military and the Congressional 

support we need. My priorities remain defending our vital interests in the broader 

Middle East and South Central Asia, improving the Health-of-the-Force, and balancing global strategic risk. 

DEFENDING OUR VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS IN THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST AND

SOUTH CENTRAL ASIA

Over the past year, our Armed Forces have continued to shoulder a heavy burden, 

particularly in the Middle East and South Central Asia. The balance of this burden 

and our wartime focus has shifted, however, from Iraq to Afghanistan. This was 

made possible by drawing down military forces in Iraq and transitioning security 

responsibilities to the Iraqis. Meanwhile, we committed additional forces and resources to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have made steady, albeit uneven, progress 

toward disrupting, dismantling, and ultimately defeating al Qaeda in the region, 

while remaining ready to address other challenges around the world. 

As a result of our operations with our Coalition, Afghan, and Pakistani partners, 

and extensive cooperation with other partners, al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan is weaker and under greater pressure than at any other time since being forced 

29 

out of Afghanistan in late 2001. They have suffered the losses of numerous senior 

leaders and face significant challenges to coordinating operations, maintaining safe 

havens, and acquiring funding. Despite this operational progress, al Qaeda retains 

the intent and capability to attack the United States and other Western countries. 

The movement’s leaders continue to operate in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, planning operations and guiding the efforts of al Qaeda networks operating out 

of the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, and even Europe. We, in turn, remain committed 

to our deepening and broadening partnerships in the region and to our goal of ultimately defeating al Qaeda and creating the conditions to prevent their return to Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

We continue to implement our national strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan 

with great urgency. This past November, we completed the deployment of the 30,000 

additional U.S. forces, and we are beginning to see signs of improvements on the 

ground. These forces have allowed us to go on the offensive with our Afghan partners, force the Taliban out of safe havens in its heartland of Kandahar and 

Helmand, protect the Afghan population, and reduce civilian casualties. Our 

counterinsurgency operations, conducted in close partnership with Afghan forces, 

have reduced the Taliban’s influence, reversed the insurgency’s momentum in key 

areas of the country, and forced many Taliban leaders to flee across the border. Our 

forces will consolidate recent gains in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces and further 

expand security in other critical parts of the country. 

This success against the Taliban and other insurgent groups is essential to prevent the return of al Qaeda, gain time to build the Afghan National Security Forces 

(ANSF), and force insurgents to reconcile with the Afghan Government on acceptable terms. We expect the violence coming in 2011 to be greater than last year. The 

fighting will be tough and often costly, but it is necessary to sustain and even increase the pressure we have been placing on the insurgent groups. We cannot allow 

the Taliban to reorganize and reconstitute as they did in 2004 and 2005, regain 

their oppressive influence over the Afghan people, and once again provide safe 

haven to al Qaeda. 

For the success of our military operations to be enduring, it is critical that the 

ANSF be able to provide security for the Afghan people. Our greatest success story 

this past year has been the growth and development of the ANSF. With the help 

of additional NATO trainers, the ANSF added 49,000 soldiers and 21,000 policemen 

to their ranks—an astonishing growth of 36 percent. The ANSF also continue to improve on the battlefield and increasingly contribute to the war effort. They are fighting beside us and have grown in their ability to plan and conduct complex operations. In fact, their expanding capabilities and presence have already allowed ISAF 

forces to ‘‘thin out’’ in some parts of central Helmand and Kabul Province. We are 

on track to begin the transition of security responsibilities and drawdown of our 

forces in July 2011. In the coming year, while continuing to grow the ANSF in size, 

we will place greater emphasis on improving its quality, professionalism, and selfsufficiency, to ensure that they remain on track to assume the overall lead for security in 2014. To this end, the Afghan Security Forces Fund remains critical to the 

building of the ANSF’s capabilities and to the ANSF’s eventual assumption of security responsibilities. 

Despite our successes, numerous other challenges remain. Achieving sustainable 

security requires developing Afghan governing capacity, cultivating the conditions 

needed for conflict resolution, neutralizing insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan, and 

countering corruption. Absent these conditions, we will not succeed. Despite a dramatic increase in our civilian presence in Afghanistan this past year, improvements 

in subnational governance and reconstruction have not kept pace with progress in 

improving security. This has impeded our ability to ‘‘hold,’’ ‘‘build,’’ and ‘‘transfer.’’ 

For this reason, the Commander’s Emergency Response Program remains the most 

responsive means for addressing a local community’s needs and is often the only tool 

our commanders have to address pressing requirements in areas where security is 

challenged. Along with development projects, we believe that new transparency and 

anti-corruption efforts may counter the deleterious effects of Afghanistan’s criminal 

patronage networks, mitigate the distortive effects of international aid and development programs, and ultimately improve the confidence the Afghan people have in 

their government and their governing officials. To complement this ‘‘bottom-up’’ development, we will support the Afghan Government’s reconciliation and reintegration efforts in order to achieve the political solution that is an imperative to sustainable peace. Successful military and security gains cannot be sustained unless we 

meet this challenge. 

Though our operational efforts are focused on Afghanistan, our diplomatic efforts 

have increasingly focused on Pakistan, a country critical to our strategy in the region. We must overcome years of mistrust and continue to lay the foundation for 

30 

a true partnership with Pakistan. We made progress this past year by holding a 

third, productive round of Strategic Dialogues in October and by improving highand mid-level coordination on security operations in the vicinity of the AfghanistanPakistan border. Equally important, we responded to last summer’s devastating 

floods with timely aid and humanitarian relief. Our assistance eased some of the 

burden of the Pakistani military and demonstrated our enduring commitment to the 

Pakistani people. 

A key component of our partnership is to help enable the Pakistani Military’s 

counterterror and counterinsurgency operations. The series of offensive operations 

undertaken by the Pakistani Military in the tribal areas expanded dramatically in 

2009. Since then, the Pakistanis have fought bravely and sacrificed much—losing 

thousands of soldiers in the process. We have faithfully supported them in a variety 

of ways, primarily in the development of the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan’s security forces. This development and the military’s operations have kept 

pressure on al Qaeda’s senior leadership and the militant groups threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, insurgent groups such as the Quetta Shura and the 

Haqqani network operate unhindered from sanctuaries in Pakistan, posing a significant threat to NATO and Afghan forces. The aftermath of devastating flooding continues to place a high demand on the military. Our efforts to enable the Pakistani 

Military depend on several critical programs, such as the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund and Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund and the MultiYear Security Assistance Commitment announced by Secretary Clinton last fall. It 

is also important that through exchange programs, such as the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, we establish relationships with the 

generation of Pakistani officers with whom we had cut ties. In addition, because we 

so heavily depend on Pakistan as a supply route supporting our efforts in Afghanistan, Coalition Support Funds remain critical to reimbursing the Pakistanis for 

their assistance. 

In terms of our broader engagement with Pakistan and the region, reducing some 

of the long-standing enmity and mistrust between India and Pakistan would greatly 

contribute to our efforts. As neighbors, it is in both India and Pakistan’s interests 

to reduce the tension between them and strengthen their political, security, and economic ties. While we acknowledge the sovereign right of India and Pakistan to pursue their own foreign policies, we must demonstrate our desire for continued and 

long-term partnership with each, and offer our help to improve confidence and understanding between them in a manner that builds long-term stability across the 

wider region of South Asia. 

Another increasingly important aspect of our engagement in South Central Asia 

is the development of the Northern Distribution Network. This line of communication has proven critical to maintaining flexibility in our logistical support to our efforts in Afghanistan. We will continue to work with our partners to ensure access 

and sustain the viability of redundant supply routes for our forces. 

We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and started 

a new chapter in our partnership, Operation New Dawn. We successfully transferred lead for security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces (ISF) on August 

31, 2010. Iraq’s military and political leaders are responding vigorously and professionally to the residual, but still lethal, threat from al Qaeda. As a result, and despite a drawn-out government formation process, the security situation there continues to improve, and the Iraqi people are increasingly able to focus on jobs and 

development. Beyond this security transition, the State Department has taken the 

lead for U.S. efforts in Iraq, and our diplomats and other civilians are increasingly 

the face of our partnership with the Iraqi people and their government. Sustained 

funding for our civilian efforts, commensurate with the State Department’s growing 

responsibilities—particularly our development assistance and police training programs—is needed to ensure we are able to successfully turn our military accomplishments into political ones. 

However, the end of the war in Iraq will not mean the end of our commitment 

to the Iraqi people or to our strategic partnership. We must focus on the future to 

help Iraq defend itself against external threats and consolidate a successful, inclusive democracy in the heart of the Middle East. As we continue to draw down forces 

through December 31, 2011, in accordance with the U.S.-Iraqi Security Agreement, 

we will transition to a more typical military-to-military relationship. We will shift 

the focus of our assistance from Iraq’s internal domestic security to its external national defense, keeping in consideration the interests and sensitivities of all Iraqis 

as well as Iraq’s neighbors. While ISFs have made great improvements, they will 

require external assistance for years to come. The cornerstone of our future security 

partnership with the Iraqis will be a robust Office of Security Cooperation as part 

of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Key to our assistance and not squandering our hard 

31 

won gains will be continued support to the ISF fund through fiscal year 2011, equipment transfer provisions, IMET and other traditional security assistance programs, 

as well as section 1234 authority to transfer equipment from DOD stocks. 

Despite the energy we commit to defeating al Qaeda and to stabilizing the situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, we remain vigilant against other security 

challenges and sources of aggression and proliferation throughout this critical region. The Iranian regime continues to be the region’s greatest state-level threat to 

stability. Despite growing isolation from the international community and a fourth 

round of increasingly costly U.N. sanctions, the regime has neither ceased providing 

arms and other support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups nor accepted a verifiable end to its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Many of the potential 

flashpoints in the Levant and the Gulf region bear Iran’s signature, commanding 

the region’s and the world’s attention. That said, strong social, economic, and political tensions pull on the region and its people—as evidenced by the turmoil we have 

recently witnessed in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. Volatility in regional affairs 

can often follow volatility in domestic affairs. However, strong military-to-military 

relationships can help reduce and mitigate the risks of instability. 

We will continue to help counter terrorist threats, deter Iranian aggression, and 

protect our partners from coercive influence. To do this we will continue to build 

the capabilities of our partners. More important, we will nurture the development 

of a regional security architecture based on multi-lateral partnerships that address 

a wide range of security issues including counter-proliferation, maritime security, 

counter-terrorism, air and missile defense, and emergency response. As with our 

other partnerships across the globe, our security assistance programs form the keystone of our relationships. In particular, our section 1206 and 1208 programs provide a unique and necessary flexibility and responsiveness to combatant commander 

requirements that we cannot currently get with our Foreign Military Funding 

(FMF) programs. 

IMPROVING THE HEALTH-OF-THE-FORCE

The back end of war—the continued care of our veterans and their families and 

the resetting of our force—cannot be an afterthought, and getting it right will be 

expensive. Moreover, because of the duration of these conflicts, we have begun to 

reset our units even in the midst of conflict. The stress of nine years of constant 

warfare has come at a great cost to the Force and its ability to continue to conduct 

operations and respond to other emergent crises. We must care for our people and 

their families and reset and reconstitute our weapon systems to restore our readiness, capabilities, and wartime effectiveness. This will require a sustained commitment of at least 3 to 5 years, and could continue well beyond the end of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Care for our People 

Our foremost focus is on our service men and women, their families, and their 

supporting communities—the bedrock of our Armed Forces. They each play unique 

and growing roles in our national security fabric, but they have been under great, 

often unrecognized, stress for the past 9 years. Hundreds of thousands of our 

servicemembers have deployed to fight overseas. Some have served multiple grueling tours, a great number have suffered significant injuries, and thousands have 

sacrificed their lives. Even those serving stateside enjoy only short respites between 

deployments. We have asked a great deal from our people, and we must invest in 

them and their families—through appropriate pay, health care, family care, education, and employment opportunities—as they are the single greatest guarantee of 

a strong military. And they become our best recruiters. 

The many accomplishments of our All-Volunteer Force over the past 9 years of 

continuous combat operations have been unprecedented. That we remain competitive in attracting the country’s best talent during this period is simply extraordinary. All of our Services in the active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard components continue to have exceptional recruiting and retention rates. Ninety-six percent 

of our accessions have earned at least a high school diploma, which helps explain 

why this is one of the finest forces we have ever fielded. Competitive compensation 

and selective bonuses are critical to our ability to recruit and retain talent, as are 

other ‘‘people programs,’’ such as the new GI Bill, improvements in housing, access 

to quality schooling for military children, mental health counseling, adequate child 

care, and attractive family support centers. All of these programs make the harsh 

burdens of military life easier to bear. I ask for Congress’ continued support for 

them in order to sustain the Force while our overseas operations continue. 

I also urge Congress to continue funding the programs that will create a continuum of health care for our veterans and their families that seamlessly spans acVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
32 

tive duty and veteran status. With a focus on our enduring commitment, we must 

continue to improve our active and veteran care services, with special emphasis on 

Wounded Warrior Support. We will expand our public and private partnerships and 

tap into the ‘‘sea of goodwill’’ towards our veterans found in our Nation’s communities and civic organizations. That will be important, but it is not sufficient. Long 

term fiscal support for the Department of Veterans Affairs will serve the growing 

number of veterans requiring care. 

One issue that demands acute national attention is the challenge of Traumatic 

Brain Injury (TBI). The Improvised Explosive Device (IED) is the signature weapon 

of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and is directly responsible for many of these 

injuries. Many of our heroes suffer from severe TBI and have had their lives dramatically changed in ways we do not yet fully understand, and over 150,000 others 

have been exposed to events that may have caused moderate TBI. As such, we need 

to aggressively identify the victims of TBI, both within the serving force and among 

our veterans, and the treatment and rehabilitation they need and deserve. The effects of these efforts will pay dividends for some time, because we can expect to face 

IEDs in future conflicts as well. 

In addition, suicides and the many other stresses and social health costs that lag 

behind war—divorce, domestic violence, post-traumatic stress, depression, and even 

homelessness—are becoming alarmingly evident. Suicide rates remain unacceptably 

high, although programs such as the Department’s Suicide Prevention Task Force 

and our improved leadership efforts have helped to lower the rates this past year 

in three of our four Services. Leaders must remain focused on this issue, as we work 

to improve our systematic understanding of the problem’s scope, warning signs, and 

at-risk populations. As a society we must work to end the stigma that prevents our 

servicemembers, veterans, and families from seeking early help. 

By more effectively leveraging public-private partnerships, we can pursue solutions and treatment for all of these health issues afflicting the Force with great urgency and compassion and honor the sacred trust our Nation has with all of our 

combat veterans. 

Reset and Reconstitute 

The grueling pace of deployments has not allowed for the training needed to keep 

our forces ready along the entire spectrum of military operations and, as a result, 

our readiness in some mission areas has atrophied over the past decade. There are 

some modest reasons for hope, though. The Army now has fewer soldiers deployed 

than it has had at any time since the invasion of Iraq. In addition, this past year 

we completed the increases in the Army and Marine Corps end strengths authorized 

in 2007. As a result, we are beginning to see some stabilizing deployment rates and 

modestly improving dwell times. We appreciate the Congressional support to our 

wartime manning needs that has enabled this. However, our overseas contingency 

operations do continue to demand significant numbers of ground and special operations forces and low-density, high-demand specialties. For our Army combat units, 

we do not expect to begin to reach our interim goal of 1:2 deploy-to-dwell ratios until 

2012. After reset and reconstitution activities and as demand decreases, we expect 

to begin off-ramping some of our recent force level increases. 

However, my concerns about the health of our force go beyond our people and 

training—we must also restore the readiness of our combat systems and capabilities, which have similarly been under extraordinary stress. In the back end of previous conflicts, we were able to contract our equipment inventory by shedding our 

oldest capital assets, thereby reducing the average age of our systems. We cannot 

do this today, because the high pace and duration of combat operations have consumed the equipment of all our Services much faster than our peacetime programs 

can recapitalize them. We must actually recapitalize our systems to restore our 

readiness and avoid becoming a hollow force. All of this will force us to be more efficient and disciplined in our choices. 

We must focus resources where they matter most, and we will reset and reconstitute by prioritizing people, readiness, capabilities, and essential modernization to 

maintain a technological edge. In the short-term, we will continue previous efforts 

to reconstitute and expand our rotary wing and tilt-rotor capacity in our Combat 

Aviation units and to convert one heavy Brigade Combat Team to a Stryker Brigade. However, over a period of years, we will modernize our battle fleet of ground 

combat vehicles, including replacing the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. We require enhancements to our manned and unmanned Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets, a new bomber program, extending the service life of a portion of our F–16 fleet, and continuing improvements in our missile defense and electronic warfare systems. We hope to modernize and extend the service life of our

F/A–18 fleet and invest in additional P–8A aircraft and tankers. Lastly, we ask for 

33 

full resourcing of the Air and Missile Defense Radar, the Next-Generation Jammer, 

and communications and integrated fire control systems designed for operating in 

contested environments. These investments are, without question, costly, but they 

are critically demanded by our current and likely future challenges. Your support 

is particularly important this year as we adjust to the impact of recent Continuing 

Resolutions on program starts and growth rates and to the $17.9 billion difference 

between the amount authorized by the resolutions and our fiscal year 2011 budget 

request—$23 billion if this becomes a year-long resolution. 

Just as important as the reconstitution of these combat systems are the acquisition processes and production capacities underlying them. Our procurement systems 

remain complex and in need of streamlining to help us acquire needed capabilities 

faster and more affordably. Last year we committed to adding 20,000 experts to our 

acquisition corps by 2015. In doing so, we seek to improve stability in our programs, 

conduct more comprehensive design reviews, improve cost estimates, utilize more 

mature technology, and increase competition in order to make the entire process 

more responsive. 

In addition, as I stated last year, I am concerned about the capabilities of our defense industrial base, particularly in ship building and space. Our ability to produce 

and support advanced technology systems for future weapon systems may be degraded by decreasing modernization budgets as well as mergers and acquisitions. 

Left unchecked, this trend will impact our future warfighting readiness. Although 

we are properly focusing on near-term reset requirements, DOD, our industry leaders, and Congress need to begin considering how to equip and sustain the military 

we require after our contemporary wars come to an end. 

BALANCING GLOBAL STRATEGIC RISK

Balancing global risk requires maintaining a ready and forward presence with 

available forces that, overall, can meet the full scope of our security commitments. 

To meet these requirements, we must reset, sustain, and properly posture a force 

that includes both our Active Force and our National Guard and Reserve components. But we must also make prudent investments and continuously evolve the 

force so as a whole it can meet the challenges of an increasingly complex global security environment. 

For many decades, our overmatch in our general purpose forces has underwritten 

our National security and our prosperity, as well as that of our many allies and 

partners. This credible strength has deterred aggression and reduced the likelihood 

of interstate conflict like those of the 19th and early 20th centuries. With these capabilities, we have stood side by side with our allies in the face of belligerent aggression, helped secure access and responsible use of increasingly contested domains, and provided timely humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters across the globe. However, our recent experience reminds us that we must continue to adapt some of our systems and tactics to counter anti-access and area-denial strategies, which may involve both the most advanced and simplest technologies. 

This year I will publish my ‘‘Joint Force 2030,’’ which will lay out the operating 

concepts and capabilities of our future force. But we already know some of the contours of what that force will need to do. We know that, in addition to the current 

array of aggressive states and transnational terrorists we face, we must adjust to 

a changing global environment impacted by the rise of China and other emerging 

powers as well as the growing worldwide use and capabilities of cyber space. Such 

a world requires an agile, adaptive, and expeditionary force. It must ensure access, 

protect freedom of maneuver, and project power globally. It should retain decisive 

overmatch with air, land, sea, and special operations forces and be able to operate 

in degraded space and cyber environments. As such, transitioning to this future 

force will likely involve a greater emphasis on ISR, command and control, long 

range strike, area denial, undersea warfare, missile defense, and cyber capabilities. 

This transition will also involve further developing flexible leaders, operators, and 

technicians who are highly proficient and able to fully integrate our efforts with our 

partners from other agencies and other countries. 

Beyond maintaining our regular and irregular warfare capabilities, we will also 

continue to rely on secure and stable nuclear deterrence. It is also important that 

we maintain the safety and surety of our nuclear forces, even as we seek to reduce 

them in accordance with the Nuclear Posture Review and implement the recently 

ratified New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. We need to modernize our nuclear 

force and its supporting infrastructure to ensure that a smaller force is nonetheless 

safe, secure, and effective. Lastly, our missile defense systems should support the 

stability of our deterrence architectures. 

34 

And while we work to reduce, safeguard, and provide confidence in our nuclear 

force and those of treaty signatories, we acknowledge that the proliferation of nuclear technology and other weapons of mass destruction by state and non-state actors remains one of the most significant and urgent worldwide threats. Effectively 

countering proliferation requires strong international partnerships, new surveillance 

technologies, and layered defenses. These are supported by ongoing expansion of the 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, establishment of a standing joint headquarters for weapons of mass destruction elimination, and investments in nuclear 

forensics technology and programs. These relatively small programs can have a disproportionately large positive impact on our security. 

Balancing global strategic risk also requires improving our capabilities in cyberspace. Today we face a range of threats to our computer systems from other states, 

mercenaries, and even civilian hackers, and their ability to wreak havoc cannot be 

understated. Lower grade cyber threats conducted by organized criminals and talented individuals do not necessarily put the Nation at serious risk. But the effects 

of a well-coordinated, state-sponsored cyber attack against our financial, transportation, communications, and energy systems would be catastrophic. We have made 

headway by standing up U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and by developing 

constructs for cyberspace operations, but more work is needed. Critical to 

CYBERCOM’s future success will be our ability to recruit, train, and most importantly, retain the right people. We must devote the same time and attention to cultivating this nation’s cadre of future cyber warriors as we do to our combat specialists. We must also empower CYBERCOM and the combatant commands by working 

with the Executive Office of the President and other agencies to develop appropriate 

cyber authorities and by refining our cyber doctrine, tactics, and procedures. Lastly, 

we need to actively foster public discussion about international observance of cyber 

space norms. 

Balancing global strategic risk requires strong military-to-military engagement 

programs. These collaborative efforts engender mutual responsibility and include 

ongoing combined operations, multi-lateral training exercises, individual exchanges, 

and security assistance. They help demonstrate the United States’ responsible military leadership in critical regions, reassure our allies, and strengthen the international norms that serve the interests of all nations. They also foster connections 

with other governments that reinforce our diplomatic channels and have proven critical during times of crisis. 

We currently benefit from numerous strong and well appreciated military partnerships. For example, at the November NATO Summit in Lisbon, we and our allies 

recommitted to our alliance, ongoing operations, and a new Strategic Concept for 

the next decade. NATO is also poised to release its Alliance Maritime Strategy. In 

Asia, though still underpinned by U.S. bilateral alliances, the region’s security architecture is becoming a more complex mixture of multi-level multilateralism and 

expanded bilateral security ties among states. As the region’s military capability 

and capacity increases, we seek new ways to catalyze greater regional security cooperation. 

Unfortunately, the global economic downturn is placing pressure on the resources 

of partner nations’ security forces. We foresee no decrease in the commitment of our 

partners to us or to any of our mutual security efforts, but we must face the reality 

of less spending by our partners on our combined security and stability efforts. Any 

measures we take to strengthen our partnerships, such as the administration’s Export Control Reform effort, can only improve our collective security. 

We should not engage only with like-minded allies. Military-to-military engagement, in coordination with other diplomatic efforts, can help foster cooperation in 

areas of mutual interest between nations with varying levels of amity. We have seen 

the fruits of our engagement programs in strengthening cooperation in the Middle 

East, countering piracy in the Red Sea and the Straits of Malacca, and countering 

proliferation across the globe. We will seek out military-to-military relations even 

where they have not existed before because sound relations can prevent 

miscommunication and miscalculation that could lead to crisis or conflict. In particular, increased engagement with China could increase understanding and cooperation on a multitude of issues, including encouraging North Korea to refrain 

from further provocation and ensuring access to and equitable use of the global commons. 

A significant component of our engagement program is the security sector assistance we provide to build the capabilities of our partner nations’ security forces. 

These cost-effective programs properly place security responsibilities in the hands 

of other sovereign governments and reduce the tactical strain on our own forces by 

helping to prevent conflicts and instability. In many places, across the range of U.S. 

interests, investments in capacity building result in strong foundations for the fuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
35 

ture. These investments are often small but, if persistent, can yield a high return. 

I urge your continued support for Theater Security Cooperation programs, Global 

Train and Equip initiatives (under 1206 authorities), funding for special operations 

to combat terrorism (under 1208 authorities), as well as the many security assistance programs managed by the Department of State (DOS), including FMF and 

IMET programs. 

However, just as these programs require full funding, they also need wholesale 

reform. Our security assistance structures are designed for another era—our authorities are inflexible, and our processes are too cumbersome to effectively address 

today’s security challenges in a timely manner. I urge your assistance in modifying 

the laws and regulations surrounding security cooperation and assistance to create 

a better coordinated, pooled-resource approach that make resources more fungible 

across departments and programs and better integrates our defense, diplomacy, development, and intelligence efforts. We should not allow bureaucratic resistance to 

trump operational effectiveness when security sector assistance is essential to our 

national strategy of helping others secure and defend themselves. 

On this last point of interagency cooperation, I want to reiterate our commitment 

to comprehensive approaches to our security challenges that employ all elements of 

national, and international, power in coordination. Our future security concerns require a whole-of-government effort, not just a military one, and we serve best when 

we serve hand-in-hand with all of our partners and support, rather than lead, foreign policy. As such, we will work closely with DOS and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to support their implementation of the Quadrennial 

Diplomacy and Development Review, particularly in the areas of conflict prevention 

and response. To this end, I reiterate my unequivocal support to Secretary Clinton 

and her efforts to fully resource DOS’s and USAID’s activities and an expansion of 

its diplomacy and development capabilities, particularly in Iraq to support the transition from a military to a civilian-led mission. In addition, I support interagency 

cooperation programs and work to expand the number of exchanges between DOD 

and other executive agencies. 

CONCLUSION

In the upcoming year, our Armed Forces will build on the past year’s achievements and continue to provide the common defense our Constitution directs with 

distinct honor and effectiveness. We will advance our ongoing efforts and maintain 

the credibility of our forces while learning, adapting, and preparing for new security 

challenges. We know that the military’s role in national security will remain substantial, and the demands on our service men and women will be high. However, 

we also know that we can never let our actions move us away from the American 

people, and that the quality of our work and our personal conduct will say far more 

about who we are and what we stand for than anything else we do. In all of our 

efforts, we will maintain a strength of character and professionalism, at the individual and institutional levels, that is beyond reproach and continues to be a source 

of pride for our Nation. 

As we move forward, I remain thankful to Congress for doing its part this year 

to better guarantee our Nations’ security. You have reminded us of your important 

role as a steward of our Armed Forces and of our mutual respect for our Nation’s 

security, values, and servicemembers by approving the Strategic Arms Reduction 

Treaty and repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. I am encouraged that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will enhance the connection between the military and 

the American public, particularly in our relationships with some of America’s premier universities. We look forward to working with you as we implement these initiatives and as you consider other pending security agreements, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea. Ratification of these two agreements would greatly benefit our national security. 

Again, on behalf of all our men and women under arms, I thank this committee, 

and the entire Congress, for your unwavering support for our troops in the field and 

their families at home during this time of war and for our efforts to maintain a 

strong, agile, well-trained, and well-equipped military that can prevail in our current conflicts and remain poised to deter or respond to new challenges. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you so much, Admiral Mullen, for your 

eloquent statement and for your great service. Secretary Hale, do 

you have anything to add before we begin? 

Mr. HALE. No, thank you. 

36 

Chairman LEVIN. We will have a 7-minute first round. Mr. Secretary, you indicated that we are on track to end the presence of 

our combat troops in Iraq by the end of this year as decided upon 

by President Bush. Do you continue to support that decision? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, I do. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are you planning to begin reductions of our 

troops in Afghanistan by July of this year as ordered by President 

Obama with the pace to be determined by conditions on the 

ground? Do you support that decision? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Can you tell us why? 

Secretary GATES. Frankly, this was the most difficult part of the 

Afghan strategy, going forward, for me to support. I steadfastly, as 

some on this committee will remember—steadfastly—opposed any 

deadlines in Iraq and so came to this with a certain skepticism. 

But I also realized that there is a difference between Iraq and 

Afghanistan in this respect. The truth of the matter is the Iraqis 

want us out of the country as quickly as possible. On the other 

hand, the Afghans, at least a certain number of them, would like 

us to stay forever. They live in a very dangerous neighborhood and 

having U.S. forces there to support them and help them often in 

the place of their own troops is something that they would like to 

see. 

So it seemed to me that we needed to do something that would 

grab the attention of the Afghan leadership and bring a sense of 

urgency to them of the need for them to step up to the plate to take 

ownership of the war and to recruit their own young men to fight. 

I think that the comments that you quoted earlier from General 

Caldwell has illustrated that over the last year or so the Afghans 

have, in fact, done this to a considerable degree, particularly in 

terms of their own troops. 

I must say I was very pleased to have—and I recognize the risk 

of the message we were also sending to our adversaries, to the 

Taliban. However, it seemed to me that if the Taliban was messaging to all of their people that we were all leaving, that our 

troops were all leaving in July, that they would be in for a very 

big surprise come August, September, and October when we are 

still hunting them down in very large numbers. 

So on balance—and I will say it was a close call for me, but I 

came to believe that it was the right thing to do. 

I must say I very much support and applaud NATO’s decision to 

accept the idea of a full turnover of security responsibilities to the 

Afghans by 2014 because I think that bookends the July 11th 

statement and lets everybody know that we are not leaving precipitously. We are going to do this based on conditions on the ground, 

and we will continue to carry the fight to the Taliban. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Admiral Mullen, do you want to add anything to that? Do you 

agree basically with what the Secretary said, or do you have a different view? 

Admiral MULLEN. No, no. I agree with that. I would say again 

a very tough part of the whole decision process. Certainly not the 

signal that we are not staying is one that is of great concern in 

that part of the region for a long time, and at the same time sendVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
37 

ing the message that we, in fact, are going to get to a point where 

we turn this over to them I think was very important. I have seen 

the effects of that in their leadership in the military and the police. 

It has given them a sense of urgency that they did not have before 

the decision was made. 

I also think, with respect to the Taliban specifically, with where 

we are right now, they have a lot more things to worry about in 

terms of just how well they are doing because they are not doing 

very well, and they know we are going to be there beyond July. 

They had a really bad year. That does not mean this year will not 

be tough. It will. It will be very difficult on both sides. But we have 

made a lot of progress because we have committed the resources 

to get this right. 

Chairman LEVIN. Relative to the size of the Afghan security 

forces, there is a proposal currently under consideration within the 

administration to increase the size of the ANSF by around 70,000 

personnel. That would raise the target end strength for the security 

personnel of the Afghans to about 378,000. Now, those forces, as 

I indicated, would include some key enablers, including intelligence 

and logistics. 

As I also indicated, I spoke to the President now twice on this 

subject and very strongly support the increase that is being considered for the reasons which you have just talked about and which 

I talked about in my opening statement in terms of the importance 

of the Afghan security forces taking responsibility for security. 

They are very much supported by the Afghan people and they are 

targeting an enemy that is detested by the Afghan people, to wit, 

the Taliban. 

Our partnering with the security forces has really improved 

many more partnerships between our forces. The training is intense and very successful. The operations are joint. We witnessed 

that when we were down in Kandahar. 

So my question to both of you, Secretary Gates and Admiral 

Mullen, is do you support the proposal to increase the size of the 

ANSFs as is being considered? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, I would say that we have all recognized from the beginning that being able to turn security over to 

Afghan forces to deal with a degraded Taliban was our ticket out 

of Afghanistan and to accomplish our goal of making sure we are 

not attacked out of there again. 

I think the issue is under discussion within the administration. 

We do have a request from the commander. The issue is under discussion in no small part because of the question of sustainability. 

How big an army can we afford? Let us not kid ourselves. Nobody 

else is contributing to this in any significant way. We have in our 

OCO budget for fiscal year 2012 $12.8 billion to pay for the ANSFs. 

So the question is how long can we afford to do that, and you cannot do that indefinitely. So then can you look at an increased number of Afghan forces in the same terms as you look at our surge 

as something that is temporary until this problem gets solved, and 

then those numbers begin to go back down again. So this is one of 

the big issues that we are discussing and I expect a decision in the 

fairly near future. But this is really the core issue that I think is 

under discussion. 

38 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral Mullen, do you support that? 

Admiral MULLEN. I think, Mr. Chairman, you know that the recommendation was teed up from somewhere between 352,000 to 

378,000. That is the range. I certainly share the concern the Secretary has spoken of in terms of the sustainability of this. 

You also characterized in your opening statement a specific recommendation from me. We are still very much in discussion inside 

the administration on where this comes out. As the Secretary said, 

I think in the near future we will have that. There are a lot of 

issues at play here. 

None of us disagree with your assertion or your statement about 

the importance of this part of the mission, training them and turning it over to them. It has gone incredibly well over the course of 

the last year. So how fast we can move, how much more there 

should be is still very much in discussion and the comprehensiveness of the issues that are associated with this are being reviewed 

as we speak, and I think it will be resolved here in the near future. 

Chairman LEVIN. The bottom part of that range you mentioned 

would represent an increase from the current goal. Is that correct? 

Admiral MULLEN. Right. We are at 305,000 at the end of this 

year, and 352,000 would be a range from 352,000 to 378,000. 

Chairman LEVIN. So even if the approval were at the bottom of 

the range, that would represent about a 45,000 increase. Is that 

correct? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. So we save a lot of money having their forces 

there trained and equipped rather than our forces in terms of relative costs. I think you both would agree to that. 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Gates, 

did you recommend to the President the date of July 2011 as a date 

to begin withdrawal? 

Secretary GATES. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator MCCAIN. Did you, Admiral Mullen? 

Admiral MULLEN. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator MCCAIN. On the issue of our continued presence in Iraq, 

obviously the casualties have been reduced dramatically, but I 

think it is also obvious that the Iraqi military does not have a lot 

of the technological capability that they need to combat this kind 

of insurgency that is still out there. But also, if they want to have 

an air force, it seems to me they need that kind of technical assistance, a number of other areas of modernization of their forces. It 

is necessary. We are not talking about continued combat operations 

on the part of the United States, but they do need the kind of technical assistance that they will need to maintain their security. Do 

you agree with that? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. 

Secretary GATES. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. So is there any discussion that you know of 

going on with the Iraqi Government concerning the future role of 

39 

the United States in Iraq besides the fact that we are now scheduled to leave by the end of the year? 

Secretary GATES. There have been a number of informal conversations with the Iraqis about this. 

Our concern, as I indicated yesterday, is principally in three 

areas: intelligence fusion, logistics and maintenance, and in air 

cover in providing the ability to protect their own air space. Right 

now, under current circumstances, as of the 1st of January, we will 

have 157 DOD military and civilians, along with several hundred 

contractors, basically processing foreign military sales, and that 

would be it. 

As I have indicated, I think this government is very open to a 

continuing presence that would be larger where we could help the 

Iraqis for a period of time. I am not actually concerned about the 

stability of the country, but I am concerned about their ability to 

address these three issues in particular. 

But the fact is we have a signed agreement that President Bush 

signed with the Iraqi Government, and the initiative for this needs 

to come from the Iraqis. My hope is that once they sort out who 

their new defense minister is going to be, which has been a problem in putting together their government, that then we will be able 

to move forward with this dialogue with the Iraqis. I think it is little bit, frankly, in Iraq like the strategic agreement itself in the 

sense that our presence is not popular in Iraq. So the politicians, 

I think, the leaders understand the need for this kind of help, but 

no one wants to be the first one out there supporting it, very much 

like the security agreement itself. So we will continue that dialogue, but at the end of the day, the initiative has to come from 

the Iraqis. They have to ask for it. 

Senator MCCAIN. I take it you were pleased with the House’s decision yesterday on the—what did you call it—the additional engine? 

Secretary GATES. The extra engine. 

Senator MCCAIN. Extra. Excuse me. Yes, extra engine. I take it 

you would support efforts over here to do the same. 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely. 

Senator MCCAIN. I share your optimism about our success in Afghanistan, which has confounded many of the critics. I also share 

your view that there is a long way to go. 

But do you share that same optimism about Pakistan? There 

have been some very serious disruptions, obviously, with this 

American citizen who is now being held in prison, the whole role 

of private contractors, the continued allegations of relationships between Interservices Intelligence (ISI) and the Taliban. I am deeply 

concerned about the situation in Pakistan, which obviously is vital 

to the sustained and long-term success in Afghanistan. 

Secretary GATES. Let me just say a word or two and then turn 

to the chairman because he has spent a lot more time in Pakistan 

in the last few years than I have. 

I worry a lot about Pakistan. It has huge economic problems. 

Those problems were significantly aggravated by the terrible flooding last year. They have a serious internal terrorism threat that is 

seeking to destabilize Pakistan itself. I worry that some of those 

terrorists might try and provoke a conflict between Pakistan and 

40 

India. So I think that there is a lot to be concerned about with 

Pakistan. 

Senator MCCAIN. There are still sanctuaries in Pakistan. 

Secretary GATES. That said, there are still the sanctuaries. 

But I will say the Pakistanis have 140,000 troops on that border. 

These things improve step by step, but not as quickly as we would 

like, but we get to a better place over time. If you had asked me 

2 years ago if the Pakistanis would withdraw six divisions from the 

Indian border and put them in the west, I would have said, impossible. If you would have asked me if we would begin coordinating 

operations on both sides of the border with Afghan and ISAF forces 

on the one side and the Pakistanis on the other, I would have said, 

that is very unlikely. 

They are chipping away at some of these sanctuaries. It is very 

important what they have done in south Waziristan and SWAT, 

but it is a mixed picture, and it is something we just need to keep 

working at. The chairman has worked at it about as hard as anybody. 

Admiral MULLEN. On the military side, Senator McCain, I am 

more optimistic than I have been. I mean, the Secretary talked 

about the cross-border coordination, the work that we have done 

with them. But on the political side, the economic side, at least 

from my perspective, it looks worse than it has in a long time. 

So I share your concern. The vector is going in the wrong direction overall for the country. We are very unpopular there. You have 

seen that. It gets highlighted in each crisis. We provided extraordinary support for the floods last year—we, the military. Then that 

registers in a popular way shortly. You have an incident like the 

one we are going through right now, and our popularity is back 

down in very small numbers. 

So I do think we have to stay at it. It is where lots of terrorist 

organizations head, not just al Qaeda. They are more combined in 

their efforts than they have ever been. So I do think we have to 

continue to work at it, but I am concerned as I have ever been. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, just briefly. Anything more on the Wikileaks investigation? 

Secretary GATES. Sir, after our last hearing, I went back and I 

had been told that I had to keep my hands off of it because of the 

criminal investigation. But I have been able to narrow an area that 

I have asked the Secretary of the Army to investigate in terms of 

procedures and the command climate and so on that has nothing 

to do with the accused individual, but to see what lapses there 

were where somebody perhaps should be held accountable. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Secretary 

and Chairman, for your service, for your leadership, for your testimony today. 

I believe that the President’s budget for DOD is a budget that 

recognizes the times of economic stress we are going through particularly with regard to our national deficits and debt but also 

41 

meets our defense needs. I appreciate, Mr. Secretary, your advocacy of the budget but also your warning that we have to be very 

careful about cutting too deeply into our defense budget. 

I have noticed some change of terminology around here which 

concerns me, which traditionally, as we have discussed the various 

components of the Federal budget, when we get to discretionary 

spending, we distinguish between defense and non-defense spending. The defense spending had a more protected status, if you will, 

and I think it was for a good reason, which I believe I know you 

and all of us on the committee believe, which is that we have no 

greater responsibility in our national government than to protect 

our security. It is the underpinning of our freedom and our prosperity. So we have to be very cautious about cutting below a level 

that we can continue to fulfill that—well, it is really a constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. 

I have noticed now the difference between defense and non-defense discretionary spending in terminology seems to be fading, 

and I think we do that at our peril. So it does not mean, obviously, 

that what everybody at the Pentagon wants we are going to say yes 

to or that we can tolerate wasteful spending. I know the two of you 

have been very aggressive about that in the programs you have set 

forward. 

But I hope as we go forward in these very difficult economic 

times with a lot of stress politically on everybody here, that we 

keep that primary responsibility we have for the national security 

in mind. 

Frankly, without going any further on it, I think for those of us 

who are committed to doing everything we can to continue to give 

you the resources and the men and women in uniform to protect 

our security, it compels us to look much more directly and act more 

boldly on the most expanding part of our national deficit and debt, 

which is the entitlement programs that are non-defense. 

So with that invocation, I just want to pick up on what Senator 

McCain said earlier about the input we got at the Munich security 

conference this year. It was quite significant to me on Afghanistan. 

The first was I thought there was a real change in opinion from 

our European colleagues, that we really are making progress in Afghanistan, and they feel good about it. Normally we have been concerned that they would leave the fight before we did. They turned 

the tables on us this time, and they said we are committed now 

through NATO to the 2014 exit date from Afghanistan. We are 

worried that you in America are going to begin to leave earlier, and 

they still have in mind, notwithstanding all the transition to 2014, 

this July 2011 date. So I would ask you if you would care to respond to that, and of course, part of that is just to urge that whatever we do in July 2011, be mindful of the effect it will have not 

only on the Afghans and the region but on our European allies. 

Secretary GATES. I would just make two comments. 

First, I had a NATO defense ministers meeting last December 

and it was really quite extraordinary because I do not think I have 

ever seen so many ministers so optimistic about how things were 

going in Afghanistan. I did not encounter a single one who was 

pessimistic or who felt that the effort was for naught and that we 

were not headed in the right direction. So there was a level not just 

42 

of sort of grudging support but a general feeling of cautious optimism that we finally had all the parts right in this thing, the civilian strategy, the military strategy, had the resources there. 

When I took this job there were 12,000–13,000 Europeans or 

other partners in Afghanistan. There are now 50,000. They have 

really stepped up to the plate. Now, we are carrying the bulk of the 

burden, but they are doing a lot as well. 

By the same token, one of my missions in next month’s defense 

ministers meeting is to ensure that in fact whatever we do in July 

does not start a rush for the exits on the part of our allies, and I 

would say particularly those who have the largest contingents 

there. There are a lot of countries that are making a real contribution, but they have fairly limited numbers of people there. I think 

that our principal allies and those who are the principal contributors are probably okay, but I need to be able to reassure them that 

this is going to be conditions-based and that it will be gradual. 

The other point I will make to them is it should not be mathematical. If we take out 1 percent or 2 percent of our troops, or 

whatever the number is, that does not mean everybody gets 2 percent because in some of them 2 percent—when you have only 10 

guys there, you have a problem. So I think that we need to ensure 

that their forces are taken out on a conditions-based arrangement 

as well. I think this is the challenge for General Petraeus. 

The way I think he is thinking about it is that when we turn 

over security responsibility, sort of three things will happen to the 

foreign troops that are there. A few will stay to continue to provide 

a strategic overwatch and safety net, if you will. Some will be reinvested in the neighboring district where the security is not as good 

yet, and then some portion would be allowed to come home. So I 

think that that is the approach that he is taking, and frankly I 

have not seen from the defense ministers, at least, signs of nervousness or a feeling that they would be compelled to make significant withdrawals themselves before the timing that they have already announced. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that reassurance. What you 

found at the defense ministers meeting is exactly what we found 

in terms of the cautious optimism at the Munich conference. 

I appreciate it. I think you are right on target in your focus for 

the next meeting coming up because it sounded to me as if they 

need that reassurance. I will just tell you that one of the people 

high up in one of our major NATO allies’ foreign ministry said that 

they were worried that if we withdrew a small proportion of our 

troops in July, that there would be a tendency of their political 

community to take it in absolute mathematical numbers. So for us 

it is only 1 percent, but let us say it is 1,000. They are worried that 

at home their parliament is going to say, well, how about taking 

out 1,000 of our troops as a result. 

Secretary GATES. The interesting thing about particularly the 

Europeans who are in Afghanistan—most of them are in coalition 

governments and most of their publics are opposed to their participation. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary GATES. I think it needs to be said these governments 

have shown some real political courage in being willing to commit 

43 

to the alliance and to Afghanistan the forces that they have in the 

absence of political support at home. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I could not agree with you more. 

Final word. My time is up. But the other thing that I found very 

heartening is that our NATO allies, particularly following the 

meetings you have referred to, have stepped back and understand 

not just that we are doing better in Afghanistan, but this is the 

first time NATO has gone to war. A failure in this first time at 

war, interestingly outside of the geographic area of NATO, would 

have terrible consequences for NATO’s credibility, and NATO’s 

credibility at this uncertain, dangerous time in the world is critically important to the stability and security of a lot of other places 

far from the United States, Europe, and Afghanistan. So I think we 

are at a point where the alliance is really moving together in a 

very positive way. 

I thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was glad to hear that statement, Secretary Gates, what you 

said about the 17,000 to 50,000. Somehow I had missed that. But 

I am glad to know that more are coming to the table. 

Senator Hagan and I spent New Year’s Eve with the troops in 

Afghanistan and had a chance to spend a little time to get out to 

the training area. When we talk about what is going to happen in 

reduction and so forth, a lot of that is going to be dependent on the 

success and the training of the Afghan National Army and how 

they are coming. I was very pleased. 

Senator Hagan and I were both surprised at the Kabul military 

training center, the segregation of infantry and artillery and how 

they are doing that on two sides of the mountain. We are used to 

seeing how we do it in this country. I was most impressed with 

their training. 

To accommodate some of these potential discussions on withdrawal, I would just like to know your opinion as to how we are 

coming with that training. Is it ahead of where you thought it 

would be, or are you as impressed as we were when we went over 

and witnessed it? 

Secretary GATES. I think we both should address that briefly. 

But I would say that what General Caldwell has done in the last 

year or so I would characterize as nearly a miracle. It is not just 

the numbers. A year ago 35 percent of the recruits or the new soldiers, Afghan soldiers, qualified on marksmanship. It is now in the 

90s. They have a literacy program going for officers, for 

noncomissioned officers (NCO), and even for some junior enlisted 

that is going to make a huge long-term difference in Afghanistan. 

So I think that the quality of what they have been doing and the 

speed with which they have been doing it and the ability to accommodate the significant increase in the numbers being trained and 

getting quality training has just been really quite extraordinary 

and I think has played a big part in the progress that we have had 

over the last year. 

44 

Admiral MULLEN. I would say very briefly, sir, I think the number I saw the other day was 24,000 trainees in training right now. 

That number was minimal a year to 2 years ago, I mean, literally 

in the hundreds because all you did was you recruit and place a 

soldier or a policeman in the field. 

What also gets lost here is that there has been an extraordinary 

jump on the police side as well behind the military, as it was in 

Iraq. So we are making a lot of progress there. 

I would just commend General Caldwell and all his people because they put in the structure. You have seen for yourself the 

kind of training. It has really been an exceptional effort over a very 

short period of time. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. We even had an opportunity to talk to 

some of the ones who are being trained to be trainers. They are excited. They are looking at careers. I was very shocked and very 

pleased. 

As you know from previous meetings, I always bring up the 1206, 

1207, 1208, Commander’s Emergency Response Program and Combatant Command Initiatives Fund. These are programs that I have 

been very enthusiastic about and I think have been very successful. 

I was pleased that the 1206 funding was increased in this budget 

request from $350 million to $500 million. 

The thing that I am confused about, because I am not sure what 

it means, is this pooled funding. When I first read about this, I 

thought is this returning back to what we were trying to get away 

from, in other words, having more of the concentrated commanders 

in the field, having greater authority, and this type of thing. How 

does the pooled funding work? Would either one of you like to 

share that with me? 

Admiral MULLEN. This is actually a $50 million appropriation, 

should it be approved, initially DOS money, with an opportunity to 

reprogram upwards of $450 million between us. So there is no specificity that says how much DOS would reprogram at this point or 

how much DOD would. 

What is really critical here—and this goes back to your support 

of 1206, 1207, and 1208—is it gives us the flexibility and the ability to meet an emergent sort of this year maybe even this month 

need which, heretofore, we just have not been able to do. We see 

it year after year in country after country. So it actually is very 

consistent with what has happened in 1206, 1207, and 1208 in 

terms of the strategic thrust, although some of the mechanisms 

will be a little different. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. I am glad to hear that because I 

did not want to dilute that program that I think has been very, 

very successful. 

Recently we have heard more and more about China and Russia 

and how much further advanced they are on the fifth generation 

of fighters, the T–50, J–20, or whatever that is over there. The decision that we had made to move backwards a little bit or move the 

124 F–35s out of this 5-year period or delay them—was that decision made before we realized that they were perhaps a little further along in developing fifth generation fighters in other countries 

that might be sold eventually to people who could be our enemies? 

45 

Secretary GATES. I think that, first of all, the way I have characterized it, Senator, is that when I was in China, President Hu 

rolled out the red carpet and the People’s Liberation Army rolled 

out the J–20. 

They may have flight-tested it a half a year, a year or so before 

our intelligence estimated they would, but the truth is it will be 

quite a while before they have any numbers. The latest estimates 

on the Chinese side would be that by 2020 they might have 50 deployed and by 2025 maybe a couple hundred. We will have 325 F– 

35s by the end of 2016, even under the revised program, which 

with the F–22s gives us over 500 fifth generation aircraft. We will 

have 850 F–35s by 2020 or fifth generation aircraft by 2020 and 

about 1,500 by 2025. So there is still a huge disparity in terms of 

these aircraft. 

Frankly—and I do not want to get into it too much in an open 

hearing—this is their first low-observable aircraft. Given the challenges that we have had—and we have been at this now better 

than 20 years, frankly, I think they have a long road in front of 

them before this becomes a serious operational aircraft in any 

numbers. 

Senator INHOFE. I am glad to hear that. 

My time is expired but I want to ask a question for the record, 

and it might be more appropriate to respond to it for the record. 

You commented about your visit to the Far East, and at that time 

you were saying North Korea will have developed an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile within 5 years. We hear about our intelligence estimate talking about Iran’s capabilities in 2015. I would 

like to have an update on those estimates for the record, if you 

would do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is coordinating with Senator Inhofe’s staff 

to provide the Senate with a briefing on the latest DIA and National Air and Space 

Intelligence Center threat assessments. 

Admiral MULLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could. Back to just a specific on the F–35, the Secretary’s decision to move those aircraft to 

the right—those are short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft. I 

actually think—— 

Senator INHOFE. Those are the Marine version? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes. That actually puts us in a better position 

to deliver the Navy and the Air Force version sooner because those 

two versions are actually doing pretty well in testing and development. So I thought it was a wise decision and to give the Marine 

Corps, give us—give the Navy an opportunity to work on this airplane for the next 2 years. It was at the front of the queue and actually it was holding up the development of the other two airplanes. 

Secretary GATES. I would just say that the first Air Force variant 

of the F–35 will go to Eglin in May and others will flow through 

September to begin training, and the Navy variant will be at Eglin 

in fiscal year 2012. 

Senator INHOFE. That is very helpful. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Ben Nelson. 

46 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your service to our country. 

Secretary Gates, for the past several years, the need for a new 

U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) headquarters has been 

under consideration. It has been apparent and identified as a requirement. So I have been extremely pleased with the progress 

made toward addressing this vital need. The existing facility’s 

shortcomings and problems have put STRATCOM’s mission and its 

personnel at some risk. STRATCOM’s existing headquarters was 

built in 1957 and it has weathered 5 decades with little renovation. 

So for any combatant command, of course, these problems would 

be challenging if they continue to have electrical service and cooling water and other problems, but for STRATCOM, these facility 

maintenance matters are just untenable and they stand in the way 

of some of the most important national security missions. 

General Chilton, the retiring commander of STRATCOM, said it 

best, that the STRATCOM headquarters is the nuclear command 

and control mode for the United States and that we must make the 

appropriate investments. 

So I am very pleased that this budget represents that and wonder if you might have any comments on it and, as well, Admiral 

Mullen. 

Secretary GATES. I just have one comment and that is Admiral 

Mullen and I were there a couple of weeks ago for the change of 

command at STRATCOM, and the building looks a lot like it did 

when I walked in as a 2nd lieutenant in 1967. 

Senator NELSON. The electrical systems are probably the same as 

well. But thank you very, very much. In addition to the concerns 

that have been raised about continuing our relationships in the 

Middle East right now, the fiscal year 2012 budget presumes that 

the military, in terms of Iraq, will depart on December’s plan. We 

have had a lot of discussions here about whether or not it is important to do that or appropriate to do that and what kind of assistance and advice will we continue to provide the Iraqis. But as we 

are looking at our budget and trying to find ways to economize in 

DOD, is there a plan to have the Iraqis pick up more of the costs 

of any retention that we might have of our personnel there to provide the advice and the training that will be required? 

Secretary GATES. Not at this point, Senator. To tell you the 

truth, we have not really done much in the way of the budget looking beyond the 31st of December because we are assuming that we 

will come to December 31 and that will be it. So we would have 

to revisit that issue. 

I think we would have to take a look at whether the Iraqis could 

do that. They are running about—even with the price of oil where 

it is, they are devoting about 14 percent of their gross domestic 

product (GDP) to security, and they are running, I think, a $15 billion or thereabouts—$10 billion to $15 billion deficit this year. We 

should be so lucky. But we really have not gone down that road 

yet. 

Senator NELSON. But if we are in a position to where we are requested and we make the decision to continue some relationship 

there, would it be possible to look at that from the standpoint of 

the budget? It is not that I want to drive their budget into the 

47 

ditch any more than I want ours to continue to be there. We have 

to find a way to balance it for them and for ourselves as well. 

Secretary GATES. I understand, and we will certainly take that 

into account. 

Senator NELSON. I appreciate that. In terms of ISR assets, DOD has put forth spending about $4.8 

billion on procuring another 110 airframes for the budget. Can you 

speak about what the infrastructure and personnel will cost? 

Maybe this is for Admiral Mullen. The personnel costs and the infrastructure costs for adding these additional ISR assets. 

Admiral MULLEN. I would have to get back to you with a detailed 

response. 

Senator NELSON. Sure. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Increasing our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities in 

support of combat operations continues to be one of our highest priorities. The fiscal 

year 2012 budget continues development, integration, and expansion of ISR enhancements to unmanned platforms to deliver critical command/control, persistent 

ISR, and firepower to U.S. and coalition forces. These systems cover the full spectrum of capabilities from high-altitude, long-endurance capabilities to handlaunched, tactical systems. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget requests $4.8 billion to invest in the following ISR 

capabilities: 

• Procure additional Global Hawks (RQ–4) 

• Three aircraft/$1.7 billion 

• Maximum Reaper (MQ–9) production 

• 48 aircraft/$1.4 billion 

• Maximum Gray Eagle (MQ–1) production 

• 36 aircraft/$1.0 billion 

• Accelerate unmanned maritime unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (MQ–8 Fire 

Scout) 

• 12 aircraft/$0.3 billion 

• Other UAVs: Shadow, Raven, Small Tactical Unmanned Air System 

• $0.3 billion 

• Procure/sustain MC–12 

• 12 aircraft/$0.3 billion 

Each of these investments apply to current programs of record and are either inline with current acquisition strategies or an acceleration of existing plans. Each 

system fits into a planned architecture to meet commitments to our warfighters and 

the Services have incorporated the necessary infrastructure and personnel costs to 

support their integration into operations. 

Based on contracting and production schedules, the fiscal year 2012 investments 

listed above will deliver and field approximately 1 to 2 years after receipt of funding. The personnel and infrastructure costs will be incurred over several fiscal years 

as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are trained and assigned to maintain and 

operate these systems. 

To match the growth in capacity, balanced investments in operations and support 

(O&S) include: 

• An increase in RQ–4 Global Hawk personnel and O&S funds by 21 percent 

in fiscal year 2014 from the fiscal year 2012 level. 

• An increase in MQ–9 Reaper personnel and O&S funds by 55 percent in fiscal 

year 2014 from the fiscal year 2012 level. 

• An increase in MQ–8 Fire Scout O&S funds by 101 percent in fiscal year 2014 

from the fiscal year 2012 level. These funds include contractors operating in 

conjunction with on-board military personnel. 

• An increase in ‘‘Other’’ UAV personnel and O&S funds by 15 percent in fiscal 

year 2014 from the fiscal year 2012 level. 

• The MQ–1C Gray Eagle is integrated into the Army Force Generation Equipping Strategy. Overall, the Military Construction costs to field the entire complement of systems (not only the fiscal year 2012 systems) totals $522 million. 

48 

Admiral MULLEN. Certainly the infrastructure and personnel 

costs are incorporated into the budget and that is how the services 

actually bring it forward. It has become more and more significant. 

But I would also say, Senator Nelson, it has just become such a 

critical part not of just what we are doing now but what we are 

going to do in the future. We oftentimes think about the future sort 

of out there by itself, what is going to happen in 5 or 10 years. One 

of the things that has happened in these wars is there are a lot 

of capabilities that we have developed, rapidly field that will be 

every bit as relevant in a few years as they are right now. ISR 

probably leads the pack with respect to that. 

Senator NELSON. In that regard, we are living the future right 

now as we see it develop around us, and I hope that as we do that, 

we will continue to find a way to do it, obviously, as efficiently and 

as cost effectively as possible but not be short on personnel simply 

because we may end up with fewer pilots, but the piloting is obviously done a different way. So I hope that you will consider that. 

Also, Secretary Gates, in growing the forces and the capacity of 

the ANSFs, we have talked about the numbers increasing and you 

mentioned sustainability of the numbers and the range from the 

lower and we are adding 40,000 and looking at a higher range of 

378,000. Can we establish what we think would be a sustainable 

number as we look forward? Because, obviously, that is a pretty 

sizable percent of the population. Now, it is good to have people 

working. There is no question about it—fully employed. But do we 

have some idea of what the Afghans can support and sustain into 

their future? Secretary Gates? 

Secretary GATES. The sustainability issue, at least for the next 

number of years, is more what the United States can sustain because the Afghans’ ability to sustain a military force would be a 

fraction of the size of what they already have, much less what they 

may increase to, which is why I think of the size of their force more 

in terms of a surge like ours so that once we have defeated the 

Taliban or degraded them to a point that a smaller Afghan force 

can keep control where it is almost like the Afghan local police or 

smaller numbers of the Army can manage to keep the Taliban or 

others inside the country down to the point where they are not a 

threat to the stability of the government or to the people of Afghanistan. They cannot afford a force the size that they already have. 

So I think the only way we can think of it or the way we ought 

to think of it is something that we would be willing to support for 

a few years. 

Senator NELSON. In the short term? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, for a few years. But then it seems to me, 

particularly if there is a political solution to this war, as we all believe there needs to be ultimately, that they could get by with a 

significantly smaller force. We probably would have to help them 

even then, but it would be a dramatically smaller bill than it is 

now. If it is a smaller bill, we may be able to get other countries 

to help us as well. 

Senator NELSON. Hopefully, the NATO support would extend to 

providing help for the sustainability into the future because until 

we secure the country, a political solution is going to be very difficult. 

49 

Secretary GATES. Just as an example, I mean, the Japanese basically pay the salaries for the Afghan national police. That is their 

contribution. They do not have troops there, but that is not a small 

thing that they are doing. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Senator Ayotte? 

Senator AYOTTE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, I want to 

thank you for being here today and commend both of you for your 

long and distinguished service to our country. 

Before I ask any questions, I just want to say that I believe our 

Government’s most important responsibility is to protect the American people. This is a deeply held personal belief for me. I am from 

a military family. My husband is in the Guard and is a veteran of 

the Iraq war. So I applaud your efforts to ensure that our brave 

men and women in uniform have everything that they need to fight 

and win our wars. Supporting our men and women in uniform is 

certainly a solemn and sacred responsibility that we have. 

As we draw down in Iraq and our country confronts a fiscal crisis, I think it would be a mistake to drastically cut the size of our 

military or our readiness. 

That said, you appreciate—and I know based on Admiral 

Mullen’s comments—that we face a fiscal crisis in this country and 

that we face great challenges in balancing the need to protect our 

country and to make sure that we serve and provide for our troops 

with the need to cut back in all areas. I want to commend Secretary Gates for proactively going forward to look for efficiencies 

and billions of dollars in savings. As a new member of this committee, I want you to know that I look forward to working with 

DOD to bring reforms forward and efficiencies to fruition and also 

to look for additional cost savings. 

I have a question based on having the appearance of Secretary 

Vickers the other day for his nomination, and that is that he testified that 25 percent of the detainees that are being released from 

Guantanamo are going back into theater and engaging in hostilities again. I wanted to ask Secretary Gates whether that is an 

accurate figure and how that is informing our release decisions 

from Guantanamo. 

Secretary GATES. That is about the right figure based on the latest information that I have. 

I would say that we have been very selective in terms of returning people. One of the things we have discovered over time is that 

we are not particularly good at predicting which returnee will be 

a recidivist. Some of those that we have considered the most dangerous and who have been released or who we considered dangerous and potentially going back into the fight have not, and some 

that we evaluated as not being much of a danger or much of a risk 

we have discovered in the fight. 

Then I would say that the NDAA of Fiscal Year 2011 imposes 

some additional restrictions on who we can release, and Congress 

put me in the uncomfortable position of having to certify people 

who get returned, that they are no longer a danger. So I will tell 

you that that raises the bar very high as far as I am concerned. 

Senator AYOTTE. One of the concerns that I think this raises as 

well is if we are able to capture a high-value target in an area 

50 

where we may not currently be engaged in a direct conflict, where 

are we going to put these individuals if the President still goes forward to attempt to close Guantanamo? 

Secretary GATES. I think the honest answer to that question is 

we do not know if we capture them outside of the areas where we 

are at war and are not covered by the existing war authorizations. 

One possibility is for such a person to be put in the custody of their 

home government. Another possibility is that we bring them to the 

United States. After all, we have brought a variety of terrorists to 

the United States and put them on trial in Article III courts here 

over the years, but it will be a challenge. 

Senator AYOTTE. Would that cause you to make a different recommendation to the President on closing Guantanamo given the 

challenges that it presents? 

Secretary GATES. I think we are in the position, frankly, that the 

prospects for closing Guantanamo, as best I can tell, are very, very 

low given very broad opposition to doing that here in Congress. 

Senator AYOTTE. But we also are not using it to add additional 

detainees there that might be appropriate for holding at Guantanamo either, are we? 

Secretary GATES. Not at this point. 

Senator AYOTTE. I wanted to ask you about the reset equipment 

for combat within the budget. I am concerned about the lower funding levels proposed in fiscal year 2012 to reset equipment for combat units returning from deployments. I wanted to get your 

thoughts on that part of the budget. 

On September 11, 2010, the New Hampshire National Guard deployed the largest number of guardsmen and women since World 

War II for our State, and these troops will be returning in the second half of this year. I know that reset is more than just buying 

equipment. It includes manning time and time to train. So restoring readiness levels takes time. But I also know that the National 

Guard units have historically been at the end of the food chain in 

getting new equipment and resources for training. This can impact 

their readiness for Federal missions but also can impact their responsiveness to State emergencies. 

So with this in mind, how confident are you in that the amounts 

included in the fiscal year 2012 budget for the services for reset 

will allow all units in the Active and Reserve components to be 

able to address the critical readiness needs that we have going forward? 

Secretary GATES. One of the things that has happened over the 

past 4 years that I am very proud of is that when I assumed this 

position, the historic equipment on hand percentage across the 

board for the National Guard was about 70 percent, and when I 

took this job, it was at about 40 percent. It is now on a national 

basis at about 77 percent. What has changed now compared with 

the past, just to your point about the food chain, is the Guard now 

is getting the same kind of equipment that the Active Force has. 

So they are getting much higher quality equipment. At the same 

time, they are getting more equipment. 

How fast we can do this for units that are coming back from conflict is going to be a challenge because it is a lot of money. One of 

the concerns that I have about the CR is that there is some reset 

51 

money in there, and it is going to be very difficult for us to execute. 

One of the things that we will have to do, if we get a year-long CR, 

we will have to get pretty close to shut down the recapitalization 

of the humvees at Red River and Letterkenny depots. So all of 

these things are tied together, but it is going to be a challenge. 

Until a year or 2 ago, we would have testified to you that we will 

need reset money for at least a couple of years after the conflict 

ends, and we think that is probably now a longer period of time, 

longer than 2 years. 

The problem is that when the conflicts end, that reset money for 

the most part has come out of these OCO budgets, and finding the 

dollars for a significant reset after the end of the conflict, if we are 

not getting any OCO funding, I think will be a big challenge for 

us. 

Senator AYOTTE. I know that my time is up. 

I thank you very much, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. I 

appreciate it. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Aloha, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen and Secretary Hale. 

I want to thank you all for your leadership and service. Secretary 

Gates, if this is your final budget testimony before this committee, 

I would like to say that I appreciate the excellent job that you have 

done leading our military. I want to also thank the brave men and 

women of our armed forces and their families for their service. 

Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, I applaud the steps taken 

to care for our servicemembers’ mental well-being. I believe that 

taking care of those defending our Nation is a responsibility and 

not a choice. I also believe that the healing process should also account for families as well. 

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the progress DOD 

is making in helping families as a whole as they work through the 

challenges of PTSD, TBI, and other stress-inducing situations for 

families. 

Admiral MULLEN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. I know that you have 

focused on these issues, and all of us greatly appreciate that. I 

think we are in a much better position than we were a few years 

ago, but we also have a much better understanding of the size of 

the problem. 

I will speak specifically to families first. While early on there was 

a great deal of focus on spouses, in terms of the stress that they 

have undergone, what I have seen certainly over the course of the 

last couple years is an increasing awareness and understanding of 

the need to address the whole family, including the kids, as they 

have been stressed. I mean, if you are in a high-end, high-rotation 

unit and you were 10 years old when these wars started, and you 

had mostly your dad, but mom and dad, on their fourth or fifth deployment, you just went off to college and you basically almost 

have not seen your dad. There are issues associated with that that 

I think we are going to have to deal with in the long run. A 15- 

year-old in one of these military families—their whole life has been 

at war. That is something a lot of us have never been through. 

52 

So there has been an extraordinary amount of effort placed in 

terms of prioritizing inside each of the Services to get at the major 

issues. It is not just the stress and the mental stress. We are short 

health care providers, although we are up dramatically from where 

we were in 2001. We were in the 1,000 range in 2001. We are over 

7,000 now. We have TRICARE health providers that are almost 

50,000, but we are still short. The country is short, and we have 

to figure out a better way to break through, to join with the VA, 

another committee I know that is near and dear to your heart as 

chairman, and work together with the VA and, quite frankly, with 

communities throughout the country to get at this. 

The last thing I would say is the initiative that the First Lady 

has undertaken and announced with the President about a month 

ago, an extraordinarily important issue focused on military families 

across a number of issues to include this—it is wellness. It is education. It is employment. It is child care—signed up by all the Secretaries from every department, 16 of them, is a huge step forward 

in terms of giving this visibility in a way that we just have not had 

before. 

So I am more optimistic than I have been, but we have some substantial steps that need to be taken. 

Secretary GATES. I would like to just mention two things, Senator. One is one of the significant changes, I think, we have made 

in the last 3 years or so—we have moved virtually—we used to pay 

for—most of these family programs associated with those who are 

deployed and the challenges that they have been facing have been 

in the supplementals and in the OCO funding. We have over the 

last 3 years moved virtually all of that money into the base budget 

so that long after the war funding ends, we will be able to sustain 

these family-oriented programs. This year, I think we have $8.3 billion in the budget for these programs, and that is about a $200 million increase over fiscal year 2011. 

Senator AKAKA. I know your concern goes back also to the 

TRICARE program probably needing more resources than they 

have had before. 

Secretary Gates, I believe that an electronic medical record system would be very beneficial to current and former military families and members, as well as the health care providers. Mr. Secretary, can you provide an update on where DOD is on electronic 

health records? 

Secretary GATES. We will get you an answer for the record that 

has the details. 

Military Health System (MHS) medical facilities use the Armed Forces Health 

Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

current electronic health record (EHR) capability, as part of a family of systems. 

AHLTA generates, maintains, stores and provides secure online access to comprehensive outpatient records. The current DOD EHR family of systems forms one 

of the largest ambulatory EHRs in the world, with documentation of an average of 

145,000 clinical encounters each day. The MHS is currently executing a plan to improve system speed, operational availability and the user interface to enhance provider satisfaction until interagency EHR (iEHR) capabilities are delivered. Executing this plan allows MHS to meet providers’ near term needs, while better preparing our applications and supporting infrastructure for the EHR Way Ahead. 

The DOD EHR Way Ahead Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) is ongoing. Because 

DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are engaged in concurrent EHR 

modernization efforts, significant opportunities for collaboration exist. To achieve 

common objectives, a DOD–VA EHR Senior Coordinating Group has been estabVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
53 

lished. The group, which consists of representatives from DOD, VA, and the White 

House, is charged with reaching agreement on a proposed approach to a DOD–VA 

iEHR. 

The Senior Coordinating Group established six teams to reach agreements on proposed courses of action. The six teams are the Enterprise Architecture, Data Interoperability, Business Process, Systems Capabilities Presentation Layer, and Mission 

Requirements and Performance Outcomes Teams. The agreements reached by the 

group will form the basis for a proposed DOD–VA iEHR approach. 

On February 12, 2011, a high-level common data and architecture approach was 

presented to and subsequently endorsed by the Deputy Secretaries of DOD and VA 

and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Regardless of the alternative 

selected as a result of the DOD AoA, the agreements made by the Departments will 

apply to the iEHR. Additional meetings between Secretary Shinseki and I will occur 

to further define high level plans for the iEHR. 

Secretary GATES. I will tell you we have made a lot of progress, 

but it is not fast enough as far as Secretary Shinseki and I are concerned. He and I met, just the two of us, about 2 weeks ago to try 

and accelerate this effort. So he and I will meet again with our 

staffs in the middle of March to assess where we are and what 

needs to be done to move this forward and get it done. Then we 

will have a follow-up meeting at the end of April. 

I have found, unfortunately, with these huge bureaucracies, 

whether it is Veterans Affairs or DOD, that things like this that 

are big projects do not move very fast if they do not get high-level 

attention. So Secretary Shinseki and I are both committed to making as-fast-as-possible progress on this. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Gates, 

Admiral Mullen, I very much appreciate the fact that you opened 

your testimony with highlighting the damaging effects of a yearlong CR on DOD. I am very concerned about these impacts. Senator Bill Nelson and I recently wrote to our leaders suggesting that 

we should be working on the defense appropriations bill right now. 

I made a similar suggestion to our leaders last fall, advice that unfortunately they did not take. 

But I will say to my colleagues that it is inconceivable to me that 

we have spent the past 10 days debating the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, not to say that that is not important, 

but it pales in comparison to the urgency of acting on the defense 

appropriations bill. 

So I hope our Senate leaders heard you loud and clear today and 

that we will return next week and make that our first order of 

business. Certainly the impact that you have outlined is a disaster, 

and there is just no need for us to be debating a bill that is not 

urgent when we should be doing a high priority bill and certainly 

the passage of the defense appropriations bill is the highest priority. So thank you for your testimony on that. 

Admiral Mullen, in your testimony you stated that one of the 

greatest success stories this year has been the growth and development of the ANSFs. You went on to say that that has gone incredibly well. I understand that that is going well generally, and I also 

understand how imperative it is that we build up those forces so 

that we can eventually leave Afghanistan. 

54 

But I want you to know that I am concerned that the focus on 

so rapidly increasing the number of Afghan security forces is shortchanging the vetting of those recruits. Recently six U.S. military 

personnel, including Private 1st Class Buddy McClain of Maine, 

were killed by an Afghan border police officer. The press have reported that in the past 13 months, Afghan personnel have attacked 

our military personnel or our coalition partners six times. 

What are we doing to better vet those Afghan recruits to ensure 

that tragic incidents and attacks like this do not occur? 

Admiral MULLEN. Certainly it is, Senator Collins, each one of 

them, a tragedy. 

To go to the overall structure, when I go back 12 months or 15 

months with General Caldwell and what we had then versus what 

we have now, we have moved incredibly quickly. But we have also 

focused on the quality of the move, and by that I mean the quality 

of the instructors, the quality of the infrastructure, a substantial 

training program that was virtually nonexistent there before. The 

Secretary talked earlier about the improvement in literacy. We are 

now focused very much on the need to both train in specific skill 

sets, and all of this while we are obviously fighting a war, moving 

pretty quickly, moving very quickly to ensure, as best we can, that 

nothing like that in the security forces, the military or the police, 

occurs. I would assure you there is a tremendous amount of focus 

on this with respect to the leadership. 

That said, tragically these things do occur on occasion. They did 

in Iraq. They do in Afghanistan. While we will do everything we 

can to eliminate them, I would not sit here and tell you that we 

will be 100 percent successful with respect to that. 

Every one of these is investigated thoroughly. Every one of them. 

In fact, the one to which you refer—I went through this with General Caldwell specifically. What happened? What do we know about 

this guy? What was the background? There was not a lot there 

with respect to his background that would have led him to specifically take that action to kill our six troops. So we take that. We 

investigate it. We certainly integrate that back into what we are 

doing, but it is a big challenge. 

Senator COLLINS. Secretary Gates, I applaud you for holding accountable both military and civilian personnel who have failed to 

perform adequately. On Tuesday, Senator Lieberman and I met 

with one of the victims of the Fort Hood massacre, Sergeant Alonzo 

Lunsford. He was accompanied by friends and family members, as 

well as other family members who had lost loved ones in this attack. The very first question that they asked Senator Lieberman 

and me and the one that I pose to you today is when will the supervisors that filed such misleading officer evaluation reports regarding Major Hassan be held accountable. 

These evaluation reports ignored his increasingly erratic behavior, his poor performance as a physician. We know from our investigation that one of his commanding officers told the people at Fort 

Hood you are getting our worst, and yet when you read the officer 

performance evaluations, they are glowing by and large. So this attack occurred 15 months ago, and what the victims and their family members are asking us is when will these individuals be held 

accountable. 

55 

Secretary GATES. At my request, the Secretary of the Army has 

undertaken an investigation to address this specifically, and the 

latest information that I have is that he is nearing decisions on 

this. So I do not have a precise timeline, but I think in the very 

near future he will be reaching his conclusions and taking whatever actions he deems appropriate. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

My time has expired. I am going to submit some questions for 

the record. 

Admiral Mullen, I do want to mention to you that I am very concerned about the increase in suicides among the National Guard. 

I recently had the honor to welcome back a company of Maine National Guard men and women who have spent a year in Afghanistan. It seems to me we are doing a better job in helping the Active-Duty Force which has those resources more readily available, 

but I am really concerned about whether we are providing that 

same kind of support to the Guard and Reserve. 

Admiral MULLEN. I said this many times. We would be nowhere 

close to where we are in these wars without the extraordinary performance of the Guard and Reserve, and they deserve every bit the 

attention that everybody else has gotten. 

Certainly on the suicide issue, it is a huge concern to all of us. 

The Services are working it and, in particular, the surge in that 

over the last year on the Guard side. So there is a great deal of 

effort to try to, first of all, understand it and then address it, as 

we have in the Services as well. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

I think Senator Collins speaks for all of us on that issue of suicide. Thank you. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by associating myself with the remarks of Chairman Levin and Senator McCain and others about your extraordinary service, Mr. Secretary, to the Nation throughout your tenure 

in difficult times and making difficult judgments. Thank you for 

what you have done and we continue to wish you well as you continue to serve. 

Admiral Mullen, I know in October you will finish your tour, and 

I will add that commendation to you for your extraordinary service 

of 43 years in uniform in the U.S. Navy and to all your colleagues 

at DOD. 

Let me emphasize what you all have emphasized. It is absolutely 

critical to fund the defense budget going forward not in an ad hoc, 

every 60 days basis, but over a long period of time to provide certainty for programs, certainty for strategy. 

But there is another aspect of our national strategy that is increasingly important and that is the role the DOS will play in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. Mr. Secretary, I would assume that you would 

stress with the same urgency the need to fund those types of DOS 

programs in Iraq and Afghanistan because otherwise what you 

have accomplished and, more specifically, what young men and 

women in our military forces have accomplished could be severely 

56 

jeopardized and our national security severely threatened if we do 

not follow through. 

A concern that many of us have is that you are able to summon 

an almost reflexive response by the American people when you talk 

about helping men and women in uniform. That same response is 

not elicited when people start criticizing foreign aid which this 

could be labeled. I just think it would be helpful if you would comment on this issue of the need also to support that effort. 

Secretary GATES. First of all, I would say that for the entire time 

I have been in this job, I have been an advocate for more money 

for the DOS. Actually this dates back to my days in the Central 

Intelligence Agency (CIA) when we had case officers collecting information that any good political officer in the Foreign Service 

could get, but there were not enough. So it has been a concern of 

mine all along. 

I would say that right now it is a critically urgent concern because if DOS does not get the money that they have requested for 

the transition in Iraq, we are really going to be in the soup. We 

have spent probably close to $800 billion or $900 billion, perhaps 

more importantly, more than 4,000 lives, and here we are at the 

end game and it reminds me of the final scene in ‘‘Charlie Wilson’s 

War.’’ We have spent billions to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and we could not get a million dollars to build schools in Afghanistan in 1989 and 1990. 

The same thing is going to happen in Iraq. If we cannot have a 

transition to DOS and the police training function, if they do not 

have a presence in various places throughout Iraq, much of the investment that we have made in trying to get the Iraqis to the place 

they are is at risk in my view. The chairman mentioned the need 

for DOS funding in his opening statement. But you would find, I 

think, extraordinary support across the entire DOD for their budget, but more importantly our real worry that all that we have 

gained is potentially at risk if we do not have the kind of DOS 

presence and DOS activities in Iraq. 

Here is the other piece of the problem and it goes to the CR. DOS 

cannot spend the money to get ready right now. This is getting toward the end of February. There are facilities to be built. There are 

people to be hired, and they cannot do any of that. So we are going 

to run out of time in terms of being able to get this accomplished. 

So I hope that the passion in this reflects just how strongly we 

feel about this. This is really, really important. 

Admiral MULLEN. Senator Reed, just quickly, you talk about Iraq 

and Afghanistan. This is a global issue. This is not a lot of money 

invested in places around the world that prevent conflicts. The 

military does this. We have to do it with our partners in DOS, otherwise we are going back for a lot more investment and a lot more 

casualties. 

Senator REED. Mr. Hale, please. 

Mr. HALE. Let me just offer a brief additional point. For the first 

time, in fiscal year 2012, State will request a budget under the 

OCO fund. It will be very important for Congress to enact that and 

isolate the money that is associated with these operations, so I 

hope that’s favorably received. 

Senator REED. That’s an excellent point, Mr. Secretary. 

57 

Just, with Afghanistan, too, you mention ‘‘Charlie Wilson’s War.’’ 

We learned a very expensive lesson about not spending the million 

dollars in September 11, 2001, attacks. Frankly, particularly with 

Afghanistan, where at a point we might have to relearn that lesson, because the threats that are being organized against the 

United States and our allies are still emanating from border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, unless I’m mistaken. Is that a 

fair judgment, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely. The chairman refers to it as the 

epicenter of world terrorism. While al Qaeda has metastasized and 

has branches in Yemen and North Africa and elsewhere, the reality 

is, that border area with Afghanistan and Pakistan is still the 

heart of the problem. 

Senator REED. Let me make one follow up point about Afghanistan, because as the chairman mentioned, we were there recently. 

We are building an increasingly credible force there, but it’s a force 

that the government of Afghanistan cannot afford indefinitely. It’s 

much cheaper than our troops. But this is not just a 2- to 3-year 

commitment. This has to be a multi-year commitment to support 

their forces in the field. Not singly the United States, but the international community. We have to start now and build that in. Is, 

I think, is that another point you would agree with? 

Secretary GATES. I made the point earlier. I mean, I think that 

the international community and Afghanistan cannot afford a force 

of 375,000 Afghan National Security Fund (ANSF) indefinitely. We 

have to think of this, I think, more as a surge for the Afghans. 

With a political settlement and with the degrading of the Taliban, 

perhaps the size of the ANSF can come down to a point where it’s 

more affordable for us and for everybody else. But we have, just as 

an example, I mean, our fiscal year 2012 budget has in the OCO 

$12.8 billion to support the ANSF for 1 fiscal year. We can’t sustain that for many years. So, a lot depends on being successful by 

2014 in getting the transition to the Afghans. Even if we have to 

support it for a little after that, if we have most of our troops out 

of there, it’s still going to be a lot less money for the American taxpayers. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. When you go to your 

NATO meeting, I hope that you would also see what support we 

might be able to get for the continuing cost of an Afghan army 

from some of our NATO allies. In that regard it would be helpful 

as well. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any chance you’ll 

reconsider leaving, Secretary Gates? 

Secretary GATES. No, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. I didn’t think so. I just can’t thank you enough 

for what you’ve done for the country. Admiral Mullen. I just want 

to say something about the administration here. I know we have 

our differences. But when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think 

the policies you’ve created, the policies the President has supported, have been very sound. We’re about to reap the benefits of 

operations that have been tough, difficult, sometimes mismanaged, 

but that’s the nature of war. We’re very close in Iraq. So, I just 

58 

want to build on what Senator Reed said. I’m going to be the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Accounts on Appropriations. 

I’d like for you to put in writing to me and Senator Leahy what 

you said about this account. 

Let’s give a real world example. What did it mean in terms of 

the Egyptian crisis to have a good dialogue with the Egyptian military, Admiral Mullen? 

Admiral MULLEN. It was huge. It was the benefits of 30 years of 

investment of the interaction that we’ve had with thousands of 

them in our schools, the values that have rubbed off over time with 

them, the ability to sustain those contacts, and then see them act 

in such a responsible way. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think that’s a real world example of where 

30 years of investment really paid off. This account has been reduced to $45 billion in the House. I do share my House colleagues’ 

desire to reduce spending, and no account is above scrutiny. But 

the $5 billion that is flowing to Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan on 

the civilian side of the OCO account, what, are you telling us that, 

basically, that should be seen sort of as emergency spending and 

not counted against our baseline? 

Admiral MULLEN. I think, I mean, certainly some of it is tied to 

the military. But I think the Kerry-Lugar-Berman piece, that’s a 

5-year program at a billion and a half a year. That isn’t military, 

and that’s what we were taking about earlier. Sustaining that is 

going to be critical, not just now, but in the long term. 

Senator GRAHAM. I guess the point I’m making, we’re surging on 

the civilian side as we draw down our troops. The civilian-military 

partnership is essential to holding and building. 

Admiral MULLEN. Right. 

Senator GRAHAM. There are funds going to Pakistan, Iraq, and 

Afghanistan on the civilian side that I think will be just as important as any brigade, and I would like to treat those funds as a national security asset. I will do everything I can on the Republican 

side in the Senate to make sure that we protect those funds that 

you can’t hold and build without. 

Admiral MULLEN. Sure. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, here’s what a waste the American people—we’re talking about fiscal austerity at home. What is the percentage of GDP spending on defense when you count all appropriations? 

Secretary GATES. Well, two facts. First, the base budget 

alone—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. 

Secretary GATES.—is 3.7 percent of GDP. If you take all the war 

funding for fiscal year 2011, plus the base budget, it’s about 4.9 

percent of GDP. 

Senator GRAHAM. Historically—— 

Secretary GATES. But there’s another fact that’s worth noting—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Secretary GATES.—and that is that as a percentage of Federal 

outlays—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. 

59 

Secretary GATES.—with the exception of the late 1990s and early 

2000s, at 18.9 percent it is the lowest level of Federal percentage 

of outlays since before World War II. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Now, we need to understand that as a 

Congress here, the Secretary of Defense has just told us, and, since 

World War II terms, we’re on the very low end, at a time when I 

think the threats to our Nation are growing exponentially. Now, as 

we pull down in Iraq, it is your belief, if the Iraqi Government 

would ask for American troops to be left behind to perform the 

three functions you suggested, it would be in our national security 

interest to say yes? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, sir. I believe that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, there’s a fourth component—security for 

those who are going to be in the lead. DOS, the Department of Justice, Agriculture Department, the police trainers. My concern is, if 

we don’t have a sufficient military footprint, then DOS literally has 

to build its own security apparatus, which will be in excess of $5 

billion. Do you think, all things being equal, it would be better for 

the U.S. military to be able to continue to provide security? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, sir, I do. I’m, partly because we would also 

have the helicopters and things like that. The private security contractors that State’s going to have to hire to perform that role will 

not have some of the, quote, unquote, enablers that we have. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, see, this is the dilemma. We need to 

know this soon. Because DOS needs to build capacity. Do they buy 

helicopters? Do they buy 54 MRAMs? Is it wise to hire a private 

contractor army to replace the American military if the Iraqis will 

allow the American military to perform that function. So, the sooner we know the answer to that question, the more likely we are to 

be successful. Because I have grave concerns about building a DOS 

army. So, that’s must my 2 cents worth. 

Detainees. Admiral Mullen, our special operators are all over the 

world as I speak, is that correct? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. The threat from terrorism is just not confined 

to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Admiral MULLEN. It is not. 

Senator GRAHAM. What would we do as a nation if we were able 

to capture a high level al Qaeda operative in any country outside 

of Iraq or Afghanistan, let’s say, Somalia, Yemen, as examples. 

What would we do with that detainee? 

Admiral MULLEN. We don’t have an answer to that question. 

Senator GRAHAM. See, now, this is a big deal to me. We’re in a 

war, and capturing people is part of a intelligence gathering. It’s 

an essential component of this war. Do you agree with that, Admiral Mullen? 

Admiral MULLEN. Right. 

Senator GRAHAM. It is better to capture someone than it is to kill 

them in a lot of cases, is that correct? 

Admiral MULLEN. It is. 

Senator GRAHAM. It’s hard to capture someone if you don’t have 

a jail to put them. All those on the other side who want to stop 

renditions, we need to come up with an American jail, because 

we’re in, the only alternative is to kill them or go to renditions. I 

60 

hope, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes this year Republicans and 

Democrats can have a breakthrough on this issue to help our men 

and women fighting this war, because it is a very spot to put the 

special, a tough spot to put the special operators in. Our CIA 

doesn’t interrogate terror suspects any longer. These are things we 

need to talk about and get an answer to. 

Afghanistan. Not only is it miraculous what General Caldwell 

has done. It’s stunning to me that we’re in 2009 and 10, and 30 

percent of the NCO corps in Afghanistan could read. When he took 

over, he tested the Afghanistan army for literacy, and on paper, 

every NCO should read at the 3rd grade level. When they tested 

the NCO corps, 70 percent could not read at the 3rd grade level, 

and he is going about fixing that. So, you’re dead right. But, we 

need to know, after 8 years of involvement, 90 percent of the Afghan army could not shoot to NATO standards 18 months ago. So, 

after all these years we’re just finally getting it right. In many 

ways, we’ve been in Afghanistan with the right formulation for 

about 18 months. Is that a fair statement? 

Admiral MULLEN. That’s a fair statement, and it’s a very difficult 

discussion to have because it was 10 years ago when this started. 

Senator GRAHAM. I just want the American people to know that 

we’ve made mistakes, but we’re finally getting it right. 

One last thought. When 2014 comes, I am very optimistic that 

there will be a better Afghan police and army than we have today, 

that we can transition. But I’ve been discussing among my colleagues and others about what an enduring relationship with Afghanistan would look like. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that a political economic and military alliance with the Afghan people, at 

their request, would be incredibly beneficial to our long-term national security interest and could be a game-changer in the region. 

To both of you, what do you believe the effect of an enduring 

military relationship would be on the future security of Afghanistan and the region as a whole if the Afghans requested of us to 

have joint airbases past 2015? Would that be something you think 

it would be wise for us to talk about and consider? 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely, Senator. I think that, to go to, Admiral Mullen’s comments about Pakistan a little while ago, there 

is a big question in the whole region whether we will stick around. 

It’s in Afghanistan, it’s in Pakistan, it’s all over the area. A security agreement with Afghanistan that provided for a continuing relationship and some kind of joint facilities and so on for training, 

for counterterrorism and so on beyond 2014, I think would be very 

much in our interest. I think that it would serve as a barrier to 

Iranian influence coming from the West. I think it would serve as 

a barrier to a reconstitution of the Taliban and others coming from 

the border areas in Pakistan. So, I think it would be a stabilizing, 

have a stabilizing effect, not just in Afghanistan, but in the region. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you also agree that it would give an 

edge to the Afghan security forces in perpetuity over the Taliban, 

and you might, with that kind of a relationship, get by with a 

somewhat smaller army? 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Graham. 

Senator Hagan is next. 

61 

We have a vote now on the Senate’s schedule for 12:10. We’re 

going to try to work around that vote and to work through that 

vote. I’m going to turn the gavel over now to Senator Udall, because I have to leave for a few minutes as well. But, we’re going 

to try to keep going right through that vote the best we can. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will actually cut 

my own questions short, because I have to preside over the capsule 

that’s on the Senate floor at noon. But, I do want to say to all three 

of the individuals here, thank you so much for your service and 

your testimony, and the excellent work that you do for our country. 

I did want to agree with Senator Reed and Senator Graham on the 

concern, and Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, your concern 

about the funding for DOS and the foreign aid. I think that is critically important. As you both said, it certainly was evident as to 

what has taken place just recently in Egypt. 

I did want to talk a little bit about the health of the Special Operations Forces (SOF). Admiral Mullen, in your prepared remarks 

you acknowledged the continued stress on the force from 9 years 

of constant conflict. Last week Admiral Olson, Commander of the 

U.S. Special Operation Command (SOCOM), told an industry group 

that difficult and repeated deployments of Special Operations personnel are causing some fraying around the edges of the force. Admiral Olson also made the point that demand for SOF will continue 

to outstrip supply for the foreseeable future. 

Given the demand for these SOFs, not only in U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), but also in other parts of the world, for partnership and capacity-building activities, how does DOD intend to 

address the readiness issues identified by Admiral Olson? Admiral 

Mullen and Secretary Gates? 

Admiral MULLEN. I think, actually, the force has expanded, I 

think, from, when these wars started, around 30,000 to on a way 

to upwards of 56,000. I think there are insatiable appetites and requirements for Special Forces. The vast majority of them are in 

CENTCOM. That said, they actually are in many, many countries 

around the world, and they’re making investments for the future 

so that we don’t have to go to war in other parts of the world. I 

think his statement about fraying around the edges is right. 

They’ve been on, had a significant number of deployments. I think 

in Iraq, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan they’ll typically be the 

last forces out. So, the pressure is going to continue there. 

We’ve worked very, very hard both increasing size to increased 

dwell time. But as we do that, quite frankly, Petraeus asked for 

more, because they have such an impact. So, we’re on a very, we’re 

on a knife edge there with respect to this. They’re extraordinary in 

their performance and their execution. I consider the Care Coalition, which is the group that takes care of wounded families, families of the fallen, to be the Gold Standard in our military with respect to how we approach that. That said, they’re pushed very, very 

hard. 

From a readiness standpoint, as they come back and dwell time 

will increase, I think we’ll be fine in terms of giving them the time, 

and then to be able to disperse them to other parts of the world, 

which we have not been able to do in the kinds of numbers and 

62 

requests, because they’ve been so tied to CENTCOM. So, I think 

we will be able to meet that. But it’s going to be awhile until we 

get on the down side of both these conflicts. 

Secretary GATES. I would just add that with the increase in 

SOCOM and their higher level of activity, another one of the things 

that we’ve tried to do is move a lot of the SOCOM money, a lot of 

the Special Forces money, into the base budget, so that once these 

wars end we are able to sustain the larger Special Forces that we 

have, and properly equip them. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. The international security environment, particularly in cyberspace, continues to evolve. Cyber threats 

to our electrical grid, telecommunications, military networks, critical infrastructure, and the financial system pose serious concerns 

to our national security. 

Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what is DOD’s strategy to 

recruit, train, and retain cyber specialists, and what is the way forward to centralize the military cyberspace operations and U.S. 

Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), and to synchronize the defense 

networks? 

Secretary GATES. I think we’ve made a lot of progress in this 

area. The creation of CYBERCOM was in important step. I directed 

the Service Secretaries about a year ago to consider training in the, 

in cyber, to be their, one of their highest priorities and to ensure 

that all the spaces that we have in our schools for teaching cyber 

skills be filled at a priority level. I think they’ve made a lot of 

headway. We have a lot of money in this area. This budget for fiscal year 2012 has a half a billion dollars for cyber research at the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). So, and I 

think we’re in pretty good shape in terms of protecting the dot-mil 

world. This last summer, Secretary Napolitano and I signed a 

memorandum of understanding that give, that begins to move us 

in a direction where we can begin to do better at protecting dotgov and dot-com. The reality is, there was a big debate, and it went 

on in the Bush administration, and it continued in this administration, of people who did not, for, did not want to make use of the 

National Security Agency (NSA) in domestic cyber protection because of civil liberties and privacy concerns. What Secretary 

Napolitano and I did was arrive at an agreement where Department of Homeland Security senior officials are now integrated into 

NSA senior leadership. They have their own General Counsel, their 

own firewalls, their own protections, so that they can exploit and 

task NSA to begin to get coverage in the dot-gov and dot-com 

worlds. This is really important. I think it’s a start. But we still 

have a long way to go. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Admiral Mullen, anything to add to that? 

Admiral MULLEN. No. Ditto. I mean, it’s a huge concern. 

Senator HAGAN. Yes. 

Admiral MULLEN. A growing threat. A lot has been done. Schools 

are filled. But we have a long way to go. 

Senator HAGAN. I think it’s good that the schools are filled, it’s 

positive. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Chambliss is next. 

63 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, I don’t know what all this conversation is about, 

about saying great things about you because you’re leaving. We’re 

planning on you being, both being around here for awhile longer 

to help us make some very critical decisions. Whether it’s voluntary 

in your case, Secretary Gates, or your time is up, whatever, Admiral Mullen, to both of you, you provided a very valuable service to 

our country over this last short term. I’m not even counting the 

years and years and years that both of you have given. So, thank 

you very much for that service. Whether we’ve agreed or disagreed, 

you’ve always responded to me in a very professional way. I’m very 

appreciative of that relationship. 

I want to echo what Senator Graham said about this detention 

and interrogation issue. I mean, guys, we have a real problem 

there that needs to be addressed in the short term. I’m sure you’ve 

probably seen what, the way in which Director Panetta responded 

yesterday to a question I asked him about if we did capture bin 

Laden or Zawahiri. That just highlights the fact that we don’t have 

a plan, and we really do have to figure out something here. We 

thought Baghram might be the answer. But it looks like it’s obviously not long-term. So, we look forward to working with you on 

that. 

I continue to have, Secretary Gates, a TACAIR issue that just 

really bothers me with respect to where we are now. The further 

we get into the F–35, the more I’m concerned about this. 

In May 2009, just to go back a little bit, General Schwartz, Chief 

of Staff of the Air Force, testified that the military requirement for 

the F–22 was 240, or 60 more than DOD was willing to purchase. 

That summer there was a concerted effort made to strip funding 

for seven additional F–22s out of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010. 

Ultimately, obviously, and you’ve taken a lot of credit for the fact 

in your budget that the F–22 has been terminated and there’s a 

huge savings out there. 

First, there was an argument that the F–35 would be more affordable than the F–22. Secretary Gates, on July 16, 2009, in a 

speech in Chicago you personally stated that the F–35 would be 

less than half the total cost of the F–22. Since that time, the F– 

35 experienced a Nunn-McCurdy breach due to cost increases, and 

DOD has recently restructured the program again, delaying deliveries and again driving up the cost. 

Last month your own Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation 

Office established that the unit cost of a JSF average over variance 

has doubled since the program began to approximately $116 million per copy in fiscal year 2010 dollars. Things may even get 

worse. Of note, the price per copy for the last F–22s purchased was 

$130 million. 

Second, regarding the threats the United States may face in the 

future and our ability to maintain air supremacy, you downplayed 

the threat and stated again on July 16, Mr. Secretary, of 2009 in 

that Chicago speech that, and I quote, ‘‘China is projected to have 

no 5th generation aircraft by 2020.’’ Well, I heard what you said 

earlier in response to Senator Inhofe, but the fact is that last 

month China flew their first 5th generation fighter, the J–20, 

which your own intelligence experts predict will reach Initial OperVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
64 

ating Capability (IOC) with 20 aircraft, a 20-aircraft squadron well 

before 2020. Also, over a year ago Russia flew their 5th generation 

fighter, the PAC FA, which, again, your own intelligence experts 

predict will have an IOC date well before 2020. 

Third, Mr. Secretary, a year ago in this very room, when DOD 

was in the process of notifying Congress of an F–35 Nunn-McCurdy 

breach, you had just fired the F–35 program manager, and I asked 

you if you were going to revisit the issue of additional F–22 production. You responded, and I quote, ‘‘No, sir, because the IOCs, based 

on information that I was given in preparation for this hearing, the 

IOCs for the Services, for the arrival of the training squadron at 

Eglin all remain pretty much on track.’’ 

Even though we do have a plane you say that’s on schedule going 

to Eglin in May, and additional planes going in September, those 

are all test airplanes. A few months after you made that statement, 

the IOC date for the Air Force version slipped from 2013 to 2016, 

the IOC date for the Navy version slipped from 2014 to 2016, and 

the Marine Corps version has gone from a projected IOC date of 

2012, or next year, to being on a 1-year probation and not even 

having an IOC date. 

In light of all these developments, I hope you can understand 

why I am extremely concerned as we go into this budget about 

where we’re headed, gentlemen. In light of General Schwartz’s stated military requirement I need to ask you one more time, Mr. Secretary, is DOD considering the purchase of any additional F–22s? 

Secretary GATES. No, sir. We are not. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. DOD is spending billions of dollars to buy 

hundreds more 4th generation fighters, F–18s. DOD has linked at 

least some of these additional F–18 purchases directly to delays in 

the F–35 program. I can understand that. Can you explain why it 

makes sense to invest billions of taxpayer dollars in buying 4th 

generation F–18s, which are basically useless whenever there’s contested airspace, rather than buying additional F–22s, which can fly 

anywhere, anytime, in any airspace? 

Secretary GATES. Sir, first of all, let me say about the F–35 that 

the new program manager, Admiral David Venlet, probably the 

best acquisition person we have in uniform, has completed a comprehensive tactical baseline review. I think we have, now, it, he 

took several months to do this. I think we have greater understanding and granularity in terms of progress on the F–35. The reality is, both the Navy and Air Force variants have made substantial progress over the last year. The Air Force version flew twice 

as many flight tests as had been originally planned. 

It is training aircraft that are going to Eglin, and both for the 

Air Force and the Navy. We are investing money in upgrades to 

the F–22. There’s, there are hundreds of millions of dollars in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget to upgrade the F–22. Some of the lessons 

learned from the F–35 and the F–22 are being put into upgrades 

for our existing 4th generation aircraft that our people believe with 

those upgrades can take on the adversary’s best aircraft. 

I finally would say that this is China’s and Russia’s first low observable aircraft. We’ve been at this 20 years. I think that they are 

likely to run into a number of the same challenges we did early in 

65 

our stealth programs. I think that our tactical air situation will be 

in good shape. 

In addition, the Air Force has realized that they can upgrade 

some of their 400 F–16s to give them additional capability and 

sustainment, as well as the early block F–16s, and they’re upgrading the most recent blocks of F–16s. So, I think that combining all 

these different programs that we have in modernizing TACAIR, 

plus getting on with the F–35, now under new management and 

new leadership, I think that we’re in reasonably good shape. 

I would finally say, the last procurement that is, has been negotiated with Lockheed Martin, the Low-Rate Initial Production 4, actually has resulted in a fairly substantial decrease in the price of 

the F–35 for that particular buy, and we hope that we can continue 

that trend. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. There’s no question but that you’re increasing the risk, Mr. Secretary, and I hope that we don’t get down the 

road and realize that was too far a reach for us from a risk standpoint. 

I have a question that I’d like to ask Admiral Mullen for the 

record, and it’s on a little bit different tack. Admiral Mullen, we’re 

struggling with this issue of the deficit as well as debt reduction 

long-term. I have quoted you several times, as have a number of 

us, in saying that the number one national security interest of the 

United States is the long-term debt that we face. Would you mind 

just sending us a written statement amplifying on that record? Because your opinion, I can tell you, resonates around the world with 

respect to that issue. I’m thankful that you stood forward and you 

made that comment. I’d just like you to amplify it for the record. 

Admiral MULLEN. I’ve tried to stay out of trouble in doing that. 

But it really in its simplest form focuses on what I believe would 

be a shrinking national security budget. We are now involved in, 

as we should be, looking at ways to save money and do it more efficiently and effectively. But at some point in time, the size of our 

budget could have a dramatic effect on the size of our force structure. That’s the danger that’s there, given the national security requirements, which seem to be growing, not reducing, not getting 

smaller. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The ties between the strength of our economy and our Nation’s security are inseparable and incontrovertible. We need a vibrant, growing economy to exert influence internationally and to provide for our military and other defense capabilities. 

In turn, we need the security provided by our national defenses to underwrite our 

economic endeavors and our livelihoods. But today we find both our economy and 

our security threatened by our burgeoning national debt. 

The U.S. national debt is projected to quickly reach levels with few precedents for 

a nation not fully mobilized for war. Continued future budgetary pressures could 

make it extremely difficult for us to maintain the size and readiness of our military 

forces and to promote the technological innovation (in all areas not just defense) 

needed to preserve an advantage over our competitors. This could threaten our ability to maintain a credible deterrent against potential adversaries and to respond to 

security contingencies—large or small. 

In many ways, these budgetary pressures are a present reality, and we in the 

military have already started tightening our belts and working to become a more 

fiscally responsible Pentagon. 

How we should deal with the looming threat of our national debt is a historically 

necessary conversation. It will involve tough decisions with significant trade-offs, opportunity costs, and strategic risks. What we do, or don’t do, will shape our Nation 

for decades to come. 

66 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Chambliss, and thank you, 

Senator Chambliss, for your work with Senator Warner on this 

very important challenge related to our annual deficits and our 

long-term debt. I know there are many senators who are eager to 

work with you in this important mission. Thank you. 

Senator Blumenthal, you’re recognized. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join the chairman, ranking member, and others on the committee in thanking you for your extraordinary service, Admiral 

Mullen and Secretary Gates. In particular, for your continued commitment to the JSF and the single-engine, and the submarine 

building program, which I know was reiterated as recently as yesterday in remarks in Florida. So, I assume that will continue. I 

want to express my thanks. In particular, I’d like to focus on one 

area of your prepared testimony, Admiral Mullen, relating to the 

injuries of many of these young men and women returning from 

these conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, TBIs that are 

new in their magnitude and number, and ask you perhaps to describe more specifically what is being done in terms of the treatment, both in-service and veterans. Also, what can be done to enlist 

the growing number of private efforts, for example, the Woodruff 

Foundation, which you may be familiar with, that could provide resources. 

Admiral MULLEN. One of the areas we’ve struggled in throughout 

these wars is the stigma issue, will I raise my hand and ask for 

help. On my most recent trip into Afghanistan, which was December, I was with the Command Sergeant Major there for the 101st, 

and he relayed to me an extraordinary statistic, which essentially 

had those that were in concussive events, essentially they were returning to duty at about 98 percent. 

We have put in place procedures, if you are in a concussive 

event, within 50 meters, et cetera, you get pulled out of the fight. 

One of the reasons that the return to duty rate is so high is because we’re treating them well literally in the battlefield, as fast 

as possible. If they’re asked, they’re willing, because they’re not 

going to get sent home, they’re willing to raise their hand and say, 

I need some help. 

Now, we have a long way to go on stigma, in post-traumatic 

stress, et cetera, in families with the same challenges. But we actually have made some progress there. We have, at the same time, 

I have been struck, in the TBI, the difficult ones are the mild ones. 

The most serious are ones that become very obvious. But it is the 

mild ones oftentimes that your, you don’t see your symptoms for 

months, or you don’t admit you have them. It is those who obviously are in the military, those who transfer then, who transfer out 

of the military back to communities throughout the country. 

I’ve also been struck, I’m going to use a comparison, when you 

look at Walter Reed or Balboa, or the Intrepid Center for the amputees, and where we are, we’re, I would argue, leading the world 

with respect to that. That’s just not the case in TBI because there’s 

a lot of newness to this that surprised me. We know a lot about 

the brain, but we don’t know a lot about how these injuries affect 

the brain. So, we’ve tried to reach out, not just, not to reach and 

67 

understand it just inside the military, but reach experts throughout 

the country who are contributing in ways—there’s a Brain Center 

at UCLA, for instance, which has contributed significantly—and to 

get the best minds that we can across, throughout the country to 

help us work our way through this. But, I’m struck that we’re in 

the nascent stages of this even at, even in this year, in so many 

ways. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Is there a specific command or a structure 

within either the Pentagon or dealing through the VA that is coordinating this effort? 

Admiral MULLEN. There is, there’s not a single point of contact. 

There’s, obviously, a significant effort inside the Pentagon. We have 

taken steps to try to work with the VA, and then also understand 

the capabilities that are out in the country as we’ve engaged for 

those who’ve transferred back home. But there’s an awful lot we 

still have to do to make those connections so we’re all working it 

together, which is going, which I think would be the most effective. 

We’re just not there yet. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. To take a related subject, I’m sure you are 

familiar with reports about the danger of a combination of different 

pharmaceutic drugs—— 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—in treatment of post-traumatic stress 

and similar kinds of phenomenon. I wonder if you or Secretary 

Gates could describe efforts being made to address those dangers. 

Admiral MULLEN. Sometimes we’re slow to need because we’ve 

gone through a time where we have, in too many cases, over-medicated, too many prescriptions. Not just in the battlefield or back 

here when they get back, but also in the VA. What, in particular, 

the Army has done recently is put in place a much more aggressive 

multifaceted treatment regime which expands beyond drugs to 

yoga, to acupuncture, to other forms which have proven positive to 

support those who’ve been through the kind of combat that they’ve 

been through. So, I’m actually encouraged by that significant effort 

put forward now to try to back off of that over-medication. That’s 

not in, that’s going to take us awhile. But, certainly it’s a concern 

we all have. 

Secretary GATES. I’d say there are two additional problems here 

that we have to deal with. One is servicemembers stockpiling prescriptions. The second is, the frequency with which servicemembers 

will go outside the military healthcare system and get prescriptions. We don’t have any visibility into that in terms of just how 

much medication they’re taking, or how those drugs all interact 

with one another. So, these are all areas that we’re aware of and 

trying to work on. But we still have a ways to go. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. 

I want to add my concern to those that have been expressed already about the JSF and what is happening with that program. I 

appreciated your comments about the efforts to get the program 

back on track, and I certainly hope that that is correct and the proVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
68 

gram will go forward and it will be effective with those efforts to 

readjust it. 

I also want to commend DOD on your decision to cancel the 

planned purchase and production of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program. I’m new here, so I’m still getting 

the acronyms down. But, I think it’s important, as DOD found, that 

we can’t afford to purchase MEADS and make the critical investments that we need to make in the Patriot over the next two decades. So, I certainly hope Congress will support your decision and 

press for the continued Patriot modernization. 

Admiral Mullen, during the House hearing yesterday you 

touched on something that you just referenced a little bit just now 

in your exchange with Senator Blumenthal, and that is about research into what we need to know about brain injuries. You talked 

about the importance of consistent and sustained support for research and development in our military budgets. Can you talk 

about whether you feel like the budget that’s been submitted adequately addresses that to prepare us for the future? What have 

been the most cost-effective efforts that the military’s used to leverage research and development (R&D) in the budget? 

Admiral MULLEN. I’ll be very specific to focus on Secretary Gates 

because, and he spoke earlier, his frustration that if you’re a leader 

of one of these bureaucracies, there are things that, if you really 

want to get it done you’re going to have to focus on it personally. 

This is another area, probably 2 years ago, 3 years ago, that he 

made a priority to ensure that we actually were growing in science 

and technology (S&T) and R&D. What’s happened over the course 

of the last 2 decades is many of the programs we’ve talked about— 

I’ll use JSF—has R&D money, but what it’s really become program 

money, and it’s not true R&D. So, I think for, particularly as budgets tighten and we look to capabilities in the future, we can’t buy 

it all, we can’t protect against everything. But having a robust S&T 

base, 6.1 through 6.5 and 6.6, is really important in terms of being 

ready for things in the future. So, even in these times where 

there’s an extraordinary amount of pressure on the budget, and I 

think that will increase, I think we have to continue to get that 

right. 

You talk about most effective. I think the investment—and this 

is not an uncontroversial, sometimes an uncontroversial investment—but I’ve watched DARPA over the many years work, and 

they really reach at some of the, to get at some of the most difficult 

problems. I think we need to be mindful of sustaining that investment as well, for example. One other comment is, the S&T or the 

R&D investment in the medical field to get at brain research, and 

that, as I understand this budget, that actually is in pretty good 

shape as well. 

Secretary GATES. I would just amplify that by saying that in this 

budget there is $1.1 billion for and TBI and PTSD research. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. In New Hampshire we have a 

very significant defense industry that has been doing a lot of cutting edge research, and I know that DARPA’s role has been very 

important in promoting that research. 

The National Guard and Reserves, as you all have said, has 

played a huge role in allowing us to be effective in Iraq and AfVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
69 

ghanistan. In New Hampshire, as Senator Ayotte pointed out, 

we’ve seen the largest deployment of our Guard since World War 

II. I appreciated everyone’s expressed commitment, again, to the 

health and well-being of all the servicemen and women and their 

families. 

One of the things that we have done—and Admiral Mullen, 

again, I think you’ve been briefed personally on the Full Cycle Deployment program that we have in New Hampshire, that is a 

model to help families both as they’re preparing for deployment 

and when they return, as well as the member who’s being deployed. This program has been supported by congressionally-directed spending—earmarks—which are not likely to continue. So, 

are there, are you looking at models like this as you think about 

developing ways to be most effective in supporting Guard and Reserves who are deploying? Are there ways in which, as the congressionally-directed spending ends, that we can continue to support 

these kinds of programs that have been so effective? 

Admiral MULLEN. Senator, when you speak to this, and as you 

have spoken to the, and the way you’ve spoken to it, I’m immediately reminded of the need to be, build resilience in our people 

and families, literally from the first day they come into the Guard, 

Reserve, or on active duty in all Services. We’ve come to understand that. We’ve actually made some significant progress there, 

but we still have a long way to go. We’ve built more of it in our 

members than we have in our families, and we need to build it in 

the families as well. 

I would need to get back to you with a more specific answer on, 

because I want to know more about the, where your program, 

where the New Hampshire program is. Because what we do try to 

do is canvas the field and look at the best programs that are out 

there, and then inspire others to grab those. So, in particular, I’d 

be happy to do that and get back to you. As I speak, I really don’t 

know where there resourcing side of it is with respect to that kind 

of, with respect to the program in New Hampshire. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I withdrawal very much appreciate your getting back to me. Thank you. My time has expired. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The New Hampshire Deployment Cycle Support Program (NH DCSP) has generated promising results by establishing a support system that starts as soon as deployments are identified and directly engaging the individual servicemember and 

his or her family in their community. The prevention-based approach allows for assessing risks and resiliencies, early action to mitigate those risks, and ongoing support throughout the deployment cycle. 

Compared to non-participating New Hampshire Army National Guard members, 

those accessing DCSP have shown to have been more favorably impacted across a 

number of areas: suicides, resiliency, mental health, family fitness, readiness to deploy, retention, unemployment, and homelessness. Among the prominent outcomes 

are: 

• Of 30 at risk of suicide (28 servicemembers and 2 spouses), all are using 

NH DCSP in active prevention with a licensed clinician and support team 

• Of 77 servicemembers deemed ‘‘at risk’’ of not deploying due to mental 

health issues, DCSP intervention enabled more than half of those (43) to 

deploy 

• Over a 2-year period, the percentage of DCSP SMs choosing to remain 

in service was four times higher 

Being a publicly- and privately-funded service delivery system that includes utilization of social service capacities in all 234 New Hampshire communities presents 

70 

a useful model which warrants emulation. As fiscal limitations become more pronounced, the Department of Defense will have to weigh support of NH DCSP 

against other competing priorities. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Senator McCaskill is recognized. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, as always, for being here. 

I want to say, Secretary Gates, that I know the President has an 

awful lot of hard decisions to make this year. I think one of the 

hardest decisions he has is how he’s going to replace you. 

Let me start with a topic that is very difficult, I think, for you 

all to get your arms around, and that is the incredibly serious allegations that have been made about sexual assault within the military. I’m not assuming that the allegations that are contained in 

a lawsuit that was recently filed are true. But if we take them as 

factual, then we have a real serious problem, that a woman in our 

military was raped by more than one member of the military, and 

the video shared around the unit of this rape that had occurred. 

A woman raped and who goes to the chaplain, and the chaplain 

tells her that she needed to go to church more, if she would attend 

church more. 

The rape kits are only kept for a year. I can’t think of a police 

department in the country that would only hold onto a rape kit for 

a year. 

I just think that we have to look at this problem in a systemic 

way in terms of, do these women have a safe place they can go? 

Are we gathering the evidence quickly? Or, do we have experts 

available in terms of prosecuting these cases? 

But if someone rapes a woman and the evidence is there, and 

that person doesn’t end up in prison, then we have failed. I know 

that you all feel probably as strongly about this as I do. But I’d like 

you to address this and tell me what, who I should deal with within the military structure to follow up and make sure that we make 

some obviously very important changes that are needed. 

Secretary GATES. Senator, it is a problem. It’s a serious problem. 

I have zero tolerance for any kind of sexual assault, as do the leaders of all of the Services. I’ve worked with Admiral Mullen and the 

Service Chiefs and Service Secretaries to ensure that we’re doing 

all we can to respond to sexual assaults. 

I’ve engaged, had a number of meetings myself with the senior 

leadership of DOD. I’ve focused on four areas—reducing the stigma 

associated with reporting, ensuring sufficient commander training, 

ensuring investigator training and resourcing, and ensuring trial 

counsel training and resourcing. We’ve made some progress. We’ve 

hired dozens more investigators, field instructors, and prosecutors, 

and lab examiners. We’ve spent almost $2 million over the past 2 

years training our prosecutors better. Generally, the defendants go 

to somebody who’s specialized in this kind of allegation or crime, 

and our prosecutors tend to be generalists, and so we don’t do very 

well in the court, and so we’ve spent this money to try and make 

our prosecutors effective. 

More victims are stepping forward. We have had improvement, 

or, an increase in the number of court-martials. We’ve gone from 

about 30 percent of alleged violators being court-martialed to about 

52 percent now. So, at least it’s headed in the right direction. 

71 

We’ve expanded the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator and 

Victim Advocate Program ten-fold, from about 300 to 3,000. We 

now have an advocate at every base and installation around the 

world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I heard some suggestions and comments yesterday in the House 

hearing that I take very seriously and would like to pursue. One 

of them is ensuring the confidentiality of the relationship between 

the victim advocate and a victim, ensuring, or, providing a military 

lawyer for victims. Commanders have the authority to move somebody out of a unit. I’m worried by the press accounts that that 

hasn’t happened, and so they’re considering over on the House side 

legislation that would create this as a right for somebody who’s 

been a victim so they can get out of a unit where the person who 

attacked them is in the same unit, and so on. So, I think there are 

some ideas that I heard in that hearing yesterday that I think are 

definitely worth pursuing. So, we do take it seriously. 

I’ve taken this seriously, frankly, because sexual assault is a 

problem on university campuses. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Secretary GATES. Texas A&M, just like every big public university in America has a problem with this. One of the suggestions 

that I’ve made to our folks working on this is to get in touch with 

some of the universities that have the best prevention programs in 

the country, to see if we can learn something from these universities. 

So, I think we have a broad program to try and tackle this. But 

there is no question that there’s more to do. I just invite Admiral 

Mullen to comment. 

Admiral MULLEN. I testified over here in 2004. I was a vice chief 

of the Navy on this subject. There was a lot of work that needed 

to be done. It was very obvious in all the Services. I testified with 

my three Vice Service Chiefs. So, I agree with what the Secretary 

said in terms of our having made progress. It’s not enough. It’s 

completely intolerable. It has to be answered, I think, on the sort 

of the skill side, as well as the leadership side. I still hear too many 

anecdotal stories where it’s ongoing, including in theater. 

With my wife, we visit VA hospitals, and females talk about trying, having come in the military, previously sexually assaulted before they came in, coming into the military, looking for a safe 

haven, and finding out that it isn’t. It’s almost, it’s an intensity 

that certainly is not expected. 

This is, Senator, a vastly under-reported offense. So, we can see 

the statistics we have, but it’s the ones that we don’t have that we 

have to get after as well. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I guarantee that—— 

Admiral MULLEN. While we’ve made a lot of progress, there’s a 

lot left to do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I guarantee that it’s more under-reported in 

the military than it is even on a university campus or in the civilian population at large. 

I would just make one suggestion. Having spent many, many, 

many, many hours and days in courtrooms prosecuting sexual assault cases as a young prosecutor, I relied heavily on people who 

had specialized in prosecuting those crimes for my training. I relied 

72 

heavily on the victim advocacy network that we had on, in terms 

of rape victims. 

In the civilian sector in any major city you’re going to have a 

large group of people with great expertise. I know they would volunteer their time to help train and mentor people that you need 

to have this expertise, whether it’s people at the emergency rooms 

that are gathering rape kits, having a victim advocate with the victim at the hospital when the rape kit, or the medical facility, where 

the rape kit is gathered, whether it’s victim advocacy. I think you 

could find, and I’ve mentioned to General Quantock at Fort Leonard Wood that I would be happy to assist him getting in touch with 

this expertise that exists out there. I think that these people that 

do this, they aren’t rape prosecutors and sexual assault prosecutors 

because they’re making big money. They’re very much true believers and want to help in this regard. The same thing is true of the 

victim advocacy organizations. I think this is one where you might 

be able to get a lot of free training and get you guys up to the point 

where the civilian population has gotten over the last 20 or 30 

years. 

Thank you for your interest in this. I’ll continue to follow up. I 

just want to let you know, two questions that I want to do for the 

record. One, obviously, is continuing, the problem we’re having auditing the Pentagon. I cannot see how we can continue to give you 

what you ask for if we can’t see the measurable progress in terms 

of auditing the Pentagon. I will have a series of questions about the 

financial management system that’s in place. 

The last thing is pointing out for the record and questions for 

you for the record, that I know the GDP of Afghanistan is not large 

enough to pay for the military we’re building. I think it’s time that 

we be very, very honest with the American people that we’re building the Afghan military for the nation. It costs what, $12 billion 

a year? Their GDP isn’t even that high. So, once we’re gone, I think 

we’re going to be on the hook to help pay for this military for a 

long time—cheaper than our folks being there. But I think we need 

to begin to talk about the responsibility for paying for this military 

down the line. Because clearly Afghanistan can’t afford the army 

we’re building. 

Thank you. 

Secretary GATES. Senator, the contact person that you asked for 

is Dr. Clifford Stanley, who is the Under Secretary for Personnel 

and Readiness. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you very much, Secretary Gates. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. Before Senator 

McCaskill leaves, I think we would both agree, Mr. Secretary, that 

you could take one of those difficult decisions off the President’s 

desk if you would reenlist for a year or 2 more. But we’ll leave that 

decision to you, as it properly should be. 

But I, too, want to thank both of you and Secretary Hale for your 

leadership, and for the courageous decisions that you continue to 

make, and for telling the Senate of the United States the truth as 

you see it. 

I did want to follow up on what Senator McCaskill also just mentioned about the GDP in Afghanistan. I think you both know that 

73 

the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 required the President, through the 

offices of the Pentagon and DOS, to provide an economic strategy 

for Afghanistan. Could you speak to where we are with that process, and how important you think such a strategy would be to the 

overall success? Then, specifically, we have the Task Force for 

Business and Stability Operations, and what further role would 

you see for that particular task force? 

Secretary GATES. I’ll take the second part of your question first. 

This task force is one of those things that creates incredible antibodies in the bureaucracy, because it doesn’t fit anyplace, and, both 

in DOD and in DOS. I think it’s an honest answer to say that without in effect the protection of the Secretary of Defense, this operation would not, could not be sustained. 

My belief is that Paul Brinkley and his team have made a huge 

contribution, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It was Paul that 

took the team to Afghanistan, of private sector geoscientists and 

others, and were able to do the estimates of the extraordinary mineral wealth that exists in Afghanistan, if only there were the security to exploit it. So, I think they’ve made a real contribution, and 

I hope they will continue to do that. But, I think it’s fair to say 

that they face a lot of bureaucratic resistance in doing that. 

We talked earlier about the cost of the Afghan security forces. 

That’s why I believe—and we’ve talked about it before in this hearing—that we essentially need to look at the size of their force as 

a surge as well, and that once they have a political settlement inside Afghanistan, and the Taliban is degraded in terms of their capabilities, the need for the Afghans to have a smaller military than 

they have now. Because we can’t sustain $12.8 billion a year for 

very long. 

The economic strategy for Afghanistan is, and the task force, 

really go hand-in-hand. I think there’s a significant effort at the 

Embassy in terms of trying to entice private sector individuals, as 

well as foreign investors, to invest in Afghanistan. But I have to 

admit that where the economic strategy for the country stands, I’m 

just not certain. I’ll have to get back to you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

An economic strategy is an essential component of the overall success of the Afghan civil-military campaign plan, by focusing efforts and resources in ways that 

maximize the effects of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan, while helping the Afghans 

become more self-sufficient. Such a strategy will build on the good work that the 

Director of the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, Paul Brinkley, and 

his team have already started in key sectors and provide overall direction for developing Afghanistan’s capacity for self-sustainment. 

The Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development have participated in discussions, led by the National Security Staff, on the process by which the economic strategy report will be produced. 

The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development will 

play a central role in the drafting process, and they will require support from Congress in carrying out the important roles they will have in implementing the strategy. The Department of Defense will also participate in the drafting of the report, 

as directed by the Executive Office of the President, and will pay particular attention to elements of economic strategy that support the counterinsurgency campaign 

in Afghanistan, promote economic stabilization, and enhance the establishment of 

sustainable institutions. We plan to complete this report, as required, in early July 

2011. 

Senator UDALL. Admiral Mullen, do you have any comments to 

add? 

74 

Admiral MULLEN. I would add only that, again, what Paul 

Brinkley and his team have done has truly been extraordinary in 

both countries, and under incredibly difficult circumstances in the 

countries. Although the circumstances back here may have been 

more difficult. So, how to sustain that is actually an open question. 

I think we do need to do that. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Admiral MULLEN. That becomes the heart of, I think, sort of, the 

longer-term investment there, not just nationally, but internationally. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. I, too, would like to add my compliments to 

Mr. Brinkley. I’ve heard many stories about how effective he is, 

how dedicated he is. So, I hope he understands that many of us 

here on the Hill, Mr. Secretary, know what accomplishments he’s 

had. 

Secretary GATES. Well, and to Admiral Mullen’s point about the 

conditions in which they have worked, several members of 

Brinkley’s team, including Brinkley, have been wounded in attacks. 

So, they’ve been really out there on the front lines trying to work 

these problems. 

Senator UDALL. Could I move to a question about the popular 

uprisings in the Middle East that we’re seeing in Algeria, Bahrain, 

Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere? The people are coming out on the 

streets for a variety of reasons. How do you analyze those countries’ leaders’ ability to command their security services? 

Secretary GATES. Well, I think it varies from country to country. 

We talked at the beginning of the hearing about the discipline and 

the professionalism of the Egyptian military, and the restraint that 

they exercised under some fairly difficult circumstances. In Tunisia, the military also stood aside and, basically, did not defend Ben 

Ali. So, I think in each of these countries, though, the circumstances are going to be different. 

But the one thing that these armies seem to have in common— 

certainly in Egypt and in Tunisia—is a sense that they are a national institution, and even though somebody may have been in 

power for a long time, they see themselves as having a special relationship with their people. I know in my conversations with Minister Tantawi, we talked often about the relationship that the 

Egyptian army had with the Egyptian people, and that it would 

protect it’s people because they were the people. He delivered, I 

think, in an exemplary fashion. 

Just to defend our intelligence folks a little bit, I think that 

they’d done a pretty good job of describing the rising temperature 

in a number of these countries, and the economic and social pressures that were building in a number of these countries, particularly related to the youth bulge, the 15- to 29-year-olds who have 

educations and can’t get a job. The petty corruption and nepotism 

makes life difficult for ordinary people. Clearly, Ben Ali was quite 

surprised by what happened in Tunisia. He didn’t expect to, in 2 

weeks to be pushed out of power. I think that President Mubarak 

was in the same situation. 

I think that the United States, there’s been a lot of to-ing and 

fro-ing about how we’ve handled this. But the truth is, I think the 

United States has pretty consistently, primarily privately but also 

75 

publicly, encouraged these regimes for years to undertake political 

and economic reform because these pressures were building. Now 

they need to move on with it, and there is an urgency to this. 

Events move very quickly. We were talking at one point, if Mubarak had given his first speech when he declined to run for office 

again in September, when he changed the government, when he 

promised constitutional reform—if he had given that speech 3 

weeks before, he’d probably still be the president of Egypt. So, 

being able to latch onto the speed with which these events are moving, and have people who have seen, relatively, perceive a static 

situation in their countries, to appreciate that it’s not static, that 

these pressures are building and they do need to get out in front 

of it, is, I think, what we’ve been trying to do. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Our advice and encouragement may hold 

more weight in this region and other regions of the world, as those 

leaders and those countries look at the example of Egypt and Tunisia, perhaps others. 

I have to wonder, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates, Secretary 

Hale, what the British intelligence services were generating in 

1776. I think there are these tipping points that you talk about 

that can’t be predicted. 

Thank you again for your service. 

Chairman LEVIN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 

Udall. 

I just have one additional point and then we’ll close it, because 

I know that you folks are running late on your schedule. That has 

to do with the size of the Afghanistan army. 

I want to give you some statistics about comparing the Iraq army 

and the Afghanistan army. I know the situations are different. But 

I still want to give you these statistics. 

Iraq has fewer people than Afghanistan. The Afghan population 

is about 30 million; Iraq about 27 million. But in Iraq you have 

665,000 Iraqi security forces. In Afghanistan you have a goal, 

378,000 would be the new target if it was accepted. So, it would 

still be about half the size of the Iraqi security force, with more 

people to secure. 

So, I would, first of all, I think, probably based on that, but some 

other things, not agree that the increase, the proposal for the increase would be more than they would need, even if over time there 

would be a lesser need for security. Hopefully there will be a lesser 

need and, obviously, if there is you could reduce it. But I wouldn’t 

necessarily plan on there being a need for less than 378,000. 

Second, when you describe a surge force, in your mind, Mr. Secretary, I would hope that the surge force that you believe it should 

be looked at, as, would be a, that the surge force would be the 378, 

and not the current level. So that it would be the additional 70 that 

would be viewed as the surge, and not the current level, which I 

believe you spoke at, as a surge force. 

Secretary GATES. I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, the budget 

that we have submitted would accommodate the additional growth. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. That’s reassuring. 

Finally, I totally agree, both the need for an objective, an honest 

view about the cost. I think that is essential. That’s what you 

pointed to, and rightly so. But I would just reiterate my hope that 

76 

when you meet with your colleagues at a NATO ministerial that 

you really would drive home the fact that there’s going to be an ongoing need, whether it’s at 305,000 or whether or not it’s at 

378,000, that there really needs to be a sharing of that burden 

among our NATO allies. We cannot carry the 12 billion alone, I 

agree with you. But just they way they have not, it’s been kind of 

spotty, frankly, in terms of NATO support, on the trainer side, not 

nearly still what we had hoped for. But, you’re properly giving good 

grades to those who have come through. A lot of our NATO allies 

really have. Some of them have taken greater losses proportionally 

than we have, and we should recognize that. 

But, I really would hope that you would reinforce that they are 

going to need a significant military and a security force, that that 

is the ticket to success, as well as to an exit. Or, at least, a significantly reduced number of foreign troops which, in turn, is part of 

success. That they should come through financially with some ongoing expected support for the Afghanistan security forces. That 

would be my summary. Admiral Mullen? 

Admiral MULLEN. Sir, just one quick comment. I’ve been working 

NATO pretty hard since 2004. I’ve never seen them more together 

than they have become over the last couple of years in this mission. 

Your comment earlier about, out of area—or, maybe it was Senator 

Lieberman. But I really do think success here bodes well for the 

future of NATO, and not succeeding does the opposite. 

Then, second, we’ve talked a lot about NATO here. Well, there 

are 49 countries total that are providing forces right now. So, there 

are an awful lot of non-NATO contributing countries who’ve made 

a difference as well, and are very focused on sustaining that for a 

period of time. Some of them very small numbers. I understand 

that. But, they’ve really made a difference, and we appreciate their 

contributions as well. 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. I think, I made the mistake of saying 

NATO when I should have said NATO and other coalition forces. 

You’re absolutely right. A number of those non-NATO countries 

have made contributions also way out of proportion to their population, way out of proportion to their financial ability. I think we 

should recognize that, and their losses sometimes have been out of 

proportion as well. We do appreciate that. 

We want to thank all of you for coming. Again, we’re grateful for 

your service. 

We hope to see a lot more of you than you expect, Secretary 

Gates. 

Admiral Mullen, we always love to have you here, and know that 

you want have too many more visits. But again, we hope, know 

that all of them will be as helpful as this one was this morning. 

Secretary Hale, thank you. 

We’ll stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

HEALTH AND STATUS OF OUR DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

1. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Mullen, in your posture statement, you expressed concern over the capabilities of our Defense Industrial Base (DIB) and the ability to 

77 

produce and support advanced technology systems for future weapon systems. What 

is the Department of Defense (DOD) doing to mitigate these concerns? 

Admiral MULLEN. In order for the defense industry to remain a source of strategic 

advantage well into the future, DOD and our Nation require a consistent, realistic, 

and long-term strategy for shaping the structure and capabilities of the DIB. For 

example, the fiscal year 2012 budget request contains resources for two providers 

of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a result enabled by establishing a competitive 

environment in which two competitors have offered affordable alternatives. Additionally, the Navy continues to pursue the work share agreement on the Virginia 

class submarine program. Looking ahead, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

(USD(AT&L)) to undertake a sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier assessment of the DIB 

that will include space and shipbuilding. This effort will be accomplished in full 

partnership with the Military Services. The results of this analysis will allow us to 

improve our acquisition strategies and influence DOD’s program and budget review, 

beginning with the fiscal year 2013 cycle. Once completed, DOD will continue to 

map and assess the industrial base on an ongoing basis. Additionally, as the DIB 

evolves through mergers and acquisitions, DOD participates in reviews conducted 

by antitrust agencies and in reviews conducted by the interagency Committee on 

Foreign Investment in the United States to mitigate consolidation and ownership 

concerns. The affects of the continuing resolution on program execution and the resultant impacts on defense sector production lines remain a concern. What these industrial bases need more than anything else is a plan and investment strategy with 

a certainty and predictability that has here to fore been very elusive. 

DOD is committed to being more forward leaning in its ongoing assessments of 

the industrial base—refocusing our efforts on our future needs, working much more 

closely with the Services to foster an integrated approach to the overall industrial 

base, and placing transparency and dialogue with industry at the forefront of our 

agenda. 

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

2. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, while much of the attention in the personnel 

sector has been rightfully focused on deployed warfighters and their families, the 

success of our military largely depends upon the effectiveness and reliability of hightechnology weapon systems that give the U.S. military its premier technological advantage. Fundamental to developing and fielding these weapons systems is a community of highly trained science and technology (S&T) and acquisition personnel in 

DOD. What will you do to ensure that DOD can continue to attract and retain a 

highly skilled S&T and acquisition workforce—especially in today’s competitive environment where at the national level there is a limited pool of skilled scientists and 

engineers facing competition from industry, academia, and other Federal agencies? 

Secretary GATES. DOD continues its initiative to grow the acquisition workforce 

through fiscal year 2015. Significant emphasis and progress has been made hiring 

and supporting the growth of the technical workforce, but there is much more work 

to do in this area. For example, the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Scholarship-for-Service program supported 900 students with majors in 

DOD relevant science and engineering disciplines. Three hundred of these students 

transitioned into the DOD workforce. Another 230 are expected to transition into 

the workforce in 2011. 

AFGHAN TALIBAN

3. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, in a recent interview, General Petraeus discussed growing friction between local Taliban fighters living in Afghanistan and the 

Afghan Taliban leadership, who are phoning in orders that the local insurgents 

should continue to fight against Afghan and coalition forces through the winter, 

while the Afghan leadership remains in the safety of sanctuaries in Quetta and elsewhere in Pakistan. He said we are seeing a degree of discord among Afghan Taliban 

leaders and among the lower-level fighters that we’ve not seen in the past. Do you 

agree with General Petraeus’ assessment that there is friction and discord between 

local Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and the Taliban leadership in Quetta, Pakistan, as that leadership phones in orders for the lower-level fighters to keep up the 

fight through the winter? 

Secretary GATES. I agree there is tension between Taliban leaders in Pakistan 

and the fighters and commanders who remain in Afghanistan. I do not believe current frustration levels are sufficient to degrade insurgent capacity or create exploitVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
78 

able fissures. For example, increased violence levels this winter indicate that this 

tension did not undermine the insurgents’ desire or ability to conduct attacks. 

4. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, is this level of friction something that we’ve 

not seen in the past? 

Secretary GATES. Every winter since 2002, DOD observed tension between 

Taliban leaders in Pakistan and the fighters and commanders who remain in Afghanistan. This also occurred during the 1980s mujahedeen resistance against the 

Soviets. The tone of reporting this winter indicates a heightened level of frustration; 

however, the multi-faceted nature of this issue makes it difficult to make a qualitative comparison to previous years. 

5. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, are we seeing this friction contributing to a 

slow increase in the number of lower-level insurgents seeking to reintegrate into Afghan society? 

Secretary GATES. I do not see evidence that tension with Quetta-based leaders is 

eroding local insurgents’ motivation to fight or increasing lower-level insurgents’ 

willingness to reintegrate. Most insurgents are locals fighting for local issues and 

not necessarily in support of Taliban senior leadership; therefore, they are likely to 

sustain their efforts regardless of any frustration with Quetta-based leaders. Emergence of a reintegration program that addresses local concerns, provides protection 

for fighters and their families, and delivers on promises will make reintegration a 

more viable option. 

GLOBAL SECURITY CONTINGENCY FUND

6. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, in Admiral Mullen’s opening statement he made reference to a proposal for a pooled Department of State 

(DOS)-DOD security sector assistance initiative, called the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF). At the hearing, he indicated this initiative would include $50 

million from DOS and an authority for DOD to transfer up to $450 million into this 

initiative. Are you confident that DOS is committed to making this initiative work 

jointly beyond the tenures of both of you and Secretary Clinton? 

Secretary GATES and Admiral MULLEN. Yes. Although I cannot speak for our 

counterparts at DOS or future leadership of either department, DOD and DOS are 

working collaboratively on the development of the GSCF. This pilot program is designed to demonstrate the ability of both Departments to respond to emerging requirements rapidly (within the budget cycle) and in a collaborative manner. The 

benefit of this limited pilot is that it allows future senior leaders to evaluate the 

GSCF’s effectiveness and determine if it should be extended beyond its initial 3-year 

term. 

7. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, do either of you have concerns that the joint arrangement will prove too unwieldy? 

Secretary GATES and Admiral MULLEN. No. I am aware of this concern and would 

work to address it with the processes and procedures we establish. We are applying 

lessons learned from Section 1206 and other programs in developing the notional 

processes and procedures. At this point, we plan to have the GSCF be administered 

by a small combined DOS–DOD fund staff that will provide joint program formulation, decisionmaking, and implementation. That staff would bring in relevant staff 

augmentation depending on the expertise needed to meet each requirement. 

Throughout the pilot, I expect the GSCF to undergo continual process improvements 

as it matures. 

8. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, do either of you have any 

concern that this type of initiative is too much of a militarization of foreign policy? 

Secretary GATES and Admiral MULLEN. Not at all. The GSCF is designed to enable DOD and DOS to respond to a variety of emerging global challenges in a collaborative manner. Program formulation for military and other security forces would 

be joint, while programs for justice sector, rule of law, and stabilization assistance 

would be formulated by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary 

of Defense. This ensures that the appropriate Departments retain primary responsibility for missions within their respective core competencies, while benefiting from 

the cooperation the GSCF structure fosters. This is a force-multiplying authority 

that maintains DOS primacy in non-military missions. 

79 

9. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, does the proposal envision 

that funds transferred into GSCF would be subject to the standard reprogramming 

processes? 

Secretary GATES. Not at all. The GSCF is designed to enable DOS and DOD to 

respond to a variety of emerging global challenges in a collaborative manner. Program formulation for military and other security forces would be joint, while programs for justice sector, rule of law, and stabilization assistance would be formulated by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of Defense. This 

ensures that the appropriate Departments retain primary responsibility for missions 

within their respective core competencies, while benefiting from the cooperation the 

GSCF structure fosters. This is a force-multiplying authority that maintains DOS 

primacy in non-military missions. 

Admiral MULLEN. The reprogramming of funds into the GSCF would be conducted 

in accordance with the legislative proposal that states that this authority to transfer 

is in addition to any other transfer authority available to DOS and DOD. Jointly, 

the Secretaries of State and Defense would provide a quarterly report to the specified congressional committees on obligations of funds or transfers into the Fund 

made during the preceding quarter, to include the Committee on Armed Services, 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives; and the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 

Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. 

MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA

10. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, you each lead a bilateral 

channel of discussion with your respective Russian counterparts in which you are 

exploring the possibilities for cooperation on missile defense. These discussions are 

consistent with similar North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) efforts. Please 

describe why you believe missile defense cooperation with Russia is in our interest 

and what kinds of cooperation you believe are both desirable and possible. 

Secretary GATES. The United States seeks to responsibly sustain a stable relationship with the Russian Federation as the pace of military-technical innovation increases and the global security environment evolves. DOD also hopes to enlist Russia’s help in addressing emerging security challenges from regional actors seeking 

illicit capabilities. 

DOD has made clear that the system it intends to pursue with Russia will not 

be a ‘‘dual-key’’ system, and it will not in any way limit U.S. or NATO missile defense capabilities. The U.S. concept for missile defense cooperation stems from the 

conviction that NATO must be responsible for defense of NATO territory and that 

Russia should be responsible for defense of Russian territory. The United States and 

Russia would operate their missile defense systems independently, but cooperatively, including sharing sensor data that may improve the ability of both systems 

to defeat missile attacks. I believe that Russian radars could provide data that 

would improve the capabilities of U.S. and NATO missile defense systems, and that 

U.S. sensors could improve the capability of Russia’s missile defense systems. Further analysis would help to understand how U.S. and Russian interceptor systems 

could be mutually supportive in defending our respective territories. 

It is important to note that this process will take time, but I believe that meaningful cooperation is possible—cooperation that can strengthen the security of the 

United States and our NATO Allies as well as Russia. 

Admiral MULLEN. The Military Cooperation Working Group is the military-tomilitary line of communication between me and the Russian Chief of Defense. The 

Missile Defense Sub-Group is the military-to-military forum that enables bilateral 

discussion of missile defense cooperation activities, such as joint exercises. These 

discussions correspond to the ones we conduct at the policy and strategic levels, as 

well as in multinational NATO-Russia forums. Although attention is presently focused on the European region, Russia and the United States share concerns about 

global ballistic missile threats, such as those in Northeast Asia. Our bilateral engagement on missile defense issues is intended to shape awareness of these threats 

and develop cooperative long-term responses to them. We have a clear directive to 

reset our bilateral relationship with Russia. While missile defense cooperation between Russia and NATO continues to develop, there will remain a clear need for 

the United States and Russia to maintain bilateral dialog on critical issues and concerns unique to our two countries. 

80 

AFGHANISTAN COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS

11. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, according to published reports, the tempo of 

counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan by U.S. and Afghan Special Operations 

Forces (SOF) has increased dramatically in the last 6 months and demonstrated significant results. Lieutenant General Rodriguez stated recently that the Afghan people are playing an increasingly important role in the success of these operations by 

‘‘helping to provide significantly more tips because they see Afghan Security Forces 

out among them more than they ever had because of the increase in the number 

[of Afghan Forces].’’ Reportedly, 85 percent of counterterrorism operations take 

place without a shot being fired. 

Do you agree with Lieutenant General Rodriguez that the increased presence of 

Afghan Security Forces has resulted in better intelligence because the population 

is more likely to come forward with information? 

Secretary GATES. Counterterrorism network targeting operations increased in the 

past 6 months, complementing the additional U.S. and partner nation forces deployed to Afghanistan during this period. Almost all of these operations are conducted jointly with Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). I agree with Lieutenant General Rodriguez that partnered operations with the ANSF in all 

counterinsurgency activities result in increased reporting by the local population 

and better intelligence. 

12. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, what has been the impact of this intelligence 

on the success of counterterrorism operations? 

Secretary GATES. The increased trust and confidence the Afghan people have in 

the ANSFs, especially in the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan Special 

Forces, has had a significant positive impact on the success of counterterrorism (CT) 

network targeting operations. Afghan civilians feel safer and are more likely to provide information about insurgent activities when they witness a competent and impartial ANSF playing a prominent role in protecting the population and degrading 

the insurgency. This cooperation enables a higher degree of success in CT operations, greater precision during the execution of these operations, and an increased 

likelihood of receiving information that can be used to plan future operations. 

13. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, are news reports accurate that 85 percent of 

SOF’s counterterrorism operations are conducted successfully without a shot being 

fired? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. During the period from February 1, 2010 to January 31, 

2011, 85 percent of counterterrorism network targeting operations were conducted 

without shots being fired. The quality of intelligence that shapes these operations, 

the careful and deliberate planning that precedes each operation, and the unmatched skill of our operators with their Afghan partners allows us to successfully 

capture many terrorists without the use of force. 

CONTINUED PRESENCE OF U.S. MILITARY FORCES IN IRAQ

14. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Mullen, in your personal and professional military 

view, and from a purely military perspective, if the Government of Iraq requested 

the continued presence of U.S. military forces, including combat forces, would you 

recommend the approval of such a request? 

Admiral MULLEN. I cannot answer that question without knowing exactly what 

type of presence or mission the Iraqis would like us to do. Then, I would have to 

consider variables like risk to our troops, our enduring national interests, our longterm strategic partnership with Iraq, our worldwide military commitments, and 

Iraq’s ability to do that mission on their own before making a recommendation to 

the President. In the meantime, we remain focused on executing a responsible drawdown of our military forces according to our security agreement with the Government of Iraq. 

VIOLENCE AGAINST RELIGIOUS MINORITIES

15. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, during my trip to Iraq in January, I met with 

leaders of Iraq’s Christian religious minorities who expressed their desire to preserve the Christian communities within Iraq and the need for greater security so 

Christians can stay in their communities without fearing for their lives. What is 

your assessment of the Iraqi Government’s efforts to ensure the safety of its many 

religious minorities? 

81 

Secretary GATES. The Iraqi Government took positive steps to protect religious 

minorities more effectively, particularly since the October 31, 2010 bombing of Our 

Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. The Iraqi Government increased security at 

virtually all churches and police patrols in minority-dominated areas. The Iraqi police force arrested 12 individuals suspected of carrying out the attack on Our Lady 

of Salvation Church, including an al Qaeda operative. The Iraqi security forces (ISF) 

have endeavored to fortify minority religious sites and increase check points in minority neighborhoods. This must be done with the concurrence of minority populations because some of these communities believe increased security may serve to 

identify their facilities as targets. U.S. Forces-Iraq continues to advise, train, assist, 

and equip the ISF to enable them to conduct more effective security operations 

against violent extremist organizations seeking to attack minority religious communities. Al Qaeda in Iraq remains the most enduring threat to Christians and other 

minorities because it characterizes churches as legitimate targets of jihadist efforts 

to rid the region of western influence, ideology, and theology. 

16. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, in your view, what more should they be doing 

to improve that protection? 

Secretary GATES. In the process of establishing a professional, reliable security 

service, the Iraqi Government should also improve Iraqi rule-of-law institutions, and 

particularly ensure that the property rights of Christians and other minorities are 

protected by these institutions. The Iraqi Government must also continue to modernize and professionalize the ISF to ensure that they protect all Iraqis impartially. 

Examples include recruiting and training more minority police, and reliably implementing the process of restoring property rights to Christians, as well as other minorities, whose lands were illegally confiscated when they fled their traditional 

homelands due to sectarian and other anti-minority violence. Since many minorities 

choose resettlement within Iraq, other impediments to protection and reintegration 

include lack of adequate educational and economic opportunities in areas to which 

minorities are moving and congregating (such as the Ninewa Plain). These are 

longer-term challenges that supplement, rather than replace, improved police interaction with minorities and the equitable administration of justice. 

17. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, are the Iraqis recruiting and training any police units that are comprised exclusively of religious minorities and, if so, are they 

deployed exclusively to the areas where their respective communities reside? 

Secretary GATES. Iraqis are recruiting and training police cadets from the minority communities, which improves police visibility within those communities and 

builds trust between police and minority Iraqis. However, as with most national police forces, Iraq does not create police units segregated by religious affiliation, which 

could imply uneven standards, complicate overall force integration, and limit the 

ability to deploy such units or individuals to where they may be needed to address 

security concerns elsewhere in Iraq. Matching ISF individuals or units to minoritydominated areas is further complicated by the fact that minority demographics are 

in flux and groups within, for example, the Christian community, are subdivided 

among numerous denominations (Assyrian, Armenian Orthodox, Chaldean, Jacobite, 

Arab, and so forth) which do not necessarily share objectives. 

SPACE SYSTEMS FUNDING

18. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Gates, the Air Force has proposed to incrementally 

fund the acquisition of two large and critical satellite programs, using multi-year, 

fixed-prices contracting authority that will require advanced appropriations. In your 

view, why is this authority needed for these two satellite programs? 

Secretary GATES. DOD requires authority to use advance appropriations to fully 

fund the block buy of Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites 5 and 

6 during fiscal year 2012. After careful review, DOD determined multiyear procurement authorization is not required for this acquisition. For AEHF 5 and 6, the Air 

Force is procuring two satellites, in a block buy, in a single year. The Air Force 

worked closely with the DOD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office and, based on CAPE independent estimates, expects to realize unit cost savings 

from the bulk buy of piece parts, electronic components, and sub assemblies, as well 

as from a more efficient assembly and test process. In order to achieve savings, 

DOD needs to order these satellites in blocks of two. However, fully funding both 

satellites in a single year is not practically achievable in today’s budget environment. Therefore, I propose a modified approach whereby DOD fully funds the satellite block buy over a fixed number of years using advance appropriations. 

82 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

REPEAL OF ‘‘DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL’’ 

19. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, on December 22, 2010, the President signed 

legislation that will lead to the eventual repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’. The Services were directed to provide a plan by February 4, 2011, indicating how they will 

prepare their respective Services for the implementation of the repeal. In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges the Services face as they prepare for this 

change? 

Secretary GATES. The biggest challenge will be training those members who are 

not co-located with their units or who serve intermittently. This is why DOD is moving forward in an extremely deliberate and purposeful manner to develop and deploy our training and education. 

20. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, how are these challenges being addressed, 

and what is the current timeline for certification as you see it? 

Secretary GATES. There is no set date for certification. I am working closely with 

the Services to develop multiple ways to train the Force. Among various approaches, 

DOD identified that the most preferred approach is with leadership driven face-toface training. When that is not feasible, computer-based training will also be available. 

I continue to work purposefully and responsibly toward certification. 

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

21. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, on November 5, 2010, the Under Secretary 

for Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Mr. Clifford Stanley, sent a Memorandum 

For Record (MFR) titled, ‘‘Updated Plan for the Removal of Social Security Numbers 

(SSN) from DOD Identification (ID) Cards.’’ The MFR states that SSNs may not be 

removed as previously indicated in 2009 based on concerns raised by DOD stakeholders. What is DOD’s position on the removal of SSNs from ID cards issued to 

retired personnel, dependents, and those currently serving? 

Secretary GATES. DOD recognizes the ongoing risks and dangers associated with 

identity theft and the need to protect Personally Identifiable Information, such as 

the SSN. 

In 2007, DOD implemented a three-phase plan to remove SSNs from DOD ID 

Cards. In a November 5, 2010 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Memorandum, DOD updated its implementation plan. This was due to concern 

over interruptions to benefits provided to servicemembers, retirees and their families, and it was due to adverse impacts to DOD contingency operations. This updated implementation plan is, as follows: 

• Phase One—The act of removing the printed dependent SSNs from all 

Dependent ID Cards continues, as initiated in 2008 under the original plan. 

This phase will be completed by the end of 2012. The standard Dependent 

ID card life cycle requires replacement every 4 years. 

• Phase Two—The act of removing the SSN from all ID cards and replacing 

it with a DOD ID Number will be implemented in June 2011. 

• Phase Three—The act of removing all SSNs from barcodes on the ID 

cards remains on schedule, with implementation expected in 2012. 

22. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, what are the leading alternative identifiers 

which are being considered to replace SSNs? 

Secretary GATES. The SSN will be replaced on DOD ID cards by the DOD ID 

Number. The DOD ID number is a unique, 10-digit identifier created upon initial 

enrollment of the individual into the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System database. The DOD ID Number is permanently fixed—it will not change over 

time or be contingent on one’s role (e.g. dependent, civilian). 

All individuals eligible to receive DOD benefits—such as commissary, exchange, 

Morale, Welfare and Recreation or TRICARE purchased care—will also receive a 

DOD Benefits Number. The DOD Benefits number is an 11-digit number. The first 

nine digits are common to the sponsor. The last two digits indicate the card holder’s 

relationship to the sponsor. The DOD Benefits Number has been agreed to by the 

TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) as an acceptable substitute for the SSN for 

management of benefits with no interruption of services. Similar to the DOD ID 

number, the DOD Benefits Number will not change over time. 

83 

LITERACY EDUCATION

23. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, with a 14 percent literacy rate among new 

Afghan recruits, every Afghan soldier and police recruit now undertakes mandatory 

literacy education. By October 2011, 128,000 Afghan soldiers are projected to be literate to at least the first-grade level, further enabling security forces to become selfsustaining. What are the overall goals of this program and how is it progressing 

against the baseline plan? 

Secretary GATES. In parallel with DOD’s instruction programs for ANSF recruits 

is a drive to educate the ‘‘legacy illiterate’’ (i.e., those serving in the ANA who have 

not had the benefit of literacy training). The goal of the literacy program is to bring 

all ANSF personnel up to a basic level of literacy (third grade-level). The program 

employs 1,800 teachers and provides new recruits with 64 hours of basic literacy 

training and an additional 248 hours after they complete basic training. As of February 2011, approximately 66,600 ANSF personnel have received literacy training; 

approximately 34,950 ANSF personnel have completed first grade-level literacy 

training, which is on track toward achieving the goal of 100,000 personnel completing first grade-level literacy training by October 2011; and approximately 10,187 

ANSF personnel have completed third grade-level literacy training, with the goal of 

having 14,028 personnel complete third grade-level training by October 2011. 

Literacy remains a major challenge to the development of the ANSF, as about 86 

percent of new recruits entering the force are totally illiterate. NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTM–A) instituted a mandatory literacy program in April 2010, 

and continues to work with the Afghan Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior 

to increase the literacy of the force. 

24. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, please describe the importance of this program to the future ability of the Afghan Government to succeed. 

Secretary GATES. Literacy education is a key component in the development of the 

Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF). Basic literacy skills allow Afghan 

military and police personnel to perform their duties, including reading maps, writing reports, and calling for military support in the field. Illiteracy can cost lives in 

combat and renders the police ineffective in providing basic public security functions. Literacy training is also a major incentive for enlistment and retention and 

increases the comparative advantage that the ANSF has over the Taliban in terms 

of drawing new personnel. Literacy also contributes to the overall ability of the Afghan government to succeed by strengthening the professionalism of the ANSF and 

instituting longer-term capacity for self-sustainment. 

ARMY TROOP REDUCTION

25. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, in January, you announced that in fiscal 

year 2015, the Army would decrease its permanently authorized end strength by 

27,000 soldiers. In addition, the Army will also shed 22,000 positions by fiscal year 

2013, reducing the temporary surge numbers. This total reduction of 49,000 is very 

significant. How will this reduction affect the ability of the force to meet future demands? 

Secretary GATES. Two factors will determine how the end-strength reduction will 

impact on the Army’s ability to meet future demands: the future demand level and 

the Army’s end-strength reduction implementation plan. With regard to the demand 

level, I cannot predict with certainty when and where contingencies may occur that 

will require Army forces. I do believe that Army forces will continue to be required 

for a variety of missions, but that near-term demands will not reach the high level 

of commitment seen in recent years. As long as this assumption is valid, the Army 

will be able to implement the planned end-strength reductions while meeting demands and improving readiness and strategic depth. The Army is continuing to ensure accomplishment of its assigned missions, improve operational readiness to meet 

future demands and care for the well-being of its soldiers and their families. 

26. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, will this result in a potential realignment 

of combat forces to better support such demands? 

Secretary GATES. The Army is developing options to implement directed manpower reductions, while satisfying near-term demands and increasing readiness for 

unforeseen contingencies. The Army will plan and implement its end-strength reduction and any associated structure adjustments in a deliberate fashion with the 

intent of achieving a balanced and capable force. The Army is continuing to ensure 

accomplishment of its assigned missions, improve operational readiness to meet future demands and care for the well-being of its soldiers and their families. 

84 

27. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, how will it affect our reliance on Guard and 

Reserve Forces? 

Secretary GATES. The Army depends on access to its Reserve component to accomplish its assigned missions. The planned Army Active component end-strength reductions will have modest impacts on Army Reserve component forces needed to 

support current and anticipated operational demand. The Army is developing options to implement the reductions, while satisfying near-term demands and increasing its readiness for unforeseen contingencies. The Army is continuing to ensure accomplishment of its assigned missions, improve operational readiness to meet future 

demands and care for the well-being of its soldiers and their families. 

READINESS IN THE PACIFIC REGION

28. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, the North Korean shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, the sinking of the Cheonan, and China’s growing military capability continue 

to remind us of the importance of our military engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. Given the many demands on the defense budget and the recently announced 

reductions, how does the fiscal year 2012 budget impact our military readiness in 

the Pacific region? 

Secretary GATES. America’s forward presence in the region played a key role in 

ensuring decades of stability in Asia. The United States continues to be globally postured in order to secure the homeland and its citizens from direct attack and to advance American interests around the world. While there are many demands on U.S. 

forces in the Asia Pacific, the fiscal year 2012 defense budget ensures that DOD remains prepared to meet the challenges and fulfill security commitments in the region. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget makes a number of investments that enhance the 

ability of U.S. forces to project power into the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere. 

Chief among these are the commencement of a new long-range bomber program and 

increased procurement of conventional cruise missiles across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

At the same time, DOD has worked, and will continue to work, with U.S. allies 

and partners to maintain peace and ensure stability throughout Asia. With the fiscal year 2012 budget, DOD intends to enhance its forward military presence in the 

Pacific, invest in base resiliency to protect critical infrastructure, and develop new 

concepts of operation for how the United States will project power when challenged 

with emerging capabilities in the future. 

DOD will continue working with Japan to implement the bilateral Realignment 

Roadmap agreement and relocate 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam in order 

to offer strategic flexibility, enhance contingency response capabilities, and improve 

peacetime engagement. DOD requested $181 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget 

to support military construction to meet the requirements for the Marine Corps relocation to Guam. 

DOD will enhance the readiness of our forces in Korea with Tour Normalization. 

This initiative will further the long-term commitment to provide greater stability for 

forward stationed servicemembers and their families. For fiscal year 2012, the Army 

allocated $106 million for Tour Normalization, while the other services have not 

identified their allocation amount. DOD will also continue transitioning wartime 

operational control to South Korea by December 2015. 

Finally, DOD also intends to exercise regularly with our allies and partners. Examples of these exercises include the annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian and Foal 

Eagle/Key Resolve exercises in the Republic of Korea, the Keen Edge/Keen Sword 

and Annualex exercises in Japan, Talisman Sabre with Australia, and the U.S.- 

Thailand-hosted Cobra Gold which attracts partners from across the region. The 

United States continues to be engaged throughout the region. The earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis response efforts in Japan are the latest examples, once 

again demonstrating the value of being able to work in close partnership in times 

of critical need. 

FUTURE ISSUES FOR SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE

29. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, you mentioned that this would most likely 

be your last defense budget hearing before this committee. If you were to compile 

a list of items that ‘‘keep you up at night’’, what would this list look like? In other 

words, from your perspective as our 22nd Secretary of Defense, what should your 

successor be told to watch out for? 

85 

Secretary GATES. As I previously testified to the House Armed Services Committee, thinking about the future, two issues that worry me are the defense budget 

and jurisdictional lines in Congress. 

First, I see a growing disconnect between the missions given to the military and 

the discussion of the defense budget. It is true that, as the biggest part of the discretionary Federal budget, DOD cannot presume to exempt itself from the scrutiny and 

pressure faced by the rest of our government. It is imperative to eliminate wasteful, 

excessive, and unneeded spending. 

Nevertheless, drastic and ill-conceived cuts to the overall defense budget would be operationally catastrophic, and would have little impact on the Nation’s $1.6 trillion deficit. DOD needs a budget baseline with a steady, sustainable, and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys in defense spending that 

can be enormously harmful to readiness, planning, and financial management. Only 

then can DOD have the right balance between winning the wars of today and being 

prepared for likely future threats. We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril, as retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could well 

lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later—indeed as they always have in 

the past. The best way to support our military personnel is to ensure that they have 

the tools and training they need to prevail against present and future adversaries. 

Second, I worry that the increasing integration of national security policy and execution in the executive branch are not paralleled by the legislative branch of the 

government. Jurisdictional lines in Congress prevent congressional leadership from 

seeing the overall national security picture that the executive branch sees, and 

these lines risk splintering coherent whole-of-government efforts into multiple lines 

of authority and disparate agency budget accounts. It is my hope that efforts to 

achieve needed integration in Congress can reinforce our resolve on critical national 

security policies. 

Third, I am concerned that DOS and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) do not have the resources necessary to contribute to a more integrated, coherent, and successful civil-military strategy. Ensuring support for wholeof-government efforts, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, is critical to creating and 

maintaining secure environments in key regions of the world. 

LANGUAGE SKILLS AND CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING

30. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Gates, I have long-supported efforts to improve the 

language skills and cultural understanding of our military and Federal workforce. 

The United States must have the language skills and cultural understanding to successfully engage in this world. Please discuss how DOD’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

ensures that our military and civilian workers have the language skills necessary 

to meet its mission. 

Secretary GATES. Baseline funding of $792 million is projected in fiscal year 2012 

to support language and culture instruction to achieve higher proficiencies. 

Programs include the following: increasing pre-accession training, education and 

immersion opportunities at the Service Academies and Reserve Officer Training 

Corps (ROTC); continuing the ROTC Skill Proficiency Bonus; providing pre-deployment training for general purpose forces; continuing Language Training Detachments to provide and sustain commanders’ needs for language; regional and cultural 

training for the general purpose forces; continuing support to the Afghanistan/Pakistan Hands program; and enhancing English language training for partner nation 

personnel. 

DOD is moving ahead to develop strategic direction, to create effective policies 

and to refine processes for generating language, regional and cultural capabilities. 

ADDICTION ISSUES

31. Senator AKAKA. Admiral Mullen, the Army Inspector General (IG) report released in January indicates that between 25 and 35 percent of patients assigned to 

special wounded-care companies or battalions are addicted to or dependent on 

drugs, particularly prescription narcotic pain relievers. What steps are being taken 

to address the issue of potential overmedication or addiction within Wounded Transition Units (WTU)? 

Admiral MULLEN. After receiving multiple briefings from scientists and line leaders with a growing concern about drugs, I have come to the conclusion that reducing 

the use of illicit drugs, unprescribed pharmaceuticals, and excess alcohol requires 

an integrated approach. Drug abuse is a systems problem that requires a coordinated medical and line leadership approach. 

86 

The Army Surgeon General LTG Eric B. Schoomaker established an aggressive 

program to minimize dependence on narcotics to treat pain through implementation 

of the recommendations of the Pain Management Task Force. The Task Force membership included a variety of medical specialties and disciplines from the Army, as 

well as representatives from the Navy, Air Force, TMA, and Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Between October 2009 and January 2010 this task force conducted 28 site visits at Army, Navy, and Air Force Medical Centers, Hospitals and 

Health Clinics, as well as VHA and civilian hospitals. During site visits, leadership 

and staff were asked to assess pain management capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, and best practices at their respective facilities. 

The task force developed 109 recommendations that lead to a comprehensive pain 

management strategy that utilizes state-of-the-art/science modalities and technologies, and provides optimal quality of life for soldiers with acute and chronic 

pain. Medical providers are now informed and encouraged to utilize alternative 

means of pain management wherever possible. Such techniques include development 

and integration into clinical practice of a common Pain Assessment Tool, establishing acute pain medicine services across the continuum of care, implementing a 

drug abuse assessment strategy in the primary care setting, providing appropriate 

pain management and clinical pharmacy oversight in Warrior Transition Units 

(WTU), incorporation of pain related questions into the WTU Satisfaction Survey, 

and establishing a tiered pain management approach leveraging techniques such as 

osteopathic manipulation, acupuncture, and yoga. 

U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) has established a number of policies 

that also address this issue, including: 

1. OTSG/MEDCOM Policy 09–022, WTU High Risk Medication Review and Sole 

Provider Program. This has proven to be a highly successful medication reconciliation policy that has reduced adverse events in warriors. Providers perform medication reconciliation with each Warrior within 24 hours of assignment. Clinical pharmacists monitor and support safe and effective medication 

treatment and review medication profiles weekly. Case managers periodically 

perform clinical risk assessment and when assigned. Warriors identified as 

high risk are closely monitored, dispensed smaller quantities of medications, 

and are assigned to one provider and pharmacy. 

2. OTSG/MEDCOM Policy 09–064, Use of Opioid Medications in Pain Management. This policy educates providers regarding the proper selection of patients 

and appropriate treatment with opioid analgesics. Primary Care Managers 

(PCM) will assess patients face-to-face before initiating opioid therapy for risk 

factors and meet with patients every 60–90 days to monitor clinical response 

and potential adverse effects. 

3. MEDCOM published OPORD 10–76, Comprehensive Pain Management Campaign Plan (CPMCP) in September 2010, a phased operationalization of Pain 

Task Force recommendations including: 

a. 4.4.1. Establish Regional Medical Commands (RMC) Integrative Pain Management Centers and expansion/standardization of non-medication pain 

management modalities. 

b. 4.2.1. Incorporate integrative and alternative therapeutic modalities into a 

patient centered plan of care. Standards are being developed in order to expand/establish standards for alternative medicine programs (acupuncture, 

bio-feedback, yoga, osteopathic manipulation, and mind-body techniques). 

Additionally, Dr. Stanley and I have had several discussions regarding this issue. 

One outcome of these discussions was a Memorandum on ‘‘A Systems Approach to 

Drug Demand Reduction in the Force.’’ In this memorandum I made several recommendations that I believe will further reduce drug demand. These recommendations included: 

• Subsume all DOD drug testing efforts under Readiness and fully fund the 

program 

• Fund the expansion of drug testing to include the most commonly abused 

prescription drugs 

• Complete the Prescription Drug Verification Portal to allow testing labs 

to instantly verify narcotics prescriptions in the TRICARE database 

As recommended, the Drug Demand Reduction Office is now under the Deputy 

Under Secretary for Readiness and has been fully funded, including funding to complete the Prescription Drug Verification Portal. As of March 2011 the portal was undergoing connectivity testing and was scheduled to begin beta testing before the end 

of the month. Additionally, a testing method for benzodiazepines is under development and expected to be implemented during the second quarter of 2012. 

87 

It is important, however, to keep in mind that addiction is not the same as being 

prescribed narcotics or controlled substances even over a long period of time. Addiction refers to behaviors as a result of using or seeking drugs (narcotics) including 

active behaviors to obtain, abuse, and persist in a pattern of abuse in spite of adverse consequences. Tolerance and withdrawal may result after 6–8 weeks of daily 

use or years of intermittent use, however this does not equate to addiction. Consensus among addiction physicians shows development of narcotic dependence when 

treating pain in the absence of other risk factors is rare. Risk factors for addition 

include: 

1. Personal history of addiction to opioids or other mood-altering substances (i.e. 

alcohol) 

2. Family history of substance use disorders 

3. History of poor medication compliance or abuse 

4. Co-morbid psychopathology (depression, anxiety, etc) which may motivate a patient to self-medicate psychological pain. 

Returning to the importance of line leadership involvement, I am also moving forward with a doctrinal change called ‘‘Total Force Fitness’’ which calls upon line 

leaders to take a proactive role in setting the conditions for healthy lifestyles in the 

force. 

While the few specific examples I provided represent true progress, much more 

is being done. Task forces continue to study the many related issues and researchers 

continue to explore alternate pain management techniques. There will, of course, always be room for improvement, but we have made significant strides. 

32. Senator AKAKA. Admiral Mullen, what is your overall assessment of the effectiveness of these WTUs? 

Admiral MULLEN. The WTUs have been effective in helping ensure that our most 

seriously wounded soldiers are receiving the care they require and deserve. To some 

extent, however, WTUs have become victims of their own success. While intended 

to focus on our most seriously injured, the WTUs have become the default unit for 

our less injured soldiers also. The Warrior Care and Transition Program (WCTP), 

overseen by the Army’s Warrior Transition Command, a Major Subordinate Command of the MEDCOM, currently provides care, support, and advocacy for some 

17,000 soldiers and veterans. This represents a dramatic increase in scope and impact compared to what preceded the establishment of the WCTP. WTU plays a central role in the management of the care provided to wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. 

Although a remarkable amount has been accomplished, the WCTP continues to 

mature and improve through a coordinated medical and line leadership effort. 

Through a vigorous program of organizational inspections and assistance visits, the 

Army’s Warrior Transition Command continues to identify areas of the program 

that can be improved, as well as best practices that can be implemented across all 

WTUs. Additionally, through the Department of the Army’s Inspector General Program, Army leadership recently identified 56 recommendations for improving the 

WCTP. The Army, under the leadership of BG Darryl Williams, Commander of Warrior Transition Command, is currently in the process of implementing these recommendations as part of a program of continuous refinement and improvement. 

Additionally, the Army’s Warrior Transition Command continues to respond to the 

requirements and recommendations of the ongoing DOD Inspector General’s review 

of WTUs. Also, I am aware that the Congressionally mandated Recovering Warrior 

Task Force recently received an entire day of testimony from Brigadier General Williams and the staff of the Warrior Transition Command on the various aspects of 

WTUs and the WCTP and is now conducting site visits at WTU locations. I look 

forward to the findings and recommendations of the Task Force and I am confident 

Army leadership will continue its commitment both to transparency and responsiveness to the findings and recommendations of the Recovering Warrior Task Force. 

I commend Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey for his leadership in ensuring that the care of wounded, ill, and injured soldiers continues to improve and 

flourish. As Secretary of Defense Gates and I have repeatedly stated, after the war 

itself, we have no greater responsibility than to care for those who have been 

wounded, become ill, or been injured in service to their country. 

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS OF TROOPS

33. Senator AKAKA. Admiral Mullen, upon completing deployments and prior to 

returning to the civilian world, Guard and Reserve members are required to undergo a demobilization process to evaluate each member’s overall health and wellbeing. 

88 

Oftentimes, mental health issues do not surface immediately, but rather after the 

soldier returns to civilian life. What changes do you plan to make in how these men 

and women are evaluated upon return from deployment to better account for their 

psychological wellbeing? 

Admiral MULLEN. It is DOD policy that all returning servicemembers will receive 

a Post-Deployment Health Assessment within 30 days of their return from deployment with the participation of health care providers. In addition, they should receive a Post-Deployment Health Reassessment 3 to 6 months following their return. 

Both of these assessments have significant portions focusing on the evaluation of 

psychological well-being, and both of these assessments are required for returning 

Reserve component members. 

In addition, DOD is implementing mental health assessments, described below, 

which will be required for Guard and Reserve members. The purpose of the mental 

health assessment is to identify mental health conditions including posttraumatic 

stress disorder, suicidal tendencies, and other behavioral health conditions that require referral for additional care and treatment. 

On July 19, 2010, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)) 

issued a policy memorandum to the military departments to implement the mandatory mental health assessments following deployment. The Services have requested 

that the DOD Reserve Health Readiness Program (RHRP) support their Reserve 

and Guard Components by conducting the mental health assessments according to 

the HA policy guidance. RHRP has modified its contract to address the requirement 

telephonically. RHRP providers will use the DOD mental health assessment training program and become certified to conduct mental health assessments for the Reserve components as specified in the ASD(HA) guidance. The Air Force Reserve 

component expects to be in full compliance with the policy no later than April 2011. 

The other Service components are currently working with the RHRP to implement 

the mandatory mental health assessments in their Reserve components as quickly 

as possible. 

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE SUICIDE PREVENTION

34. Senator AKAKA. Admiral Mullen, DOD appears to be doing a better job preventing suicides within our Active-Duty Forces than in the past. At the same time, 

the suicide rates for National Guard and Reserve units have increased. Please discuss actions that are being considered or implemented to help our Guard and Reserve members in this area. 

Admiral MULLEN. The resilience and suicide prevention programs that the Services have implemented are also being tailored to fit the unique needs of the National 

Guard and Reserve members and their families. The National Guard in each State 

has programs that are unique to the state, which incorporate such approaches as 

peer support, call centers, or embedded mental health providers. For Reserve members and their families who have entered the deployment cycle, the Yellow Ribbon 

Reintegration Program provides information and referrals that support their health 

and well-being. 

DOD also has other tools, such as the online Real Warrior Campaign, Service-produced video messaging, Military Pathways self-assessment tools and the National 

Resource Directory that can enable remote access to support. This is particularly 

useful to Reserve component members and their families since they are dispersed 

throughout communities nationwide and not centrally located at an installation. 

The following are some examples of ongoing National Guard and Reserve efforts 

being made to help members in this area: 

• The Air National Guard Psychological Health Program has embedded Wing 

Directors of Psychological Health (WDPHs) to provide consultation, information, 

referral, and case management for Airmen and their families. WDPHs work 

with State Directors of Psychological Health, Joint Family Support Assistance 

Program and Military and Family Life Consultants, serving as consultants to 

medical personnel conducting pre- and post-deployment assessments of airmen 

and provide further screening, referral and case management as appropriate. 

• The Army National Guard (ARNG) has distributed the Resilience and 

Risk Reduction Campaign Plan, and the ARNG ‘‘Leader’s Guide to Soldier 

Resilience’’ to State leaders to promote the mental, physical, and spiritual 

health of soldiers and families. These guides complement peer-to-peer support programs, aimed at building a support network for soldiers in between 

traditional drill periods. 

• The Navy Reserve sponsors a Psychological Health Outreach Program 

where counselors provide education, referrals, and resources to Navy and 

89 

Marine Corps reservists and their families, to include those who may be 

considered suicide risks. This proactive outreach to every corner of the 

country occurs during the deployment cycle and continues throughout the 

reintegration period in a variety of venues. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK UDALL

PRESIDENT’S ECONOMIC STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN

35. Senator UDALL. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 requires the President to provide an 

economic strategy for Afghanistan, one that supports the counterinsurgency campaign and helps create sustainable Afghan institutions—but also one that will help 

the Afghan Government eventually be able to pay for its own security. When can 

we expect to see this strategy, and how important do you believe an economic strategy is to the success of the overall campaign? 

Secretary GATES. An economic strategy will contribute to the overall success of 

the civil-military campaign plan by helping USAID focus its efforts and resources 

in ways that maximize the effects of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan. We have participated in discussions, led by the National Security Staff, on the process by which 

the report will be produced. DOS and USAID are part of this process. DOD will participate in drafting of the report, as directed by the Executive Office of the President, and will pay particular attention to elements of economic strategy that support 

the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, promote economic stabilization, and enhance the establishment of sustainable institutions. DOD will work, as 

directed, to help complete this report as expeditiously as possible, noting the complexity and difficulty of the task. 

Admiral MULLEN. An economic strategy is a key element of our whole-of-government approach to the campaign in Afghanistan in the short and medium term. Economic development addresses the drivers of instability in key population areas by 

providing equitable access to basic services. A economic strategy is also important 

to the longer-term sustainability of the Afghan state by enhancing the government 

revenue base and building a robust private sector that underpins job creation, economic growth and long-term fiscal sustainability. 

In a coordinated interagency effort, DOS, USAID, and DOD are working to develop a U.S. strategy to strengthen Afghanistan’s economy. Other departments and 

agencies across the U.S. Government, such as the Department of Treasury, will also 

be able to provide useful input to the strategy. 

36. Senator UDALL. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what are likely to be 

the basic tenets of that economic strategy—the minimum objectives it should meet 

in order to complement and support the overall campaign? 

Secretary GATES. DOD plays a supporting role to DOS and USAID in terms of 

an economic strategy for Afghanistan. I believe that it is important, at a minimum, 

for the economic strategy to address the need to expand employment opportunities 

for Afghanistan’s bourgeoning population of young people and increase government 

revenue, giving hope that Afghanistan will in the future be able to provide for its 

own security with minimum outside assistance. 

To reach fiscal sustainability and increase economic growth, Afghanistan must establish a transparent and accountable regulatory regime for managing public resources, including those generated by its natural resource base. The economic strategy should also account for agricultural growth, which contributes to food security. 

Finally, an economic strategy should make the maximum use of the resources that 

build towards an economic structure which benefits the majority of Afghans and 

does not facilitate the empowerment of a few elites. 

Admiral MULLEN. While we would defer to DOS and USAID, who have the real 

expertise on this area, from DOD view it is important that at a minimum the economic strategy address the need to provide jobs for Afghanistan’s bourgeoning population of young people. Additionally, this strategy should chart a way forward that 

gives hope that Afghanistan will in the future be able to provide for its own security 

with minimum outside assistance to ensure that Afghanistan is never again a safe 

haven for extremist to attack the United States. The strategy should make maximum use of the resources influx we now have to build towards an economic structure that benefits the majority of Afghans and does not facilitate the empowerment 

of exploitive elite. 

90 

An economic strategy will be an important element of developing Afghanistan’s 

long term fiscal sustainability. It will emphasize the need to move from donor dependency to export-led growth. 

37. Senator UDALL. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, from a DOD perspective, what should be the further trajectory of engagement and commitment by the 

USAID and other elements of the U.S. Government that provide civilian assistance? 

Secretary GATES. The U.S. strategy should take into account both near-term activities that help stabilize cleared areas, as well as longer-term considerations that 

are more typical of traditional development programs. To that end, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan recently revised the joint civil-military 

campaign plan, which spells out the integrated civilian and military efforts required 

for our strategy in Afghanistan to succeed. DOS and USAID contributed additional 

personnel through the civilian surge, allowing civilians to partner and share expertise with U.S. military units at every level of the chain of command, from the national level down to the district level. I strongly support USAID’s continued assistance to the Afghan Government to build effective governance structures and effectively deliver services to the Afghan people. Given the importance of agriculture to 

the Afghan economy, USAID agricultural experts along with U.S. Department of Agriculture experts have an important role in advising Afghans on ways to increase 

the productivity and income of Afghan farmers, and in helping to build the capacity 

of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock. 

Admiral MULLEN. USAID and its civilian partners play a critical role in Afghanistan, and need more resources to continue to perform the challenging task of rebuilding Afghanistan. In areas that are more stable, USAID has demonstrated its 

value by providing longer-term economic development projects. We see significant 

need to preserve and expand the programs and activities currently undertaken by 

USAID to support the stabilization effort, build capacity of the government and civil 

society, encourage economic growth, and further the social development of Afghanistan. As we continue our efforts to develop Afghanistan’s economy, we will consider 

how best to ensure the unique capabilities that USAID provides are sustained. 

As we begin to thin out our military presence in areas that we transition to 

ANSFs, we will rely on our civilian partners to take a lead role in engaging with 

Afghan counterparts. The sustainment of civilian assistance in Afghanistan will be 

critical to our strategic partnership with the Afghans, and as Secretary Gates recently observed: ‘‘Economic development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers’’. 

Note: General Petraeus’s testimony on March 15, 2011: 

‘‘I am concerned that levels of funding for our DOS and USAID partners 

will not sufficiently enable them to build on the hard-fought security 

achievements of our men and women in uniform. Inadequate resourcing of 

our civilian partners could, in fact, jeopardize accomplishment of the overall 

mission. I offer that assessment, noting that we have just completed a joint 

civil-military campaign plan between U.S. Forces Afghanistan and the U.S. 

Embassy which emphasizes the critical integration of civilian and military 

efforts in an endeavor such as that in Afghanistan.’’ 

TASK FORCE FOR BUSINESS AND STABILITY OPERATIONS

38. Senator UDALL. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what further role in Afghanistan do you envisage for the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations 

(TFBSO)? 

Secretary GATES. TFBSO is an invaluable element of the United States’ comprehensive civil-military effort in Afghanistan. TFBSO’s mission—generating economic growth in conflict areas, specifically in Afghanistan, including through the 

mobilization of private investment—is one that no other part of the U.S. Government is currently able to perform. I understand the view of some that DOD is not 

the appropriate fit for such a mission, but it is important to note that this work 

is not currently being carried out by any other U.S. department or agency. 

Moreover, senior Afghan officials requested that TFBSO continue its activities in 

Afghanistan, and senior U.S. military and civilian leaders in Afghanistan expressed 

strong support for TFBSO’s activities. While DOD works to provide options to Congress for the continuation of TFBSO’s mission, I request your support in continuing 

the TFBSO program so that it may continue performing its vital role. 

Admiral MULLEN. The TFBSO has fulfilled an important role in Afghanistan. 

There is a large institutional gap in U.S. capability regarding economic development 

operations in conflict zones. TFBSO has demonstrated value to DOD field commanders and U.S. Ambassadors—both in Iraq and Afghanistan—as filling a vital 

91 

need for initiating longer-term economic development projects while the countries 

are, or were, in ongoing operations. Specifically, it helps fill the gap between initial 

stabilization and longer-term economic development. We see significant need to preserve the programs and activities currently undertaken by the TFBSO to support 

economic stabilization operations in Afghanistan. As we continue our efforts to develop Afghanistan’s economy, we will consider how best to ensure the unique capabilities the TFBSO provides are sustained. 

39. Senator UDALL. Secretary Gates, please share your views on the requirement 

in the NDAA to provide a plan for transferring TFBSO’s activities to USAID, whether you would support such a transfer in fiscal year 2012, and whether you have any 

concerns regarding the potential transfer of the TFBSO’s activities to USAID. 

Secretary GATES. The TFBSO proved to be an invaluable element of the United 

States’ comprehensive civil-military effort in Afghanistan. TFBSO’s mission—generating economic growth in conflict areas, specifically in Afghanistan, including 

through the mobilization of private investment—is one that no other part of the 

U.S. Government is currently able to perform. I understand the view of some that 

DOD is not the appropriate fit for such a mission, but it is important to note that 

this work is not currently being carried out by any other U.S. department or agency. 

Moreover, senior Afghan officials requested that TFBSO continue its activities in 

Afghanistan, and senior U.S. military and civilian leaders in Afghanistan expressed 

strong support for TFBSO’s activities. While DOD works to provide options to Congress for the continuation of TFBSO’s mission, I request your support in continuing 

the TFBSO program so that it may continue performing its vital role. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOE MANCHIN

MEDICATION MANAGEMENT

40. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Gates, last week the New York Times reported 

on servicemembers that come home from battle caught in a web of misuse and overuse of prescription drugs—in fact, a young man from my home State was featured 

as an example of how the misuse of medications can lead to disaster. We send our 

men and women to war on multiple deployments and give them medications to keep 

them awake, to help them sleep, and to help ease the physical and psychological 

pain of being in a stressful environment. As a result, many are coming home broken, not healed. We are finding out that the stories behind many suicides and unexpected deaths are often complicated by dangerous cocktails of drugs. 

It’s been nearly 2 years since the Pentagon was directed in Section 715 of the 

NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 to study how medications are being used, and misused, 

to treat the physical and mental wounds of our warfighters, and how to decrease 

the risks to our troops. The study is now overdue by almost a year. This problem 

is costing lives and money. When can we expect to receive this critical study on the 

management of medications for physically and psychologically wounded members of 

the Armed Forces? 

Secretary GATES. I appreciate the sensitivity of this issue and your concern for 

a solid prevention strategy. As was indicated in the interim report, DOD pinpointed 

certain effective methodologies that identify dangerous combinations of medications. 

The scope of this study is complex and multi-layered, however. It includes both inpatient and outpatient care at military treatment facilities, service specific WTUs, 

community-based WTUs, and private sector care. 

Additionally, this protocol must be approved by the Institutional Review Board 

(IRB) that oversees the contractor with whom the Department is engaged in for the 

study. Likewise, DOD needs approval by the IRBs of the six multi-Service sites 

where the contractor would conduct focus groups and a review of medication practices. 

The overall IRB process may take up to a year. At this time, DOD obtained all 

of the necessary IRB approvals. 

The site visits are scheduled to take place no later than March 31, 2011. These 

site visits are instrumental in formulating a gap analysis between current and best 

practices and in developing policies and procedures that will carry out the intent 

of the legislation. DOD anticipates completion of the final report by November 2011. 

Thank you for your continued patience as we develop a comprehensive report that 

is thoroughly responsive to the legislative requirements. 

92 

41. Senator MANCHIN. Admiral Mullen, please provide more information about the 

growing problem of over-medicating and self-medicating soldiers and what resources 

in the fiscal year 2012 budget are being directed toward this problem. 

Admiral MULLEN. Increased medication use is a societal problem and DOD medicine mirrors civilian practice. This problem has been of increasing concern to Dr. 

Stanley and me. Our ongoing discussions lead me to believe that drug abuse represents both a symptom and a problem that fuels the worsening of other conditions. 

Senior military leaders have been aware of the acute need to gain better controls 

on the inappropriate use of drugs. However, until recently, we have been unaware 

of the hurdles faced by their subordinate commanders and by the DOD drug testing 

community. We realize that drug demand reduction operates within a larger system 

of readiness and is therefore of great importance to the Chiefs. 

Despite growing concerns among commanders that drug use is a problem within 

the ranks, the DOD drug testing programs have remained at budget flat line for 

the past several years and are facing an estimated $11 million shortfall. While the 

abuse of prescription drugs has grown substantially since the beginning of the wars, 

we have only been capable of testing a fraction of these compounds. Until recently, 

the main DOD drug testing program was positioned under the TMA while its budget was under the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Policy (DASD Counternarcotics and Global Threats) within the Counternarcotics Central Transfer Account. This created a dual loyalty conflict. 

Compared to the 1980s, when highly effective drug testing in the DOD was first 

launched, there has been a substantial reduction in commanders’ willingness to take 

urinalysis positive individuals to adjudication. This was certainly a concern heard 

by VCSA Chiarelli during his visits to installations for a suicide prevention task 

force review. Commanders indicated the competing demands of filling ranks for deployment and removing drug-using troops made random urinalysis untenable for 

many. Furthermore, the adjudication process is often long and is perceived to distract leaders from deployment-specific tasks. Rising rates of legal narcotics prescriptions without a seamless capability to quickly verify the prescription means that 

these actually cloak the real extent of the problem. 

To help alleviate these problems, I recommended that Dr. Stanley take the following actions: 

• Subsume the DOD drug testing efforts directly under Readiness and fully 

fund the program to the required levels. 

• Complete the Prescription Drug Verification Portal (the portal that would 

allow drug testing labs to instantly verify narcotics prescriptions in the 

TRICARE database). 

• Make drug prosecution statistics part of regular unit readiness reporting. 

• Designate several independent drug testing teams (similar to the approach used by the UK MOD) as mobile units that can independently obtain specimens at random. This encourages commanders to remain compliant and introduces a new variable that is likely to improve deterrence. 

• Fund the expansion of drug testing to include the most common prescription drugs of abuse (particularly benzodiazepines e.g. Valium, this is estimated by the Drug Demand Reduction Program Office to be a $20 million 

shortfall). 

• Preface these changes with an announcement to the force encouraging 

drug counseling and treatment 90 days prior to any launch of a new testing 

regimen. The objective of the program should be to drive inappropriate drug 

use to their lowest possible levels. 

• Regularly exchange information between the DOD Drug Demand Reduction Program and the ongoing suicide prevention programs and the DOD 

Joint Pain Task Force. 

As previously stated, several of these recommendations have already been implemented and others are in progress. 

In addition to the initiatives above, the Army’s new policies and procedures for 

identifying and mitigating polypharmacy have reduced the risk of over-medication 

and self-medication. These include: 

• OTSG/MEDCOM Policy 10–076, Guide for Enhancing Patient Safety and 

Reducing Risk via the Prevention and Management of Polypharmacy Involving Psychotropic Medications and Central Nervous System Depressants: 

Implementation of this policy has resulted in improved communication by 

involving the patient in the treatment plan. The provider will review medications at each encounter and refer to a clinical pharmacist for a comprehensive medication review when the patient is on four or more medicaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
93 

tions with at least one a psychotropic or Central Nervous System depressant. 

• Revision of MEDCOM Regulation 40–51, Medical Review Officers and Review of Positive Urinalysis Drug Testing Results: This revision will limit 

the authorized use of controlled substances and clarify the timeframe for 

determining legitimate use of controlled substances. 

Note: As of the date and time of submission. This response does not address specific resources included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. A revised response 

will be provided once granularity on this subject is obtained. 

EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES

42. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Gates, I want to applaud your efforts to, as 

you’ve said, ‘‘reform the way the Pentagon does business—to not only make every 

defense dollar count, but also to become a more . . . effective organization.’’ The 

American taxpayers want us to start making the hard choices—to root out every inefficiency, cut every bit of waste, and most importantly, change the culture of endless money. 

I am still concerned that we do not have the full audit of DOD. What are the obstacles preventing this commonsense practice from occurring, and what can we do 

to make it happen sooner? 

Secretary GATES. DOD’s massive size and complexity make it extremely difficult 

to achieve full auditability. In addition, DOD financial processes were established 

and ingrained in systems long ago. These processes and systems were designed for 

budgetary accounting—not proprietary or commercial accounting called for in the 

Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. To meet the commercial accounting standards 

called for in the CFO Act, there is a substantial amount of work to be done, including efforts to address the most difficult challenges: 

• DOD systems are not integrated—breaking the audit trail • Systems do not collect data at the transaction level • Many diverse functional organizations must work together in end-to-end 

processes 

• Earlier focus was on information of limited value to management and 

was not supported throughout DOD 

Meeting these challenges and improving DOD’s business processes receive more 

attention than ever before. DOD is addressing them by changing the way it does 

business. To realize success, DOD is using a streamlined approach that focuses on 

improving and auditing the information we most use to manage. Improving the 

budgetary and mission critical asset information used to manage the DOD will allow 

commanders and other leaders to better meet mission needs with available resources. I believe this alignment of operational and financial objectives is the most 

effective incentive to improve financial management. 

DOD also established long- and short-term goals, set up a governance process, and 

provided funding to the Military Services to make process and system improvements. These system improvements, primarily made by deploying Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERPS), have broad operational improvement goals which 

include improving business processes in a way to support audited financial statements. DOD also implemented other effective measures such as including audit related actions and objectives in Senior Executive performance plans. Preparing DOD 

for financial statement audits is a monumental task, but with leadership focus, accountability, and our streamlined approach, I believe it can succeed. With this 

streamlined approach I believe that DOD can achieve its goal of meeting this objective by 2017. 

CHINA

43. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Gates, during the next 5 to 10 years, how do you 

see the defense budget changing as a result of China’s predicted rise as a worldwide 

provider of strategic minerals, consumer goods, and weapons? 

Secretary GATES. The rise of China as a regional political, economic, and military 

power with global ambitions is one of the defining elements of the international 

strategic and security environment. 

The primary focus of China’s military modernization appears to remain on preparing for contingencies in the Taiwan Strait. However, China’s military is also exploring missions beyond Taiwan. DOD is watching carefully, for example, China’s 

development and acquisition of weapon systems and capabilities that would classify 

as intended for anti-access and area denial missions. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

94 

Review examined operating in an anti-access/area denial environment and recommended that the United States pursue effective, affordable, and sustainable U.S. 

defense posture based on a broad portfolio of military capabilities with maximum 

versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. 

The President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 includes $113 billion for DOD 

to procure the capabilities needed to protect the United States and its interests in 

the Asia-Pacific region. Included in this amount are funds to invest in new programs, as well as modernization efforts for existing equipment. Two specific items 

of note are investments in a new bomber for the Air Force and five additional ships 

for the Navy. 

These investments will enable the United States to sustain our forward presence 

in the Western Pacific and to operate in contested areas in the future. 

44. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Gates, what does DOD now spend on goods from 

China? 

Secretary GATES. In fiscal year 2010, the DOD purchased a total of $123,560 in 

unspecified miscellaneous commercial, industrial, and professional goods and services directly from Chinese industry. DOD expects to issue its annual report to Congress on purchases from foreign entities shortly, presenting in greater detail DOD 

purchase of goods and services from all foreign countries, including China. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND

AFGHANISTAN

45. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Gates, in December 2010 President Obama, 

while discussing the results of his Afghanistan-Pakistan review policy, said ‘‘the 

United States is on track to achieve its goals in the war against terrorism against 

al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.’’ The review also stated ‘‘as a result 

of our integrated efforts in 2010, we are setting the conditions . . . to begin a responsible, conditions-based U.S. troop reduction in July 2011.’’ Now that we are about 

135 days away from that July 2011 objective, how many troops do you think conditions on the ground will allow us to bring home this year? 

Secretary GATES. General Petraeus will provide options and make a recommendation for the drawdown of U.S. surge forces in the coming months. This timing will 

allow him to take into account important on-the-ground considerations, including 

progress in provinces and districts that are being transitioned to Afghan-security 

lead. This analytical process will allow the time needed to provide the President the 

best information to inform his ultimate decision on this matter. Until that time, it 

is too early to say how many U.S. forces will redeploy. 

46. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Gates, you have budgeted in fiscal year 2012 

for 98,000 troops in Afghanistan—the same force level you have today. I understand 

that you wish to leave yourself wiggle room in case conditions on the ground do not 

permit a timely withdrawal, but the American people want to see execution of the 

promise to begin withdrawal this summer. At some point we need to reduce our 

troop presence and turn security over to the Afghan security forces. Why could you 

not have assumed a lower number of troops in building your fiscal year 2012 budget? 

Secretary GATES. There is every indication that conditions will permit the United 

States to begin withdrawing forces in July 2011. General Petraeus will provide options and make a recommendation for the commencement of the drawdown of U.S. 

surge forces. General Petraeus may also recommend, as the transition process continues and the responsibility for security in selected regions is transitioned to Afghan security forces, that some U.S. forces be reinvested in other areas. 

DOD’s budget request is driven by numerous factors, including assumptions that 

may need to be reassessed as conditions evolve in a dynamic environment. General 

Petraeus and I continue to assess the conditions on the ground so that we may provide options and a recommendation to the President, but I believe that it is premature to attempt to forecast a budget based on lower U.S. force levels at this point 

in time. 

47. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Gates, as I assess the situation, it seems that 

135 days out you are still not confident about conditions on the ground. When will 

you be confident? 

95 

Secretary GATES. I am confident that we are making steady progress on the 

ground. I recently returned from my 13th trip to Afghanistan as Secretary of Defense and the progress made by our forces exceeds my expectations. 

The President and I trust the judgment of General Petraeus, who will provide us 

options and make a recommendation in the coming months for the commencement 

of the drawdown of U.S. surge forces in July 2011. 

48. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Gates, if your assumptions are ultimately too 

high, where will the extra funding go? 

Secretary GATES. I will consult with Congress to determine the best course of action. 

49. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Gates, are you planning a similar model in Afghanistan that we executed in Iraq—changing composition of the forces deployed in 

Afghanistan, over time, to an ‘‘advise and assist mission’’ in support of Afghan 

forces? 

Secretary GATES. The short answer is yes. As the United States moves toward 

transferring lead responsibility for security to the Afghan security forces in 2014, 

I expect to continue to conduct training, advising, and assisting activities and joint 

counterterrorism operations, at the request of the Government of Afghanistan, to 

help secure U.S. and Afghan mutual national interests. This is particularly helpful 

in ensuring that Afghanistan is never again a safe haven from which terrorists attack the United States. An enduring strategic partnership with Afghanistan is important to demonstrate to the Afghans and others in the region that the United 

States is committed to this goal. 

50. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Gates, how much of that progress do you expect to accomplish in fiscal year 2012? 

Secretary GATES. The situation in Afghanistan is very fluid. Progress is significant but still fragile and reversible. Based upon the progress in recent months, however, I am increasingly confident that alongside our Afghan and international partners, and with Congressional support, the United States will continue to solidify security gains and transition lead responsibility for security for additional geographic 

areas to Afghan security forces throughout fiscal year 2012. Concurrently, Afghan 

security forces will continue to develop their fighting and support capabilities. I believe that our strategic partnership with the Government of Afghanistan, including 

our willingness to train, advise, assist, and equip the ANSF, and to carry out joint 

counterterrorism operations through 2014 and beyond, will change the strategic calculus of the Taliban and other actors. Combined with our relentless pursuit of midlevel Taliban commanders, the increasing competency and professionalism of ANSF 

will encourage greater numbers of fighters to reconcile with the Government of Afghanistan and reintegrate into Afghan society. 

51. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, in the recently published National Military Strategy (NMS) you stated ‘‘we must continue to support and facilitate wholeof-nation approaches . . . military power complements economic development, governance, and the rule of law.’’ Yet you just said that improvements in Afghanistan’s 

governance and reconstruction have not kept pace with improving security. Given 

the Karzai Government’s extensive corruption, including the looming collapse of the 

Kabul Bank that pays Afghan military salaries, how do you hope to sustain the erosion of al Qaeda and the Taliban’s support among the Afghan people no matter what 

successes our troops obtain? 

Admiral MULLEN. We will sustain the erosion of al Qaeda and the Taliban’s support among the people by capitalizing on our successes and momentum gained 

through the winter 2010 campaign. The new Civilian-Military Campaign Plan is 

closely aligned with the Government of Afghanistan’s National Development Strategy and the Joint Afghan NATO Inteqal Board (JANIB) transition plan. Our objectives are oriented towards the goals of the Lisbon Conference and transitioning the 

lead for security to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. There is a greater 

emphasis on interagency coordination and support to our civilian partners on provincial and district governance, trade, transportation, infrastructure; counter-narcotics programs; customs and border-capacity development and sustainable privatesector development. There will be an emphasis on civilian and diplomatic efforts 

throughout transition but we now have the right inputs to make the strategy successful. 

52. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, when I traveled to Afghanistan and 

Pakistan a few months ago I heard repeatedly from our commanders on the ground 

96 

that our mission in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to Pakistan’s harboring of al 

Qaeda, Taliban, and aligned organizations. U.S.-Pakistani relations have chafed 

greatly over the past year. How are we going to execute a redeployment strategy 

in Afghanistan if Pakistan does not go after the insurgency within its borders? 

Admiral MULLEN. Our commanders on the ground accurately characterize the inextricable linkage of security and counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and 

Pakistan. Peace in the region, and our mission success, depend on securing populations and denying safe havens for terrorist groups on both sides of the border. 

Given the difficult terrain and sophisticated threats in the border area, observers 

not in contact with the Pakistan military may conclude that they are not pursuing 

insurgents on their side of the border. 

The situation on the ground in Pakistan is complex. The Pakistan military has 

made unprecedented progress over the past 2 years in clear and hold operations 

against militants in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal 

Areas (FATA). In the course of those operations, they have lost roughly 3,000 dead 

and 8,000 wounded among security forces fighting militants, with thousands of civilian casualties as well. While it is true that the Pakistan military has not gone after 

Afghanistan-focused insurgents to the same degree it has taken on those groups targeting their own government this is a function both of Pakistan’s perceptions about 

the specific threats and the capabilities of the Pakistan military, which are already 

stretched by the need to continue holding areas previously cleared. 

Although our bilateral relations with Pakistan have had difficult moments in the 

past year, there have also been noteworthy positive developments such as cooperation between our forces in flood relief operations and the development of more formal, robust defense planning ties and security assistance. We have also greatly improved operational cooperation between our forces in the border regions, reducing 

safe havens in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

DOD continues to plan force level reductions in Afghanistan based on the increasing capabilities of ANSFs and conditions on the ground. As our cooperation and coordination with Pakistan in the border area grows and develops, the greater the 

conditions will be to secure the population. 

TERRORISM

53. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, in the NMS it states ‘‘the intersection 

between states, state sponsored, and non-state adversaries is most dangerous in the 

area of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and nuclear terrorism.’’ And then 

it goes on to say ‘‘the prospect of multiple nuclear armed regimes in the Middle East 

with nascent security and command and control mechanisms amplifies the threat 

of conflict, and significantly increases the probability of miscalculation or the loss 

of control of a nuclear weapon to non-state actors.’’ How confident are you that al 

Qaeda or associated insurgent groups could not acquire or steal a nuclear weapon 

or nuclear materials from Pakistan, that they could in turn use in a nuclear September 11 scenario? 

Admiral MULLEN. The prospect of unsecure nuclear weapons or materials, and 

their acquisition and use by al Qaeda or an affiliate, is a serious threat that DOD 

addresses in the NMS as well as in our operational planning efforts. This scenario 

presents a formidable challenge for developing prevention and response strategies; 

however, as preventing nuclear-armed terrorism is a top presidential priority, we 

have a number of initiatives in place to broadly address this threat. 

With regard to Pakistan specifically, as the Secretary has said before, we are confident in the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. 

54. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, how are the growing U.S.-Pakistan tensions impacting our ability to protect against that scenario? 

Admiral MULLEN. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship has endured periods of tension 

as well as periods of cooperative growth in recent years. While street protests and 

negative media coverage frequently complicate our work in Pakistan, they do not 

prevent the cooperative efforts that we and our Pakistan military counterparts see 

as critical to mutual security. Compared to 10 years ago, when bilateral relations 

were nearly frozen due to sanctions we have far more robust mechanisms for cooperation and dialogue today. The bilateral relationship reflects a slow, difficult 

process of deepening trust and cooperation. Full transparency may require years to 

develop. Progress depends on our ability to identify and build upon areas of mutual 

concern and mutual interest; those areas become a platform for effectively preventing worst case scenarios from materializing in Pakistan. 

97 

55. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, I am very concerned about the growing 

risk of Yemen’s collapse, given the recent protests, the historical conflicts within and 

across Yemen’s boundaries, and the country’s dire poverty. A year ago, a bomb attempt conceived in Yemen threatened our Homeland. Last year I asked Secretary 

Gates why we ought to focus so many resources on Afghanistan when we face a 

similar threat of an unstable state with Al Qaeda or related elements in Yemen. 

We seem to be addressing Yemen with a target counter-terrorism mission, rather 

than a larger counterinsurgency footprint as in Afghanistan. Please explain the 

strategic difference. Which do you think is more effective? 

Admiral MULLEN. The largest difference between our strategies in these two countries lies in the scope and scale of our efforts. Unique threat contexts in each of 

these countries have shaped our responses. We invaded Afghanistan to fight the 

Islamist Taliban militia and its terrorist affiliate, al Qaeda, who held control of most 

of the country. Our efforts in Yemen, on the other hand, are limited to the cooperative counter-terrorism assistance we can provide that respects Yemen’s sovereignty. 

While the scale and scope of the threat is larger in Afghanistan, our significant military presence allows us to conduct full-scale military operations. We do not have 

that liberty in Yemen, because we cannot operate within the country without Yemeni permission. Instead, the U.S. military seeks to build Yemeni counter-terrorism 

capacity. We have a viable threat in Yemen, and the growing instability there may 

allow for greater terrorist activity, but our ability to combat AQAP is confined to 

our cooperative arrangements with the Yemenis. Both our counter-insurgency and 

counter-terror strategies can be effective depending on how and where they are applied. In each of these countries, we are working within our resource and legal constraints to develop comprehensive approaches to ending terrorism. Counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan are engaging with communities to target enemy insurgents while improving security. In Yemen, we are training counter-terrorism forces 

while pursuing a range of development initiatives to reduce the systemic causes of 

terrorist recruitment. 

CYBERSPACE

56. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, the NMS states, ‘‘the United States 

faces persistent, widespread, and growing threats from state and non-state actors 

in space and cyberspace. Should a large-scale cyber intrusion or debilitating cyber 

attack occur, we must provide a broad range of options to ensure our access and 

use of the cyberspace domain and hold malicious actors accountable. We must seek 

executive and congressional action to provide new authorities to enable effective action in cyberspace’’. What are the specific authorities you need to support cyberspace 

operations? 

Admiral MULLEN. Foremost, we need to clearly specify the military’s functions 

and authorities with respect to both offensive and defensive activities in cyberspace, 

both to protect DOD networks and in support of broader national security interests. 

In the past, network protection was reactive, limited to implementing ‘‘fixes’’ to network vulnerabilities that had already been exploited by threat actors. Such a posture is insufficient and cannot be characterized as a effective ‘‘defense’’ in a domain 

where offensive action has clear advantage. In cyberspace, static defenses are quickly subverted, overwhelmed, and defeated. DOD is developing a dynamic, agile, active, and informed defensive capability. I am confident that this approach will result 

in more secure, hardened, and resilient DOD networks. Extending similar capability 

to the Nation’s critical infrastructure and government functions, as called for in the 

Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, will require an integrated wholeof-government approach. 

57. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, in the strategy you state that the 

United States faces growing threats from state and non-state actors in cyberspace. 

Are you saying that you are seeing evidence of terrorist groups gaining the capability of launching a cyber attack or simply using the Internet for recruitment, motivation, or fundraising? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes. Al Qaeda and associated Violent Extremist Organizations 

(VEOs) aggressively use the Internet to disseminate their ideology and propaganda; 

to radicalize, recruit, and mobilize new members; to coordinate operations; and, to 

generate and distribute funds. A VEO’s ability to exploit the Internet complicates 

our military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, while posing challenges to our domestic law enforcement and Homeland Security initiatives. Additionally, I am concerned 

that these VEOs may eventually acquire and use sophisticated cyber tools developed 

by nation-states, criminal organizations, or disaffected cyber specialists whom they 

98 

may recruit. If this occurs, the U.S. Government will not have the luxury of time 

and distance to separate ourselves from the adversary. 

58. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Mullen, the fiscal year 2012 budget requests have $2.3 billion for cyber security. Can you explain the components of that number 

and how it compares to the last 3 years? 

Admiral MULLEN. The fiscal year 2012 budget request for cyber security of $2.32 billion is made up of core information assurance (IA) activities [$2.00 billion], the 

cyber security/DIB initiative [$0.20 billion], and Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) 

headquarters operations [$0.12 billion] programs. The core IA program includes the 

following program elements: Public Key Infrastructure, Key Management Initiative, 

and Information System Security Program. DOD must protect and defend information, information-based processes, and information systems on the Global Information Grid at all security levels to meet its strategic goals. 

The Department is also working to identify and mature the capabilities required 

to support cyber operations and the stand-up of CYBERCOM. The fiscal year 2012 

President’s budget request for cyber security continues to address computer network 

defense; cyber identity and access management; engineering and deployment controls; cryptographic key production and management; cross domain capabilities; 

workforce development; and operational resiliency. The fiscal year 2012 request also 

initiates the design and construction of a Joint Operations Center for CYBERCOM; 

adds resources to monitor and secure classified networks and information; increases 

manpower to assess cyber threats and develop countermeasures; sustains cyber 

schoolhouses; and supports evolution of DIB cyber security activities. 

The enacted fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 budgets for cyber security were 

for $2.32 billion and $2.35 billion, respectively. The fiscal year 2011 budget request 

was for $2.50 billion. Cost reductions in fiscal year 2012 are due to operational 

changes to include the removal of initial/one-time facility and equipment costs for 

establishing CYBERCOM at Fort Meade in fiscal year 2011, and cyber security 

funding transfers into DISA’s Working Capital Fund. 

HOMELAND DEFENSE SECURITY PREPAREDNESS

59. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Gates, the NMS states that ‘‘we will continue 

to dedicate, fund, and train a portion of the National Guard for homeland defense 

and defense support of civil authorities. Working with Canada and Mexico, we will 

remain prepared to deter and defeat direct threats to our North American homeland.’’ What is your assessment of the terrorist infiltration threat along our northern border and what specific steps are you taking to counter it? 

Secretary GATES. This question is best answered by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), which is responsible for preventing terrorist attacks within the 

United States (6 U.S.C. §•A(b)(1)(A)); preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism into the United States (6 U.S.C. § 202(1)); and securing the 

borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea 

transportation systems of the United States (6 U.S.C. § 202(2)). 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

60. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, U.S. troops are currently deployed with ISFs and Kurdish peshmerga fighters along the disputed internal boundaries between Arab and Kurdish communities. These ‘‘Combined Security 

Mechanisms’’ are easing tensions between Arabs and Kurds, while contributing to 

the integration of peshmerga units into the ISFs. How risky and potentially dangerous is it for these peacekeeping mechanisms to go away at the end of this year, 

as they must under the current security agreement? 

Secretary GATES. The U.S. Government continues to implement the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement fully, including completing the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq 

by December 31, 2011. As part of the drawdown, U.S. Forces-Iraq (USF–I) is taking 

steps to mitigate the potential for conflict by building confidence at the local, provincial, and national levels between security forces and political leaders. USF–I is also 

working closely with DOS to transition the U.S. military’s role as a mediator and 

honest broker in northern Iraq to the post-2011 civilian-led mission. 

The Combined Security Mechanism (CSM) consists of a series of trilateral (U.S. 

military, ISF, and Kurdish Security Forces (KSF)) coordination centers and checkpoints to facilitate confidence-building and coordination at the local and national 

99 

levels in areas of northern Iraq with Disputed Internal Boundaries. At the same 

time, Prime Minister Maliki’s 2009 designation of some KSF units as ‘‘Regional 

Guard Brigades’’ allowed USF–I to advise, train, and assist these forces so that they 

are able to integrate into the ISF. USF–I developed drawdown plans for ending U.S. 

participation in the CSMs by engaging with Iraqi and Kurdish military leaders to 

transition this trilateral mechanism to a bilateral forum. ISF and KSF modernization efforts also increased stability, improved communication, and built confidence 

among leaders in DIBs areas. These efforts will mitigate the impact of U.S. forces’ 

drawdown from the CSMs. 

DOS plans to establish temporary Embassy Branch Offices in the DIBs to address 

local and provincial ethno-sectarian tensions. Even so, DOS’s ability to successfully 

lead the mediator and honest broker missions in northern Iraq depends on full funding of its fiscal year 2012 budget request. Without full funding, the achievement of 

the U.S. goal to facilitate peaceful, political processes for resolving outstanding 

issues in northern Iraq is at risk. 

Admiral MULLEN. Unresolved Arab-Kurd issues, including the resolution of Article 140, agreement on a hydrocarbon law, revenue sharing, and the status of 

Kirkuk, remain a primary concern. Tensions are elevated within disputed areas and 

will remain so until these issues are resolved. Dialogue among Arab and Kurdish 

leaders with international mediation has been helpful but it is highly unlikely 

issues will be resolved before U.S. military forces leave Iraq at the end of the year. 

In the short term, the Combined Security Mechanism is an effective stop gap until 

these broader issues are resolved and provides a confidence building measure between the Government of Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government. In coordination with the State Department, we have developed plans to mitigate the risk of 

U.S. forces leaving the disputed areas at the end of the year by significantly increasing our diplomatic presence in the north. We believe this increased diplomatic presence, if fully funded, will help address Arab-Kurd tensions. The risk of violent confrontation will increase without an adequately resourced replacement for the current U.S. military presence. 

61. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, please explain what 

comparable civilian arrangement will take over the peacekeeping role now played 

by U.S. troops operating along the Arab-Kurd fault lines in Iraq. 

Secretary GATES. DOS’s plan for its 2012 civilian-led mission prioritizes engagement in northern Iraqi areas with Disputed Internal Boundaries by providing for 

the establishment of Embassy Branch Offices (EBOs) in Ninewa and Kirkuk Provinces. The EBOs will be staffed by diplomats, development specialists, and representatives from other U.S. agencies, such as the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Treasury, in order to bring a whole-of-government approach to conflict 

prevention and peace building in northern Iraq. The location of the EBOs along the 

Arab-Kurd ethnic fault line reflects the concern that Arab-Kurd tensions remain a 

leading source of instability in Iraq. DOS’s ability to play a mediating and honest 

broker role in northern Iraq depends on full funding of its fiscal year 2012 budget 

request. 

Admiral MULLEN. As part of the U.S. military drawdown in Iraq, we have planned 

for and are actively transitioning enduring programs to the State Department and 

the Government of Iraq. This includes the U.S. role in the trilateral security relationship we share with the ISF and the Peshmerga along Arab-Kurd fault lines. 

While different from the military’s current role, the State Department will utilize 

the diplomatic tools inherent to its capabilities in mitigating tensions between Arabs 

and Kurds. I am concerned the State Department will assume increased risk in this 

very important role if their funding is further decreased. 

IRANIAN INTENT

62. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, would you agree that the highest priority 

of the Iranian government during this year is to prevent any changes to the security 

agreement with Iraq so as to ensure that no U.S. troops will remain in Iraq by January 1, 2012? 

Secretary GATES. Iran would almost certainly oppose a continued U.S. troop presence after 2011. I remain troubled by Iran’s continued support to, and training of, 

militant groups that target both Iraqi and U.S. personnel. The United States encourages Iran to maintain constructive and peaceful relations with its neighbor Iraq, 

with which it shares a long history of cultural, religious, and economic ties. Iran 

can be a better neighbor by respecting Iraqi sovereignty, and by ending its support 

to those who support terrorism in Iraq. 

100 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE MODERNIZATION

63. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in their proposal to fund the remainder of fiscal year 2011, House appropriators cut $300 million from the President’s request 

for nuclear weapons modernization. Do you agree that it is critical that Congress 

fund the $624 million increase in fiscal year 2011 and that a long-term commitment 

to the funding proposal set forth in connection to the New START treaty, commonly 

referred to as the 1251 report, is of the upmost importance to national security and 

the viability of our nuclear deterrent? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, it is critical that Congress fund the entire $624 million fiscal year 2011 increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

and sustain the long-term funding requirements as laid out in the 1251 Report to 

Congress, which serves as a roadmap to implementing the Nuclear Posture Review 

(NPR) and New START treaty. The treaty is buttressed by credible modernization 

plans and long-term funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and the infrastructure that supports it. This administration proposes significant investments over 

the next decade to rebuild and sustain America’s aging nuclear infrastructure—especially the national labs, and the science, technology, and engineering base. This 

funding not only begins with a commitment to the long overdue modernization of 

the nuclear weapons infrastructure, it continues ongoing activities and starts the 

studies necessary to sustain and life-extend the nuclear deterrent so it remains in 

a safe, secure, and effective status. In addition, the funding augments NNSA activities required to sustain the personnel with key critical skills to continue to sustain 

our nuclear arsenal. 

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

64. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, while the fiscal year 2012 budget includes a $200 million increase over the President’s fiscal year 2011 level, overall FYDP 

funding is cut by $2.6 billion. Given the President’s commitment to missile defense 

as reaffirmed during our debate on the New START treaty just a few months ago, 

how does DOD justify significant out-year decreases for missile defense? 

Secretary GATES. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget for 2011 through 

2015 is based on the missile defense priorities set forth in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR). The MDA budget strategy in fiscal year 2012 identified efficiencies and balanced personnel, budgetary and management resources within and 

across its components. In instituting efficiency initiatives, the MDA will make greater use of competition across its acquisition programs and realize savings through 

a refined approach to contracting for services. 

EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION FOR SPACE EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE

65. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, while I appreciate the stated goals of the 

Evolutionary Acquisition for Space Efficiency initiative for procuring satellite systems, I remained concerned with the overall track record of cost overruns and schedule delays for space systems. Does DOD intend to follow the requirements set forth 

by this committee on multiyear procurements, to include: 

• A certification that the use of such a contract will result in substantial 

savings; 

• That the minimum need for the property to be purchased is expected to 

remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period; 

• That the head of the agency will request funding for the contract at the 

level required to avoid contract cancellation; 

• That there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the 

technical risks associated with such property are not excessive; and 

• That the estimates of both the cost of the contract and that anticipated 

cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic. 

Secretary GATES. The DOD discussed the multiyear procurement provisions at 

length with the White House and congressional staffs. As a result of these discussions, DOD determined that multiyear procurement authorization is not required for 

this space system. Therefore, the model DOD is implementing is not multiyear procurement. The Air Force is procuring two satellites in a block in a single year. However, full funding for both satellites in a single year is just not practically achievable 

in today’s budget environment. 

I share your concern with the past performance of space programs. I am bringing 

the block buy approach forward to address specific root causes of some of those difficulties. The stability that comes with buying in quantity, even in quantities of two, 

101 

will help the prime contractors, subcontractors, and parts and supplies vendors. 

These satellites have thousands of often sophisticated components, tens of thousands of complex integrated circuits, and many dozens of unique designs only found 

in U.S. factories. The people who design and manufacture these parts and subparts 

are highly talented but small in number, and DOD wants to keep them working for 

its needs. Further, the government will realize lower unit costs by buying in quantity and by minimizing production line stops and restarts. 

66. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in pursing this contracting strategy, what 

sort of accountability does DOD intend to place on the prime contractor of these satellite systems? 

Secretary GATES. The best approach for accountability under the acquisition strategy for the AEHF communications satellites is the fixed-price, incentive fee contract. 

Government liability is constrained if the contractor experiences problems directly 

related to contractor responsibilities within the scope of the contract. Contract penalties for unmet milestones or premature failure in on-orbit performance will also 

apply. Along with these provisions, DOD plans to bring improved industrial base 

stability that should help avoid some of the conditions that contributed to past cost 

overruns. 

In addition, designating block buys as subprograms will provide congressional insight into actual space vehicle block costs. The resulting visibility ensures Air Force 

and DOD accountability for the costs and funding requirements to which they committed at the block Milestone Decision. 

67. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, do you share my concern about using these 

sorts of contracts for these sorts of programs? 

Secretary GATES. While I share your general concern regarding accountability and 

space acquisition management in particular, I think there is merit to the block buy 

approach for AEHF. The AEHF satellite program, the first program with which 

DOD seeks to implement this approach, is now a well-defined acquisition program 

with plenty of execution data around which to design a stable production program. 

The operational requirements are well validated; all derived system-level specifications are clear; and the experienced government/contractor team is in place. Additionally, one satellite has launched, one is in storage awaiting launch, and two more 

are in various stages of production. I anticipate the block buy of satellites 5 and 

6 to be a smooth continuation of the production line. To support these contracting 

efforts, DOD is implementing ‘‘should cost’’ analyses to gain a much more detailed 

and thorough understanding of the cost structure for AEHF and other space programs. I believe maturity and stability lend well to a fixed-price contracting strategy. 

68. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, how do you intend to ensure that these 

types of contracts are used appropriately and judiciously for these programs? 

Secretary GATES. DOD put a great deal of thought into this overall approach to 

include the contracting strategy, focusing on mature programs that have reached 

the production phases of their life cycles. Because development is complete, I do not 

expect unplanned design or manufacturing changes. However, an important element 

of this approach is sound obsolescence management. The contractor team will have 

an on-going effort to identify components set to be discontinued or superseded. As 

they identify these parts, their engineers can make smart adaptations to the assembly or test before the update affects the production flow. On our end, DOD is ensuring the performance requirements levied upon these systems do not change, which 

is critical over the duration of the block build. In summary, these conditions go 

hand-in-hand with a fixed-price contracting approach. 

NUCLEAR TRIAD MODERNIZATION

69. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, when released last year, the NPR set forth 

a broad vision that must not be viewed outside of the realm of affordability. The 

cost alone for modernizing both the nuclear weapons complex and the triad are substantial, and as we move to reduce the size of our nuclear stockpile, this modernization effort becomes all the more important. Factoring in the cost of missile defense 

and prompt global strike—both essential and critical, but also costly, programs—the 

overall budget outlook seems to suggest steady increases for the foreseeable future. 

The same defense budget which you recently stated will experience at most longterm growth of 1 percent a year after inflation. What is the near-term and longterm affordability of implementing the NPR? 

102 

Secretary GATES. The 2010 NPR concluded that a Triad of strategic forces best 

maintains strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging against potential 

technical problems or geopolitical surprise. The 10-year estimate for sustaining the 

nuclear deterrent (approximately $214 billion) was identified in the fiscal year 2012 

Annual Update to the report pursuant to section 1251 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 

2010. These costs are larger than the planned overall growth of 1 percent per year 

after inflation. This results from the need to begin the activities necessary to replace 

or sustain all three legs of our nuclear Triad over the next 2 to 3 decades. This cost 

projection is considered essential to maintaining our nuclear deterrent and is in accordance with the NPR. 

DOD will continue to assess the force size required for an effective deterrent. 

While we work to maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal, a wide range of 

efficiency measures also are being explored, including a research and development 

program, which was noted in the NPR. This program was initiated to focus on commonality between the military departments’ requirements and joint, scalable flighttest demonstrations. DOD is committed to sustaining and modernizing the Triad in 

an efficient and cost-effective manner while maintaining strategic stability and deterrent capability. 

70. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the fiscal year 2012 budget provides funding for a next generation long-range bomber and the next generation ballistic missile submarine; however, little has been said about the next generation intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which is needed by 2030. When does DOD intend 

to provide details on the funding requirements and timeline for the development, 

production, and deployment of a new ICBM? 

Secretary GATES. The administration plans to sustain the Minuteman III ICBM 

through 2030, as required by section 139 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2007. 

Sustainment programs include ICBM Fuze Refurbishment for the Mk12A and Mk21 

reentry vehicles, Joint Fuze Development on the Mk21 and Mk12A replacement, the 

ICBM Cryptography Upgrade II for nuclear surety, the Safety Enhanced Reentry 

Vehicle program, the Propulsion System Rocket Engine Refurbishment Life Extension Program, the Environmental Control System Replacement Program, the ICBM 

Security Modernization Program, and the Minuteman Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network Program Upgrade. Other sustainment programs 

may be necessary, and weapon system requirements are being reviewed to ensure 

the viability of the Minuteman III ICBM through 2030. 

The preparatory analysis for a follow-on ICBM capability fielded in the 2030 timeframe began in 2011. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) will assess potential materiel solutions including sustaining the 

current Minuteman III ICBM weapon system and supporting infrastructure. During 

the GBSD AoA review, concepts will be evaluated for effectiveness, cost, schedule, 

concepts of operations, and overall risk in meeting operational requirements. DOD 

will recommend a specific way-ahead to the budget for an ICBM follow-on in fiscal 

year 2014. 

71. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what about a replacement nuclear capable 

air-launched cruise missile (ALCM)? 

Secretary GATES. The ALCM will be maintained in the inventory until the LongRange Standoff (LRSO) missile capability is fielded. The ALCM will undergo multiple service life-extension programs to ensure the viability of the propulsion systems, guidance and flight control systems, and warhead arming components. DOD 

intends to field an advanced penetrating LRSO missile to replace the ALCM, and 

the Air Force has programmed $0.9 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) over the next 5 years for the development of the LRSO. 

72. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, when should budgets begin to reflect the 

steady increases suggested in the NPR? 

Secretary GATES. In fiscal year 2012, DOD will begin to see more substantial 

progress with NPR-driven modernization recommendations. These include: 

(1) Investments in research, development, and test and evaluation of Conventional Prompt Global Strike capabilities; 

(2) Construction of the Navy’s West Coast Explosive Handling Wharf to ensure 

safe missile and warhead off/on loading operations and maintenance for Pacific SSBN operations; and 

(3) The Air Force initiation, as directed, of a program for a new long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber. 

103 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 budgets include funding of 

NPR initiatives. The February 2011 update to the report submitted pursuant to section 1251 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 provides a summary of spending for 

delivery systems and weapon-related activities of the NNSA, which total approximately $214 billion from fiscal year 2012–fiscal year 2021. 

73. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what are the implications for the strategic 

deterrent if we don’t modernize the triad or find we cannot afford to? 

Secretary GATES. The United States will sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal as long as nuclear weapons exist. The NPR calls for making investments in nuclear delivery systems to ensure that existing capabilities are adequately sustained with essential upgrades and modifications. Such investments, and 

the NPR’s strategy for continued delivery system capability, represent a credible 

modernization plan necessary to sustain and support our Nation’s deterrent. 

2005 BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

74. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, as you may know, DOD is required by law 

to complete base realignment and closure (BRAC) resulting from the 2005 BRAC 

round by September 15, 2011. Is DOD on track to meet this deadline? If not, why 

not? 

Secretary GATES. While the Department faces scheduling challenges in a few 

cases, it is working diligently to ensure we satisfy our BRAC legal obligations. 

75. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in meeting the deadline, will you have construction completed on all facilities and infrastructure directly and indirectly required to support the BRAC moves? 

Secretary GATES. There are a limited number of direct and indirect infrastructure 

projects on which some elements of construction will continue after September 15. 

The Department is working diligently to ensure it satisfies the BRAC legal obligations, even if some construction continues past the deadline. 

76. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what are the costs incurred by DOD to 

complete all 2005 BRAC actions and any unobligated balances you may have? 

Secretary GATES. The overall cost to implement BRAC 2005 is $35.1 billion. I do 

not anticipate that the Department will have any significant unobligated balances 

at the end of the BRAC 2005 implementation period. 

77. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in your opinion, should DOD conduct another round of BRAC to reduce excess infrastructure? If so, when should DOD conduct the next round? 

Secretary GATES. DOD is not currently seeking authority to undertake another 

round of closures and realignments under the Defense BRAC Act of 1990, as amended. The Department is currently focused on completing implementation of the 2005 

BRAC round. 

STATUS OF THE NATO ALLIANCE

78. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, at the NATO Munich Security Conference 

that I attended last month, it was clear that the intent for European members of 

the alliance is to address fiscal constraints by slashing their defense budgets, ending 

drafts, sharing resources, and increasing their reliance on American military capabilities. How are you addressing concerns the changes could burden the United 

States by reducing the number of European troops available for NATO missions and 

other military efforts around the world? 

Secretary GATES. Over the past 10 years, most European Allies increased their 

deployable and sustainable forces and capabilities, in spite of steady declines in defense spending. They accomplished this by reducing the size of forces designed primarily for territorial defense, and by investing in more capable expeditionary forces. 

But there are obviously limits to how long those Allies can rely on reinvesting the 

savings from force structure reductions to sustain this type of transformation. I am 

now generally urging senior European Ally officials to avoid reducing force structure 

as they consider decisions about how to allocate scarce defense resources, and instead to seek efficiencies through multinational cooperation and sharing resources. 

Most European Allies have told me that they are not planning to make defense cuts 

that will affect current operational commitments. Of course, the realities of the fiscal crisis in Europe and the required reductions in defense spending are such that 

104 

preserving force structure and sustaining the current high operating tempo will 

probably result in less investment in future capabilities. As a result, I intend to ask 

my Defense counterparts to commit to increasing defense investment once their 

military operating tempo decreases after the successful transition of security responsibility to the Afghan Government. 

I do not believe that Europe has descended into an irreversible fiscal crisis. At 

their next meeting in March, NATO Defense Ministers will be asked to agree to Political Guidance for Allied defense planners. This planning guidance looks forward 

10 years. I intend to push hard for no decrease in NATO’s level of ambition, continued increases in the deployability and sustainability of NATO forces, and a longterm recommitment to the benchmarks of 2 percent GDP devoted to defense spending and 20 percent of defense expenditures allocated to investment in future capabilities. 

79. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, how is the dynamic nature of fiscal decisions by members of the alliance affecting U.S. military planning? 

Secretary GATES. DOD must consider the availability and capability of NATO 

forces in its planning process. DOD always seeks to mitigate the risks of assumptions in its contingency plans (including assumptions about partner participation) 

by developing multiple options for plan execution. DOD is also engaged in regular 

bilateral dialogue with our Allies (particularly with the United Kingdom, Canada, 

and Australia), and in multilateral discussions to clarify planning assumptions. 

The NATO Alliance has a particularly well-developed defense planning process to 

assist Allies in identifying NATO needs. This process is focused not only on ensuring 

that Allied military forces prevail in current operations, but also on ensuring that 

NATO can implement the November 2010 Strategic Concept, including the ability 

to address 21st century security challenges. This planning process and these multilateral discussions inform our national decisions on defense planning and 

resourcing. 

80. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, will the reduction of forces and resources 

available from other alliance members force the United States to have to make adjustments in order to meet treaty obligations? 

Secretary GATES. The reduction of forces and resources available from other Alliance members will not force the United States to make adjustments in order to 

meet its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. In keeping with Article 3 of 

the Treaty, DOD will continue to work with America’s Allies through the NATO Defense Planning Process to determine the correct mix of forces and capabilities needed to maintain and develop our individual and collective capacity to resist armed 

attack, and to maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. In addition to treaty 

obligations, Allied partners agreed in the NATO Strategic Concept and other strategic-level guidance that NATO must also have the capability to conduct non-Article 

5 crisis response operations. In the current and projected security environment, 

meeting NATO’s level of ambition for crisis response operations and security cooperation with partners is likely to require a much greater share of Allies’ national 

defense resources than honoring treaty obligations. 

81. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the current plan for U.S. Army force structure in Europe since 2004 has been to drawn down from four to two Brigades Combat Teams (BCT) by 2014 and to close military bases at Bamberg and Schweinfurt. 

This would reduce the Army force posture in Europe by 8,000 troops, leaving approximately 36,000 Army forces available in theater for missions and training. You 

are in the process of evaluating a request by the Commander of European Command 

(EUCOM) to leave the four BCTs in place. In light of the actions of other European 

nations to reduce their military resources and forces, why would it be in the best 

interest of the United States to reverse our planned reductions, reverse base closures, and to maintain additional forces in Europe? 

Secretary GATES. As part of a broader review of global defense posture, the United 

States is reexamining our capabilities and force structure in Europe ensuring that 

our country is well positioned to support Allies and partners in a 21st century security environment. NATO’s new Strategic Concept reaffirmed NATO’s core commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, as well as its commitment to crisis 

management and cooperative security. Allies must be prepared to meet a broad 

range of 21st century challenges through work in new areas, such as missile defense 

and cyber security, and through modernizing traditional capabilities. The United 

States is committed to a defense posture in Europe that meets its enduring commitment to NATO’s Article 5, ensures a credible deterrent against all forms of aggression, and maintains a robust capacity to build Allied and partner capacity for coaliVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
105 

tion operations. The President is making his decision about U.S. Army force structure in Europe based on that information. 

82. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what does EUCOM gain by having 44,000 

Army personnel in Europe vice 36,000 troops assigned and available for theater security cooperation efforts, particularly given the realization that the Commanders 

of Africa Command (AFRICOM), Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), or Central 

Command (CENTCOM) have very little or no forces assigned to their commands? 

Secretary GATES. U.S. Army force posture in Europe not only enables theater security cooperation, but it also assures our allies; it is the cornerstone of NATO; and 

it supports global requirements, including those for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the past 10 years, EUCOM-assigned Army brigade combat teams (BCTs) 

in particular have rotated consistently into the CENTCOM area of responsibility. 

Forward-based forces provide significant flexibility in force management, and often 

are more efficient than U.S.-based forces, as demonstrated most recently by the 

rapid manner in which EUCOM-assigned forces were allocated to AFRICOM for Operation Odyssey Dawn. Moreover, CENTCOM routinely receives forces assigned outside its area of operations, including from EUCOM. 

83. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, would this decision actually validate the intent of the NATO alliance members to increase reliance on the U.S. forces and capabilities for their regional security requirements? 

Secretary GATES. Almost all of the forces and capabilities available to NATO, 

other than the headquarters that are part of the NATO command structure, are provided by member nations and funded through their national defense budgets. The 

principal external influences on national defense budget decisions are the NATO defense planning process and bilateral consultations. The NATO defense planning 

process allocates force planning targets to nations based on the principles of burden 

sharing and reasonable challenge. When a nation fails to achieve its force planning 

targets due to insufficient defense spending, those targets are not reallocated to another nation unless other Allies determine that the original allocation posed an unreasonable challenge (the challenge is considered reasonable as long as it does not 

require the Nation to spend more than 2 percent of its GDP on defense). 

Although nations may use many excuses for not allocating sufficient resources to 

meet NATO objectives, it is unlikely that U.S. decisions to support our security commitments will prompt other Allies not to support their commitments. In fact, the 

opposite is normally true. In the multilateral reviews of each member’s defense 

plans that occur at NATO, peer pressure makes it more difficult for nations to reduce their commitment to NATO further, and the most intense pressure comes from 

those nations that are setting an example by meeting their commitments. The fact 

that no Allies have pressed to reduce the NATO level of ambition upon which defense requirements are based, nor the goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, 

indicates that they want that peer pressure to continue. Although I am never happy 

when European Allies decide to reduce defense spending, I firmly believe that without the example set by U.S. leadership within the Alliance, European Allies’ defense 

spending would be even lower. 

COMPETITION AND LIFECYCLE COSTS

84. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, both the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 and DOD’s efficiency initiatives espouse guiding principles of increasing competition to lower lifecycle costs. While these are commendable goals given the current budget crisis, I am concerned with the pace and extent 

of implementation, particularly given recent DOD data that of $366 billion in total 

DOD contract obligations in fiscal year 2010, $188 billion was identified as not competed or receiving only one bid. Please provide examples from each of the military 

departments where competition has been used to lower lifecycle costs. 

Secretary GATES. Life-cycle cost can be defined as the total cost to the government 

of a program over its full life, including costs for research and development; testing; 

production; facilities; operations; maintenance; personnel; environmental compliance; energy; and disposal. Competition can be used to reduce costs in each of the 

individual stages but is most effective in reducing procurement/acquisition and 

sustainment costs. The following are some examples of competition reducing cost in 

these areas: 

• In the Army, within the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) portfolio, the 

Multifunctional Distribution Information System-Low Volume Terminal 

(MIDS–LVT) radio program is an example of how competition has resulted 

106 

in procurement cost savings. During the production phase of the MIDS– 

LVT program, competition has resulted in approximately 60 percent cost 

savings. The initial production cost of the radio was $435,000 per unit and, 

through ongoing competition between the two approved vendor production 

sources, the cost per unit has steadily decreased to $181,000 per unit. With 

over 2,600 MIDS–LVT units purchased to date, the program has achieved 

hundreds of millions of dollars in procurement savings through the successful MIDS–LVT competitive acquisition strategy. 

• For the Air Force, the MQ–1 Predator Organizational-level maintenance 

contract is a good example of how competition produced acquisition cost 

savings. The initial contract, issued in March 2005, was a sole source award 

to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. This decision not to compete the Organization-level maintenance contract was primarily driven by the lack of published technical orders. When those technical orders became available, the contract was recompeted 1 year ahead of schedule and awarded to Battle Space Flight 

Services. This competition resulted in a savings of $102 million. Because of 

increased and accelerated wartime demand, the Air Force is anticipating 

additional savings over the life of the contract. The ability to compete between the OEM and the current supplier in the future will continue to enable cost savings. 

• For the Navy, the most visible example is the LCS Program. After receiving proposals from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA in early 2010 that 

were deemed unaffordable, the Navy changed its acquisition strategy to an 

all-or-nothing competitive contract award and encouraged the companies to 

establish leaner teaming arrangements. After proposals were submitted, 

the Navy realized they could achieve competitive prices, and the requirement was re-solicited for a 10-ship contract award to each company. In December 2010, Lockheed Martin and Austal USA were each awarded fixedprice incentive contracts for the design and construction of 10 ships from 

fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015. The benefits of competition; serial 

production; employment of mature technologies; design stability; fixed-price 

contracting; commonality; and economies of scale contributed to reduced life 

cycle costs and a highly affordable ship construction program. The approach, self-financed within the program budget by re-investing a portion 

of the greater than $2 billion in total savings through the FYDP, enabled 

the addition of a year of ship procurements. The approach also enables the 

DoN to efficiently produce the ships at an increased rate to meet operational requirements sooner. 

85. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, have you found areas where DOD can leverage commercial investment in technology, manufacturing, and service capability 

to decrease expenses for lifecycle support requirements? 

Secretary GATES. DOD is leveraging commercial technology, manufacturing, and 

service capabilities in many ways to reduce weapons system life cycle costs. Since 

1998, the USD(AT&L) Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) 

program has been steadily improving maintenance efficiency and effectiveness by integrating proven commercial maintenance technologies into DOD maintenance activities. The Military Departments are undertaking a variety of initiatives 

leveraging commercial investments through the CTMA program. For example: 

• The Department of Air Force implemented a commercially developed capability, which replaced legacy pin-to-pin continuity procedures with the 

Enhanced Wiring Integrity System (EWIS). The EWIS gives maintainers 

the ability to check the integrity of entire wire bundles within seconds and 

not only detects a fault, but also isolates the fault to within inches of its 

origin to assist the maintainer in rapidly repairing the wire. The EWIS is 

widespread across the Air Force, and it is transitioning to the U.S. Navy 

and Army aviation, as well as to the Marine Corps land systems. 

• The Department of Navy utilized commercial technology employed by airports to detect trace amounts of explosives on passengers and luggage to 

detect contaminate in lubricants and hydraulic fluids used across the DOD. 

The resultant capability is being employed on Military Sealift Command 

vessels where this hand-held tool can assess contamination, viscosity, and 

other critical fluid parameters in under a minute per test. This capability 

is in transition to the Army, Navy, and Air Force for diesel oils used in 

ground vehicles and support equipment. 

• The Department of Army is leading the transition of a commercial technology developed for the automotive maintenance industry and widely used 

107 

for commercial airline maintenance. This capability, the Automated Process 

and Inspection Guide (AP&IG), provides accurate point of maintenance 

technical data and collects standard inspection and maintenance data. 

AP&IG has: reduced inspection times by 40 percent; reduced repair turn 

times; and improved overall maintenance quality. 

Performance Based Logistics (PBL) is a strategy that has been successful in 

leveraging company investment in technology and services throughout commercial 

industry. This support strategy has transferred to many applications across the 

DOD for Weapon System Sustainment. PBL incentivizes the provider to deliver a 

guaranteed outcome at a fixed price. What have traditionally been revenue centers 

in transactional relationships between government and industry become cost centers 

under PBL. PBL strategies can improve both product reliability and processes to 

drive down costs. Industry makes up front investments to lower costs by improving 

the product and streamlining sustainment processes. PBL strategies support the 

warfighter through increased availability, reduced logistics footprint, and lower life 

cycle costs. 

86. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, how specifically is DOD better incentivizing 

and empowering program managers to bring competition into otherwise previously 

sole-sourced lifecycle programs, whether termed as maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO); or contractor logistics support (CLS); or PBL? 

Secretary GATES. The USD(AT&L) November 3, 2010 memo to the Military Departments and Defense Agencies directed immediate action to increase competition. 

The acquisition community is addressing this in the development of Weapon System 

Acquisition Strategies. Specifically, the Secretaries of the Military Departments and 

Defense Agency Directors were directed to implement the following: 

• Present a competitive acquisition strategy at each program milestone: 

Provide a one-page competitive strategy for each Acquisition Category 

(ACAT) 1D program at each milestone as part of the overall acquisition 

strategy. 

• Report to USD(AT&L) in fiscal year 2011 on how their military department or agency intends to reduce single-bid competitions—negotiations 

when only one offer is received. At a minimum, the report will address market research, restricted specifications, and adequate time for proposal preparation. 

• Achieve a 2 percent reduction in single-bid competitive contracts in fiscal 

year 2011, with continuing reductions thereafter. 

• Remove obstacles to competition: ensure contracting officers conduct negotiations with all single-bid offerors, unless this requirement is specifically 

waived by the Head of Contracting Activity or Military Department Secretary. The basis of these negotiations will be cost or price analysis, as the 

case may be, using either certified or non-certified cost or pricing data, as 

appropriate. 

• Have their component or agency competition advocate develop a plan to 

improve both the overall rate of competition and the rate of effective competition. These plans establish an improvement rate of at least 2 percent 

per year for overall competition and an improvement rate of at least 10 percent per year for effective competition. 

• Require open systems architectures and set rules for acquisition of technical data rights: Program managers are to conduct a business case analysis in concert with the engineering tradeoff analysis presented at Milestone B. The business case analysis outlines the open systems architecture 

approach, combined with technical data rights the Government pursues in 

order to ensure a lifetime consideration of competition in the acquisition of 

weapon systems. The results of this analysis will be reported in the Acquisition Strategy Report and in the competition strategy. 

• Increase the dynamic small business role in the defense marketplace 

competition: All competitive and non-competitive procurement actions will 

seek to increase small business participation through weighting factors in 

past performance and fee construct. 

These actions apply to all contracts, including MRO, CLS, and PBL contracts. The 

result will be program executive officers and program managers developing a competitive strategy early in acquisition that spans the program’s life and improves the 

ability to compete MRO, CLS, and PBL contracts in sustainment. For example, the 

Navy undertook a specific initiative to engage each program executive officer, program manager, and Product Support Manager (PSM) to emphasize real competition 

at every stage of acquisition and sustainment. 

108 

• The Navy directed the program executive officers/program managers/ 

PSMs to establish a competitive environment throughout the life cycle of 

their programs, and to enable better competitive opportunities in the 

sustainment phase. Additionally, program executive officers and program 

managers are reviewing their existing portfolios in pursuit of increased 

competitive opportunities, including consideration of breakout opportunities, and expanding open architecture solutions and small business opportunities that fosters additional competition. 

• The Army is emphasizing the conduct of logistics analyses early to baseline costs and develop technical data requirements that facilitate competition in sustainment contracts. 

• The Air Force is also taking proactive steps to ensure program managers 

and PSMs correctly identify and pursue data rights in their contract negotiations to facilitate competition in sustainment. The outcome will be required warfighting capability at a reduced cost to the Government. 

87. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the committee spearheaded legislation 

which became Section 805 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 regarding Lifecycle 

Management and Product Support, calling for PSMs to maximize competition and 

make the best possible use of available DOD and industry resources at the system, 

subsystem, and component levels. Section 805 was implemented through Under Secretary Carter’s Directive-Type Memorandum on October 6, 2010. Since then, how 

has competition at subsystem and component levels been pursued to reduce lifecycle 

costs? 

Secretary GATES. Since the issuance of the DTM, the military departments continue to implement section 805 and have made significant progress identifying 

PSMs for ACAT I and II programs and issuing the guidance. One of the PSM’s 

major duties is to promote opportunities to maximize competition while meeting the 

objective of best-value, long-term outcomes for the warfighter. 

To this end, the Defense Acquisition University developed and fielded DOD Life 

Cycle Management and PSM Rapid Deployment training with strong attendance 

across the DOD and the industry acquisition community, which specifically addresses increased competition. 

Additionally, the military departments are undertaking a variety of initiatives to 

increase competition. For example: 

• The Navy engaged each Program Executive Office (PEO) and program 

manager to establish a solid foundation for a competitive environment 

throughout the life cycle. Therefore, the PEOs and program managers are 

reviewing existing portfolios in pursuit of increased competition opportunities, including consideration of breakout opportunities at the subsystem and 

component levels to reduce lifecycle costs. 

• The Air Force published regulations and guidebooks that detail the importance of competition. The Air Force is specifically focusing on sole-source 

contracts for software maintenance, as well as engine repairs and parts, to 

increase competition. 

• The Army plans to review and refine internal practices and processes 

over the course of the next year that empower the PSM to promote competitive opportunities. 

COST-SHARING FOR MILITARY HEALTHCARE

88. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, regarding the administration’s healthcare 

reform proposals, I received a letter signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) endorsing the administration’s reform proposal and request that this letter be included in 

the record. I know that we will hear from many other interested stakeholders, and 

we must consider those views as well. Do you agree that we must always remain 

committed to ensuring that the quality of healthcare for our military 

servicemembers, their families, and veterans is never compromised, even in tough 

economic times? 

109 


217ful29.eps
110 

Secretary GATES. Yes. The performance and the quality of care delivered by the 

Military Health System (MHS) in austere, combat environments continue to exceed 

anything ever witnessed and recorded in battlefield medicine. For example, increased survival rates from wounds and decreased loss of personnel from disease 

and non-battle injuries are two areas where our medical system established itself 

as world-class. 

Here at home, our MHS is also among the best in terms of quality and outcome 

throughout the Nation. 

I stand proudly and strongly by DOD’s commitment to military healthcare quality 

and excellence and will never compromise or waver from this standard. This proven 

commitment to high performance is separate and distinct from any potential minor 


217ful30.eps
111 

changes in TRICARE enrollment fees or copayments. Our MHS rests on a core principle of trust with the people DOD serves, and that trust must never be broken. 

89. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, please explain how the health reform proposals that you have put forth fulfill this obligation, and most especially for our 

wounded warriors? 

Secretary GATES. The overall health budget for fiscal year 2012 represents an increase in the fiscal year 2011 request, as DOD continues to invest in initiatives that 

strengthen the military healthcare system for today and into the future. 

DOD continues increasing financial investment in medical research and development for its wounded warriors, particularly in the areas of traumatic brain injury, 

psychological health, extremity injuries, amputee care, and regenerative medicine. 

Additionally, DOD is modifying significantly the Disability Evaluation System to 

oversee the disability evaluation process in a manner that best meets the needs of 

each servicemember. 

These health reform proposals are intended to secure the long-term financial security of the MHS. By introducing this set of reform proposals now—reforms that establish internal efficiencies, reforms that standardize reimbursement policies to civilian network providers and reforms to beneficiary out-of-pocket costs—DOD continues providing a comprehensive health benefit for DOD beneficiaries. 

90. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what medical index rate would DOD plan 

to use for TRICARE fees and why? 

Secretary GATES. A final decision on the exact medical index has not been made. 

DOD is in ongoing discussions with various stakeholders on what might serve as 

the most appropriate index. The aim is to select an index that is transparent, based 

on actual market costs, relevant to the retired population and demographics at 

issue, clear and understandable, and one that reflects foreseeable growth in health 

care costs. 

UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

91. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in regard to unauthorized disclosures of 

classified information, do you believe that changes to DOD policy (particularly policies governing access to classified systems) would be sufficient to prevent another 

Wikileaks event? If not, what other changes would you recommend? 

Secretary GATES. I share your concern regarding the unauthorized disclosure of 

classified information and DOD is reviewing policies to mitigate the risk of future 

disclosures. As DOD continues efforts to improve its policies and information sharing capabilities, it will strive to implement the mechanisms necessary to protect intelligence information without reverting back to pre-September 11 stovepipes. One 

of the major contributing factors in the WikiLeaks incident was the large amount 

of data that was accessible with little or no access controls. Broad access to information can be combined with access controls to mitigate this vulnerability, without 

overly restricting users from obtaining the information they need. 

One example of an access control mechanism that DOD has begun is to issue a 

Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)-based identity credential on a hardened smart card. 

This is very similar to the Common Access Card (CAC) used on the unclassified network. DOD will complete issuing 500,000 cards to SIPRNet users, along with card 

readers and software, by the end of 2012. This will provide very strong identification 

of the person accessing the network and requesting data. It will both deter bad behavior and require absolute identification of who is accessing data and managing 

that access. 

In conjunction with this effort, all DOD organizations will configure SIPRNetbased systems to use the PKI credentials to strongly authenticate end-users who are 

accessing information in the system. This provides the link between end users and 

the specific data they can access—not just network access. DOD’s goal is that by 

2013, following completion of credential issuance, all SIPRNet users will log into 

their local computers with their SIPRNet PKI/smart card credential. 

92. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, do you plan to conduct or oversee a damage 

assessment on the Wikileaks disclosures? 

Secretary GATES. DOD conducted an assessment of the disclosed DOD information 

to determine what actions must be taken to mitigate the disclosures’ effect on U.S. 

forces, the coalition, and host nation partners. At my direction, the Intelligence Review Task Force (IRTF), established under the purview of the Defense Intelligence 

Agency (DIA), reviewed every line of the disclosed information and worked with our 

112 

foreign partners and the combatant commands (COCOM) to warn of potential danger and mitigate the degree of risk or threat resulting from the compromise. 

The IRTF did not conduct a full damage assessment due to the interagency nature 

of the disclosed material and of the risk incurred. The Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) 

has the mandate to conduct damage assessments in these circumstances and is in 

the process of doing so. 

93. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what changes need to be made in the way 

that DOD conducts background investigations for security clearances? 

Secretary GATES. DOD investigative service provider is the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) which conducts 95 percent of all background investigations for 

security clearances across the Federal Government, including the majority of DOD 

investigations. The background investigations are conducted utilizing requirements 

set forth in the 1997 Federal Investigative Standards for Background Investigations 

for Access to Classified Information, which are promulgated at the national level. 

The Federal Investigative Standards are currently being rewritten by a working 

group composed of representatives from the Intelligence Community, DOD, and 

other executive branch departments and agencies. The new Federal Investigative 

Standards will apply 21st century technology using an enterprise-wide approach. 

These technologies will enable more cost-effective and timely case management and 

information sharing. 

94. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, do you see the need for increased counterintelligence scrutiny or investigations of cleared DOD personnel? 

Secretary GATES. DOD investigative service provider is the OPM that conducts 95 

percent of all background investigations for security clearances across the Federal 

Government, including the majority of DOD investigations. The background investigations are conducted utilizing requirements set forth in the 1997 Federal Investigative Standards for Background Investigations for Access to Classified Information, which are promulgated at the national level. 

Since DOD investigations are conducted in accordance with the Federal investigative standards, we do not believe additional investigations are warranted beyond 

what is required by existing policies. When the current personnel security investigation develops indicators requiring security, law enforcement, or counterintelligence 

follow-up actions, the information is referred to the appropriate organization. DOD 

policies and legal guidelines concerning law enforcement, security, and counterintelligence investigations identify what circumstances require investigations. 

DOD policy directs that when counterintelligence, security, or other types of investigations are completed on, or derogatory information is received regarding personnel with a security clearance, the information must be provided to the individual’s Commander/Director. Finally, DOD is a champion of the Joint Reform Effort, 

and key members of DOD are participating in the development of new national-level 

personnel security procedures, which will integrate counterintelligence and security 

equities into procedures regarding the development of derogatory or suspicious information. 

95. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Mullen, do believe that the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) is as vulnerable to a Wikileaks-type scenario as the SIPRNET has proven to be? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, if the threat results from an individual in a position of 

trust who opts to violate applicable U.S. military regulations, DOD policy, and Federal law. JWICS does have slightly greater security controls than SIPRNET, but 

there remains a possibility that its contents could also be exploited for unauthorized 

and illicit purposes. 

96. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, if you decide to more tightly restrict access 

to classified data on DOD computer systems, how will you make sure that the right 

people are still getting the information they need? 

Secretary GATES. DOD is working to improve intelligence information sharing, 

while ensuring the appropriate protections and safeguards are in place. A more resilient information sharing environment can be achieved through both technological 

solutions and comprehensive policies. 

Immediately following the first release of documents by WikiLeaks, I commissioned two internal DOD studies. The first study, led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, directed a review of DOD information security policy. The second study, led by the Joint Staff, focused on procedures for handling classified information in forward deployed areas. 

113 

The information security policies that were in place at the time of the WikiLeaks 

disclosures were determined to be adequate. However, adherence to and implementation of those policies were found to need improvement. Since then, DOD combined 

five separate policies into a single updated version of DOD’s Information Security 

Program policy, and the Defense Security Service is developing web-enabled information security training that will become part of the mandatory information assurance training conducted annually across DOD. 

Results of the Joint Staff study showed that forward deployed units maintained 

an over-reliance on removable electronic storage media, and also revealed a limited 

capability to detect and monitor anomalous behavior on classified computer networks. 

EFFICIENCIES INITIATIVES RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE FUNCTIONS

97. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in an August 9, 2010 speech, you announced an immediate 10 percent reduction in funding for intelligence advisory and 

assistance contracts. What effect has this reduction in intelligence contractors had 

on the defense intelligence enterprise? 

Secretary GATES. Last August, DOD considered an immediate reduction in funding for intelligence advisory and assistance contracts, but have since conducted a 

DOD-wide review of our reliance on contractors. As the result of this review, funding used to acquire service support contracts was reduced 10 percent per year over 

the next 3 years from their reported fiscal year 2010 level. Based on the DOD components’ allocation of the efficiency achieved by this action, the Military Intelligence 

Program (MIP) was assessed a portion of this reduction. Contractor funding reductions in the MIP were absorbed by realizing process efficiencies and moving away 

from higher-priced contractor services. The MIP significantly reduced its reliance on 

contractor support. Compared to fiscal year 2010 actuals, MIP contractor reliance 

declined approximately 19 percent. 

98. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in a subsequent January 6, 2011, statement, you mentioned a review of DOD intelligence organizations conducted in conjunction with the Office of the DNI. Please provide details on the results of that review for the record. 

Secretary GATES. The review of intelligence organizations was an integrated effort 

between DOD and DNI. The analysis team consisted of DOD and DNI members and 

this partnership was critical for success. The group reviewed baseline resources 

across the Intelligence Community, identifying areas of major investment and significant recent growth and focusing on analytic organizations. 

The decisions made as a result of the review are the following: 

1. Resize the Geographic COCOM Joint Intelligence Operations Centers (JIOCs) 

for Phase 0/1 operations only. 

2. Establish a rotational model for DIA support to the COCOMs. 

3. Disestablish the Defense Intelligence Operations Coordination Center (DIOCC) 

and the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance (JFCC–ISR). 

4. Consolidate selected DOD Counterterrorism (CT) functions under the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism (JITF–CT). 

5. Consolidate selected DOD Counter Threat Finance (CTF) elements under a 

new Joint Intelligence Task Force for CTF (JITF–CTF). 

6. Track emerging intelligence organizations and develop plans to harvest them 

as they redeploy from theater. 

99. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, do you agree with the review’s overall assessment that many new defense intelligence organizations, created after September 

11, have grown too large and have largely duplicated work done elsewhere? 

Secretary GATES. The number of defense intelligence organizations has increased 

since 2001. In the defense arena, large and well-staffed intelligence structures now 

exist in the military departments, in the defense agencies, in the COCOMs, and in 

the theaters. 

The Intelligence Review Study Group (IRSG) identified areas of major investment 

and focused on the analytic organizations within the IC. Although the IRSG findings 

identified areas where efficiencies can be gained by consolidating select functions, 

such as counterterrorism and CTF, DOD continues to look for areas to increase efficiency and eliminate redundancy. Several efforts are underway to identify Defense 

Intelligence efficiencies and evaluate the impact on intelligence support to combat 

operations, if efforts are reduced or eliminated. Ongoing efficiency efforts within 

114 

DOD include a working group that is tracking and reviewing intelligence organizations formed to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to identify which 

of these would be retained as combat operations draw to a close. 

100. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, you have approved recommendations to 

roll up various defense intelligence organizations that focus on counter-terrorism 

and terrorism finance into two separate task forces housed at the DIA. Could these 

organizations simply be done away with? 

Secretary GATES. No, because they provide different specialized intelligence that 

is critical to the current fight in Afghanistan and U.S. forces deployed in every theater. 

My efficiency recommendation regarding JITF–CT at DIA focused on consolidating analytic functions in one organization to use our resources more effectively 

against adversaries that continue to reinvent themselves and reemerge as threats 

to U.S. forces around the world, as recently seen with the attacks on the airmen 

in Germany. Over the past 9 years, JITF–CT provided exceptional support to operational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The leadership, tradecraft, and efficiencies 

gained by consolidating smaller analytic elements with JITF–CT will enhance overall Defense Intelligence capabilities as well as DOD contributions to the national 

counter-terrorism mission. 

Although the Treasury Department has the lead for the overall U.S. Government 

CTF effort, our efficiency studies identified a requirement for a focal point within 

DOD to coordinate and lead the disparate CTF efforts that were already in place. 

Intelligence support to CTF remains a core analytic function. Because illicit finance 

does not exist as an end in and of itself, the focused work of DIA analysts in Washington and in Afghanistan will continue to assist commanders in the field in understanding how adversaries sustain their efforts and help identify vulnerabilities. 

By consolidating the CTF mission within DIA, DOD is improving the efficiency 

and efficacy of the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. DIA will streamline the CTF 

mission by consolidating and realigning DOD components into a single organization 

to support both the warfighter and the policymaker more effectively. 

101. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what organizations within the defense intelligence enterprise would you recommend significantly reducing or abolishing and 

what would be the savings to the taxpayer of these cuts? 

Secretary GATES. As part of the Reform Agenda, DOD formed an ISRG to conduct 

an extensive examination of the DOD and IC apparatus. The ISRG identified the 

DIOCC and JFCC–ISR as redundant organizations that can be eliminated in fiscal 

year 2012. The ISRG also recommended that the AFRICOM, EUCOM, and 

SOUTHCOM’s JIOCs be ‘‘right-sized,’’ commensurate with their current responsibilities for Phase 0/1 operations. These efficiency initiatives will save DOD approximately $32 million in fiscal year 2012. 

I continue to look for areas of redundancy within Defense Intelligence. A working 

group is reviewing existing organizations providing intelligence support to 

counterterrorism and CTF with the goal of consolidating those functions under the 

DIA. I am also reviewing intelligence and intelligence-like organizations that have 

formed to support combat operations to identify which of these organizations should 

be retained as combat operations draw down. None of these efforts have identified 

any savings, but savings are possible as additional efficiencies are identified. 

102. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, could further reductions be made without 

harming intelligence support to warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Secretary GATES. I continue to look for areas in Defense Intelligence where we 

can increase efficiency and eliminate redundancy. Several efforts are underway to 

identify Defense Intelligence efficiencies and evaluate the impact on intelligence 

support to combat operations, if efforts are reduced or eliminated. Ongoing efficiency 

efforts within DOD include a working group that is tracking and reviewing intelligence and intelligence-like organizations formed to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, in order to identify which of these organizations should be retained 

as combat operations draw to a close. 

I am also reviewing existing organizations providing intelligence support to 

counterterrorism and CTF, with the goal of consolidating those functions under the 

DIA. All Defense Intelligence efficiency efforts will ensure that intelligence support 

to forces conducting combat operations will continue as long as that support is required. 

115 

FORT HOOD INVESTIGATION

103. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee recently issued a report on Fort Hood claiming that 

‘‘DOD and FBI collectively had sufficient information necessary to have detected 

Hasan’s radicalization . . . [but failed] to act on it.’’ Do you agree with that conclusion? 

Secretary GATES. No. DOD was not notified or otherwise made aware of Major 

Hasan’s contact with extremists until after the incident. In terms of Major Hasan’s 

professional behavior, the Army is conducting an accountability review which will 

appropriately address what supervisors knew about his job performance and whether they acted according to Army policies and procedures. That report is being reviewed by the Secretary of the Army and should be released in the near future. 

104. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, do you believe that the defense intelligence enterprise has devoted sufficient resources to understanding and countering 

the threat from homegrown violent Islamic extremists like Hasan? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. DOD devotes significant resources to understanding and 

countering violent extremism among its military personnel. DOD continues to examine how to address the threat originating from disaffected individuals within the 

U.S. Armed Forces who may commit violent acts, and best apply the resources available. Specifically, the Defense Intelligence Enterprise details personnel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) to broaden 

the understanding of the overall threat within the United States to our military 

forces. DOD also completed a full assessment of newly identified JTTF requirements 

based on the Fort Hood incident, and is in the process of resourcing those needs. 

105. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, do you believe that defense intelligence organizations are adequately represented on the FBI’s JTTF? If not, do you plan to 

increase that participation? 

Secretary GATES. Today, yes. In the aftermath of the shootings at Fort Hood, I 

determined that DOD’s commitment to the JTTFs and guidance for sharing force 

protection information were inadequate. I directed the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy to lead oversight of DOD’s contributions to JTTFs by providing policy 

guidance, and by developing DOD-wide goals and objectives for DOD’s JTTF participation. This has led to an increase in the Department’s contributions to JTTFs 

through the DIA’s Joint Intelligence Task Force-Combating Terrorism. This enhancement in analytical capabilities and information sharing plays a critical role in 

better understanding the terrorist threat to the United States. 

106. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what other steps do you plan to take to 

ensure that radicals like Hasan are detected before another tragedy like Fort Hood 

occurs? 

Secretary GATES. On August 18, 2010, I approved Department-wide guidance to 

familiarize leaders with behaviors that may indicate radicalization or precipitate violence. I also reinforced to commanders that they are expected to exercise sound 

judgment and consider the full range of disciplinary actions when addressing personnel whose behavior adversely affects good order, discipline, or unit safety. 

Current DOD policy prohibits behavior that creates a clear danger to the loyalty, 

discipline, or morale of military personnel. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is revising DOD Instruction 1325.06, Handling Dissident and 

Protest Activities among members of the Armed Forces, to ensure it effectively prohibits behavior that materially interferes with the accomplishment of the military 

mission or is incompatible with military service. This policy authorizes commanders 

to employ a range of administrative and disciplinary actions to stop behavior that 

is incompatible with military service, regardless of the underlying cause. 

DOD made several important steps to improve information sharing and its ability 

to ‘‘connect the dots.’’ DOD has drafted a new, consolidated information sharing 

agreement with the FBI. This new agreement creates a mechanism for DOD to provide force protection threat information requirements to the FBI, ensures threat information is reported to senior defense leadership, and reaffirms the already excellent working relationships between DOD Provost Marshals and local FBI JTTFs and 

Field Offices to ensure that threat information gets to the defense installation that 

is threatened. Additionally, DOD and the FBI established a formal notification process whereby information on all counterterrorism investigations with a DOD nexus 

is forwarded appropriately. DOD also utilizes FBI’s eGuardian suspicious activity 

reporting system. This secure, unclassified capability enables information sharing 

116 

across DOD, as well as with Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners. This system provides information to the FBI’s JTTFs. 

In the future, DOD will establish the Law Enforcement Defense Data Exchange 

(D-DEx) in order to allow our Military Criminal Investigative Organizations to post, 

query, retrieve, and share criminal investigation and other law enforcement data in 

one database. Another important step is to supplement military personnel health 

screenings to include ‘‘violence risk assessments’’ before deployment and three times 

after deployment. These ‘‘violence risk assessments’’ are conducted person-to-person 

by a medical provider trained and certified to conduct in-depth evaluations. Finally, 

I have directed the Military Services and Investigative Agencies to collaborate with 

Defense intelligence organizations, facilitating access to investigative information on 

DOD-related counterterrorism cases. To most effectively pool DOD’s resources 

against this threat, the government must overcome information sharing and cultural challenges between investigative and intelligence analysis organizations. The 

combination of enhanced information sharing and analytic presence in JTTFs plays 

a critical role in understanding the ‘‘homegrown’’ threat to DOD. 

DOD SUPPORT TO COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES

107. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the budget submission calls for an increased emphasis on DOD support to Mexico in its counterdrug 

activities—a decision I support fully. What’s your assessment of the Mexican Government’s current capability to confront the drug cartels and associated illicit organizations? 

Secretary GATES. In recent years, Mexico significantly increased its willingness to 

confront transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and strengthened capabilities 

to do so through law enforcement, judicialand military support, and by other means. 

Mexico also launched initiatives to promote legitimate economic opportunity that 

help diminish illegal activity. The U.S. Government provides significant support to 

Mexico through training, equipment, information exchange, and related cooperation, 

but Mexican authorities’ own efforts have achieved most of these improvements. In 

confronting TCOs, the Mexican people suffer grievously from escalating violence, 

and I support Mexico’s steadfast resolve to further strengthen the rule of law. 

Although Mexico’s capability to disrupt TCOs is increasing, TCOs adapt quickly 

by escalating violence, dispersing geographically, and diversifying their criminal activities. As a result, Mexican authorities activated the Mexican Armed Forces to 

help disrupt TCOs, and buy time for the civilian agencies to build capacity. Mexico 

is building rule of law capacity through police vetting and training, as well as antimoney laundering, judicial, penal, statutory, anti-corruption and related reforms. 

Mexico efforts have produced notable successes, including the arrest or killing of 

several TCO leaders as well as key members from all seven of Mexico’s major drug 

organizations, while at the same time disrupting the TCOs’ business environment. 

Unfortunately, this led to increased violence, as the criminals fight for territory. As 

the illegal drug business is disrupted, TCOs are also diversifying into other criminal 

activities and dispersing geographically, including into Central America. 

Despite the Mexican authorities’ efforts, the country remains the primary transit 

route into the United States for illegal drugs of foreign origin, as well as a major 

supplier of heroin, methamphetamines, and marijuana. Mexico is also the primary 

destination for weapons and bulk cash smuggled illegally out of the United States. 

Mexico’s sustained interdiction efforts made great progress in reducing cocaine 

movement directly into Mexico from South America to low levels. Most cocaine now 

reaches Central America by air or sea, then transits Mexico primarily hidden in private vehicles into the United States over land. 

Admiral MULLEN. Mexico has identified TCOs as the principal security challenge 

we face in the Western Hemisphere. The United States and Mexico understand this 

is both a shared challenge and responsibility between our nations. In recognition of 

this need, Mexico has made great strides in its understanding of TCOs and its capability to counter them. However, much work remains as Mexico is yet able to overcome the TCOs’ grip on Mexico’s citizenry, public security and economy. 

In collaboration with Mexico, we continue to work toward improved information 

sharing which has enabled the Mexico effort. This has manifested itself through the 

Mexican apprehension of key several TCO senior leaders. Mexican armed forces are 

making strides with their public security forces to assume the lead role. These 

short-term gains have not come without a cost; drug-related murders have grown 

to an annual rate of 15,233—a 61 percent increase from 2009 due largely to TCOon-TCO violence. As Mexico’s armed and public security forces follow and exploit 

these successes we could very well see violence levels continue to increase as TCOs 

117 

are forced to operate at greater risk in an environment increasingly inhospitable to 

organized crime. 

As Mexico consolidates its successes in establishing the rule of law, we must continue to support them as they deal with the TCOs’ culture of impunity—namely violent intimidation and corruption. In our daily interactions, we continually stress the 

importance that Mexico forces integrity must be above reproach. It is these forces 

that represent the government’s legitimacy and garner the trust of the citizens. 

Mexico has made progress in its capability to confront TCOs but will require expansion and deepening of their capabilities and institutions as it is anticipated violent intimidation and coercion will worsen. 

108. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what priorities have 

you identified for DOD to pursue regarding support to Mexico? 

Secretary GATES. U.S.-Mexico relations deepened significantly in recent years, including with respect to security cooperation on matters of mutual concern such as 

countering TCOs. DOD provides support for cooperation under the State Department-led Merida Initiative (MI) carrying out programs requested by Mexican authorities. DOD executes $415.5 million in MI Foreign Military Financing (FMF) appropriated in fiscal years 2008–2009, including provision of helicopters, maritime 

surveillance aircraft, handheld drug and explosives ion scanners, and other equipment. 

The DOD counternarcotics (CN) program also compliments MI with training, 

equipment, and information sharing in support of Mexican military and law enforcement forces. The DOD CN program also provides logistical, analytic, radar, communications and other support to U.S. law enforcement agencies’ activities. In recent 

years, DOD’s CN support to Mexico has concentrated on helping Mexican forces improve tactical and operational proficiency, as well as their air mobility, maritime 

law enforcement, communications, and reconnaissance capacities. DOD training and 

information exchanges emphasize interagency-coordinated operations, and safeguarding human rights. The DOD CN program allocated $51 million in fiscal year 

2011 to support Mexico (up from about $3 million per year before 2009), and is 

working to reinforce this effort. DOD also works with other U.S. agencies and foreign partners to integrate cooperation throughout the Americas, recognizing that 

TCOs present challenges to all countries in the region. 

Admiral MULLEN. DOD conducts programs as agreed upon by both United States’ 

and Mexico’s Governments as found in the ‘‘Beyond Merida’’ construct. Principally 

we seek to support Mexico’s efforts to directly confront TCOs and disrupt TCOs’ capability to conduct organized criminal activities, thereby helping Mexico to strengthen the capabilities necessary to exploit TCO weaknesses while working to help reduce Mexico’s security forces susceptibility to TCO intimidation and corruption. 

To expand Mexico’s capabilities, DOD will focus on accelerating Merida Initiative 

equipment in coordination with DOS as we move beyond equipping to truly 

partnering with our Mexican counterparts to develop a clear strategy of military 

support to law enforcement activities. 

In addition to provision of equipment, DOD will focus on providing Mexico with 

more information sharing thereby helping them develop the analytical capacity to 

exploit TCO network vulnerabilities. We recognize that our bilateral efforts with 

Mexico must be part of a wider collaboration with law enforcement agencies as well 

as diplomatic efforts. 

Beyond these immediate priorities we are simultaneously supporting the 

sustainment of our coordinated efforts and building partner capacity in all pertinent 

areas. Our military-to-military efforts must maintain a coherent doctrine, conduct 

coordinated operations with an interoperable force, and ensure both adequate and 

appropriate training for the forces committed to the defense of Mexican national 

sovereignty. Personnel and leader development programs are essential to ensuring 

that Mexican initiatives are carefully managed and maintained. This type of attention is necessary if we are to capitalize on earlier gains in galvanizing public security institutions’ credibility and longevity in what must be a long-term effort to partner with Mexico to defeat transnational organized crime. 

109. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, drug cartels operating from Central and South America have shown an increasing ability to adapt 

and continue their operations. For example, the Ecuadorians and most recently the 

Colombians have apprehended fully submersible ‘‘narco-subs.’’ Colonel Manuel 

Hurtado, chief of staff of Colombia’s Pacific Command, told the Associated Press 

that he estimated the captured narco-sub could hold 8 tons of drugs and has the 

capacity to sail totally underwater and travel to the coast of Mexico without surVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
118 

facing. What trends are you seeing in the region and what priorities have you identified for DOD to pursue with regards to its counterdrug activities and assistance? 

Secretary GATES. Ecuadoran and Colombian authorities seized submersible vessels under construction in Pacific coast jungle areas in July 2010 and February 

2011, respectively. These authorities cooperated fully with U.S. counterparts in 

studying the vessels, which appear intended for fully-submerged operations. 

TCOs continue to rely principally on ‘‘go-fast’’ boats to smuggle most cocaine from 

South to North America. Over the last 10 years, however, drug traffickers experimented with self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) vessels, also known as low-profile vessels. SPSS vessels achieve considerable stealth by moving very low in the 

water, but cannot actually submerge entirely. The recent emergence of the self-propelled fully submersible (SPFS) drug-smuggling threat appears to represent a significant evolutionary step. 

DOD and other U.S. Government agencies are refining ways to detect, monitor, 

and interdict SPFS and SPSS craft more effectively. United States authorities are 

also working with Colombian authorities and those of other countries to locate the 

sites where the vessels are built, loaded, and launched, as well as to identify the 

logistical, financial, and associated networks that support them. Likewise, security 

cooperation programs with South and Central American countries, as well as with 

Mexico, are critical in strengthening those countries’ surveillance and interdiction 

capabilities and their capacity to cooperate with U.S. counterparts and with one another. 

Admiral MULLEN. Ecuadoran and Colombian authorities seized narco-subs in Pacific coast jungle areas in July 2010 and February 2011, respectively. Ecuadoran 

and Colombian authorities have cooperated fully with U.S. counterparts in studying 

the narco-subs, which appear to have been intended for limited fully-submerged operations. Drug Trafficking Organizations continue to rely principally on ‘‘go-fast’’ 

boats to carry over half of all U.S.-bound cocaine. However, the recent emergence 

of the Self-Propelled Fully Submersible (SPFS) drug-smuggling vessels represents a 

significant evolutionary step and demonstrates the trafficking organizations’ adaptability, resources, and persistence. 

As the lead agency of the Federal Government for detection and monitoring of 

aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the Unites States, DOD continues 

to refine its technology, tactics, techniques and procedures to adapt to the law enforcement threat narco-subs pose to the United States. Additionally, U.S. authorities 

are working with Colombian authorities and those of other partner nations to locate 

where the narco-subs are built, loaded and launched, domains which are much more 

conducive to intercept. We also partner with like-minded countries to identify the 

logistical, financial and associated networks which support such illicit activities. 

Likewise, U.S. security cooperation programs with South and Central American 

countries, as well as with Mexico, are critical in strengthening those countries’ surveillance and interdiction capabilities, including their capacity to cooperate with 

U.S. counterparts and with each other in the Central American region. 

COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING

110. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, I am concerned about what I see as a 

movement by DOD away from competition. The most egregious recent example is 

the Navy’s decision to award contracts to both bidders in the LCS program—a decision I still believe was ill-advised. But, there are numerous others—outside the context major systems. 

In fact, the Congressional Quarterly recently reported that ‘‘according to newly 

available DOD data . . . more than half the Pentagon’s total budget obligations for 

contracting last year were spent without effective competition or with no competition at all.’’ Are you aware of this report? 

Secretary GATES. DOD actually employed a very effective competitive procurement strategy in the case of the LCS. The effects of head-to-head competition resulted in competitive pricing from both offerors that had not occurred with any previous strategy. This strategy promotes competition for DOD by establishing multiple 

options for conducting future competitions. While I have not read the specific ‘‘Congressional Quarterly’’ report, Dr. Ashton Carter, the USD(AT&L), is aware of the 

issue and made promoting real competition a major component of his Better Buying 

Power Initiative. As part of this effort, guidance was issued on November 24, 2010 

on ‘‘Improving Competition in Defense Procurements.’’ 

111. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, how concerned are you about this development and how do you intend to address it? 

119 

Secretary GATES. I am concerned about this development and have undertaken a 

major reform agenda in DOD to improve business processes and change the way it 

acquires goods and services to generate greater efficiencies and savings. Aspects of 

this initiative are being implemented in the USD(AT&L)’s September 14, 2010 

memorandum for ‘‘Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency 

and Productivity in Defense Spending.’’ The goal of this initiative is to achieve more 

efficient, effective, and affordable ways of conducting DOD business. Promoting real 

competition is a focus area within the initiative that requires the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to develop plans to improve overall and effective competition by: reducing the number of single-bid contracts; negotiating better prices on 

single-bid contracts and task and delivery orders; and reducing the dollar value of 

sole-source contracts and task and delivery orders. On November 24, 2010 the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy issued guidance on improving 

competition in Defense procurement. 

120 


217ful4.eps
121 

112. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, since this data was taken from DOD 

sources and should have been available to your staff, why wouldn’t increasing completion be the cornerstone of any efficiency initiative announced by DOD to date? 

Secretary GATES. Competition is the cornerstone of the acquisition process and its 

benefits are well understood. Competition was re-emphasized when the USD(AT&L) 

issued his June 2010 memorandum, ‘‘Better Buying Power: Mandate for Restoring 

Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending’’ to underscore the importance 

of competition. In July 2010, the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition 

Policy established Subcommittee 13 under the Panel on Contracting Integrity to address opportunities for more effective competition. In September 2010, the 

USD(AT&L) followed his June memorandum with the ‘‘Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending’’ to promote real competition, which was followed by his November 2010 Implementation 

Directive that requires Military Departments and Defense Agencies to improve the 

overall rate of competition by 2 percent and the rate of effective competition by 10 

percent. Further direction was provided by the Director of Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy’s November 2010 memorandum ‘‘Improving Competition in Defense Procurements,’’ which instructs contracting officers to resolicit any solicitation 

that was open for less than 30 days, and if only one offer is received in the resolicitation, the contracting officer must conduct negotiations to achieve the best value 

for the DOD. 


217ful5.eps
122 


217ful6.eps
123 


217ful7.eps
124 


217ful8.eps
125 


217ful9.eps 217ful10.eps
126 


217ful11.eps
127 


217ful12.eps
128 


217ful13.eps
129 


217ful14.eps
130 


217ful15.eps
131 


217ful16.eps
132 


217ful17.eps
133 


217ful18.eps
134 


217ful19.eps
135 


217ful20.eps
136 


217ful21.eps
137 


217ful22.eps
138 


217ful23.eps
139 


217ful24.eps
140 


217ful25.eps
141 


217ful26.eps
142 


217ful27.eps
143 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

113. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, soon after you announced that you wanted 

to restructure the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program again, Pentagon officials reportedly said that the program could be delayed by 1 to 3 more years and cost another $5 billion. Is that true? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. Following the breach of the Nunn-McCurdy critical thresholds, rescission of the original October 26, 2001 Milestone B decision, and program 

recertification in June 2010, DOD set out to reestablish a firm foundation for the 


217ful28.eps
144 

JSF program. The new F–35 PEO conducted an extensive bottom-up Technical 

Baseline Review (TBR) involving more than 120 tactical aircraft experts from both 

the military Services and DOD to evaluate every aspect of the System Development 

and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the program. The TBR identified the need for 

an additional $4.6 billion in resources and schedule duration for execution of the 

SDD phase. In addition to the TBR, the PEO will perform a schedule risk assessment this summer, will conduct an integrated baseline review, and will prepare the 

integrated master schedule for the program this fall. 

114. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what are the new estimates on how much 

the program and each plane will cost? 

Secretary GATES. DOD is currently finalizing its estimates on how much the program and each aircraft will cost. These estimates are being prepared in support of 

the planned Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) Milestone B recertification review 

scheduled for May 2011. The cost figures resulting from this review will be reflected 

in an update to the Selected Acquisition Report which will be provided to Congress 

this summer, subsequent to the DAB review. 

115. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, will there be another Nunn-McCurdy 

breach on the program this year? 

Secretary GATES. No, there will not be another Nunn-McCurdy breach this year. Although DOD added another $4.6 billion to the development program, and the 

short-term aircraft price will increase resulting from the reduction of 124 aircraft 

within the FYDP, I remain committed to procuring 2,443 aircraft in total. I believe 

that the changes to the development program, together with DOD’s long-term commitment to procurement quantities, provide a reasonable baseline and strong foundation for program execution going forward. These changes will not result in a 

Nunn-McCurdy breach. 

116. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, under your restructure proposal, what is 

the current estimate for the additional time required to complete developing the aircraft? 

Secretary GATES. The development phase of the SDD phase ends with the completion of development testing, now estimated to be completed in fiscal year 2016. This 

estimate was based on the independent Technical Baseline Review involving 120 

tactical aircraft experts from the Military Services and DOD over a period of 

months. 

117. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, you suspended the Marine Corps version 

of the JSF, the F–35B, putting the program in a 2-year probationary period—necessary to get the program back on track. At the time you stated if cost, development, 

and schedule overruns could not be rectified in that 2-year timeframe, you would 

cancel the program. 

However, the PEO of the JSF program, Vice Admiral Venlet, reportedly said, 

‘‘There is no black and white checklist to weigh the program’s performance against.’’ 

Admiral Venlet reportedly said the future of the Marine Corps version of the JSF 

will not be judged against a checklist of hard milestones, but rather by a loose-knit 

series of requirements—ranging from the aircraft’s weight, propulsion ratios, its 

ability to operate in a maritime environment, etc. Do you agree with Admiral 

Venlet’s assertion? If so, please explain, exactly what does probation mean for the 

Marine Corps version of the aircraft? 

Secretary GATES. ‘‘Probation’’ is not a suspension; ‘‘probation’’ is linked to both 

production and development. First, DOD reduced the production of the F–35B Short 

Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant to three aircraft in fiscal year 2011, 

six aircraft in fiscal year 2012, and six aircraft in fiscal year 2013. These aircraft 

numbers are the minimum numbers required to sustain the F–35B production and 

engineering workforce, as well as to sustain the supplier base of STOVL-unique 

parts. The F–35A Conventional Take Off and Landing and F–35C Carrier Variant 

(CV) aircraft are not dependent on the F–35B development and flight test to complete their development. 

Cost, schedule, and development progress must balance against warfighter utility. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps reviews the F–35B STOVL progress monthly 

and separately from the monthly Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) reviews of the 

F–35 program as a whole. These reviews assess metrics ranging from affordability, 

weight growth, key STOVL performance requirements, technical performance measures, flight test status, and risk burn-down plans. These metrics provide a holistic 

view of the F–35B progress. None of them provide ‘‘black and white’’ decision criteria. These metrics, taken as a whole, will inform the Commandant of the Marine 

145 

Corps and DOD on the continued F–35B progress at the end of the ‘‘probation’’ period. 

118. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what is success and what is failure that 

warrants termination? 

Secretary GATES. Termination is not a ‘‘black and white’’ decision. It must be 

viewed from a holistic viewpoint by assessing cost, schedule, warfighter utility in 

performance being delivered, and risk. The goal of any acquisition program is an 

affordable system that provides the desired warfighter utility. Warfighter utility is 

a combination of capability delivered in a desirable timeframe. It is DOD’s job to 

accomplish this at a reasonable level of risk. 

The Technical Baseline Review conducted by the new F–35 PEO establishes a 

more realistic expectation for the F–35 development program. The program is continuing its restructure activities for the SDD phase, production activities, and operations and support. The program will be assessed monthly by the service acquisition 

executives, the warfighters, and DOD leadership to determine that the balance of 

cost, schedule, and performance goals do not exceed acceptable risk levels. 

119. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, it appears the program office has not 

taken any additional steps to refine the criteria on those key goals, or established 

any further metrics on what needs to be done to remedy the F–35B’s serious issues 

to save it from cancellation, if that is the right thing to do. As those steps are being 

taken, it seems to me that there should be transparent, clear, and measurable milestones against which performance can be measured against plan. Is that your vision 

for determining whether the Marine Corps version of the aircraft passes probation? 

Secretary GATES. DOD is providing individual attention to the F–35B STOVL variant specific issues to ensure cost and schedule milestones are achieved in delivering 

required warfighter capabilities. 

Specifically, Navy and the Air Force established a battle rhythm of monthly Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) reviews with the F–35 PEO to assess the overall 

F–35 program, with additional emphasis on F–35B STOVL variant. These monthly 

SAE reviews examine the F–35 airframe and propulsion SDD, production, and 

sustainment programs with particular emphasis on cost/affordability, risk, and 

schedule. In addition, the Commandant of the Marine Corps established a monthly 

F–35 review focused solely on the STOVL variant. This review is also led by the 

Navy SAE. The topics and metrics that are assessed include, but are not limited 

to, the following: 

• Cost/Affordability/Earned Value Management (EVM): A review of Acquisition Procurement Unit Cost, Program Acquisition Unit Cost, Operations 

and Support costs, and EVM cost/schedule indices. 

• Risk: Monthly assessment of ‘Program Risk’ with explanations about each 

risk item, their interactions, and risk burn-down plans. Assessments include a review of the assumptions and environment used to determine the 

risk evaluations. 

• F–35B weight/weight growth: weight assessments track each pound 

added to the airframe with an understanding of the underlying reasons for 

the growth. If there are trades that need to be made to mitigate weight 

growth, DoN senior leadership/warfighters are to be consulted. 

• Key Performance Parameters (KPPs): review of F–35B KPPs with a 

tracking/trending methodology and monthly discussions of considerations 

for a Concept of Operations that might help facilitate achievement of F–35 

KPPs and program goals. 

• Airframe Technical Performance Measurements: Assessments of reliability, maintainability, combat radius, and gross weight (with metrics that 

indicate the desired value(s), the current status, margin, and trends). 

• F–35B Flight Test: review of F–35B flight test data, to include planned/ 

scheduled test points to be flown versus achieved test points flown; scheduled test flights flown versus actual test flights flown (delineated by STOVL 

variant); and Clean-Wing Flight Envelope coverage (to assess the progress 

on the envelope cleared for flight as a result of Developmental Test and 

alignment with software delivery). 

As these monthly reviews mature, the Navy will refine key F–35B metrics to ensure this essential capability is delivered to the Marine Corps warfighters and to 

enable the Department to make a decision on the F–35B STOVL variant probation 

status. 

146 

SHIPBUILDING

120. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, another area of the 

Navy’s budget that I am very concerned about is the amount of funding needed for 

ship construction going forward. With about half of the construction and development dollars being needed to build extraordinarily expensive nuclear submarines 

(for example, right now, Ohio class replacement nuclear ballistic submarines are es- timated to cost at least $7 billion), I am concerned that our commitment to building 

new submarines may be crowding out funding needed to modernize the surface fleet. 

Do you share that concern? If so, how do you intend to address it? 

Secretary GATES. DOD recognizes that building the required force structure will 

largely depend on controlling shipbuilding costs (including combat systems) within 

an affordable range. I continue to look for further affordability and efficiency opportunities as DOD goes forward with the shipbuilding plan, such as revising the acquisition strategy for the LCS to maximize the advantage of the competitive pricing 

received and gain a ship within the FYDP. Additionally, prior to Milestone A approval for the Ohio replacement submarine, DOD evaluated numerous capability 

trades to reduce costs. As a result, the Navy made trades in the number of ballistic 

missile tubes, the diameter of those tubes, the number of torpedoes to be carried, 

acoustic sensors, and other defensive features throughout the design. These trades 

made the submarine more affordable, while maintaining the necessary level of capability, resulting in a reduction of the projected cost to a target cost of $4.9 billion 

(fiscal year 2010 dollars) for the follow on hulls 2–12. These initiatives support 

DOD’s ability to provide the capability and flexibility for meeting the myriad of missions that the Navy is called upon to execute throughout the world every day. 

Admiral MULLEN. We developed the shipbuilding plan and this budget based on averages of about $15.9 billion per year for the early years of the plan, and then 

about $2 billion more on average for the years in the plan when the Ohio replacement submarine is being constructed. This will support a force structure of about 

313 battle force ships, enabling the Navy to meet its global commitments and to 

support contingency operations. We will continue to look for efficiency opportunities 

as we go forward with the shipbuilding plan. This will involve decisions such as we 

have already made by truncating the DDG–1000 program to three ships and restarting the DDG 51 production line, taking advantage of the aggressive pricing we received on LCS to gain a ship within the FYDP, and pursuing a lower cost alternative for the Mobile Landing Platform. 

Prior to Milestone A approval for the Ohio replacement submarine, numerous capability trades were evaluated to reduce costs. As a result, the Navy made trades 

in the number of ballistic missile tubes, the diameter of those tubes, the number 

of torpedoes to be carried, acoustic sensors, and other defensive features throughout 

the design. These trades made the submarine more affordable while maintaining 

the necessary level of capability, resulting in a reduction of the projected cost from 

$7 billion to about $5 billion per boat. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND THE NEED FOR AUDITS

121. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, please explain to me how you can demand 

fiscal savings and efficiencies across every sector of operations in DOD without the 

ability to track expenditures in financial statements that can be audited? 

Secretary GATES. DOD records and reports expenditures associated with budgeted 

amounts. While not sufficient to meet audit standards, this longstanding approach 

proved to be an effective means of responsibly managing public funds entrusted to 

DOD. There are thousands of well-trained financial management professionals in 

DOD dedicated to and motivated by their role in providing the resources to 

warfighters necessary to meet the national security mission of the country. These 

financial managers know DOD missions cannot be executed without timely and sufficient resources so are able to track expenditures and report to managers with an 

accurate status. Because of this capability, I feel DOD can demand and track savings from specific operations. 

This does not mean that DOD does not take the financial statement audit requirement seriously. Financial statement audits are also a key indicator to the public 

that we have reliable financial management information. While it is not the intent 

of financial statement audits they are a signal to the public that DOD manages 

funds legally, effectively, and efficiently. I am dedicated to having fully auditable 

financial statements by 2017, the deadline established by Congress. 

122. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, why is this not your highest and most critical efficiency initiative? 

147 

Secretary GATES. The highest priority for DOD’s business enterprise is to meet 

the needs of the warfighters executing the national security mission. Due to potential budgetary constraints, I directed DOD to eliminate or reduce overhead tasks 

and transfer the related resources to meet urgent warfigher needs. In other words, 

transfer resources from tail to tooth. This initiative to improve financial management is part of that effort. Improved financial management information will help 

DOD better identify overhead costs and ensure reductions are realized. 

123. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, how can DOD ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted, stolen, or otherwise abused without an audit? 

Secretary GATES. I believe that even though DOD cannot currently meet commercial audit standards, the public can have confidence that it is spending dollars responsibly. That is a primary task of DOD’s financial management workforce, and 

DOD has an extensive training program to ensure financial managers know the 

proper rules and processes. In addition, there are thousands of auditors reviewing 

programs and payments. These audits find far fewer improper payments and appropriation law violations in DOD than in other Federal agencies, after adjusting for 

the size of the budgets. This is true even though most other Federal agencies have 

auditable financial statements. 

As mentioned in an earlier question, this does not mean DOD is not fully committed to achieving full financial statement auditability. This demonstrated progress 

will further reinforce confidence in the positive financial outcomes we already 

achieve. 

124. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, how will you ensure that the savings you 

have proposed will be achieved? 

Secretary GATES. DOD effectively manages operations by tracking obligations and 

expenditures against budgeted amounts. The primary control the Department uses 

to implement savings efforts is to include them in the President’s budget request. 

The efficiencies that DOD defined in response to my initiative have been included 

in the President’s 2012 budget request. DOD has several management controls, including regular reviews of obligation rates and detailed program budget reviews, to 

ensure it is executing according to the budget. Through these means DOD will ensure that proposed overhead reductions are realized. 

125. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, over the last few years, Congress has 

pushed DOD to reform its financial management practices, most recently the NDAA 

for Fiscal Year 2010, requiring DOD to achieve a full, unqualified audit by 2017. 

The law also requires you to submit to Congress semiannual reports that lay out 

milestones describing progress over time. Are you on track to comply with this statutory requirement? 

Secretary GATES. As you recognize, preparing DOD for financial statement audits 

is a monumental task, but with leadership focus, accountability, and a streamlined 

approach, I believe it will succeed. To realize success, DOD is using a streamlined 

approach that focuses on improving and auditing the information most used to manage. DOD established long- and short-term goals, set up a governance process, and 

provided funding to the Military Services to make process and system improvements. These system improvements, primarily deploying ERPS, have broad operational improvement goals which include improving business processes in a way to 

support audited financial statements. 

I am dedicated to having fully auditable financial statements by 2017, the deadline established by Congress. The goal is in our Strategic Management Plan and is 

one of eight high priority items DOD committed to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to achieve. While it is still early to definitively predict success, I believe DOD is on track to comply and look forward to reporting progress in the semiannual reports. 

126. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, given the push for savings, can you 

achieve the audit earlier than 2017? If so, what additional resources would you 

need? 

Secretary GATES. Achieving auditable financial statements is a massive undertaking requiring changes to the capabilities of our people, processes and systems. 

Like any major change management effort changes take time and a great deal of 

resources. The extreme size of DOD complicates change further and requires more 

time and resources. DOD is already investing significant amounts in improving its 

financial management systems by implementing and integrating ERPS as well as 

investing over $200 million a year in improving people and processes. I feel that the 

148 

resources allocated are appropriate and the significant dependency on systems modernization makes achieving the audit earlier than 2017 impractical. 

C–17 GLOBEMASTER

127. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, under the continuing resolution enacted 

late last year, has DOD been funding the continued production of C–17 cargo-lift 

aircraft? 

Secretary GATES. No, DOD did not fund the continued production of new C–17 

aircraft beyond the 10 aircraft appropriated in fiscal year 2010 by Congress. However, in accordance with Continuing Resolution Authority (CRA) guidelines, DOD 

funded a total of $12.7895 million in fiscal year 2011 CRA to support transition to 

sustainment in preparation for shutdown activities. 

128. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what are DOD’s plans for this program 

in the future under the various appropriations scenarios for fiscal year 2011? 

Secretary GATES. DOD determined that the C–17 aircraft already procured are 

more than sufficient to satisfy airlift requirements. As I have previously testified, 

I do not support the addition of more C–17s. 

129. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what is your position on the inclusion of 

any funding for continued production of C–17s in the 2012 defense bill? 

Secretary GATES. Since 2001, DOD conducted four major mobility studies, all of 

which support the conclusion that the C–17 and C–5 airlift fleet capacity is more 

than sufficient to meet current and foreseeable demands. 

1. Mobility Requirements Study–05 (MRS–05) (completed in 2001) 

2. Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) (completed in 2005) 

3. Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) study conducted in 2009 as required by 

Section 1046 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

4. Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study–2016 (MCRS–16) (completed in 

2010) 

The most recent study, the MCRS–16, identified the requirement for organic airlift as 32.7 million ton miles per day (MTM/D). This level of airlift capacity meets 

the most demanding scenario consistent with the Defense Strategy. The current programmed strategic airlift fleet of 223 C–17s, and 111 C–5s, provides a capacity of 

35.9 million ton-miles per day. The difference (35.9 MTM/D vs. 32.7 MTM/D) is the 

equivalent of 25 C–17s or 30 C–5As. The MCRS–16 and the aforementioned studies 

clearly show that the Department has more strategic airlift fleet capacity than needed. Therefore, I believe that it is not in the national interest to include any funds 

for continued production of C–17s in the 2012 defense bill. 

President Obama’s comments on releasing his administration’s fiscal year 2011 

budget request included the following statement: 

‘‘We save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do 

nothing to keep us safe. One example is the $2.5 billion that we’re spending 

to build C–17 transport aircraft. Four years ago, DOD decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested—180. Yet every year 

since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more C–17s that the 

Pentagon doesn’t want or need. It’s waste, pure and simple.’’ 

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I echoed the President, saying that I would not support the addition of more C–17s. My position today 

remains unchanged. 

SAVINGS-AND-EFFICIENCIES INITIATIVES

130. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, given how inherently unreliable and defective DOD’s financial management processes are, I have serious questions about the 

projected savings of many of the efficiencies initiatives. While I certainly commend 

your attempt to find $78 billion in cuts over the next 5 years, I have to question 

how likely is it that DOD will actually realize the savings it says it will get. 

What is your assessment of how much of the $78 billion in cuts will result in 

deferment of bills that must eventually be paid, in contrast to actual savings from 

an elimination or a reduction in requirements? 

Secretary GATES. The $78 billion reduction to DOD’s projected budget over the 

next 5 years is achievable and will be closely monitored and assessed by DOD to 

ensure savings are fully realized. The efficiency initiatives include actions to reduce 

overall requirements commensurate with the lower rate of growth after the $78 bilVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
149 

lion cut. I remain strongly committed to meeting these goals and finding new ways 

to improve how DOD conducts business thereby better using the country’s scarce resources. 

131. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, which of the elements of savings and efficiencies that you have identified carry the most risk of not being realized? Please 

explain your answer. 

Secretary GATES. Experience tells me that some of these initiatives may not proceed entirely according to plan. DOD has no choice but to strictly monitor and enforce these efficiencies and make adjustments as needed with the understanding 

that it cannot afford to return to past behavior. At this point, there are no elements 

that I believe are especially risky. 

132. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, please explain what cost-based analytical 

processes and methodologies (such as performance-based, mission-based, staffingprofile-based government, military, contractor, etc.) are the efficiencies proposals 

based on? 

Secretary GATES. The majority of these proposals were function or mission-based. 

The intent was to focus scarce resources on functions/missions associated with the 

provision of military capability. DOD took an ‘‘unsparing’’ look at reducing functions 

(and costs) associated with overhead and administrative positions. Even the reductions in contract costs were motivated and enforced with this principle in mind. 

133. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, I understand that the COCOMs and the 

IC were asked to submit zero-based assessments with accompanying recommendations for gaining 10 percent efficiencies. Exactly how did OSD review assessments 

or analyses of those submissions? 

Secretary GATES. The entire fourth Estate (OSD, the Defense Agencies, Field Activities, and COCOMs), including the IC, conducted a zero-based review to identify 

opportunities to perform more efficiently, eliminate unnecessary functions, and reduce costs. My Efficiencies Task Force reviewed each of the zero-based submissions 

with a two-fold purpose: 

• Develop a baseline of each organization’s missions, priorities, and resource allocation 

• Using this baseline, rebalance resources within and across components so 

that they align better with the most critical challenges and priorities within 

DOD. 

These submissions included a detailed profile of each organization’s missions, 

functions, and resources. The rebalancing process involved the critical review, analytical assessment and evaluation of: 

(1) baseline data, 

(2) mission and manpower priorities, and 

(3) recommendations for organizational restructuring and reallocation of re- sources. 

This process was conducted by members of the Efficiencies Task Force, subject 

matter experts and analysts from responding organizations, and was reviewed by 

program, comptroller, and manpower experts. 

134. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, was a broader portfolio review or tradeoff analysis performed to understand and balance cost-savings with mission performance? If so, please explain. 

Secretary GATES. Yes, this year’s program and budget review process focused on 

preserving critical capabilities by making very targeted resource allocation decisions. During this cycle, DOD used a series of front end assessments to address a 

variety of portfolio-type reviews such as airborne ISR, long-range strike, global posture and tactical aviation to better understand the range of options in each area. 

These analyses guided investment decisions, while the efficiencies initiatives focused 

on trading administrative and overhead expenses for operational capability—this 

was a prudent trade. 

135. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, additionally, how were the COCOMs’ and 

the IC’s overall annual budget evaluated and compared to their unique ongoing mission requirements—to devise an accurate estimate of actual expected savings versus 

annual budget? 

Secretary GATES. Each of these organizations submitted its own detailed accounting of personnel and missions in priority order. These submissions explicitly considered the organizations’ unique and ongoing mission requirements. Additionally, 

150 

every organization also submitted its own ideas for how it could operate more effectively and efficiently. In some cases it nominated new and better ways of performing 

critical functions. In other cases, it nominated functions that were of minimal value 

for either elimination or downgrading. Such missions were typically either redundant or overhead functions. COCOMs estimated savings in coordination with OSD 

budgeting, programming, and manpower experts. The IC followed a similar process 

and considered input from both a supply perspective (analysts from intelligence organizations) and a demand perspective (combatant commanders). 

MANAGING FORCE REDUCTIONS

136. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, reductions in end strength for all the Active-Duty Forces, not just the Army and Marine Corps, appear inevitable due to the 

declining budgets and the rising cost of personnel. Next month, the Army will begin 

a year-long plan to cut 7,000 soldiers, and from 2013 through 2014, an additional 

14,000. And that’s just the beginning. Cuts of 27,000 in the Army and 15,000 in the 

Marine Corps have been forecast to commence in 2015. 

During the force drawdown in the 1990s, the availability of force-shaping authorities, such as early retirement authority and financial incentives for those voluntarily 

retiring or resigning, were essential tools in equitably achieving force reduction 

goals. In the current economy, with retention at very high levels, it appears that 

such incentives will be necessary. Do you plan to submit legislative proposals that 

will facilitate the kinds of force cuts that are being planned for? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. DOD is carefully examining the authorities required to 

achieve the legislated end strength, while maintaining transparency with regard to 

future requirements. My goal is to submit legislative authorities that allow targeted 

reductions and maximum flexibility. 

Leadership is the key to ensuring each individual understands the needs of DOD 

so they can make informed choices. This will be no easy task. But I assure you, 

DOD will continue to recognize the contributions of the men and women who served 

throughout numerous conflicts, while ensuring that the military departments and 

the COCOMs meet their missions in an ever-changing global environment. 

137. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, other than force cuts, and putting aside 

the Defense Health Program momentarily, do you see any feasible way to control 

the costs of personnel as a share of the DOD budget? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. In order to control total personnel costs across DOD, improvements to the Total Force management of our Active/Reserve military, government civilians and contracts for services must be considered. This is critical to control personnel costs as a share of the budget. To this end, DOD is changing how 

it strategically views the Total Force—both as it executes the mission and plans 

across the FYDP. DOD is scrutinizing the meaning of the ‘‘demand’’ for manpower, 

rigorously determining which should be funded and how (e.g., Active/Reserve military, civilians, or contracts). 

Total Force Management requires a holistic analysis and prioritization of work, 

and the identification and investment in the most effective and efficient component 

of the workforce to best accomplish a specific task. I believe that our military should 

not be considered a ‘‘free’’ source of labor by organizations within DOD, while the 

military services alone ‘‘finance’’ their recruitment, training and development. The 

true cost of military, government civilians and/or contractors depends greatly on individual facts and circumstances. DOD must do more to objectively analyze not only 

the demands for manpower but, where appropriate, the best ‘‘Total Force solution.’’ 

The separate decisions that affect each component of the Total Force must be better 

synchronized to achieve the desired outcomes and to balance operational, fiscal and 

acquisition risks. 

The solution must not only include the development and promulgation of policies, 

but also ensure that DOD provides managers with the tools, resources, training and 

information necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. Finally, current business 

processes must be better synchronized to achieve a more appropriate balance in the 

workforce, aligning inherently governmental activities to military and civilian 

workforces, and commercial activities to the most cost effective service provider— 

be that military, civilian, or contracted support. 

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

138. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Mullen, under your leadership, significant changes 

have been made in the way the National Guard and all the Reserve components 

151 

contribute to the decisionmaking process. Designating the Guard Bureau as a joint 

activity and elevating the rank of the Chief of the Guard Bureau to a four-star general are just two examples of the recognition that the Army National Guard and 

Air National Guard are vital parts of the Army and the Air Force. Despite this, we 

continue to see proposals that the Chief of the Guard Bureau be made one of the 

JCS. What are your views about the proposal to make the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau (CNGB) a member of the Joint Chiefs? 

Admiral MULLEN. Over the last 10 years, the National Guard has provided crucial 

elements to our Joint Force and their execution of Army and Air Force missions has 

been stellar. They are appropriately represented on the JCS by the respective Army 

and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, so I and the other JCS members unanimously do not 

support the CNGB being made a member of the JCS. Since the CNGB was elevated 

to the four-star rank in 2009, we have included him in our meetings and he has 

contributed valuable perspectives regarding the National Guard, particularly its 

critical, non-federalized homeland defense mission and forces. This is congruent 

with the 2008 NDAA promulgating the CNGB fulfilling a statutory role and responsibilities as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense through me on these 

unique matters. 

139. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Mullen, do you think such a change would be 

harmful? Why or why not? 

Admiral MULLEN. Adding the CNGB as a member of the JCS would be redundant 

and harmful. Like the other Service Chiefs (the JCS members), the Army and Air 

Force Chiefs of Staff organize, train, and equip their Total Force, including their respective National Guard, to present an integrated Joint Force to the combatant commanders. They maintain the independent departmental authorities and budget with 

which to do so. Adding CNGB to the JCS would disrupt those lines of authority and 

introduce representation inconsistencies. Since the CNGB’s responsibilities are administrative in nature, making him a member would also create the harmful impression that the National Guard is a separate Military Service. 

EARMARKS

140. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, with the recent pledge for both chambers 

to enforce a moratorium on earmarks over the next 2 years, there is a renewed concern that Members of Congress with special interests will go underground to pressure program managers within DOD in phonecalls and meetings to steer funds toward their pet projects. What processes do you have in place to protect DOD program managers from this kind of pressure? 

Secretary GATES. Program managers and contracting officials’ compliance with the 

United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and the President’s March 

2009 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Government Contracting all serve to safeguard the acquisition process from underground earmarks and congressional pressure—through requiring competition and 

transparency. 

Compliance with the many requirements in the acquisition process protects program managers from being forced to award contracts noncompetitively or under the 

table. Furthermore, the Department demands ethical behavior from its program 

managers and would expect the same of those it deals with in the legislative branch. 

141. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what can be done to ensure taxpayer 

funds provided to DOD go to the most critical priorities and are not used to satisfy 

a specific Member interest? 

Secretary GATES. Several actions would provide DOD flexibility to ensure that its 

appropriations go to the military’s most critical needs or can be realigned to fund 

unforeseen emergent requirements. 

• Eliminate section 8006 in Appropriations bills. That section is aimed at 

ensuring that DOD executes the exact funding for specific programs, 

projects, and activities—as listed in the tables in the Explanatory Statement (or Committee Print or Conference Report) accompanying a bill. 

• Eliminate bill language or General Provisions that specify funding for 

specific programs, projects, or activities. 

• Approve the transfer authority requested in each President’s budget to 

give DOD enough flexibility to reprogram funds to its most critical needs. 

• Omit legislative direction that restricts DOD reprogramming, such as 

prohibiting the reprogramming of funds added by Congress. 

152 

• Reform the process by which congressional oversight committees review 

reprogrammings to facilitate timely approval—such as initiating a time 

limit for review. 

• Increase the amount of funds that can be reprogrammed below threshold 

within an appropriations. 

142. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, is there an opportunity to make public the 

specific requests by Members of Congress made to representatives of DOD on issues 

related to contracts, acquisitions, and fiscal obligations? 

Secretary GATES. I believe that would be a counter-productive effort and detracts 

from executing the mission. For the majority of earmarks, DOD does not place each 

earmark on a funding document by itself. Most earmarks are incorporated into the 

funding document for activities related to it. DOD funding is executed at the field 

activity level, and requiring these activities to collect information related to earmarks would impose a wasteful burden and detract them from focusing on efficient 

management of funds. 

143. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in recent years, there has been a proliferation of funding grants and other large amounts appropriated to DOD for vague requirements (to preclude being called an earmark) like $300 million for medical 

transportation infrastructure in the National Capitol Region, $50 million for private 

museum construction, $250 million for repairs to local community schools, and $500 

million for civilian infrastructure projects on Guam. None of these amounts are included in DOD budget requests, nor are they considered firm DOD requirements. 

All of them are added as a result of decreases to other DOD accounts. So, it would 

seem logical that in these times of fiscal austerity where DOD is making hard decisions about savings and efficiencies, there would be strong opposition to congressional efforts to fund them from DOD accounts. But there isn’t. What is DOD’s position on the use of DOD funds for non-DOD requirements which are not included 

in a budget request? 

Secretary GATES. DOD’s position is that the President’s Budget requests what is 

required to meet our mission requirements each year. Upon enactment of an Appropriations Act the Department executes the enacted programs, complying with reprogramming and transfer authorities. 

Background 

In DOD appropriations bills, Section 8006 and general provisions specifying funding for specific items do not give DOD the flexibility to decide whether congressional 

adds are the best use of appropriated funds. Congressional adds can only be reduced 

if they are for Federally Funded Research Development Centers, economic assumptions, or excess cash balances of the Defense Working Capital Funds, by their proportionate share. All other reductions in the DOD appropriations bill result in the 

President’s budget baseline taking those reductions, thus diverting funding from 

mission requirements. 

144. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, if you are presented a request for a formal 

position on a particular spending item of this nature, can I expect a firm and unequivocal position from you stating why you either oppose or support the spending? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, DOD leaders and I are always prepared to state opposition 

to unrequested changes to the President’s budget because these changes divert funding from DOD’s most pressing requirements, as detailed in the budget. 

Beyond this straightforward opposition to changes to the President’s budget, however, comments on specific congressional adds, or any other legislative positions, are 

the purview of the White House and OMB, and DOD follows their lead, and does 

not provide a position on its own. 

OKINAWA AND GUAM

145. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the road to a reduced U.S. presence on 

the Island of Okinawa has been paved with quite a few speed bumps. Not only do 

we have an irate contingent on Okinawa that has already ushered out one prime 

minister, but the folks on Guam aren’t exactly excited about the current plan either. 

I notice that you have scaled back the request for funds by almost $300 million for 

Guam construction for fiscal year 2012 from what you had planned last year. This 

is in addition to the $320 million we have deferred in fiscal year 2011 for a host 

of reasons. 

You mentioned that you expect to see a decision in the spring of 2011 on the final 

location for the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) on Okinawa. Will this decision 

153 

be considered the tangible progress required by the formal agreement between our 

Government and the Government of Japan? If not, when do you expect Japan to 

demonstrate tangible progress towards completion of the FRF? 

Secretary GATES. I see tangible progress on the FRF, not as a single specific 

event, but rather as a series of steps taken roughly in parallel between Japan and 

the United States, as spelled out in our bilateral understandings on realignment. 

As Japan makes progress on the FRF, the United States will take associated steps 

to move forward on Guam. There are a number of different indicators of this 

progress, starting with the decision on the runway configuration that is expected at 

the upcoming two-plus-two meeting with Japan, the issuance of the landfill permit, 

the construction of the sea wall, and progress on the landfill itself. 

An essential point of our realignment understanding with Japan is that preparations for facilities on Guam need to begin well in advance of the actual construction 

of the replacement facility at Camp Schwab. It is necessary to ensure that when 

the U.S. is satisfied with the progress Japan has made on the FRF, suitable facilities will be available on Guam allowing the phased relocation of Marines from Okinawa, such that any relocation can be sequenced to maintain unit cohesion and 

operational readiness. 

146. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in your view, should the movement of marines to Guam take place without the demonstration of tangible progress regarding 

Futenma? 

Secretary GATES. The realignment of marines to Guam is dependent on tangible 

progress towards completion of the FRF at Camp Schwab. 

An essential point of our realignment understanding with Japan is that preparations for facilities on Guam need to begin well in advance of the actual construction 

of the replacement facility at Camp Schwab. It is necessary to ensure that when 

the United States is satisfied with the progress Japan has made on the FRF, suitable facilities will be available on Guam allowing the phased relocation of marines 

from Okinawa, such that any relocation can be sequenced to maintain unit cohesion 

and operational readiness. 

147. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the Navy’s Record of Decision related to 

the environmental impact on Guam released last fall conveniently punted on two 

major issues—potential damage to coral reefs in the Apra Harbor and the impact 

to cultural resources from the acquisition of private land for Marine Corps training 

ranges. Both issues, as well as the adequacy of Guam’s civilian infrastructure, are 

of significant concern to Guam residents and should be of equal concern to DOD. 

Shouldn’t we resolve these issues completely before we continue to invest hundreds 

of millions of dollars in the construction of a new Marine Corps base on the island? 

Secretary GATES. These three issues—the impact to coral reefs associated with 

dredging for a proposed nuclear powered aircraft carrier transient wharf, the management of cultural resources through a Programmatic Agreement, and the adequacy of Guam’s civilian infrastructure—are of significant concern not only to the 

Guam community but also to DOD. DOD is actively working to address all of these 

issues, but complete resolution will be an ongoing effort throughout the buildup 

process and is not required prior to beginning military construction. 

The Navy recently completed additional surveys of the marine biology in the alternative sites proposed for the proposed wharf for a transient nuclear aircraft carrier. 

It is anticipated the results of these surveys will be outlined in a report due in November 2011, allowing for a full assessment of impacts for coral reef resources. 

As to the management of cultural resources, DOD and relevant Federal and local 

regulatory authorities reached agreement on a Programmatic Agreement under the 

National Historic Preservation Act. This Programmatic Agreement guides how DOD 

handles impacts to historic properties as the build-up effort moves forward. DOD 

is requesting $11 million in PB–12 to fund the development of a repository used to 

meet DOD’s commitments for preserving artifacts unearthed during military construction. 

Addressing Guam’s infrastructure capacity is a priority, as it directly affects the 

construction program and DOD is taking steps to address this issue. With the application of Japanese-provided financing, Guam’s wastewater and power systems will 

be improved to support the relocating marines, the influx of off-island workers needed for the ramp-up of military construction, and Guam’s long-term population 

growth. DOD contributed $50 million to the Port of Guam and $116 million in Defense Access Road funding ($49 million appropriated in fiscal year 2010 and $67 

million authorized for appropriation in fiscal year 2011), both of which contribute 

to improving infrastructure off-base to address construction capacity requirements. 

In the longer term, an interagency effort, led by the Economic Adjustment ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
154 

mittee, will continue working with Guam to assess off-base needs and identify potential Federal funding solutions. 

148. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, what is DOD’s plan to rectify these issues 

with Guam? 

Secretary GATES. As for the potential impacts to coral, the Navy recently completed additional marine biology surveys regarding the alternative sites for a transient nuclear aircraft carrier proposed wharf. It is anticipated that the results of 

these surveys will be outlined in a report due in November 2011, allowing for a full 

assessment of impacts to coral reef resources. 

Following significant public comments, discussions with Guam’s leaders, and 3 

years of consultations with the Guam State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), 

I understand and appreciate the concerns regarding cultural resources, and in particular, the potential impact to Pagat village and cave from the preferred alternative 

site for a live fire training range complex discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. On March 14, 2011 DOD, Guam SHPO, and Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation successfully reached agreement on the Programmatic Agreement that will guide how DOD deals with impacts to historic properties as the 

build-up effort moves forward. As part of the Programmatic Agreement, DOD committed that access to Pagat village and cave will remain unfettered and that these 

sites would not be within the footprint of the live fire training range complex, 

should the Navy select the Route 15 site in a forthcoming Record of Decision for 

training on Guam. DOD is requesting $11 million in PB–12 to fund the development 

of a repository used to meet the Department’s commitments for preserving artifacts 

unearthed during military construction. As the military build-up continues, DOD 

will remain engaged with these stakeholders to avoid, protect, and mitigate impacts 

to cultural resources. 

Improvements to Guam’s infrastructure are necessary to support the relocating 

Marines, off-island workers needed to ramp up the construction program, and 

Guam’s long-term civilian population growth. Japan-provided financing will be applied to make improvements to off-base power and wastewater systems, and to the 

Navy’s water system on-base. In its fiscal year 2011 budget, Japan requested $415 

million of its required $740 million contribution in utilities financing. The projects 

funded by the fiscal year 2011 financing include upgrades to the Northern District 

and Hagatna wastewater treatment plants, and water production, treatment and 

transmission on-base. In the meantime, efforts to address improvements to Guam’s 

roadways and port are underway. Through the Defense Access Road program, DOD 

will fund improvements to Guam’s public roadways ($49 million appropriated in fiscal year 2010 and $67 million authorized for appropriation in fiscal year 2011). DOD 

also contributed $50 million to the Port of Guam, which, when coupled with $54 million in financing from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will improve the port’s 

capacity to support the needs of the buildup. DOD continues to work with other 

Federal agencies through the Economic Adjustment Committee to identify and assess Guam’s needs and look for Federal funding solutions to address the island’s infrastructure issues. 

149. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, we have been asking DOD for a master 

plan of the details of construction projects and total costs for 3 years, to no avail. 

Can we get that masterplan, a revised timeline, and a total estimate cost to complete the move of 7,000 marines and their families to Guam? 

Secretary GATES. I understand Congress’s concerns regarding the total cost of the 

Guam realignment and DOD is committed to providing an accurate picture of current costs. DOD is currently working to develop an updated estimate, and this estimate will be provided to committee staff prior to mark-up. 

KOREA

150. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, on September 23, 2010, you directed U.S. 

Forces Korea and the Services to proceed with full tour normalization for Korea, as 

affordable, but not according to any specific timeline. You stated that ‘‘full tour normalization in Korea will further our long-term commitment to support our forward 

stationed troops and their family members.’’ Do you have an estimate of the total 

costs required to implement this decision? If so, please provide it. 

Secretary GATES. I understand the importance of tour normalization from an operational and quality of life perspective and DOD is working to better understand the 

costs of tour normalization. As the costs come into better focus, DOD will determine 

the timing for moving forward. 

155 

151. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, is DOD on track to provide a plan by 

March 31, 2011, detailing schedules and costs? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. 

152. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, on November 23, 2010, an unprovoked 

and premeditated artillery barrage by North Korea on a South Korean island killed 

two South Korean marines, wounded at least 19 other people, and set buildings and 

forests ablaze, the first time in years that North Korea has trained the firepower 

of its 1.1 million-strong military on South Korea’s civilian population. This attack, 

coupled with a new revelation about the North Korean nuclear program, prompted 

one media outlet to call Korea ‘‘a massive strategic challenge in one of the most dangerous corners of the world.’’ Given the increase in uncertainty surrounding the security environment on the peninsula, are you still committed to stationing U.S. military family members in Korea? 

Secretary GATES. DOD is committed to stationing U.S. military family members 

in Korea under the Tour Normalization Initiative. DOD intends to proceed as affordable, but not according to any specific timeline. Tour Normalization in Korea will 

further DOD’s long-term commitment to provide greater stability for forward stationed servicemembers and their families. U.S. Forces Korea, in coordination with 

U.S. Pacific Command, the military departments, CAPE, and other relevant OSD 

organizations, are working to provide a feasible, affordable and secure plan to continue toward full Tour Normalization. 

153. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, would families have the option of not 

being stationed in Korea? If so, would they incur any personal expense? 

Secretary GATES. If Korea Tour Normalization is fully implemented, the assignment tour length for a majority of the locations will be 36-months accompanied and 

24-months unaccompanied. Military families will still have the option of not accompanying their sponsor to Korea. In this case, the family can remain where they currently reside, or move to a place they designate in the United States at government 

expense. If the family does not reside in government housing and is entitled to housing allowance, their housing allowance will be as authorized for the locality where 

they have chosen to reside. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SCOTT P. BROWN

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

154. Senator BROWN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what are your 

thoughts on providing to General McKinley, CNGB, a three-star position to serve 

as his deputy? 

Secretary GATES. This matter will be under review until the fall 2011. 

Admiral MULLEN. I fully support re-establishing the Vice CNGB at the rank of 

lieutenant general. Doing so would enable the CNGB to better administer his diverse duties and expansive portfolio that includes the unique non-federalized homeland defense equities of the National Guard. This action would be more purposeful 

to the National Guard than making CNGB a member of the JCS. 

CYBERSECURITY CAPABILITIES

155. Senator BROWN. Secretary Gates, you have proposed $2.3 billion to support 

improved cybersecurity capabilities within DOD and greater joint planning efforts 

between the military and DHS. Are we dangerously vulnerable to cyber intrusions 

and cyber attacks as a result of our dependence on critical infrastructure? 

Secretary GATES. The United States is vulnerable to cyber intrusions and potential cyber attacks on its critical infrastructure. The capabilities of state and nonstate actors to exploit, disrupt, or even destroy our critical information systems are 

increasing. 

Almost every aspect of civilian life depends on access to the Internet and other 

data-transmission networks. With our reliance on cyberspace comes vulnerability. 

Because so many of our civilian and military functions depend on computer networks, any large-scale interference with our networks represents a potentially significant threat to national security. 

DOD has invested heavily in information technology—$38.4 billion requested for 

fiscal year 2012—because information technology is a force multiplier for military, 

intelligence, and business operations. DOD has more than 15,000 networks and 

seven million computing devices, across hundreds of installations in dozens of counVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
156 

tries around the globe. Our networks are attacked thousands of times each day, and 

scanned for vulnerabilities millions of times each day. We know that more than one 

hundred foreign intelligence agencies are attempting to get into DOD’s networks. 

The departments and agencies of the public sector, as well as the private sector, 

rely upon cyberspace to accomplish their missions successfully. Because of the crosscutting nature of the cyber threat, U.S. Government departments and agencies must 

work together to protect U.S. networks and systems. Our cybersecurity initiatives 

and investments will enable DOD to protect its networks more effectively and to 

support DHS and other agencies in achieving their cybersecurity missions. (As a 

point of clarification, when we consider the full range of DOD’s cybersecurity investments, including CYBERCOM, the Defense Cyber Crime Center, and the $2.3 billion requested for information assurance, our comprehensive request for fiscal year 

2012 is $3.2 billion.) 

Cybersecurity is a top-tier national security issue for the United States. We have 

made progress in strengthening our cybersecurity, but more must be done. DOD 

looks forward to working with DHS and other interagency partners, and with Congress, to improve the protection of U.S. networks and systems. 

156. Senator BROWN. Secretary Gates, if the United States is hit by a catastrophic 

cyber attack—as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Panetta described as 

the next Pearl Harbor—are we prepared to respond? 

Secretary GATES. DOD is prepared to protect defense critical infrastructure/key 

resources from a catastrophic cyber attack and to respond should such an attack 

occur. As described in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, DOD is taking 

several steps to strengthen capabilities in cyberspace, including: 

(1) developing a more comprehensive approach to DOD operations in cyberspace; 

(2) developing greater cyber expertise and awareness; 

(3) centralizing command of DOD cyber operations; and 

(4) enhancing partnerships with other agencies and governments. 

Pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive–7 (Critical Infrastructure 

Identification, Prioritization, and Protection), DOD is working with its private sector 

partners in the DIB to facilitate vulnerability assessments and to encourage risk 

management strategies to protect against and mitigate the effects of attacks. 

DOD is also working closely with its Federal partners to assist in ensuring the 

protection of critical infrastructure and the preparedness of the national cyberspace 

response system to deal effectively with cyber attacks. DHS developed a National 

Cyber Incident Response Plan, in which DOD is a key partner, to help ensure resiliency in the face of changing threats and associated technologies. In general, DOD 

defers to the DHS to evaluate the current preparedness of the national cyberspace 

response system. 

157. Senator BROWN. Secretary Gates, from your perspective, do we have the necessary resources to prevent such an attack and who would be in charge of such a 

response? 

Secretary GATES. The United States possesses capabilities to help prevent a major 

cyber attack, but they must be enhanced significantly to cope with a rapidly advancing threat from both state and non-state actors. DOD continues to work with DHS 

and others in the U.S. Government to leverage existing authorities and develop new 

interagency processes and capabilities to prevent a cyber attack. DOD is also working with DHS and other agencies to identify additional authorities that may be 

needed to defend the Nation against cybersecurity threats most effectively. 

In the event of an attack, the President has emergency authorities to direct a unified, national response. Outside of emergency Presidential authorities, DHS is responsible for coordinating the national effort to improve the cybersecurity of U.S. 

critical infrastructure. DOD is responsible for the security of its networks, is assigned additional responsibilities for all national security systems, and is the Federal agency responsible for coordinating with the DIB to identify and defend against 

cybersecurity threats. If directed by the President, DOD can use its capabilities to 

support DHS and to protect U.S. Government systems, as well as the private sector 

systems on which the U.S. Government relies. 

IRANIAN NUCLEAR CAPABILITY

158. Senator BROWN. Secretary Gates, today Iran is producing higher enriched 

uranium and is moving closer to possessing the weapons-grade uranium needed for 

a nuclear weapon. What is your assessment of Iran’s nuclear intentions? 

157 

Secretary GATES. The Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s intentions remain 

issues of paramount interest and concern, and we continue to watch them very 

closely. At this time, DOD believes that Iran is not nuclear weapons capable. DOD 

also assesses that Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in 

part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to 

produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran 

will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. As new information becomes available, and as the Iranian nuclear program evolves, we will reevaluate and reassess 

Iran’s ultimate intentions and potential capabilities. 

159. Senator BROWN. Secretary Gates, do you agree that a nuclear-armed Iran 

poses an unacceptable risk to the United States? 

Secretary GATES. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. I remain committed to 

preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would be 

highly destabilizing to the Middle East, and could have significant implications for 

U.S. interests. However, no one can say with certainty how the situation might unfold. A nuclear-armed Iran could provide other States in the Middle East with the 

impetus to pursue nuclear programs. Iran also could become more emboldened in 

its actions throughout the region, most notably by expanding its support for proxies. 

A nuclear-armed Iran could also cause strategic instability that could eventually 

lead to a regional conflict. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROB PORTMAN

ALTERNATE ENGINE

160. Senator PORTMAN. Secretary Gates, with the recent vote against funding the 

JSF second engine, the House moved a step closer to awarding one company a sole 

source contract for $100 billion lasting 30 years. This seems remarkably shortsighted and this fight for a competitive process is not over. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated that: ‘‘DOD experience with other aircraft engine programs, including the F–16 fighter in the 1980s, has shown competitive pressures can generate financial benefits of up to 20 percent during the life cycle of an 

engine program and/or improved quality and other benefits.’’ In other words, by 

funding the JSF competitive engine, we have the chance to save about $20 billion 

over time. I am concerned that the short-term financial benefits of terminating the 

alternative engine will be dwarfed by the long-term costs of a sole-source contract 

for an engine that is 50 percent over budget. 

I believe the F–35 will replace five aircraft currently in the Navy and Air Force 

fighter fleet (F–16, F/A–18, AV–8, A–10, and F–117). It is my understanding that 

by 2030, the F–35 will make up about 90 percent of the U.S. tactical fighter force. 

Would you please comment on whether or not there is historical precedent for being 

so dependent on one aircraft? 

Secretary GATES. Being a tri-service program with eight international partners, 

the scope of the JSF program is without precedent. While the scope and number 

of tactical aircraft the JSF program represents is large, having a single type model 

series aircraft to fulfill a mission requirement is not without precedent. 

For example, the Air Force will gradually replace the legacy fleet of F–16s and 

A–10s as it transitions to a predominantly 5th Generation fleet. In the 2030 timeframe, the Air Force will still operate a significant number of legacy tactical assets. 

Assuming the Air Force maintains its current fighter force levels, only 58 percent 

of the Air Force tactical fighter force will be F–35As in 2030; combined with the 

F–22 fleet, 63 percent of the Air Force fighter inventory will be 5th Generation platforms. The Air Force continues to assess its fighter force structure and will evaluate 

alternatives to replace additional legacy platforms as they reach the end of their 

service lives. 

The Navy’s mission of airborne command and control is fulfilled solely by E–2D/ 

E–2C while search and rescue, anti-submarine, and anti-surface warfare are fulfilled by MH–60 variants. The Navy’s tactical aviation projected aircraft inventory 

in 2030 will be comprised of six Type Model Series (TMS) aircraft: F/A–18E/F, F– 

35C, F–35B, EA–18G, the next generation air dominance aircraft, and the replacement for the EA–18G. Of these aircraft, F–35s are expected to comprise roughly 65 

percent of the Navy tactical aircraft inventory. 

161. Senator PORTMAN. Secretary Gates, given our future dependence on the F– 

35, does the failure to have a back-up engine present a risk to our forces? 

158 

Secretary GATES. I believe that the interests of the taxpayer, the military, our 

partner nations, and the resource integrity of the overall F–35 program are best 

served by not pursuing a second engine. The benefits which might accrue with a 

second engine are offset by additional cost. Additionally, logistics complexity will divert precious modernization funds from more pressing developmental priorities. 

The F135 engine program completed over 12,000 hours of engine ground testing, 

more than 4,300 hours of engine specific flight testing, and over 850 hours of aircraft flight tests on three variants. As in any development program, there were technical challenges and those that have arisen are understood and modifications are 

in progress. Throughout SDD, the engine continues to be monitored and any necessary modifications to ensure safety, reliability, and specification deficiencies will 

be made. Dedicated F135 flight testing will demonstrate performance throughout 

the flight envelope. 

Continued funding for the F136 engine carries cost penalties to both the F135 and 

F136 engines in the form of significant upfront investment cost, reduced production 

line learning curves, and less efficient economic order quantities. DOD concluded 

that maintaining a single engine supplier provides the best balance of cost and risk. 

I believe the financial risks associated with a single source engine supplier are manageable, and are less than the investment required to fund a competitive alternate 

engine. 

162. Senator PORTMAN. Secretary Gates, in your testimony you state that in regard to funding the second engine, ‘‘the Department has been operating this fiscal 

year under ambiguous guidance at best.’’ And that given the situation you ‘‘decided 

to continue to fund the JSF extra engine effort during this interim period to give 

Congress the opportunity to resolve this matter as part of its ongoing debate on the 

budget.’’ But isn’t it the case that OMB concluded that the F–35 alternate engine 

funding must be funded in fiscal year 2011 even under the temporary continuing 

resolution? 

Secretary GATES. On December 21, 2010, OMB Director Lew did inform Senator 

Brown of Ohio that the then in-effect CR ‘‘would continue fiscal year 2010 funding, 

terms, and conditions for the entire Federal Government.’’ Subsequent CRs also continued extending the funding, terms, and conditions of the 2010 appropriations. 

However, consistent with standing OMB guidance on the point, Director Lew also 

indicated that DOD was expected to not impinge on congressional full-year funding 

prerogatives for fiscal year 2011. Because funding need not be made available in the 

course of any single period covered by a continuing resolution if sufficient opportunity to fully execute would be available upon the enactment of an appropriation 

act at the end of a CR period, the protection of the Congress’s fiscal prerogatives 

does not require funding in any single CR. 

163. Senator PORTMAN. Secretary Gates, do you believe that you have a choice as 

to whether or not to fund the alternate engine under a continuing resolution? 

Secretary GATES. During the period of the existing CR, I believe that DOD has 

the discretion to issue a stop work order on the alternate engine program, and given 

the circumstances the department may determine that it should issue a stop work 

order. A stop work order is temporary in nature and may not exceed 90 days unless 

extended by agreement between the government and the contractor. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

U.S. FAMILY HEALTH PLAN RESTRICTIONS

164. Senator COLLINS. Secretary Gates, the President’s budget request precludes 

enrollment in the U.S. Family Health Plan (USFHP) for beneficiaries who reach 65 

years of age. According to the transcript I saw and the budget briefing, it is my understanding that DOD is committed to working with the impacted hospitals on this 

issue to ensure that the quality of care is not impacted. I also understand that no 

current enrollee in this plan would be affected in terms of their quality of care or 

health care costs. Are these accurate characterizations of DOD’s position? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. Current enrollees are not affected by this change. 

The Department continues working with the six health plans to ensure that quality of care is not affected for current or future enrollees. Upon reaching age 65, 

USFHP enrollees may opt to enroll in Medicare Part B and receive the TRICARE 

for Life (TFL) benefit as a supplement to their Medicare coverage. The proposal does 

not result in a beneficiary’s loss of provider access, as long as the USFHP providers 

continue to accept Medicare patients. This proposal provides equitable treatment for 

159 

all Medicare-eligible retirees by offering a nationwide uniform plan. Most retirees 

do not live in one of the USFHP service areas, and their only option for health care 

is Medicare and TFL (requiring payment of their Medicare Part B premium). They 

and all others enrolled in USFHP will be taken care of. 

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIAL BASE

165. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Mullen, separate from the concerns about the continuing resolution in the short-term, I noticed in your written testimony that you 

raised concerns about maintaining the capability of the shipbuilding industrial base 

in the long-term. Clearly, stability in requirements, procurement plans, and buying 

ships at cost-efficient rates go a long way to achieving the necessary force structure 

and save money. I am also encouraged that a second DDG–51 ship was included 

in the fiscal year 2014 budget as I had recommended to sustain a DDG–51 procurement rate of at least two ships per year, which should be closer to three ships per 

year. DDG–1000’s construction is also proceeding very well at Bath Iron Works, and 

I look forward to Admiral Roughead’s visit on the 23rd of February to see first-hand 

the ship’s and yard’s progress. Please elaborate on the specific concerns you have 

for the shipbuilding industrial base. 

Admiral MULLEN. As I stated last year, I am concerned about the capabilities of 

our DIB, particularly in shipbuilding and space. Our ability to produce and support 

advanced technology systems for future weapon systems may be degraded by decreasing modernization budgets as well as mergers and acquisitions. Left unchecked, this trend will impact our future warfighting readiness. To ensure that 

DOD can continue to rely on a dynamic defense market to meet shifting requirements, robust competition is vital for producing high quality, affordable, and innovative products. 

My other concern regarding the shipbuilding industrial base has to do with ship 

design and production. Six major U.S. shipyards build nearly all of the Navy’s warships, and while they consistently build extremely capable ships, their production 

rate pales in comparison with production rates of leading international shipyards. 

This places U.S. shipyards at somewhat of a disadvantage because serial design and 

stable production are critical factors to the incorporation of leading shipyard technologies and decreased cost for DOD. The Virginia class submarine and the T–AKE 

auxiliary program show the benefit these factors can have on shipbuilding cost. Both 

programs enjoyed significant cost reductions and improved production schedules as 

a result of serial production and a stable design. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

INSTABILITY IN MEXICO

166. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, last month, General Michael Hayden, a 

former CIA Director, described the crisis next door in Mexico as one of six national 

security challenges that would ‘‘keep him awake at night’’ if he were still in government. At this time, the U.S. Government does not seem to have a coherent, meaningful strategy in place to help the Mexican Government regain control over its 

country and defeat the drug cartels. What do you see as the risks to our own national security if the Mexican drug cartels are not defeated? 

Secretary GATES. In 2008, the U.S. Government began coordinating assistance to 

Mexico under the Merida Initiative with the goal of supporting Mexico’s efforts to 

build capacity to combat TCOs, strengthen the rule of law and respect for human 

rights, reduce violence, and stem the flow of drugs north and arms and illicit money 

south. We recognize that, moving forward, U.S. efforts should: 

(1) reinforce progress made in disrupting cartels; 

(2) begin institutionalizing Mexican capacity to act on public safety and security 

issues; 

(3) help Mexico meet the challenges of securing its borders while facilitating trade 

and travel; and 

(4) promote respect for human rights, the rule of law, and a culture of lawfulness. 

Although none of these are easy, we know we are making slow but steady 

progress. 

I admire President Calderon’s government for the brave stand taken against 

TCOs that seek to operate with impunity inside Mexico. Although Mexico increased 

efforts to counter the TCOs, TCOs responded with increased violence as they fight 

for turf and attempt to intimidate law enforcement officers and the Mexican public. 

Although I am concerned about the escalating violence in Mexico, I am confident 

160 

that Mexico’s democracy is strong and that the government maintains control over 

its territory. 

As DHS Secretary Napolitano noted recently, we do not have evidence that TCO 

violence is spilling across the border into the United States. Still, these dangerous 

organizations have linkages to illicit groups operating inside the United States, including drug traffickers and gangs that pose health, law enforcement, economic, and 

security challenges to cities and towns throughout our Nation. Although Mexico 

called upon its armed forces to support Mexican law enforcement efforts to combat 

TCOs, it continues to see the problem as a law enforcement issue, as do I. DOD, 

along with interagency partners, is working closely with Mexican counterparts to 

support its efforts to dismantle TCOs, and DOD will continue to provide assistance 

as requested by Mexico. 

167. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, the Mexican government reports that over 

34,600 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since December 

2006, including 15,000 deaths in 2010 alone—representing a 60 percent increase 

over 2009. What common threads do you see between the cartel-driven unrest in 

Mexico and the insurgency-driven violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, which our 

troops have been battling for most of the past decade? 

Secretary GATES. The challenges facing Mexico are quite different from those confronting Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the TCOs operating in Mexico are not 

attempting to overthrow the Mexican Government, but instead are fighting for turf 

and to create a space in which to carry out their illicit activities. As such, Mexico 

is dealing with a law enforcement challenge; DOD is providing support to Mexico 

as well as U.S. law enforcement entities in their unprecedented efforts to confront 

this challenge, but is not directly engaged in the fight. 

168. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, in your opinion, how can the U.S. Government, and in particular DOD, better support our Mexican partners? 

Secretary GATES. Under President Calderon’s leadership, Mexico is bravely confronting the grave security threats posed by TCOs operating within Mexican territory. At Mexico’s request, through the Merida Initiative and complementary programs, the U.S. Government, including DOD, is providing support to Mexico to face 

these challenges. 

Under Merida and other cooperative programs, DOD provides training, information sharing, and operational support to Mexican military and other security forces, 

as well as to U.S. law enforcement agencies’ activities with regard to Mexico. DOD 

is working with Mexican partners to find areas in which to increase cooperation. In 

recent years, DOD concentrated on assisting Mexican forces to improve tactical and 

operational proficiency, as well as air mobility, maritime law enforcement, communications, and reconnaissance capacities. DOD provided non-intrusive inspection 

equipment for mobile checkpoints and eight Bell 412 transport helicopters for the 

Secretarı ́a de la Defensa Nacional. Also, DOD is working to deliver three UH–60M 

Blackhawks and four Construcciones Aerona ́uticas SA (CASA 235) maritime surveillance aircraft. DOD support focused on helping Mexican security forces learn to 

mount intelligence-driven and interagency-coordinated operations, as well as on 

safeguarding human rights in the context of military operations in support to law 

enforcement. 

Moving forward, I believe the Department can best support our Mexican partners 

by preparing to respond quickly to requests for continued assistance from Mexico. 

Domestically, the United States must also commit to confronting issues on our side 

of the border that contribute to the challenges facing Mexico—namely the illicit trafficking of arms from the United States into Mexico and our country’s demand for 

illegal drugs. The United States and Mexico have a shared responsibility in the fight 

against TCOs, and our success will depend on our continued partnership. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY

169. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Mullen, in your written testimony, you asked for 

Congress’s help in modifying the laws and regulations surrounding security cooperation to create an approach that better integrates our defense, diplomacy, development, and intelligence efforts. In terms of geographic organization, DOS has six regional bureaus and DOD has six different regional COCOMs, which are not demarcated along the same lines on the map. At the same time, the IC defines world regions utilizing a third set of lines on the map. In your opinion, does this lack of 

common demarcation of the world’s regions by these Federal agencies hamper effective interagency cooperation and coordination on national security? 

161 

Admiral MULLEN. It is true that there is not a common demarcation of the world’s 

regions among Federal agencies. Many of these differences are the result of historic 

ties and relationships, and the unique focus of each agency. While these differences 

may create some challenges, they do not hamper effective interagency cooperation 

and coordination on national security. In some cases, the different regional demarcations are beneficial to interagency cooperation and coordination. Whenever lines of 

demarcation are created or utilized on a map, issues may be created or exist that 

affect both regions, but are missed due to their cross-boundary nature. By utilizing 

differing lines of demarcation between the agencies, the impact of these seams within an organization is minimized by working with other agencies to formulate a cohesive foreign policy. 

Additionally, I have a statutory responsibility under Title 10 U.S.C. 161 to review 

the Unified Command Plan (UCP), which includes the COCOM areas of responsibility, not less than every 2 years, and recommend any changes to the President 

through the Secretary of Defense. This is a thorough review that includes inputs 

from Office of Secretary of Defense, combatant commanders, and the Services. The 

draft UCP is then reviewed by the interagency via the National Security Staff prior 

to receiving Presidential approval. In this process, I have not received any indication 

that I should recommend a change to the President to more closely align our regional designations with that of other Federal agencies or that such a realignment 

would overcome any existing shortfalls in interagency coordination. 

INDIA AND AFGHANISTAN

170. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, India has committed 

some $1.3 billion and 3,500 Indian personnel to relief and reconstruction efforts in 

Afghanistan to date, in recognition of the fact that stability in Afghanistan is crucial 

to its own security. As noted in Admiral Mullen’s testimony, the enduring success 

of our military operations in Afghanistan is dependent on the ANSF being able to 

provide security to the Afghan people. However, reports indicate that NATO still 

faces a shortage of 740 trainers needed by this summer in order for the ANSF to 

be ready to take the lead by 2014. Given the clear and immediate demand for more 

trainers and training options in Afghanistan, as well as India’s willingness to provide substantial support to stability and security efforts in the region, should we encourage India to expand its role and help train the Afghan security forces? 

Secretary GATES. The United States and India have shared interests in a stable 

and prosperous South Asia region and in preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists. 

In the past, India provided scholarships for ANSFs personnel to study in India, 

and is currently exploring options to train Afghan women police in India. 

I welcome these efforts, and encourage India to consider further assistance in Afghanistan through priority infrastructure projects, additional training and education 

assistance, and technical assistance to the agriculture sector. I also encourage India 

to continue to engage the Afghan government to identify further areas of cooperation. 

During President Obama’s visit to India in November 2010, he and Prime Minister Singh committed to intensify consultation, cooperation, and coordination to 

promote a stable, prosperous, and independent Afghanistan. They agreed to collaboratively assist the people of Afghanistan by identifying opportunities to leverage our 

relative strengths, experience, and resources, including joint projects on agriculture 

and women’s economic development. Eighty-five percent of Afghans derive their income from agriculture, and Afghan women continue to lack economic, social, and political opportunities. 

The shortfall of 740 trainers currently identified by the NATO NTM–A for filling 

the NATO’s Combined Joint Statement of Requirements includes a number of specific capabilities that only certain allies and partners possess. DOD is currently 

working to match these specific capacities with the NTM–A requirements. 

Admiral MULLEN. India already plays a role in training the ANSF. They have provided training in India to over 400 ANA personnel, are currently training 90, and 

have offered training for another 192 this year. Expansion of further training efforts 

must be closely coordinated with NTM–A and Afghanistan to ensure it meets the 

needs of the ANSF. Regional political military considerations should be carefully 

weighed when considering any expansion of an increased role for the Indian military 

in the development of the ANSF, especially the introduction of Indian Trainers to 

Afghanistan. 

162 

F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

171. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, the fiscal year 2012 DOD budget request 

includes a major restructuring of the F–35 program that cuts 124 aircraft from the 

FYDP, postponing production of these aircraft until after 2016. I am concerned with 

the resulting impact to unit cost to the remaining aircraft in the FYDP, and I believe this poses the most immediate problem to our Services and our international 

partners. What actions will you take to ensure that the restructuring of this critical 

fifth-generation fighter program does not itself lead to a substantial spike in unit 

cost? 

Secretary GATES. In the short-term, I acknowledge there will be an increase in 

unit costs as a result of the reduction of 124 aircraft within the FYDP. DOD is currently assessing the magnitude of this increase in support of the DAB review scheduled for May 2011, and will report these figures as part of an update to the Selected 

Acquisition Report this summer following completion of the DAB review. Despite the 

reduction of aircraft within the FYDP, DOD remains committed to procuring 2,443 

aircraft in total, and this commitment will serve to lessen the short-term spikes in 

unit procurement costs. The reduction of aircraft procurement within the FYDP is 

prudent given the extension of the development program, and the need to properly 

manage the risks of concurrent development and procurement. 

172. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, were our international partners consulted 

on the announcement surrounding the restructuring of the F–35 program? If so, 

what has been the reaction of our allied partners, and do you believe this decision 

will impact when or how many F–35 aircraft our international partners will ultimately buy? 

Secretary GATES. The international partners in the JSF F–35 Program are integral to our collective effort and were consulted prior to the announcement regarding 

the restructuring of the program. The partners’ reaction to the announcement was 

positive. They appreciated the fact senior leadership in DOD took the time to contact them ahead of the formal announcement. There is no indication at this time 

that the decision to restructure the JSF F–35 Program will affect the number of aircraft the partners will ultimately buy or when the buys will occur. 

B–1 FLEET

173. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, how are your fiscal year 2012 proposed 

budget cuts to the B–1 bomber fleet consistent with your message about the need 

to sustain the current military force structure during a time of war? 

Secretary GATES. The B–1 fleet faces potential grounding due to diminishing manufacturing sources and other sustainability issues. Taking a minimal reduction in 

fleet size garners savings to increase B–1 fleet viability through modernization efforts. 

The Air Force conducted a review of current bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection requirements in determining the risk associated 

with a B–1 fleet reduction. The results of this review, combined with high-fidelity 

modeling and simulation analysis conducted by Air Force Studies and Analysis, indicate a reduction of six B–1 aircraft leaves a more capable fleet that meets the requirements in currently approved OSD analytic agenda scenarios. 

A modest B–1 reduction, while modernizing the remaining fleet, is a wise reinvestment strategy providing a capabilities-based bridge to the future long range 

strike platform. 

174. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, how much of the savings obtained from 

this cut will be reinvested in sustaining and improving the current B–1 fleet, to include enhancements such as a new radar system? 

Secretary GATES. The retirement of six B–1s provides a total savings of $61.9 million in fiscal year 2012 and $357.3 million over the FYDP in procurement and 

sustainment funding. Of these savings, the Air Force is reinvesting $32.9 million in 

fiscal year 2012 and $125.4 million over the FYDP, into critical B–1 sustainment 

and modernization programs to ensure the health of the remaining fleet. These programs include procurement and installation of Vertical Situation Display Upgrade 

and Central Integrated Test System sustainment efforts, Fully Integrated Data 

Link capability upgrade and procurement of critical initial spares for these modifications. 

The ongoing Radar Maintainability and Improvement Program will replace two 

unsupportable Line Replaceable Units within the current radar system. The Air 

Force is assessing the remaining components of the B–1 radar with consideration 

163 

to both supportability and performance. DOD applied the remainder of the savings 

from the B–1 reduction to other Air Force and DOD priorities to include continuing 

to strengthen the nuclear enterprise and investing in Building Partnerships capacity. 

175. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, the B–1 bomber has repeatedly been cited 

by senior U.S. military commanders as the premier bomber in Afghanistan. General 

David Petraeus has emphasized that, ‘‘The B–1 is a great platform in at least two 

respects. First, it carries a heck of a lot of bombs, substantial ordnance. Second, it 

has very good intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. And it can 

loiter for a good time, when it’s not being used to drop bombs . . . ’’ How will the 

proposed cuts to the B–1 fleet impact B–1 operations in Afghanistan in the years 

to come? 

Secretary GATES. There will be no negative impact to operations in the Afghanistan theater. The fiscal year 2012 budget request reduces the B–1B force structure 

by six primary aircraft authorizations leaving 60 B–1Bs in the Air Force inventory. 

This provides additional funds to improve the existing B–1B fleet, including the central integrated test system, fully integrated data link, and vertical situation display 

unit. These initiatives will help bridge the gap until the next generation strike aircraft is operational. However, investing in a new penetrating bomber is critical to 

maintaining our long-range strike capability in the face of increasing risk associated 

with anti-access and area-denied environments. 

176. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, why was the B–52 fleet, which currently 

numbers 76 aircraft and does not provide nearly the utility of the B–1 in current 

operations in Afghanistan, not similarly reduced? 

Secretary GATES. The answer is two-fold. First, the dual missions of conventional 

and nuclear capabilities of the B–52 provide the flexibility to meet COCOM requirements that the conventional-only B–1 does not provide. Second, the B–52 fleet maintains better maintenance statistics and requires fewer operational upgrades than 

the B–1; therefore, the Air Force was able to provide those upgrades without sacrificing force structure to pay for sustainment and upgrades. 

LONG-RANGE STRIKE

177. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, the fiscal year 2012 DOD budget request 

includes $197 million in Air Force RDT&E funding to begin development of a new 

long-range bomber (Long-Range Strike) that we are told would be penetrating, carry 

precision-guided conventional weapons, and be nuclear-capable. Yet last month, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley told reporters that while the new bomber 

would be able to carry nuclear weapons, it would not be immediately certified for 

nuclear missions.Why will the new bomber not be certified at the outset to carry 

nuclear weapons? 

Secretary GATES. The new bomber will be nuclear capable. The Air Force will design and build the system to balance capability priorities with the need to responsibly and affordably mature a new system. Detailed timelines for certification will 

be developed as the program matures. 

178. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, what plans, if any, are being made to enable the B–2 to be certified to deliver a nuclear ALCM? 

Secretary GATES. The Air Force is planning to integrate the LRSO weapon, which 

will replace the current nuclear ALCM, on the B–2. 

GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SYSTEM

179. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, there are now 30 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) deployed in Alaska and California to defend against Iran and North 

Korea, but the administration has purchased only 52 GBI missiles. Following the 

last two Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system flight test failures, the 

MDA is down to only 20 GBI missiles, which is not enough to continue development 

and improvement of the GMD system, to conduct annual reliability flight testing, 

and to maintain spare missiles for emergency deployment. Yet the fiscal year 2012 

budget includes a reduction of $186 million to the GMD system from fiscal year 

2011 levels, while the proposed 5-year funding for GMD is $1 billion less than that 

proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. Given the administration’s commitment to continue development and improving this important capability, how are 

these reductions justified when additional testing and GBI missiles are needed? 

164 

Secretary GATES. The change from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 in the President’s 2012 budget of $185 million reflects efficiencies introduced by the Department and the MDA. One of the focus areas of the efficiencies is cost savings 

through contract competition in the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program. Another key efficiency was the consolidation of test events to achieve stated test objectives with fewer events. These efficiencies execute the same program scope with 

fewer program dollars, while continuing to meet the strategic goals and timelines 

laid out in the BMDR to ensure the United States has a reliable and proven system 

for homeland defense. 

IRAQI AIR FORCE

180. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, in your testimony, you cited the Iraqi Air 

Force’s ability to protect its own air space as one of three primary areas of U.S. concern with Iraqi military capabilities as DOD prepares to withdraw the last U.S. 

troops at the end of 2011. What steps have you taken to enable the Iraqi Air Force 

to take over this key mission, including training and equipping efforts? 

Secretary GATES. The Iraqi Air Force is on track to achieve minimal essential capabilities by the end of 2011 in all mission categories except airspace control; intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance; and fixed-wing airlift. With continued support from U.S. advisors and adequate resourcing from Iraq, improvements in accessions, airlift, flying and technical training, air staff effectiveness, combat support, 

and command and control should demonstrably contribute to internal security while 

setting the stage for contributing to external defense as well. 

Iraq funded several Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases that provide both fixed 

and rotary wing pilot and ground crew training, including training to prepare pilots 

for a fourth generation fighter aircraft. Additionally, Iraq funded FMS cases that 

are currently providing aircraft as well as air surveillance radars. 

181. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Gates, the Iraqi Government had clearly been 

preparing to purchase 18 American-made F–16s until this week, when they announced they would postpone their planned purchase in order to shift funding to 

other non-military priorities. What steps are you taking to complete this critical F– 

16 purchase to help bring the Iraqi Air Force’s air defense capability to proficiency? 

Secretary GATES. GoI requested the purchase of 18 F–16s. However, due to a 

number of competing priorities that must fit into a limited Iraqi budget, the Iraqis 

were not able appropriate funds for an F–16 procurement program in the 2011 

budget that was recently approved by the Council of Representatives. Funds initially earmarked in the 2011 budget request to buy F–16s were shifted to provide 

critical human services in the final Council of Representatives approved budget. 

The most recent F–16 Letter of Offer and Acceptance tailored to meet Iraqi funding constraints expired on January 31. USF–I leadership continues to engage in discussions with Iraqi leadership on the details of a possible F–16 sale. This continues 

to remain a top U.S. Government and Iraq priority. 

NATIONAL DEBT

182. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Mullen, in your written testimony, you state: ‘‘I 

believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security.’’ Reckless fiscal 

policy is not the typical focus of our military’s threat analyses but, frankly, I could 

not agree more with your assessment. Last Congress, I introduced a bill called the 

Foreign-Held Debt Transparency and Threat Assessment Act, which would have required regular assessments from the GAO on the national security risks of the ballooning national debt. In addition to the sheer size of our national debt (now more 

than $14 trillion), I am also deeply concerned about our clear dependence on foreign 

governments such as China to fund our deficit spending, so my bill would also require the President to report quarterly to Congress on the national security risks 

posed specifically by foreign holdings. Do you agree that having this type of analysis 

is critical to both our fiscal and national security policies? 

Admiral MULLEN. The ties between the strength of our economy and our Nation’s 

security are inseparable and incontrovertible. We need a vibrant, growing economy 

to exert influence internationally and to provide for our military and other defense 

capabilities. In turn, we need the security provided by our national defenses to underwrite our economic endeavors and our livelihoods. But today we find both our 

economy and our security threatened by our burgeoning national debt. 

In my position, my concerns about our debt stem from its long-term effects on our 

Nation’s fiscal standing and the difficult trade-offs associated with restoring our fisVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
165 

cal health, rather than the holders of our debt. As such, I have taken no position 

on the nature of the holders of this debt. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DAVID VITTER

MISSILE DEFENSE BUDGET

183. Senator VITTER. Secretary Gates, on February 16, 2011, you testified before 

the House Armed Service Committee: ‘‘I do know that the overall budget for missile 

defense is going from $10.2 billion to $10.7 billion, so we’re putting another $500 

million into it. And there is money for more—more Aegis ships, more of the transportable radars like we have in Egypt—like we have in Israel and Japan right now, 

and—and then there are also continuing investments in the Ground Based Interceptor system.’’ Of the $500 million increase for missile defense, only $219 million is going to the MDA, whose budget increases from $8.4 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $8.6 billion 

for fiscal year 2012. Despite the $200 million increase for MDA, 5-year funding for 

MDA declines by $2.6 billion between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2015, as compared to last year’s budget request. Funding for the GMD in fiscal year 2012 is reduced by about $185 million, as compared to fiscal year 2011. Funding for the GMD 

program over fiscal years 2012 to 2015 is reduced by approximately $590 million, 

as compared to last year’s budget request. Why does the MDA budget decline by 

$2.6 billion between fiscal years 2011 and 2015? 

Secretary GATES. The MDA budget for 2011 through 2015 is based on the missile 

defense priorities set forth in the BMDR. The MDA budget strategy in fiscal year 

2012 identified efficiencies and balanced personnel, budgetary and management resources within and across its components. In instituting efficiency initiatives MDA 

will make greater use of competition across its acquisition programs and will realize 

savings through a refined approach to service contracting. 

184. Senator VITTER. Secretary Gates, why does the GMD budget decline by $185 million in fiscal year 2012 and by $2.6 billion between fiscal years 2011 and 2015? 

Secretary GATES. The change from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 in the PB12 budget of $185 million is reflective of efficiencies introduced by the Department and 

MDA. One of the efficiencies focus areas is cost savings through contract competition in the GMD program. Another key efficiency was the consolidation of test 

events, achieving stated test objectives with fewer events. These efficiencies execute 

the same program scope with fewer program dollars, while continuing to meet the 

strategic goals and timelines laid out in the BMDR to ensure the United States has 

a reliable and proven system for homeland defense. The $2.6 billion change between fiscal years 2011 and 2015 reflects the change 

in funding for MDA as a whole, not GMD specifically. 

The MDA budget for 2011 through 2015 is based on the missile defense priorities 

set forth in the BMDR. The MDA budget strategy in fiscal year 2012 identified efficiencies and balanced personnel, budgetary and management resources within and 

across its components. In instituting efficiency initiatives MDA will make greater 

use of competition across its acquisition programs and will realize savings through 

a refined approach to service contracting. 

MEADS AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

185. Senator VITTER. Secretary Gates, I applaud you for your decision not to proceed to procurement of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) air and 

missile defense system. As noted in the DOD memo, the program is substantially 

over budget and behind schedule; and it would take an extra $974 million to $1.16 

billion just to complete the design and development. But I understand that the decision is to still proceed to spend approximately $804 million to implement a proofof-concept effort. I am concerned that this would mean spending hundreds of millions of limited dollars on a system that we will not procure. What is the basis for 

continued funding on a program that DOD will ultimately not procure? 

Secretary GATES. Although the DOD has decided not to procure MEADS, the Department determined the technology being developed in the program will be useful 

for other DOD programs. The DOD explored viable potential courses of action, including: 

(1) Terminating the program immediately, if the DOD could obtain the required 

consent of the other Participants in the MEADS program under the legally 

binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the Federal Ministry 

166 

of Defense of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Ministry of Defense of the 

Republic of Italy, and the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America on behalf of DOD concerning Cooperation on a Project for Design and Development (D&D) of a MEADS (D&D MOU); 

(2) Working with the other D&D MOU Participants to continue MEADS development within the agreed funding limits set forth in the D&D MOU; or 

(3) Working with the other MEADS D&D MOU Participants to complete the 

planned D&D phase by amending the D&D MOU to add the additional funding and time required to develop and test the system fully for production and 

fielding. 

The DOD decided that the best option available under the MOU is to continue 

to participate in the D&D phase within the funding limits set forth in the D&D 

MOU. This decision ensures the DOD: will fulfill its obligations under the D&D 

MOU; will avoid a situation where the DOD may be viewed as reneging on its international obligations; will avoid requiring the DOD to pay termination costs we expect would be comparable to the cost of completing the ‘‘proof of concept’’ effort 

under the D&D MOU; and, will facilitate the maturation of key technologies useful 

to the DOD in other programs. 

186. Senator VITTER. Secretary Gates, I applaud you for your decision not to proceed to procurement of the MEADS missile defense system. As noted in the DOD 

memo, the program is substantially over budget and behind schedule. It would take 

an additional $974 million just to complete the design and development of the program. It does not make sense to continue to waste $800 million on a system we are 

not going to procure. Will DOD go back to the drawing board and try to find a way 

to ring out some additional savings out of this $800 million for MEADS? 

Secretary GATES. The DOD will continue to explore opportunities to minimize 

cost. The Department explored viable potential courses of action, including: 

(1) Terminating the program immediately, if the DOD could obtain the required 

consent of the other MEADS partners under the MOU among the Federal 

Ministry of Defense of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Italy, and the Secretary of Defense of the United 

States of America on behalf of DOD concerning Cooperation on a D&D Project 

of a MEADS (D&D MOU); 

(2) Working with the other D&D MOU Participants to continue development of 

MEADS within the agreed funding limits set forth in the D&D MOU; or 

(3) Working with the other MEADS D&D MOU Participants to complete the 

planned D&D phase by amending the D&D MOU to add the additional funding and time required to develop and test the system fully for production and 

fielding. 

The DOD decided to continue to participate in the D&D phase within the funding 

limits set forth in the D&D MOU. This decision ensures the DOD: will fulfill its obligations under the D&D MO; will avoid a situation where the DOD may be viewed 

as reneging on its international obligations; will avoid requiring the DOD to pay termination costs we expect would be comparable to the cost of completing the ‘‘proof 

of concept’’ effort under the D&D MOU; and, importantly, will facilitate the maturation of key technologies useful to the DOD in other programs. 

187. Senator VITTER. Secretary Gates, DOD’s memo indicates that it will be necessary to allocate funds for Patriot upgrades. At a minimum, will DOD work to reallocate funds for design and development for upgrades to the Patriot system? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. The Army is working to determine specific actions to mitigate the loss of MEADS. The Army will then reallocate funds originally programmed 

for MEADS beginning in fiscal year 2014 to improving the Patriot system. 

188. Senator VITTER. Secretary Gates, in the memo accompanying your recent decision not to proceed to procurement of MEADS, you specifically highlighted the 

Army’s inability to afford to procure MEADS and make required Patriot upgrades 

as rationale for the decision. In light of your decision, can you provide your assurance that DOD will accelerate Patriot modernization efforts? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. The Army is working to determine specific actions to mitigate the loss of MEADS. The Army will then reallocate funds originally programmed 

for MEADS beginning in fiscal year 2014 to efforts accelerating improvements to the 

Patriot system. 

167 

CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE

189. Senator VITTER. Admiral Mullen, you recently stated, ‘‘U.S. senior military 

leaders monitored very closely all provisions related to conventional prompt global 

strike (CPGS) throughout the recent START treaty negotiation process’’. Do you believe there is a current clear commitment to deployment that allows for adequate 

U.S. missile defenses? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes. The START treaty allows for deployment and further development of conventional strike weapons, which are designed to hit targets any 

place in the world in 60 minutes or less. Any warhead—nuclear, high explosive, or 

high speed kinetic—on an ICBM or submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) 

would be counted under the New START treaty central limits. However, deployment 

of CPGS does not impede our ability to provide for adequate U.S. missile defenses. 

190. Senator VITTER. Admiral Mullen, additionally, condition 6 of the New START 

Resolution of Ratification called on the President to clarify its planning and intent 

in developing future conventionally-armed, strategic-range weapons systems (aka, 

CPGS). The February 2, 2011, report on CPGS, pursuant to Condition 6, lists three 

efforts under development (hypersonic technology vehicle (HTV), advanced 

hypersonic weapon (AHW), and conventional strike missile CSM)), at a cost of some 

$2 billion between now and 2016 for research and development. Is it still the policy 

of the administration, as per the 2010 NPR, to develop and field CPGS capabilities? 

If so, is it the intent of the administration to make a deployment decision anytime 

soon? 

Admiral MULLEN. Our plan is to continue to strengthen our conventional capabilities as we reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. We 

are continuing to plan for and develop contributions by non-nuclear systems to U.S. 

regional deterrence while preserving reassurance goals by avoiding limitations on 

missile defenses and maintaining options for using heavy bombers or long-range 

missile systems in conventional roles. The success of a CPGS fielded capability will 

be dependent on progress made through the continued RDT&E of critical technologies, formal establishment of follow-on Service acquisition programs, and a concurrent effort to improve the Nation’s ISR capabilities. 

191. Senator VITTER. Admiral Mullen, the February 2 report states that ‘‘conventionally armed SLBM and conventionally armed ICBM concepts with traditional ballistic trajectories are not currently being pursued,’’ and that ‘‘DOD at present has 

no plans to develop and field these systems.’’ Given that these are the most mature 

technologies, why isn’t the administration pursuing conventionally armed SLBMs 

and ICBMs as a near-term CPGS option? 

Admiral MULLEN. While CPGS capabilities are currently limited, the current 

RDT&E approach is consistent with the department’s vision of developing enhanced 

conventional technologies and capabilities that will minimize political and operational risks associated with fielding and employment in the future. The HTV –2 

and AHW technology experiments along with the CSM demonstration are expected 

to provide more flexible operational characteristics that will not count (New START 

treaty) against a smaller triad of strategic nuclear capabilities. It will also be important to discriminate these capabilities from current ICBM or SLBM employment. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(169) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AND U.S. 

CENTRAL COMMAND 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Nelson, Webb, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, McCain, 

Inhofe, Wicker, Portman, Ayotte, and Cornyn. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Jason W. Maroney, Counsel; William G.P. 

Monahan, counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; 

and William K. Sutey, professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; Christian D. 

Brose, professional staff member; and Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member. 

Staff assistants present: Christine G. Lang, Hannah I. Lloyd, and 

Brian F. Sebold. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Vance Serchuk, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator 

Reed; Ann Premer, assistant to Senator Nelson; Gordon Peterson, 

assistant to Senator Webb; Jennifer Barrett and Casey Howard, assistants to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; 

Lindsay Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Joanne 

McLaughlin, assistant to Senator Manchin; Ethan Saxon, assistant 

to Senator Blumenthal; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to Senator 

Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde 

Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Joseph Lai, assistant to 

Senator Wicker; Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; Gordon Gray, assistant to Senator Portman; Adam Hechavarria, assistVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
170 

ant to Senator Ayotte; Ryan Kaldahl, assistant to Senator Collins; 

and Dave Hanke, assistant to Senator Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

The committee meets this morning to receive testimony from Admiral Eric Olson, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM), and General James Mattis, Commander, U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM). 

Today’s hearing continues the committee’s review of the missions 

and operational requirements of our combatant commanders in 

light of the priorities set out in the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 

Nowhere will the President’s budget priorities have a greater impact than with the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the 

CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR). The men and women of 

CENTCOM and SOCOM have been engaged in major military operations for nearly a decade. Yet, in Afghanistan and Iraq, our 

troops’ morale is high. They are dedicated to their mission and 

serving with courage and distinction. 

We have asked so much of them. They have done everything we 

have asked and more. That includes not just the servicemembers 

themselves, but the families who have served our Nation at home 

while their loved ones serve overseas. Admiral Olson and General 

Mattis, on behalf of this committee, please pass along our gratitude 

to the troops serving under your commands. 

Admiral Olson, it is my understanding that you plan to retire 

this year after an exceptional career in which, among other things, 

you became the first Navy SEAL to attain the rank of four-star admiral, and you have led SOCOM with great distinction. Thank you 

for your outstanding service and that of your family. 

The Department of Defense (DOD), as are all Federal agencies, 

is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) that expires in a few days. Last week, Secretary Gates described this as 

a crisis on his doorstep. 

I hope that we will soon be in a position to enact a full-year appropriation at an appropriate level. I hope, General Mattis and Admiral Olson, that you will help the committee better understand 

the impact of proceeding by CR on the forces operating under your 

command. 

In Iraq, CENTCOM is continuing to oversee the drawdown of 

U.S. forces, as agreed upon by President Bush and Prime Minister 

Maliki in the 2008 security agreement, which requires all U.S. 

forces to be withdrawn from Iraq by December 31st of this year. 

Because of the ongoing reduction of our general-purpose forces in 

Iraq, the importance of the role performed by our Special Operations Forces (SOF) as a force multiplier, continuing to build the 

capacity of Iraqi counterterrorism forces and enabling their operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups, is even 

more important. 

As we reduce our presence, we must make sure that our special 

operators receive adequate support, including intelligence, medical 

evacuation, and quick-reaction forces. The transition in Iraq also 

means that the State Department will take over the lead for nuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
171 

merous activities in Iraq previously implemented by DOD, including training the Iraqi police. 

We would be interested in hearing from our witnesses this morning your views on the importance of providing adequate resources 

to the State Department and other civilian agencies to the success 

of that transition. 

In Afghanistan, it is essential that President Obama holds to his 

decision to set July 2011 as the date for the beginning of reductions 

in U.S. forces in Afghanistan. 

Secretary Gates told this committee a few weeks ago that he supported the decision to set the July 2011 date because it was necessary to ‘‘grab the attention of the Afghan leadership and bring 

a sense of urgency to them of the need for them to step up to the 

plate to take ownership of the war and to recruit their own young 

men to fight.’’ 

Admiral Mullen said at the same hearing that the July 2011 date 

‘‘has given the Afghans a sense of urgency that they didn’t have before the decision was made.’’ 

The Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police 

(ANP) have added 70,000 Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) 

over the last year and will meet the current target of 305,000 

ANSF by October of this year. A large, capable, effective Afghan security presence is what the Taliban fears the most because it would 

demonstrate that—contrary to the Taliban’s propaganda, the war 

against the Taliban and al Qaeda is a war the Afghan people believe in and it is being fought by an Afghan security force that they 

believe in, rather than a war waged by foreign occupiers, as 

Taliban propaganda would have it. 

The administration is now considering a request to grow the 

ANA and ANP by between 45,000 and 70,000 people, which would 

bring the total ANSF levels to a range of 352,000 to 378,000 by the 

end of 2012. I have twice recently urged President Obama to approve this request for additional Afghan troops. 

It is a key to the success of our mission and to faster reductions 

of U.S. troops. It is also far less costly in terms of U.S. casualties 

and taxpayer dollars than keeping large numbers of U.S. forces in 

Afghanistan. I hope our witnesses this morning will tell us whether 

they support the request to build the ANSF by up to an additional 

70,000 personnel. 

The presence of safe havens for terrorists across the Afghanistan 

border in Pakistan continues to pose a security threat to Afghanistan and to the region. While U.S.-Pakistan military cooperation 

has improved in some respects, the Pakistani army has not yet 

gone after the sanctuaries for the Haqqani network in North 

Waziristan or the Afghan Taliban in and around Quetta, Pakistan. 

Over the past month, the status quo in the CENTCOM AOR has 

changed dramatically, and this change appears to be ongoing. The 

protests in Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Yemen, and other countries are examples of what President Obama has correctly called a 

‘‘hunger for freedom.’’ 

Many in the Middle East have been denied their democratic and 

human rights for too long, and the past month is a clear demonstration of the people there demanding those rights. The United 

States needs to make constantly clear it supports those seeking to 

172 

exercise their fundamental rights in the Middle East and around 

the world. 

The committee looks forward to hearing from General Mattis on 

his assessment and views on these protest movements, how our security, how our counterterrorism operations, and how our strategic 

goals are impacted by the events in the Middle East, and how, if 

at all, the nature of our military-to-military relationships might 

change in the region as a result of these events. 

In the waters off the coast of Somalia, the flow of international 

commerce continues to be impacted by the threat of increasingly 

aggressive pirates. Just last week, four Americans were murdered 

at the hands of more than a dozen pirates bent on extracting ransoms in exchange for their lives. The committee looks forward to 

hearing from our witnesses about their assessment of this threat 

and about ongoing U.S. anti-piracy operations. 

Iran provides the greatest challenge to the United States and the 

international community. While continuing to profess that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, its actions indicate otherwise. The sanctions that have been imposed by the United States 

and most of the international community under the United Nations 

(U.N.) sanctions resolutions as well as domestic laws seem to be 

having some effect, but they need to be maintained and ratcheted 

up. 

Admiral Mullen’s guidance for 2011, which states that DOD 

would ‘‘continue to plan for a broad range of military options 

should the President decide to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms,’’ needs to be reiterated. While not the preferred option, it is important that Iran understand that military actions remain on the table. 

I am concerned about the fraying of our SOF, as you have put 

it, Admiral Olson. While our SOF have seen rapid growth over the 

past decade, the demand for such forces and their unique skills will 

continue to outpace supply for the foreseeable future. 

This committee stands prepared to support SOCOM’s efforts to 

provide the best-trained and best-equipped special operators to our 

combatant commands, and we look forward to hearing from you on 

this matter. 

Thank you again, both of you, for your testimony today. 

Let me now turn this over to Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank our witnesses for joining us this morning. 

Admiral Olson, thank you for your many years of courageous and 

outstanding service to the United States Navy and to the Nation. 

General Mattis, as always, we look forward to your straight talk 

and candid views on the issues that are so important to us. 

This hearing couldn’t come at a more important time. Senator 

Lieberman and I have spent the past several days visiting some 

key countries within the CENTCOM AOR, including Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, as well as some equally critical countries that influence events within the AOR, such as Morocco, Tunisia, and 

Israel. 

173 

In addition, we are all, obviously, focused on the tectonic changes 

that are shaking countries and governments in Yemen, Bahrain, 

Iran, and, of course, Libya. That is to say nothing of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, which remain the focus of our military and diplomatic efforts. 

Not since the fall of the Soviet Union have we seen a wave of 

change destabilize more critical countries all at once than we are 

now witnessing. Indeed, the old bargains that have defined regional order in the Middle East for the past several decades are 

now collapsing in front of us. 

This is, of course, deeply unsettling, but it is also an unprecedented opportunity to support the people of the Middle East in 

shaping a new regional order that is all at once reflective of their 

aspirations, conducive to our interests, and consistent with our values. The people of the Middle East are playing the leading role in 

this historic endeavor, but America’s Armed Forces are playing an 

indispensable role, strengthening and defending our friends while 

deterring and defeating our enemies. 

2011 will be a consequential year for CENTCOM and SOCOM. 

Among the vital strategic issues that were in play this year, we 

face the beginning of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 

(NATO) transition of responsibility for security in Afghanistan to 

local and national Afghan forces amid strained and even deteriorating U.S.-Pakistani relations. 

We face hard choices about the future of U.S. defense assistance 

to Lebanon after Hezbollah’s use of coercion to become the dominant actor in the government. We face the Iranian regime’s desires 

to develop a nuclear weapons capability and to exploit the current 

regional instability to expand its hegemonic ambitions. 

We face the destabilization of critical counterterrorism partners 

like Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and Bahrain, where the headquarters 

of U.S. Fifth Fleet is now caught up in the broader debate over the 

people of Bahrain’s political future. Of course, we face the prospect 

of a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end 

of the year, despite increasing evidence and recent testimony by 

the Secretary of Defense suggesting that such a plan is not consistent with Iraq’s continuing security needs or our enduring interests at this time. 

Amid these and other challenges, this year will also require increased vigilance on the part of our SOCOM, for the changes 

sweeping across North Africa, the Middle East, and South and 

Central Asia may open up new ungoverned spaces that could be exploited by our enemies. While our special operators continue to perform with remarkable resilience and success, the effects of nearly 

10 years of sustained operations and repeated deployments appear 

to be straining this elite force. 

Admiral Olson, as the chairman has said, we are concerned by 

your recent comment that our SOF are showing signs of ‘‘fraying 

around the edges.’’ It is important that you lay out today what 

steps are being taken or need to be taken to mitigate this strain. 

We are also interested in SOCOM’s progress in meeting growth 

targets mandated by the Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as 

any associated issues, such as training or facility constraints that 

you are facing. 

174 

We continue to see al Qaeda and affiliated movements attempting to expand their reach through the Maghreb, the Horn of Africa, 

the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, and beyond. We are all eager 

for the assessments of both our distinguished witnesses about the 

capabilities of these groups to threaten America’s friends, allies, interests, and Homeland. 

What is critical to note is that the historic changes now reshaping the broader Middle East are a direct repudiation of al Qaeda 

and its terrorist allies. The people of this dynamic and crucial region are rising up to change the character of their governments, 

but the revolutions they are making are largely defined not by violence, but by peaceful protests. 

They are inspired not by intolerant and extremist ideologies, but 

rather by demands for greater freedom, democracy, opportunity, 

and justice. More than any weapon of war with which this committee must concern itself, it is these principles and the changes 

they are inspiring that will ultimately defeat our terrorist enemies. 

If only for that reason alone, these universal values and those 

now struggling for them deserve our full support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank our distinguished witnesses for joining 

us this morning. General Mattis, Admiral Olson, thank you for your many decades 

of faithful service to our Nation, and on behalf of our entire committee, please convey to the brave men and women you lead how grateful we are for their sacrifice, 

and that of their families. 

This posture hearing could not come at a more important time. I have spent the 

past several days visiting some key countries within the U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) area of responsibility, including Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt—as well 

as some equally critical countries that influence events within the AOR, such as Morocco, Tunisia, and Israel. In addition, we are all obviously focused on the tectonic 

changes that are shaking countries and governments in Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, and 

of course Libya. That is to say nothing of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, which 

remain the focus of our military and diplomatic efforts. 

Not since the fall of the Soviet Union have we seen a wave of change destabilize 

more critical countries all at once than what we are now witnessing. Indeed, the 

old bargains that have defined regional order in the Middle East for the past several 

decades are now collapsing in front of us. This is of course deeply unsettling, but 

it is also an unprecedented opportunity to support the peoples of the Middle East 

in shaping a new regional order that is, all at once, reflective of their aspirations, 

conducive to our interests, and consistent with our values. The people of the Middle 

East are playing the leading role in this historic endeavor, but America’s Armed 

Forces are playing an indispensable role—strengthening and defending our friends, 

while deterring and defeating our enemies. 

2011 will be a consequential year for CENTCOM and Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Among the vital strategic issues that are in play this year, we face 

the beginning of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s transition of responsibility for security in Afghanistan to local and national Afghan forces, amid strained 

and even deteriorating U.S.-Pakistani relations. 

We face hard choices about the future of U.S. defense assistance to Lebanon after 

Hezbollah’s use of coercion to become the dominant actor in the government. 

We face the Iranian regime’s desire to develop a nuclear weapons capability and 

to exploit the current regional instability to expand its hegemonic ambitions. 

We face the destabilization of critical counterterrorism partners like Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and Bahrain, where the headquarters of U.S. Fifth Fleet is now caught 

up in the broader debate over the people of Bahrain’s political future. 

Of course, we face the prospect of a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from 

Iraq by the end of the year, despite increasing evidence and recent testimony by the 

Secretary of Defense suggesting that such a plan is not consistent with Iraq’s continuing security needs or our enduring interests at this time. 

175 

Amid these and other challenges, this year will also require increased vigilance 

on the part of our special operations command—for the changes sweeping across 

North Africa, the Middle East, and South and Central Asia may open up new 

ungoverned spaces that could be exploited by our enemies. 

While our special operators continue to perform with remarkable resilience and 

success, the effects of nearly 10 years of sustained operations and repeated deployments appear to be straining this elite force. Admiral Olson, I am concerned by your 

recent comment that our Special Operations Forces are showing signs of ‘‘fraying 

around the edges.’’ It is important that you lay out today what steps are being taken 

to mitigate this strain. We are also interested in SOCOM’s progress in meeting 

growth targets mandated by the Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as any associated issues such as training or facility constraints that you are facing. 

We continue to see al Qaeda and affiliated movements attempting to expand their 

reach through the Maghreb, the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Central 

Asia, and beyond. We are all eager for the assessments of both our distinguished 

witnesses about the capabilities of these groups to threaten America’s friends, allies, 

interests, and Homeland. 

What is critical to note, however, is that the historic changes now reshaping the 

broader Middle East are a direct repudiation of al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. The 

people of this dynamic and crucial region are rising up to change the character of 

their governments, but the revolutions they are making are largely defined not by 

violence, but by peaceful protests. They are inspired not by intolerant and extremist 

ideologies, but rather by demands for greater freedom, democracy, opportunity, and 

justice. More than any weapon of war with which this committee must concern 

itself, it is these principles, and the changes they are inspiring, that will ultimately 

defeat our terrorist enemies, and if only for that reason alone, these universal values and those now struggling for them deserve our full support. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

Admiral Olson, let us start with you. 

STATEMENT OF ADM ERIC T. OLSON, USN, COMMANDER, U.S. 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

Admiral OLSON. Good morning, Chairman Levin, Senator 

McCain, and other distinguished members of the committee. 

I do thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to 

present the current posture of SOCOM. 

We, at SOCOM, recognize that we were created by Congress and 

that our ability to meet our Nation’s high expectations is due, in 

large part, to this committee’s continued strong support. 

I am especially pleased to share this hearing with my friend and 

teammate, General Jim Mattis. General Mattis’ headquarters and 

mine are coincidentally located on the same base in Tampa, and we 

and our staffs work together quite closely. 

With your permission, I will submit my written posture statement for the record and open with some brief remarks. 

Chairman LEVIN. It will be made part of the record in full. 

Admiral OLSON. The lingering threat of violence in Iraq, the fragility of the progress in Afghanistan, the complexity of our relations with Pakistan, the decentralization of al Qaeda’s network, the 

revolutionary activity across the Maghreb and into the Middle 

East, the various destabilizing elements in Latin America, Africa, 

and Southeast Asia, the increased intertwining of violent extremism and criminality, and the persistence of piracy are all among 

the many daily reminders that we live in a world that poses many 

security challenges and some opportunities. 

The SOF are universally recognized as key to our Nation’s ability 

to address all of these and others. As the Commander of SOCOM, 

I am responsible and accountable for the readiness of all Army, 

Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps SOF. 

176 

With a dedicated budget and through my component commanders, I select, organize, train, equip, and deploy these forces to 

serve all of the Geographic Combatant Commanders. Though with 

85 percent of our deployed forces currently in the CENTCOM area 

of operations, my colleague to my left is, by far, the largest customer of our product. 

We include many forces of legend: Green Berets, SEALs, Rangers, Air Force Air Commandos, Army Night Stalker Aviators, Combat Controllers, Pararescue Jumpers, Combatant-craft Crewmen— 

today’s version of Marine Raiders—and others. The active duty 

practitioners of Civil Affairs operations and Military Information 

Support Operations are also in our ranks. These are special operations careerists. 

But they are backed by a magnificent assortment of administrative, intelligence, communications, engineering, logistics, and other 

specialists who serve in special operations units on a less permanent basis. At our various headquarters, we also include over 300 

representatives from at least 15 other agencies within and beyond 

DOD, providing a senior-level counsel and staff-level expertise that 

significantly broadens and deepens us. 

I am convinced that the forces we provide to the Geographic 

Combatant Commanders are the most culturally attuned partners, 

most lethal hunter/killers, and most responsive, agile, innovative, 

and efficiently effective advisers, trainers, problemsolvers, and warriors that any nation has to offer. In fact, we have become the 

model for many others. 

Our value comes from both our high level of skills and our nontraditional methods of applying them, which is to say that our principal asset is the quality of our people. Whether they are conducting a precision raid, organizing a village police force, arranging 

for a new school or clinic, or partnering with counterpart forces, 

they do so in a manner that has impressive effects. 

In Afghanistan and Iraq especially, it is undeniable that they 

have had impact far above their relatively small numbers. They are 

in dozens of other countries every day, contributing to regional stability by training and advising counterpart forces. This balance of 

direct and indirect operations must be carefully managed. But because SOF live in both of these worlds, we become the force of first 

choice for many missions. As Admiral Mullen said a couple of 

weeks ago, SOF are typically first in and last out. 

I am very proud of these forces, as we all should be. But I also 

acknowledge there are challenges. Key among them is how to meet 

the increasing global requirement for their capabilities. 

We can’t grow them more than a very few percent per year, but 

the demand is outpacing the supply. Since September 11, our manpower has roughly doubled, our budget has roughly tripled, and our 

overseas deployments have quadrupled. 

I have said that this great force is beginning to fray around the 

edges. The fabric is strong. The weave is tight. It is not unraveling, 

but it is showing signs of wear. 

Partial solutions include finding a process that will habitually assign units from the Services to train and deploy with SOF, ensuring that our needs for local training ranges are fully met, providing 

buildings and facilities at the standard that our force needs and deVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
177 

serves, investing more broadly in the types of enabling capabilities 

that will relieve SOF from sending our own people to perform functions that could be performed by others, and expanding the Services’ inventory of specific assets that are so essential to today’s 

complex and irregular warfare. 

We must ensure that our force has the specialized equipment 

and advanced training that they need to survive and succeed in the 

complex, ambiguous, and often violent environments in which we 

ask them to serve. 

Underlying all of it is the need to look after our people and their 

families. We must rehabilitate and return to duty those of our 

wounded who can, care for those of our wounded who can’t, along 

with their families and caregivers, and provide enduring support to 

the families of those who have died in action. 

I ask for your action to approve a defense budget for fiscal year 

2011 and for your support for the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. 

I also ask that you fully fund the special operations budget, particularly as conventional forces begin to draw down from major operations, because our forces will most likely be reallocated at the 

same levels to areas with pent-up demand for our unique capabilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. You 

have reason to take great pride in what the men and women of 

SOF are accomplishing around the world, today and every day. 

I remain humbled by my opportunity to command this formidable force and to provide it to answer our Nation’s most daunting 

security needs. As I appear before you in this capacity for the 

fourth and very likely the last time, I thank you for affording me 

the profound honor of serving my country in this way. 

I stand ready for your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Olson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM ERIC T. OLSON, USN 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this 

opportunity to provide an update on the U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM). Our Special Operations Forces (SOF) give us much cause for great pride 

and it is my deep privilege to represent them to you, and especially to do so for the 

fourth time as their commander. 

My intent today is to describe the current status, activities and requirements of 

SOF. I’ll begin by briefly describing SOCOM and its assigned SOF. 

As many of you know, SOCOM is a creation of Congress, legislated into being in 

1986. A relatively small number of Army, Navy, and Air Forces units designated 

as SOF were assigned to SOCOM, with Marine Corps forces joining the Command 

just over 5 years ago. 

Before the establishment of SOCOM, the Nation’s SOF had generally not been 

treated as a top priority. They now thrive under the focused attention of a single 

headquarters and a dedicated budget. In the 24 years since SOCOM was established, SOF have repeatedly proven their value, often under extraordinarily demanding conditions. 

In many ways, SOCOM is a microcosm of the Department of Defense (DOD), with 

ground, air and maritime components, a global presence, and authorities and responsibilities that mirror the Military Departments, Military Services, and Defense 

Agencies. We take pride in the diversity of our people and our mission. 

One of our headquarter’s functions is to synchronize DOD planning against terrorists and their networks globally. This is complex work that connects us across DOD 

and into other U.S. Government departments and other nations’ military forces. The 

effects of this are manifested in a series of planning documents that guide specific 

actions by the Services and combatant commands. 

178 

Primarily, SOCOM organizes, trains and equips SOF and provides those forces to 

the Geographic Combatant Commanders under whose operational control they 

serve. The Command also develops special operations strategy, doctrine and procedures for SOF employment and develops and procures specialized equipment for the 

force. 

Our key subordinate commands are U.S. Army Special Operations Command, 

Naval Special Warfare Command, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, and Joint Special Operations Command. Within these commands are the legendary Special Forces or Green Berets, 

SEALs, Air Commandos, Rangers, Night Stalker helicopter crews, and the modern 

version of yesterday’s Marine Raiders. Our force also includes the active duty practitioners of Civil Affairs Operations and Military Information Support Operations, 

and all of the instructors, logisticians, administrators, analysts, planners, communicators, doctrine writers, and other specialists who are key to our ability to meet 

our Nation’s needs. Most are active duty military, but we depend heavily on our 

Guard and Reserve units and the government civilians and contractors who perform 

duties that don’t require a uniformed servicemember. 

We now total close to 60,000 people, about a third of whom are career members 

of SOF, meaning those who have been selected, trained, and qualified to earn the 

Military Occupational Specialty or skill code identifier of a SOF operator. 

The activities of the force are as varied as its character. From high-risk, high-intensity counterterrorist raids; to meticulous intelligence analysis; to providing first 

response during a natural disaster; to launching from submerged submarines; to 

training and accompanying foreign counterparts; to working with local leaders to determine what will bring value to their village; to providing supporting precision fires 

to fighting troops from orbiting aircraft—SOF personnel are in vital roles, in key 

places, performing essential tasks. 

Our presence is generally small and agile, inherently joint and persistent. Our formations normally include an array of attached capabilities that are necessary to optimize the force—including female Cultural Support Teams, Tactical Air Controllers, 

Military Working Dogs, interpreters, maintenance and repair personnel, Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal technicians and others. SOF rarely dominate an area with their 

mass, so they must work with indigenous forces and the local civilian population 

to accomplish their missions. This is often complicated, demanding and high-risk. 

Each of the Geographic Combatant Commanders who will appear before you is 

well served by the SOF that are deployed to his region, although the balance is 

heavily weighted towards U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). In fact, about 85 

percent of deployed SOF are directly engaged in Operations New Dawn and Enduring Freedom. I will defer to the regional commanders to highlight the contributions 

of SOF in their theaters. I will just say here that, although the precision counterterrorism missions certainly receive the most attention, SOF are conducting a wide 

range of activities in dozens of countries around the world on any given day—at the 

request of the host government, with the approval of the U.S. Ambassador and 

under the operational control of the U.S. Geographic Combatant Commander. 

To support these forces and activities, SOCOM invested in many specialized programs and equipment. As the commander responsible for the preparation and readiness of SOF, I focus on developing and sustaining operational skills and capabilities, 

training and maintaining the quality of the force, caring for its families, and ensuring that our people have the right equipment in sufficient quantity. I also carefully 

monitor global military and political trends in my role as the senior advisor on the 

employment of SOF. 

Among SOCOM’s most important functions is the management of Major Force 

Program-11 (MFP–11). MFP–11 is provided to the Commander of SOCOM to address requirements that are ‘‘SOF-peculiar’’ in nature, and it is the essential fuel 

that enables SOF to meet the Nation’s needs. It provides for the conduct of advanced and unique training, the timely and flexible fielding of equipment, and the 

capability to rapidly and effectively project our force. In fiscal year 2012, the request 

for MFP–11 funds totals $10.5 billion in baseline and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. This is an increase of 7 percent over the fiscal year 2011 request, and every dollar is necessary to meet the ever-increasing demands placed on 

our SOF. 

At the forefront of budget discussions is the acknowledgment that many of the 

current expenditures funded by OCO are, in fact, part of SOCOM’s baseline requirement in the ‘‘new normal.’’ This was highlighted by the Department last year when 

a commitment was made to eventually move funding required to execute OCOs into 

the baseline as part of the Secretary of Defense’s initiative to ‘‘rebalance’’ the force. 

However, SOCOM will continue to rely on OCO funding over the next few years as 

the phased transfer to the base budget occurs. For example, in the fiscal year 2012 

179 

budget submission 34 percent of the total MFP–11 request is OCO funding. For 

some higher intensity SOF elements, the OCO percentage is greater than 75 percent. SOCOM will carefully prioritize and manage the OCO to base transition. Overall, we are in a fiscally satisfactory condition, but the force requires continued support. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012, if approved, is an essential 

step towards meeting the growing demand on our force by providing SOCOM the 

resources required to sustain critical programs and initiatives. Now, I would like to 

highlight some of these key efforts. 

PROGRAMS

SOCOM continues to expand and recapitalize its rotary and fixed-wing aviation 

fleets. This year we began modification of the last of the originally planned 61 MH– 

47G helicopters, while starting procurement of 8 additional MH–47Gs. We are also 

fielding the first of 72 planned MH–60M helicopters as part of our recapitalization 

of MH–60 K/L platforms. The tilt-rotor CV–22, having demonstrated its capabilities 

on multiple deployments, must remain on plan to ensure enhanced future mobility 

capabilities for SOF. SOCOM’s MC–130Ws, rapidly modified with a Precision Strike 

Package utilizing SOF’s Joint Acquisition Task Force (JATF), are providing armed 

overwatch and mobility to deployed SOF as an interim augmentation to our Vietnam-era AC–130 gunship fleet. We are on a path to ultimately recapitalize the 

gunships with AC–130J models. The MC–130J program is on track to replace our 

aging MC–130Es and MC–130Ps. Our Non-Standard Aviation Program is delivering 

a variety of smaller aircraft to provide intra-theater airlift capacity and we continue 

to grow our aviation foreign training capability in support of the Geographic Combatant Commanders’ engagement plans. 

SOCOM is also modernizing its maritime mobility systems. We will award competitive prototype contracts later this year for Combatant Craft-Medium as replacements for the Naval Special Warfare Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat. We have realigned 

resources from the Advanced SEAL Delivery System and the Joint Multi-Mission 

Submersible to fund the development of a family of Dry Submersibles as part of our 

undersea mobility strategy. These will be launched from surface ships or Dry Deck 

Shelter-equipped submarines. As part of this modernization program, we will explore expansive and flexible approaches that are supportive of the Secretary of Defense’s intent to streamline acquisition processes and accelerate delivery times. 

SOF continue to rely on a wide range of ground mobility vehicles, often leveraging 

Service and Department investments. Modified to meet the wide variety of SOF mission sets and provide enhanced crew protection, vehicles such as the MRAP have 

been essential to SOF teams operating in dispersed and rugged terrain throughout 

the CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR). These vehicles, as well as our other 

ground mobility systems, will remain relevant well into the future as we synchronize our long-term sustainment strategy with the Services. 

We continue to invest in airborne manned and unmanned Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) programs, relying heavily on the Services to expand capabilities and capacity that benefit DOD across the board. SOCOM is moving toward a relatively small number of manned and unmanned ISR systems; essential processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) capabilities; and supporting 

communications architectures. 

One of the most noteworthy improvements within special operations over the last 

few years has been the growth of advanced communications and networking capabilities through our expeditionary SOF Information Enterprise (SIE). As our portion 

of the Department’s Global Information Grid, the SIE provides network independence while maintaining connectivity into the global interface, and links SOF across 

the globe into a common network. This connectivity shortens the decision cycle for 

SOF operators worldwide and allows more rapid information sharing. The research 

and rapid development of these types of technologies is an inherent strength of special operations. 

SOCOM, inherently joint in all it does, is in a unique position to leverage and 

apply Service and Department Science and Technology (S&T) efforts to rapidly field 

new technologies on the battlefield. SOCOM’s ‘‘Rapid Exploitation of Innovative 

Technologies for SOF’’ program, enables innovative new capabilities to be developed 

and inserted quickly into the battlefield-advanced ’’talk and jam’’ capabilities for 

SOF vehicles; mobile repair and maintenance ‘‘shops in a box’’; to solar panel energy 

technology that supports SOF in remote locations. SOCOM also seeks to expand its 

biomedical research and development activities. To date, SOCOM has pushed ‘‘stateof-the-art’’ combat medicine with modest resources through the Tactical Combat 

Casualty Care program. However, we also have great need to explore innovative 

180 

methods of treating our wounded members so that they may be reintegrated and 

returned to duty as rapidly as possible. 

As a force that operates from the tropics to the Arctic regions, from under water 

to high elevations, and from peaceful areas to violent combat zones, SOF serve as 

an ideal ‘‘control group’’ for Service R&D investments that can result in significant 

benefits across DOD. 

SOCOM’s development of the JATF concept enabled accelerated acquisition and 

fielding of urgent SOF capabilities. First demonstrated on the MC–130W Dragon 

Spear program, SOCOM expanded use of the JATF concept to address many emerging requirements of SOF warfighters. Innovative approaches such as the JATF, coupled with a professionally trained and certified SOF acquisition corps that stays in 

close and frequent contact with the operators, continue to ensure that SOCOM remains as a vanguard of rapid acquisition within DOD. 

SOCOM’s acquisition planning, collaboration, and continuing dialogue with the 

Services continues to improve as we become more efficiently effective while rapidly 

moving capabilities to the warfighter. SOCOM, in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics initiated a series of Acquisition Summits with the Military Department Acquisition Executives to minimize 

programmatic disconnects and to better align requirements, co-sponsorship opportunities, funding efficiencies, and contracting actions among MFP–11 programs and 

Service-related/dependent programs. These periodic meetings offer a level of transparency among all our accounts that enables us to seek common solutions for Service-wide requirements and to better invest in SOF-peculiar modifications or special 

capabilities. This forum identified several opportunities, which if supported by Congress, would enable more efficient execution of SOF unique acquisitions. 

SOCOM is making a significant investment in Military Construction (MILCON) 

to address shortfalls resulting from fielding new capabilities, a growing force structure and aging infrastructure that was inherited without a future recapitalization 

budget. To address the shortfall, the Command’s 2012 budget submission is based 

on a MILCON roadmap that identifies over 300 prioritized requirements valued at 

more than $5 billion between 2012 and 2025. Specifically, our fiscal year 2012 submission includes 33 of these projects, valued at $631 million across 8 States and 

representing 9 percent of the Command’s projected base budget request—a near 

record level. This investment demonstrates a commitment to addressing our critical 

infrastructure needs. To continue this effort, the Command’s new Strategic Planning 

and Programming Guidance raised the MILCON funding minimum from 4 to 6 percent to support this priority in future budgets. 

A congressional action that enhanced the effectiveness of our force is our Section 

1208 authority. This authority to reallocate limited MFP–11 funds remains a key 

tool used by widely dispersed SOF to leverage indigenous forces in support of 

counterterrorism operations. SOCOM is appreciative of the increase to $45 million 

provided by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011, as it provides us the ability to support ongoing operations with a measure of 

flexibility should a contingency arise. Continuation of Section 1208 authority provides enhanced effectiveness to our force both strategically and tactically. 

INITIATIVES

Our primary challenge is the need to carefully manage the growth of SOF, even 

in these periods of high demand, in order to ensure the continued quality the Nation 

expects. I have stated in my last three posture hearings that SOF’s organic manpower growth should be in the range of 3–5 percent per year. That is the pace we 

have sustained to great effect over the past several years and our fiscal year 2012 

budget submission continues this pace. But 3–5 percent growth within SOCOM will 

not answer the increasing demand for our force unless it is matched by the Military 

Services’ commitment to attach supporting and enabling forces at a commensurate 

rate. SOF units must include a limited amount of these enabling forces to ensure 

rapid response to emerging requirements, but we were designed and intended to 

rely on the Services to meet most of our combat support and combat service support 

requirements. In order to establish a predictable demand signal for these Serviceprovided capabilities, SOCOM is proposing changes to the way we build, train, deploy, and sustain a fully enabled force. 

To better build the SOF team, we are developing a force generation system that 

engages the existing Service systems. In 2011, SOCOM will strive to create a SOF 

Force Generation system that will be synchronized with the Services, matching their 

capabilities with our Special Operations core units in time to provide fully optimized 

force packages to the Geographic Combatant Commanders. For elements organic to 

181 

SOF, such as our Civil Affairs and Military Information Support Operations, we will 

expand their capacities to meet the increasing demand for their capabilities. 

Another challenge we face is how to effectively prepare and train the force to 

achieve enhanced interoperability with the General Purpose Forces (GPF). Currently in the CENTCOM AOR, SOF is executing the counterterrorist strike mission 

and the Village Stability Operations mission; two of the primary lines of operation 

underpinning the Afghanistan strategy. SOF’s key role in both is creating opportunities for enhanced interoperability with the GPF such as the deployment of the 1ST 

Battalion, 16TH Infantry, now assigned to the Combined Joint Special Operations 

Task Force-Afghanistan; a sea change in SOF–GPF relations. Currently, we are developing initiatives that will increase inter-operational effectiveness prior to the deployment phase of the operation. 

In 2011, we will continue to review and coordinate changes to Service personnel 

policies to further incentivize language pay for key languages such as Pashto, Dari, 

and Arabic. We will work to develop courses of action that allow SOF reliable and 

predictable access to Service resources such as training ranges for our ground and 

aviation elements. The shortage of readily available, local ranges currently hampers 

SOF’s ability to meet deployment training timelines and causes our operators to 

‘‘travel to train,’’ further increasing their already excessive time away from home. 

Understanding the operational context of the environments in which we operate 

is a hallmark of SOF. Developing this knowledge and experience within our force, 

and understanding the value of ‘‘micro-regional’’ expertise allows SOF to conduct its 

activities with more predictable outcomes. While immersion opportunities enhance 

our regional sophistication, our training can never develop the level of nuanced understanding possessed by indigenous populations. To gain this high level of cultural 

knowledge, SOCOM will continue to strongly support DOD’s Military Accessions 

Vital to the National Interest and the Army’s Intermediate and Advanced Language 

Programs to recruit and access the requisite expertise provided by native speakers. 

Additionally, our attached female Cultural Support Teams (CSTs) allow us to reach 

key elements of the population in some environments which was not previously possible. This concept of attaching females to SOF units is effective and long overdue; 

we are urging the Services to recognize the capabilities of CSTs as essential military 

skills. 

Finally, our efforts to become more innovative include studying the best practices 

of other organizations. For example, we are inspired by the ability of the World War 

II’s Office of Strategic Services to rapidly recruit specialized talent, develop and acquire new technologies and conduct effective global operations within the period of 

its relatively brief existence. 

To further our engagement with our international allies and partners, and within 

the U.S. interagency community, SOCOM will continue to expand the Special Operations Liaison Officer (SOLO) and Special Operations Support Team programs. Both 

of these outreach efforts provide SOF experts to support and enhance their host organizations while serving as SOF liaisons. Our priority is to assign SOLO officers 

wherever a foreign partner has, or is planning to establish, a SOCOM-like headquarters. 

Joint operations and special operations are two growing trends in many of our 

partner nation military forces. One manifestation is the recent establishment of the 

NATO SOF Headquarters. In accordance with the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, the Secretary of Defense designated SOCOM as the lead component for 

this Headquarters—a role we will embrace and expand in an effort to advise and 

assist an interoperable network of global SOF. 

Importantly, we remain committed to caring for our servicemembers and their 

families. I am concerned about the effects of 9 years of focus on combat operations 

on the well-being of our extended special operations community. To support the 

wounded and injured and their caregivers, the Command remains committed to our 

Special Operations Care Coalition and the Tactical Human Optimization, Rapid Rehabilitation and Reconditioning Program. Both programs are focused on long term 

care, rehabilitation and reintegration of our warriors. In an additional effort to be 

predictive and preventive, I established a ‘‘Pressure on the Force’’ Task Force to survey and analyze the effects of repetitive combat deployments over nearly a decade. 

Necessarily relying on soft data, collective experiences and commanders’ instincts, 

it will try to determine what initiatives might help ease the strain and contribute 

to long-term retention and force stability. I expect to receive the recommendations 

from this team within 90 days. 

In conclusion, I will reinforce what I believe are the top challenges to the Command. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently stated, ‘‘ . . . the first 

forces in are typically Special Forces. The last ones out are going to be Special 

182 

Forces.’’ As we expect to remain the force of first choice for many military operations, SOCOM must: 

1. Carefully and deliberately meet the ever-increasing demand for SOF. 

2. Improve and expand our tactical and operational level skills, equipment and 

systems. 

3. Preserve our proposed budget levels and authorities. 

4. Find better structures and processes to obtain Service-provided capabilities. 

5. Continue to improve our acquisition speed and agility. 

6. Better understand the people and conditions in the places we go, whether to 

assist or fight. 

7. As our most solemn duty, look after the health and well-being of this magnificent force from whom we ask so much. 

Today’s SOF are the most capable, best prepared SOF in history. Their ingenuity, 

perseverance, spirit and skill continue to inspire and amaze. In significant ways, 

they have emerged from the shadows to make visible and dramatic impacts of great 

magnitude. It is my honor to have served within SOF for the last 37 years and to 

represent this extraordinary force today before this committee. 

As always, our success is only possible because of your continued support and advocacy. Your approval of the President’s budget request will help ensure our continued ability to address some of our Nation’s most daunting security challenges. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you so much, Admiral. 

We, again, are grateful to you, the men and women you command, for all that you and they do. We have that pride, which you 

made reference to at the end of your statement, in them and in 

you. 

General Mattis. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, COMMANDER, 

U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND 

General MATTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

distinguished members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the posture and priorities 

of CENTCOM, testifying alongside a friend and shipmate of many 

years, Admiral Eric Olson, Commander of SOCOM. 

I have submitted a written statement and request it be accepted 

into the record. 

Chairman LEVIN. It will be made part of the record. 

General MATTIS. Thank you for supporting our troops and their 

families who carry the brunt of the physical and the emotional burden in this 10th year of war. Our forces today are among the most 

dedicated and skilled professionals I have served alongside in my 

39 years in uniform, and they constitute a national treasure. 

I also recognize the commitment and sacrifices of our international partners, who operate with us from the waters off Somalia 

to the mountains of Afghanistan, where the largest warfighting coalition in recent history is engaged with troops from 49 nations 

united in the fight against our common enemy. 

The strategic landscape of the broader Middle East has been altered by recent events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere. We 

see pressure on government institutions from the aspirations of 

people seeking improved economic and social conditions. Young 

people born in the information age are exchanging ideas in real 

time. 

While the long-term impact of this unrest is unknown, it presents as many opportunities as it does challenges. The changes 

that we are seeing will manifest differently in each country. People 

183 

are seeking their rights and, for the most part, doing so peacefully 

and bravely. 

It is too early to say how it will all turn out. It is important that 

we work today with the people and the governments throughout 

the region. We don’t want to see this change slide into a new form 

of authoritarianism. 

So while there is both opportunity and danger, it requires unrelenting engagement by our Nation. The central challenge for us, I 

believe, is how to make common cause with our friends throughout 

the region. 

There is one clear lesson we can draw from the dramatic changes 

underway. Now, more than ever, we must remain relentlessly engaged with our military partners in this region. While we know 

each country is different, we remain committed to strengthening 

our military bonds and advancing our mutual interests in peace 

and opportunity for all. 

Notably in Egypt, we have clearly seen the benefit of mature 

military-to-military relationships. The Egyptian armed forces continue to demonstrate exceptional discipline and restraint under trying circumstances. 

As Admiral Mullen recently noted, our assistance has helped the 

Egyptian military become the professional force that it is today, 

just as our military has learned a great deal from our Egyptian 

counterparts, who have contributed a stabilizing influence in this 

time of transition. 

Of course, we cannot achieve our broader objectives in the region 

through military means alone. Our efforts require coordination and 

a spirit of collaboration between highly integrated civilian military 

teams. Our civilian colleagues need your full support, even in this 

difficult fiscal environment, to undertake their essential role in today’s complex environment. 

Robust resourcing for the State Department’s mission is one of 

the best investments for reducing the need for military forces to be 

employed. Together, our military leaders and our diplomats not 

only represent a symbol of America’s enduring commitment to the 

region, but they also build trust through partnerships that have an 

important stabilizing effect when trouble looms. 

CENTCOM’s main effort is in Afghanistan, where, along with 

our Afghan and coalition partners, we are making undeniable 

progress, though some of our gains at this time remain fragile and 

yet reversible. Al Qaeda in the border region between Afghanistan 

and Pakistan is under the most pressure they have experienced 

since 2001. Over the past year, our enemies have lost leaders, battle space, maneuver room, and the initiative. 

The enemy’s strategy has been undercut by the clear commitment of the international community and the Afghan Government 

to begin this summer a process of fully transiting responsibility to 

Afghan lead by 2014. I support the ongoing analysis for further 

growth for the ANSF, the greatest success of our last year their 

quantifiable and qualifiable growth in capability. 

The range of growth being considered is from 45,000 to 70,000. 

With the improving quality in combat performance by the ANSF, 

we are seeing the enemy’s worst nightmare coming of age. 

184 

The transition process will start with a limited conditions-based 

withdrawal this year. Our overall campaign is on track in Afghanistan. Our successes, as General Petraeus has stated, entailed hard 

fighting and tough losses. I am sure that there will be tough fighting ahead as the enemy tries to regain the initiative. 

Finally, we must also redouble our efforts to address challenges 

in the areas of governance and development in Afghanistan. 

Turning now to Pakistan, we are strengthening and deepening 

our security partnership with Islamabad, even as we work to overcome years of mistrust and misunderstanding on both sides. The 

Pakistanis have shifted a quarter of their army, 140,000 troops, to 

their western border, and we are now conducting hammer and 

anvil operations in close coordination with them on opposite sides 

of the border. 

Pakistan’s military has conducted significant counterinsurgency 

operations in the past decade and especially the past 2 years, and 

they have suffered 2,757 troops killed and 8,549 wounded while 

also responding to urgent humanitarian needs following devastating floods in 2010. 

In Iraq, we are helping a new, more stable country emerge in a 

turbulent region. Our commitment there is transitioning from a 

military to a civilian-led effort. I will note that the transition underway in Iraq has been enabled in large part thanks to the vital 

commitment and support of Congress for our troops on the ground, 

and I want to personally offer my thanks to you. 

As we transition to civilian lead in Iraq, it is essential that the 

State Department be sufficiently resourced to solidify relationships 

between the United States and Iraq for the future. At CENTCOM, 

we need congressional authorities that enable us to continue advising, training, and equipping our Iraqi partners through the new Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq. 

Looking ahead, we will redeploy our military forces from Iraq 

this year, unless asked to stay by the Iraqi Government and the 

U.S. Government concurs. I anticipate al Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian-sponsored proxies will attempt to attack us and detract from 

this milestone by executing sensational attacks in the coming 

months. 

Next, Iran. The greatest threat to long-term regional security is 

a defiant Iran in its current state. We are countering the malign 

activities of the regime while bolstering relationships with our 

partners. 

Iran continues to rebuff international efforts for engagement. It 

continues to coerce its own population and pursue activities disruptive to regional peace and stability, including supplying arms to 

militant proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan and supporting Hezbollah 

in Lebanon. 

But for the vibrant people of Iran, the regime is no giant. The 

regime’s actions have thrown the economy into disarray, destroyed 

rapport with the bulk of the world, and spread hate and discontent 

across the region, steadily eroding any international support the regime could once muster. 

Despite the shrinking nature of the regime, I have no reason for 

optimism about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, its 

growing ballistic missile arsenal, and present destabilizing course. 

185 

Across the region, we are disrupting al Qaeda and other violent 

extremist organizations. We are actively focused on the threat of 

extremism in Yemen, especially al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula 

(AQAP), the group that has twice attempted to attack our Homeland in recent years. 

With our international partners, our SOF are putting our most 

violent enemies and related networks under increasingly intense 

pressure. At the same time, the populist-inspired changes that are 

taking place across the region undercut the message of al Qaeda 

and other extremist groups, highlighting the bankrupt philosophies 

of terrorists who use violence and contribute nothing but mayhem 

to the innocent. 

As Senator McCain just noted, the populist-inspired changes are 

a direct repudiation of the violent extremists because these young 

folks today have achieved more change in 10 weeks than 10 years 

of al Qaeda’s murderous campaign. 

That is a snapshot of our major ongoing operations. We are focused on a number of other important mission areas to include 

countering piracy. There can be no more stark reminder about the 

need for more proactive diplomatic, legal, and military efforts 

against pirates than the brutal murder of four Americans by pirates last week. 

This is a defining moment for the people of the region and, by 

extension, a critical moment for CENTCOM to remain engaged 

with our partners and to clear away obstacles to peace and prosperity. On that note, while Israel and the Palestinian territories 

are not in my assigned theater, lack of progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace affects U.S. and CENTCOM security 

interests in the region. 

I believe the only reliable path to lasting peace in this region is 

a viable two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. This issue 

is one of many that is exploited by our adversaries in the region, 

and it is used as a recruiting tool for extremist groups. 

The lack of progress also creates friction with regional partners 

and creates political challenges for advancing our interests by 

marginalizing moderate voices in the region. By contrast, substantive progress on the peace process would improve CENTCOM’s 

opportunity to work with our regional partners and to support multilateral security efforts. 

We recognize you face tough decisions in this constrained fiscal 

environment. In all of our activities at CENTCOM, we honor the 

obligation to be the best stewards possible of our Nation’s monetary 

resources. CENTCOM has established stringent control mechanisms to execute our fiscal authorities and to apply increasingly effective oversight of all programs. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, Senators, we must never forget the families of those who gave their last full measure in defense of liberty. 

Thank you once again for your support of our men and women 

serving in the CENTCOM AOR, and I am prepared to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Mattis follows:] 

186 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC 

INTRODUCTION

A Command at War 

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) oversees operations alongside our allies, 

partners, and friends in a critically important region of the world. CENTCOM is engaged throughout the greater Middle East and South Central Asia across the full 

spectrum of warfare, standing against violent aggression and the tyranny of militant extremists, while contributing to the broader conditions for peace, stability, and 

prosperity. 

Recognizing our Troops, Civilians, and Partners 

Our troops and their families carry the brunt of physical and emotional burdens 

in this 10th year of war. Today, over 200,000 American troops and tens of thousands 

of civilians are deployed to the CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR). These men 

and women—all volunteers, no less—defend our freedoms with great courage in the 

face of a murderous enemy on harsh terrain. Our troops stand together with tens 

of thousands of our international partners, conducting coalition operations from the 

waters off Somalia to the mountains of Afghanistan, where the largest warfighting 

coalition in recent history is engaged. 

Operating in a Dynamic Region 

The CENTCOM AOR is more dynamic than I have seen it since first serving there 

in 1979. Across our theater, we are required to maintain a degree of military flexibility such as we have seldom seen before. At the same time, given the financial 

realities in Washington, we require ourselves to exercise the utmost degree of stewardship over every penny we spend. To operate in this context successfully, we seek 

to build strong military-to-military relationships with our partners, recognizing that 

CENTCOM’s actions represent a tangible signal of America’s continued, long-term 

commitment to the security and prosperity of this area. 

Throughout the region, we see institutions of government responding to the aspirations of youthful populations. As the people in the region have made their voices 

heard, regional militaries have so far demonstrated their professionalism, exercising 

a capability that did not arise by accident or overnight. The strong security relationship between the United States and our partners is decades in the making and has 

helped them become the professional forces they are today—and in the process made 

our forces better as well. While we seek to understand the unique circumstances 

that our partners confront, CENTCOM remains committed to supporting the efforts 

of our military counterparts and to strengthening the security partnerships that 

have proven critical during this period of political unrest. We do this first by listening, learning, and understanding, and continue by engaging with our partners based 

on mutual respect and shared interests. 

Our Mission 

Overall, amidst these conditions, we remain committed to carry out our mission: 

With our national and international partners, CENTCOM promotes security cooperation among nations; responds to crises; deters or defeats state 

and non-state aggression; supports development and, when necessary, reconstruction in order to establish the conditions for regional security, stability, and prosperity. 

Snapshot of Operations 

Our main effort is Afghanistan—and progress there is indisputable, even if some 

of our success is fragile and reversible. We and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and coalition partners are conducting a comprehensive yet focused 

counterinsurgency campaign to ensure Afghanistan does not once again become a 

sanctuary for transnational extremists. Our forces are part of a 49-nation international coalition, led by the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), 

and united behind President Karzai’s goal of transitioning the lead of security tasks 

from the international community to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. In 

full partnership with the Afghan Government, we are inflicting unprecedented damage on al Qaeda (AQ) and associated extremist groups—a reality recently affirmed 

by President Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Annual Review. Moreover, we confound 

our enemies by demonstrating our unambiguous commitment to our long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan. 

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, we continue supporting Pakistan’s military efforts 

against extremists operating from and threatening that country and Afghanistan, 

while contributing to the broader U.S. goal of growing our strategic partnership 

187 

with Islamabad. The recent U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue and a number of development assistance programs sponsored by the Department of State are good examples of how the United States is attempting to build trust with the Pakistani people and government. 

In Iraq, following 7 years of hard fought gains, we are drawing down our troops 

as we transition full security responsibilities to our Iraqi partners. The enemy in 

Iraq is capable of dramatic attacks but has proven unable to muster a significant 

threat to the Iraqi Government. In coordination with the U.S. Department of State, 

CENTCOM is standing up the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq to conduct sustained security assistance and cooperation activities with the Government of Iraq. 

We are planning an organization manned and positioned to support the long-term 

U.S. objectives in Iraq as determined by the Iraqi and American Governments, in 

order to best advance our civilian-led relationship for the future. 

In the broader CENTCOM region, our forces are conducting a theater-wide campaign alongside our partners in pursuit of AQ and its extremist allies. Meanwhile, 

we remain continuously poised and postured to respond to crises and to conduct contingency operations, while continuing to forge partnerships in the region and increase the security capacity of our partners. We continue to rely on our capable and 

flexible amphibious forces. For example, over a 36 hour period last September, the 

15th Marine Expeditionary Unit delivered aid to the flood-ravaged people of Pakistan, provided close air support from the skies over Afghanistan, and rescued pirated crews in the Gulf of Aden. Three months later, two-thirds of our Marines Expeditionary Unit deployed to Afghanistan on 3 day’s notice. 

OVERVIEW OF THE CENTCOM AOR

Nature of the AOR 

The CENTCOM AOR is comprised of 20 countries spanning over 4 million square 

miles in 3 diverse subregions from Egypt and the Levant, to the Arabian Peninsula 

(including the Gulf nations), and Central and South Asia. These regions are home 

to a half-billion people practicing all of the world’s major religions and speaking 

more than 18 major languages. Several countries with economic challenges have 

burgeoning populations—184 million people in Pakistan, 80 million in Egypt, and 

77 million in Iran. In 12 of the 20 countries in the region, 30 or more percent of 

the population is between the ages of 15 and 24 (at 39 percent, Yemen ranks at 

the top in this category). In most of those countries, another 30 percent of the overall population is under 15. This youth bulge represents tomorrow’s future leadership 

and the region’s greatest challenge in terms of education, employment and expectations. 

The CENTCOM AOR is a region of rich history, distinct culture, and great potential, encompassing the proud traditions of a wide variety of ethnic groups, including: 

Arab, Azeri, Baluch, Gilaki, Hazara, Kurd, Lur, Mazandarani, Qashqai, Pashtun, 

Persian, Talysh, Turkmen, and Uzbek, among others. The AOR contains more than 

half of the world’s proven oil reserves and nearly half of its natural gas. As a result, 

the region contains some of the world’s busiest trading routes linking Europe, Africa, and East Asia to the Gulf. This trade is essential to continued global economic 

prosperity and growth. The region’s trading routes contain three of the world’s 

major maritime choke points, including the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and 

the Bab al Mandeb Strait joining the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. But while the 

region contains abundant energy resources, supplies of water and the availability 

of arable land are limited and increasingly scarce. 

External Influences on the CENTCOM AOR 

The region retains its historical tradition as a social, economic, and cultural crossroads, attracting nations and non-state actors seeking to advance their interests and 

influence regional events. Among a host of external influences on the CENTCOM 

AOR, the most significant include: 

• Middle East Peace: Lack of progress in achieving comprehensive Middle 

East peace affects U.S. and CENTCOM security interests in the region. It 

is one of many issues that is exploited by our adversaries in the region and 

is used as a recruiting tool for extremist groups. The lack of progress also 

creates friction with regional partners and creates political challenges for 

advancing our interests by marginalizing moderate voices in the region. As 

Secretary Gates noted in July 2010, ‘‘the lack of progress in the peace process has provided political ammunition to our adversaries in the Middle East 

and in the region, and . . . progress in this arena will enable us not only 

to perhaps get others to support the peace process, but also support us in 

our efforts to try and impose effective sanctions against Iran.’’ In December 

188 

2010, Secretary Clinton observed ‘‘the conflict between Israel and Palestine 

and between Israel and its Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an 

obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all of the people in the region.’’ 

By contrast, substantive progress on Middle East peace would improve 

CENTCOM’s opportunities to work with our regional partners and support 

multilateral security efforts. Speaking about the need for Middle East peace 

at the Manama Dialogue in December 2010, King Abdullah of Jordan observed ‘‘Our region will not enjoy security and stability unless we solve the 

Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and Arabs and Israelis find peace. The stakes 

are high. As a solution continues to elude us, faith in negotiations, as the 

only path to peace and justice, is eroding. If hope is killed, radical forces 

will prevail. The region will sink into more vicious warfare and instability 

. . . threatening security far beyond the borders of the Middle East.’’ 

• Bordering Powers. China, Russia, Turkey, and India—each of which lie 

outside but border the CENTCOM region—represent four great gravitational forces influencing various countries in the AOR. China pursues its 

many energy-related interests throughout the region, extending influence 

from its traditional partnership with Pakistan, to a $3.5 billion investment 

in Afghanistan’s Aynak Copper Mine, to building pipelines for oil and gas 

from Kazakhstan to Turkmenistan. Chinese activities in the region may 

begin to compete with the regional interests of Russia, which maintains a 

network of security, economic, and social ties with Central Asian nations 

and beyond. India’s influence impacts the strategic calculations of Pakistan 

and, to some extent, virtually every other country in the CENTCOM AOR. 

Turkey increasingly asserts its interests in the region in keeping with its 

emergence as a considerable force within the international community. All 

four of these nations have unique relations with Iran, affecting the international approach to the Iranian situation. We remain attentive to these 

dynamics as we seek to ensure that we work effectively across U.S. Government and combatant command seams to improve our unity of effort. 

• Somalia. State failure in Somalia has enabled extremist and criminal elements to proliferate and spread northward into the Horn of Africa and 

Yemen and other areas of the CENTCOM AOR. At the same time, widespread poverty in Somalia creates incentives for young men to pursue the 

lucrative enterprise of piracy. Additionally, lack of governance permits extremists to freely migrate to Yemen, providing opportunities to al Qaeda in 

the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In the past year, the Somalia-based terrorist group al-Shabaab successfully maintained control of most of southern 

Somalia and radicalized factions of this group have sought alignment with 

AQ in the Arabian Peninsula and in Pakistan. 

U.S. Interests in the Region 

Given the centrality and volatility of the CENTCOM AOR, the United States and 

nations around the world retain significant interests in the region. Among others, 

significant U.S. interests in the region include: 

• Security of U.S. citizens and the U.S. Homeland 

• Regional stability 

• Promotion of effective and legitimate governance, human rights, the rule 

of law, and sustained economic growth and opportunity, and 

• Free flow of commerce and trade within the region, through strategic 

maritime chokepoints, and via land-based trade routes to international 

markets 

Threats to U.S. Interests in the Region 

Violence, instability, and underdevelopment represent the primary threats to U.S. 

interests in the region. Some areas face uneven or even dismal economic development, often coupled with endemic corruption. Social and economic friction have led 

to or exacerbated a number of deep-rooted and longstanding disputes over territory, 

resources, and power, many of which remain unresolved due to a lack of adequate 

security arrangements on the local or national level. Some areas will face increasing 

competition for food, water, mineral deposits, oil, and other natural resources. The 

region is also defined by tensions and sectarian rivalries between many ethnic, tribal, and religious groups. Such conditions create the potential for broader violence, 

particularly in the absence of effective governance and indigenous security forces, 

ultimately giving rise to violent extremist organizations that have attacked us and 

our friends. We have seen the dangers present within a security vacuum, where institutions fail to facilitate mediation, partnership-building, and open dialogue between feuding groups, or to put down violent extremists. 

189 

Connecting Our Strategic Challenges 

The challenges of the CENTCOM AOR are inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing—and thus cannot be treated separately. We have seen a symbiosis, for example, between extremist groups and other factions that, in aggregate, tend to 

strengthen each other and which, if left unchecked, tend to threaten wider areas 

of territory and the stability of civilian governments. Areas in the CENTCOM region, especially those with a rapidly expanding population of youth, are left vulnerable to (and often become the victim of) a worsening spiral of conditions, whereby 

young people forego meager, but legitimate opportunities for employment and turn, 

instead, to a range of criminal activities, including piracy, arms smuggling, human 

trafficking, and narcotics—fueling violent extremist organizations bent on destroying the lives of innocent people. State and non-state actors operating with malign 

intent can readily exploit such conditions, with the most dangerous scenarios involving a mix of insufficient governance, weapons proliferation—especially Weapons of 

Mass Destruction (WMD)—the influence of hostile states, and the free flow of extremist elements across national borders as well as free range in cyberspace. In 

some cases, disenchantment with globalization’s efforts coupled with a desire to belong to a movement with a clarion call of purpose can provide the excitement for 

young men (and increasingly women) to take on a violent role in an extremist organization. 

PRINCIPAL TASKS

In light of these many challenges, we continuously assess our strategic and operational approaches in order to achieve our desired national interests of security, stability, and prosperity in the CENTCOM AOR. CENTCOM is focused on the following tasks: 

• Supporting the Mission in Afghanistan 

• Partnering with Pakistan 

• Countering the Destabilizing Activities of Iran 

• Enabling Transition in Iraq 

• Strengthening Partnerships in Central Asia 

• Building Partner Capacity and Pursuing Cooperative Activities 

• Disrupting Violent Extremist Organizations 

• Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction 

• Countering Piracy 

Supporting the Mission in Afghanistan 

Instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan 

Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked, connected by a porous border 

region historically providing free movement and safe haven to groups traversing the 

Durand Line. The senior leadership of AQ and associated extremists groups—groups 

that are intent on carrying out attacks on innocent civilians worldwide—plan, prepare, and direct operations from this region, making it of critical interest to the security of the United States and our allies. Currently AQ in the border region is 

under the most intense pressure they have experienced since 2001. 

A Clear Objective and a Sound Strategy 

With our NATO and coalition partners, we are working to achieve our core goal 

of preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a sanctuary for al Qaeda and 

associated transnational extremist groups. President Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan 

Annual Review affirmed the core elements of our strategy in Afghanistan, the first 

imperative of which is to improve the overall security environment and to reduce 

violence levels in Afghanistan. After regaining the initiative from the enemy, our 

forces act as a bulwark behind which the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) 

and the roots of Afghan governance can grow. 

Aiming Toward a Common Strategic Vision 

Our military objectives and strategy in Afghanistan support the developing strategic vision between the political leadership of the United States and Afghanistan, 

as reflected in Vice President Biden’s comments alongside President Karzai in January: ‘‘It is not our intention to govern or to nation-build. As President Karzai often 

points out, this is the responsibility of the Afghan people, and they are fully capable 

of it. We stand ready to help you in that effort. We will continue to stand ready 

to help you in that effort after 2014.’’ Success in Afghanistan is an Afghan security 

force able to protect the people with a government that meets the needs of the people and prevents safe haven for international terrorists. 

190 

The Campaign Plan 

We have increased efforts in virtually every facet of the comprehensive yet focused civil-military campaign in Afghanistan. As one part of that effort, we have executed an unprecedented pace of counterterrorist operations to capture or kill insurgents using enhanced intelligence largely enabled by conventional ground forces. 

Our efforts range from major combat operations (in Helmand and elsewhere, for example), special mission unit operations allowing no safe haven to the enemy, and 

concurrent bottom-up and top-down initiatives (exemplified by expanding Village 

Stability Operations). 

The breadth of our current operations squelches the enemy’s ability to recuperate 

and threaten the Afghan people. Our forces have partnered with the Afghan security forces to increase their capabilities; to expand border security; to conduct robust 

detainee operations and rule of law activities; to address and counter corruption by 

working with the Afghan Government to target criminal patronage networks; and 

to interdict the flow of illegal weapons and narcotics to deny criminals and insurgent groups a critical source of their operational revenue. We are capitalizing on our 

expanded security footprint in the winter months to retain the initiative, suffocate 

the enemy, and increase momentum into the start of the traditional fighting season. 

Ultimately, we are working to create an Afghanistan that is hostile to our enemies 

and denies them the support of the population, making it untenable for insurgents 

to return from their winter safe havens. This is the essence of counterinsurgency 

operations. While we will face tough fighting this spring, the enemy’s situation continues to worsen day-by-day. 

The Right Inputs 

The overall international effort in Afghanistan has transformed from an economy 

of force mission 3 years ago to a focused and reinforced civil-military counterinsurgency campaign, largely assuming its full strength in September 2010. U.S., 

coalition, and partner nations have worked hard to apply the right mix of organizations, approach, and resources in Afghanistan. Last year at this time, we had less 

than 270,000 American, coalition and Afghan forces on the ground in Afghanistan. 

This year, we have more than 370,000 total security forces (American, coalition and 

Afghan) in the fight, and 109,000 Afghan security forces are projected to be added 

by this time next year. Beyond the additional organizations put in place on the 

ground in Afghanistan, the Pentagon’s Joint Staff Pakistan Afghanistan Coordination Cell and CENTCOM’s Afghanistan Pakistan Center of Excellence are better organizing our resources at home and providing mission-critical reach-back support to 

deployed forces. The CENTCOM Center of Excellence will provide the cadre of regional experts for the long haul as we transfer to Afghan lead in 2014 and commit 

to a long-term partnership with Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Enemy Violence and Coalition Progress 

Despite the enemy’s efforts to disrupt progress in Afghanistan, we have achieved 

the major military objectives we set out to accomplish in 2010 and made considerable progress with respect to governance and development. As Secretary Gates 

noted after his December 2010 trip to Afghanistan: ‘‘The bottom line is that in the 

last 12 months, we have come a long way. Frankly, progress—even in the last few 

months—has exceeded my expectations.’’ We recognize, however, that progress and 

violence coexist in this type of war. Our enemies continue to conduct attacks heavily 

focused on non-combatants and to intimidate the population and maintain relevancy, albeit decreasing, in newly-cleared areas. Enemy-initiated violence is increasingly localized. From November 2010 until 31 January 2011, 57 percent of the 

violence in Afghanistan has been concentrated in 12 of 401 districts. Notably, the 

key districts of Maiwand in Kandahar Province and Lashkar Gah in Helmand Province—which are critical to our efforts to link the Helmand and Kandahar security 

bubbles—are no longer among the top-12 most violent districts. The elevated levels 

of violence is less a reflection of increased insurgent capability and more the result 

of increased Afghan and ISAF operations in areas previously considered insurgent 

strongholds. The enemy is not adapting well to this development. While we make 

progress, our enemies continue to make grievous mistakes, to include: purposefully 

killing innocent Afghans; leaders fleeing into Pakistan and leaving subordinates to 

fight; and killing nearly 5,000 Afghans in the first 10 months of 2010 (more than 

three quarters of all civilian casualties in that period). We highlight the ruthless 

actions of the enemy, and in recent months Afghan leaders and human rights 

groups have stepped forward to condemn insurgent-initiated violence. 

191 

Road to Transition in 2014 

We and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other Coalition and 

ANSF partners are improving security for the Afghan population, increasing the 

size and quality of the ANSF, and supporting efforts to improve governance and development throughout Afghanistan. At last November’s NATO Summit in Lisbon, 

we undercut a key pillar of the Taliban’s strategy by affirming the long-term resolve 

of the United States and international community to accomplish the mission in Afghanistan. We are united in support of President Karzai’s goal of Afghan forces assuming security responsibilities from the international community by the end of 

2014. In partnership with the Afghan Government, we are working toward President Obama’s goal of beginning a drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July of this year at a pace determined by conditions on the ground. The 

process for identifying, assessing, and transitioning areas of Afghanistan is based 

on recommendations from the Joint Afghan-NATO Inteqal (Transition) Board 

(JANIB) to the Government of Afghanistan. ISAF is working closely with JANIB as 

we begin the process of transition and methodically move forward in our campaign. 

ANSF Support 

Most importantly in the security arena, our investment in the ANSF is working 

and the growth of the force is on track. The remarkable quantity growth of ANSF 

(rising by an unprecedented 70,000 personnel while facing a determined enemy) is 

now being matched by quality improvements in the force. NATO Training MissionAfghanistan is supporting the efforts of the Afghan Government to build leaders at 

all levels, to increase literacy, and to improve capability and training capacity. Combined, these programs increase the quality of the force, ultimately helping to reduce 

attrition, enhance recruitment, and contribute to sustainability. Meanwhile, we are 

helping the ANSF to overcome remaining challenges in the recruitment of medical 

staff and other enablers, as well as increasing the participation of females and recruiting more southern Pashtuns. In league with Admiral Stavridis (Commander, 

U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe), we are trying 

to reduce our shortage of trainers. 

ANSF in the Lead 

The ANSF is increasingly in the lead of operations in many areas of Afghanistan. 

In southern Afghanistan, the ANSF took the lead in mid-2010 for an operation in 

Malajat, Kandahar City—with support from ISAF for additional combat power, close 

air support and other enablers—resulting in the capture or killing of several dozen 

insurgents and the establishment of a new model for Afghan-led operations. The 

ANSF also provided well over half of the combat power for the latter phases of Operation Hamkari, clearing the insurgency’s most vital safe havens in southern Afghanistan. In northern Afghanistan, Afghan National Army and Police conducted 

joint operations throughout December 2010 with ISAF forces in northern Balkh 

Province, and Afghan National Police have demonstrated considerable capacity by 

capturing insurgents and discovering caches of weapons in U.S.-Afghan partnered 

operations in Kunduz Province. Additionally, ANSF now leads security efforts in 14 

of 15 of Kabul’s districts, and have executed coordinated security plans for several 

events, including the June Consultative Peace Jirga, the July Kabul conference, August Independence Day events and the January seating of the Parliament all without incident, at odds with the insurgents’ claims that it would seek to disrupt them. 

Local Security Initiatives 

Beyond national level security efforts, the Afghan Government has steadily expanded the local security initiatives designed to squeeze extremist elements from 

their traditional safe havens and cut off their lines of communication. Clearing operations in key terrain districts have shifted operational-level momentum and altered 

village-level calculus in remote areas. Local elders in dozens of villages throughout 

Afghanistan have conducted jirgas to assume increased responsibility for their own 

security, and U.S. and coalition forces have supported the Ministry of Interior’s efforts to fortify Afghan villages. The Afghan Local Police (ALP) program represents 

one of the most promising endeavors to wrest local areas from insurgent influence. 

The ALP and other Village Stability Operation initiatives work from the bottom-up 

and the top-down, connecting the support of local communities with the capacity of 

the central government and coalition partnerships. The Taliban has revealed their 

concerns that the ALP represents a direct threat to their existence and operational 

ability. Today, there are a total of 63 ALP sites—24 of which the Ministry of Interior has site validated—and approximately 4,000 ALP are now assigned. These local 

efforts buttress security in areas with limited ANSF presence, complementing the 

progress made elsewhere (and in ALP locations) by conventional ISAF and ANSF. 

192 

Given the initial success of the ALP program, the Ministry of Interior wants to increase the program beyond the current projected number of 10,000 with our reinforced special operations forces providing oversight and mentoring. 

Popular Support 

Since 2003, AQ and the Taliban have tried with some success to expand their 

strength and influence in much of the country. In 2010, coalition and Afghan forces 

applied additional resources in all aspects of the campaign to change the security 

landscape in much of the country. As security improves in key areas and we are 

better able to protect the people, Afghanistan’s population has increasingly supported efforts to bring development and basic services to their areas. In recent 

months, in particular, Afghan security forces have assumed more of the load in the 

fight, village elders have encouraged young men to join the Afghan police, and insurgents in several areas have begun to put down their weapons and integrate into 

society. Reintegration efforts are bearing fruit due to the concerted effort of the Afghan Government both at the local and national level and the support of coalition 

forces (aided, of course, by the momentum in our campaign). In terms of reconciliation, the process is led by Afghans, with ISAF partnering with ANSF to set security conditions and dash the enemy’s hopes of victory. These are progressive steps 

toward building irreversible momentum in our overall campaign. 

Rule of Law Progress 

Unlike our enemies, we continue to support the legitimate efforts of the Afghan 

Government to improve the Rule of Law for Afghanistan’s more than 29 million inhabitants. U.S. Forces-Afghanistan’s Joint Task Force/Combined Interagency Task 

Force 435 and our Afghan partners have achieved considerable progress in the last 

year: transferring detainees to the state-of-the-art detention facility in Parwan; implementing transparent and robust internment processes; strengthening judicial 

guarantees for detainees; and expanding robust reintegration programs that include 

literacy and vocational training. Moreover, we have established robust efforts to 

combat corruption at all levels, even as we implement best practices to reduce the 

challenge of corruption in contracting and in every aspect of our campaign. 

Infrastructure Initiatives 

We are also pursuing infrastructure initiatives—for example, building roads, rail, 

and installing electrical grids and transmission lines—to capitalize on Afghanistan’s 

potential as a Central Asian economic hub. A regional transport network facilitates 

the creation of private sector jobs and provides additional incentives for reconcilable 

elements of the insurgency to abandon the fight. Ultimately, such economic development reduces the need for U.S. forces and underpins long-term transition activities 

and is fundamental to a sound counterinsurgency campaign. 

Congressional Support 

Congressional leadership continues to play a critical role in enabling our efforts 

in Afghanistan, including the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF), the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), the authorization of an infrastructure program, and the Afghanistan Reintegration Program (ARP). Above all, we rely 

on the ASFF to enable the eventual full transition of security tasks to a robust, 

trained ANSF capable of preventing the resurgence of insurgent safe havens in Afghanistan. In terms of the CERP, our Commanders on the ground continually comment that the CERP funds are invaluable in carrying out operations toward our 

strategic objectives in Afghanistan, undercutting the enemy’s information operations 

and legitimacy. In 2010, CERP funded more than 8,300 projects, including, for example, transportation initiatives to improve freedom of movement throughout Afghanistan; agriculture production across Afghanistan involving the repair and improvement of irrigation canals and wells and providing farmers with higher-quality 

seeds and fertilizers; education projects such as the services of more than 200 local 

Afghan education outreach coordinators; and water and sanitation projects to install 

three high-production groundwater wells that will increase the accessibility of potable water to over 850,000 Afghans in Kandahar City. Apart from CERP, the new 

Afghanistan infrastructure program enables us to work together with the U.S. State 

Department to undertake high-priority infrastructure projects to address critical 

needs for Afghan security, governance, and development. The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund will be the vehicle for the Defense Department’s contribution to this 

integrated program. To enable our reintegration efforts, we continue to execute the 

ARP using funds in support for the Government of Afghanistan’s Peace and Reintegration Program. 

193 

Challenges Ahead 

Much work remains to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. We face a resilient and 

determined enemy. The United States and the international community are positioned to favorably influence reform and synchronize Rule of Law development to 

counter corruption within the Afghan Government. Despite considerable progress in 

many areas in 2010, we recognize that there will be hard work ahead as we continue to fight along with our Afghan partners. But, by progressively and steadily 

executing our sound and validated strategy, I believe we can set the conditions to 

succeed in Afghanistan. 

Partnering with Pakistan 

Strategic Partnership 

We recognize, of course, that any solution in Afghanistan must address the regional context. CENTCOM supports President Obama’s goal of strengthening the 

U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership through nascent yet improving military-to-military cooperation with Pakistan. As Secretary Clinton and other leadership has 

noted, we must concentrate on the efforts Pakistan is taking. They have made very 

significant moves for going after the terrorist within their own country. 

Over the past year, CENTCOM has strengthened and deepened our security cooperation with Pakistan by supporting our counterparts through CENTCOM’s Office 

of Defense Representative-Pakistan (ODRP). ODRP is focused on assisting Pakistan’s counterinsurgency efforts and this past year, led the U.S. interagency effort 

to provide disaster relief and Humanitarian Assistance to areas affected by the 

flooding. Additionally, in support of our long-term partnership with Pakistan, the 

CENTCOM Center of Excellence continues to deploy subject matter experts and provide unique reach-back support to ODRP and Special Operations Command-Pakistan (Forward) in order to deepen analysis and to provide greater interagency fidelity on critical issues. 

Threats in Pakistan 

The potential for instability in Pakistan and the free movement of extremists in 

the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region continue to pose a serious threat to regional 

and global security. Pakistan’s tribal areas remain the principal sanctuary for al 

Qaeda and a safe haven for other extremist groups, enabling them to threaten the 

population and coalition forces in Afghanistan, the people and government in Pakistan, and U.S. and Western interests globally. The Afghanistan-Pakistan region also 

faces significant humanitarian concerns, including refugees and Internally Displaced 

Persons (IDPs) from decades of conflict. Additionally, roughly three million Afghan 

refugees still live in Pakistan, having been displaced by the Russian invasion into 

Afghanistan 30 years ago. 

U.S. Humanitarian Assistance 

Last summer’s historic flooding in Pakistan was devastating—effectively equivalent in scope to flooding the entire East Coast of the United States. The United 

States responded to the floods by providing historic levels of Humanitarian Assistance. In all, U.S. rotary and fixed wing aircraft transported more than 40,000 displaced persons and delivered more than 26 million pounds of aid supplies to the people of Pakistan. U.S. helicopters flew more than 5,000 flight hours during the relief 

operation. The U.S. Government provided Zodiac boat kits to the Pakistan Military 

for use in rescue operations, and provided eight 50 meter bridges to replace bridges 

swept away by the floods. 

U.S. Support to Pakistan Military 

On the security front, continued U.S. assistance is critical to enabling Pakistan 

to conduct effective counterinsurgency operations. Our forces carry out important 

partnership and engagement activities in support of the Pakistan military’s improving counterinsurgency capabilities. As one important example, ODRP supports Pakistan’s Frontier Scouts by providing training support and enabling further counterinsurgency operations. U.S. personnel also assist in the procurement of materials 

and equipment needed to build infrastructure in support of education, power, and 

food. 

Pakistan Operations and Sacrifice 

Pakistan’s military has made impressive strides in combating militants in the 

FATA, while dealing with the effects of large-scale flooding that devastated much 

of the country. Over the last year, the enemy has lost battlespace to the Pakistan 

military’s sustained efforts to move against the enemy strongholds. Pakistan’s military has suffered more than 2,500 casualties (enduring more than 500 personnel 

194 

killed in action and more than 2,000 wounded in action) since the start of offensive 

operations against extremist elements in the Khyber Pashtunkhwa and the FATA. 

Since June 2009, the Pakistan Military has been involved in nearly continuous operations against militants in the Khyber Pashtunkhwa and the FATA. In total, the 

Pakistan Military has deployed upwards of 140,000 troops along Pakistan’s western 

border with Afghanistan, a significant portion of which were drawn from Pakistan’s 

border with India. 

Regional Context 

Our efforts to support Pakistan fit well within the broader regional context. We 

recognize that Pakistan’s longstanding tensions with India are an important part 

of Pakistan’s strategic decisionmaking calculus and military force posture. However, 

the presence of extremist sanctuaries in Pakistan significantly impacts our progress 

in Afghanistan, and with the Pakistan military’s help we are taking important steps 

to improve cross-border operations. To address existing challenges along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, coordination between ISAF, Afghan security forces, and the 

Pakistan Military continues to improve, especially in the area of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). In Regional Command East, we are planning 

coordinated operations with the Pakistan Military. The Pakistan Military recently 

began clearing insurgent safe havens in Mohmand Agency across the border from 

Kunar Province—where insurgents have initiated a number of attacks to undermine 

recent security gains in Afghanistan. While Pakistan’s operations are acting as the 

‘‘hammer’’ on their side of the border, combined Afghan and ISAF forces are poised 

to defeat displaced insurgents, acting as the ‘‘anvil.’’ Afghan Border Police and other 

combined security forces are manning outposts along the border and armed drones 

and close combat aviation are monitoring previously-identified mountain passes that 

insurgents will likely use as they seek sanctuary in Afghanistan. 

Congressional Support 

Multi-year security assistance is critical to our efforts in Pakistan. We appreciate 

continued congressional support for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities 

Fund, which serves as a key enabler of the Pakistan’s military operations against 

extremists. The fund also provides for a range of partnership activities with potentially transformational long-term effects on our relationship with Pakistan if they 

can be sustained. 

Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities 

Iran’s Destabilizing Activities 

In view of Iran’s destabilizing behavior and its persistent pursuit of a nuclear 

weapons capability, the Iranian regime’s current stance represents the greatest 

long-term threat to the region. Iran continues to rebuff efforts for engagement, further alienating and isolating itself from much of the rest of the region and from 

much of the international community. The actions of Iran’s leadership squander the 

potential of its own educated populace and sacrifice the free exchange of ideas for 

the short-sighted interest of preserving an increasingly harsh and oppressive regime. Recently, Tehran equated the Egyptian protests to the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, making a fanciful and wholly false connection. 

The Iranian regime relies on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force 

(IRGC–QF) to extend influence and create instability across the region through persuasion, coercion, aggression, and targeted messaging. In fact, Iran continues to 

fund, arm, train, and equip a network of agents, surrogates, and proxies in Iraq, 

Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Afghanistan and elsewhere across the region. In the pivotal 

region of the Levant, Iran seeks to expand its influence, in part by enabling Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas in order to weaken legitimate governance, limit economic development, and undermine security partnerships. Additionally, Iran delivers weapons and provides military training to surrogates in an effort to target Israel 

(a nation Iran’s leadership have vowed to destroy) and undercut the Middle East 

Peace Process. Of urgent concern, the IRGC–QF continues to equip militants in Iraq 

and Afghanistan that attack U.S. and coalition forces and undermine stability and 

governance in each of these countries. The recent January 2011 large caliber Improvised Rocket Assisted Mortar (IRAM) attack against U.S. forces in Iraq demonstrated Iran’s malicious intent, and ability to escalate violence when they desire. 

Iran’s Pursuit of Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Weapons 

In spite of a fourth round of United Nations sponsored sanctions, Iran appears 

determined to mature its nuclear weapons program—an ambition that could lead to 

the proliferation of illicit nuclear materials and spark a nuclear arms race in the 

region. Admiral Mullen reinforced this point in December 2010, observing: ‘‘I see 

195 

Iran continuing on this path to develop nuclear weapons, and I believe that developing and achieving that goal would be very destabilizing to the region.’’ Iran also 

continues to expand and improve its arsenal of over 2,200 ballistic missiles and 

long-range rockets, and of approximately 225 fixed and mobile launchers, making 

it the largest ballistic missile and long-range rocket force in the Middle East. Iran 

can use these ballistic missiles and rockets, combined with increasing naval capabilities, to threaten global commerce. 

Countering Destabilizing Iranian Activities and Keeping Peace with our Partners 

Firmly nested within the broader approach of the U. S. Government toward Iran, 

CENTCOM is committed to countering Iran’s destabilizing and coercive activities by 

building confidence with our partners in the region. As one example, we are working 

together with our Gulf Cooperation Council partners and other nations to advance 

Integrated Air and Missile Defense. We also conduct activities to reassure our 

friends in the region that we are with them, preclude conflict, and deter Iran’s destabilizing activities, while at the same time standing ready to conduct contingency 

operations. 

Enabling Transition in Iraq 

Looking Ahead in Iraq 

The year ahead in Iraq presents a significant opportunity for the United States 

to solidify our long-term support to this keystone of regional stability. Our continued 

investment in Iraq is critical at this juncture, especially given the significant commitment we have made in lives and treasure. Now is not the time to be penny wise 

and pound foolish with respect to our mission in Iraq. Nested firmly inside the State 

Department’s vision for an enduring U.S.-Iraq strategic partnership, CENTCOM is 

setting conditions to build on the shared sacrifices between our countries. 

The Situation in Iraq 

Iraq faces lingering ethnic and sectarian mistrust, tensions between political parties, and strained governmental capacity to provide basic services. Al Qaeda in Iraq 

(AQI) remains committed to undermining the Iraqi Government and is capable of 

carrying out orchestrated, high profile attacks. Likewise, Iranian-inspired and 

equipped proxies continue to be a threat to Iraqi security and governance. While the 

security situation in Iraq is vastly improved since the peak of sectarian violence 

there in mid-2007 (violence is currently at all-time lowest levels since 2003), Iraq 

continues to face significant political, economic, and security challenges. Over the 

coming year, several factors will determine Iraq’s strategic direction, including the 

continuing development of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the effectiveness of the nascent governing coalition, and the degree to which the country is influenced by Iran 

and threatened by AQI and Shi’a militia elements. 

U.S. Forces-Iraq 

From now until the end of this year, U.S. Forces-Iraq (USF–I) is continuing to 

partner with ISF during this historic period of transition. USF–I is undertaking a 

range of activities, foremost among these strengthening the ISF, transitioning security-related activities to Iraq and the U.S. interagency, and contributing to border 

management and ministerial development. 

Establishing the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq 

Through USF–I and in partnership with the Embassy country team, we are planning the initial stand-up of the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC–I) in June 

of this year and expect it to be fully operational by this October. OSC–I is the cornerstone of our long-term mission to build partner capacity with the ISF. Additionally, the OSC–I will ensure the continuation of the military-to-military relationships 

that advise, train, and assist Iraqi Security Forces. 

Iraq’s Regional Integration: Iraq is now at a crossroads, poised to emerge as a 

positive force for the region after posing security challenges for its neighbors in past 

decades. Baghdad’s selection as the location to host the Arab League Summit is a 

significant testament to Iraq’s re-emergence in the region. Iraq also accepted Egypt’s 

invitation to participate as an observer in CENTCOM’s largest exercise, Bright Star. 

Jordan has also exerted considerable positive influence in Iraq, training over 1,500 

Iraqi Army officers, a number of Iraqi Air Force pilots, and posting a Jordanian defense attache ́ in Baghdad, in addition to hosting a program to provide extensive 

training to Iraqi police. Additionally, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have aided 

the economic reintegration of Iraq into commercial activity and regularly scheduled 

transportation networks. Finally, the United Arab Emirates have trained Iraqi police officers in a joint program with Japan and Germany. 

196 

Iraq’s constructive integration into the region will also help blunt destabilizing 

Iranian influence. If left vulnerable to Tehran’s meddling, Iraq’s sovereign future 

would be imperiled. At the same time that Iran reconstructs shrines, provides electrical power, and constructs schools and clinics in Iraq, Iran also undermines Iraqi 

political processes, facilitates violence against innocent Iraqi civilians, and provides 

lethal support to extremist groups targeting U.S. forces. For the United States and 

the international community, a sovereign Iraq under a stable and inclusive government is fundamental to regional stability. 

Congressional Support 

The support of Congress is critical to facilitating an effective transition in Iraq 

and in setting the conditions for an enduring U.S.-Iraq partnership. We seek congressional support in obtaining the appropriate authorities in fiscal year 2011 to 

begin immediate facility and site work for the OSC–I to reach full operating capability by October 2011. This is an area of critical need as we work to meet our aggressive timelines. The Iraqi Security Forces Fund (ISFF) critically enables Iraq to 

set a foundation for its internal and external defense capabilities and provides Iraqi 

Minister of Interior police forces the training and equipment necessary to maintain 

internal security without assistance from the Ministry of Defense. Additionally, the 

ISFF enables Iraqi Army counterinsurgency capabilities and enhances cooperation 

between the government of Iraq and Kurdish police forces to ensure the consistency 

of police training and equipment standards throughout Iraq. 

Strengthening Central Asian Partnerships 

In Central Asia, CENTCOM is committed to strengthening relationships based on 

those shared interests and goals that we have in common with the Central Asian 

States of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. 

While our nations seek to improve broader economic conditions, CENTCOM is working with our partners to address the migration of extremists in certain areas of Central Asia and to counter the trade of illicit narcotics and human trafficking. Often 

these activities are interrelated. 

Northern Distribution Network: Over the past 2 years, the development of a robust transportation network has been the most expansive area of cooperation with 

our Central Asian partners. Our collective agreements with Kyrgyzstan, 

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan together constitute a logistical system 

termed the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) used to supply coalition operations in Afghanistan and taking pressure off the Pakistan lines of supply. This diverse network supports the transit of about half of all sustainment cargo to Afghanistan using a variety of sea, air, and land routes. The remaining supplies are flown 

directly into Afghanistan, trans-shipped from sealift to airlift, or arrive via surface 

routes through Pakistan. Ultimately, the development and expansion of the NDN 

and its associated infrastructure will facilitate long-term economic growth in the region, representing a new opportunity for export of Central and South Asia raw materials and exchange of goods in the international marketplace. 

Enhancing the Northern Distribution Network 

Future NDN efforts are centered on partnering with certain countries to permit 

two-way flow of all types of wheeled vehicles and associated repair parts, and to increase shipment of cargo already permitted on the NDN (such as building materials). In terms of airlift, Manas Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan is a key Central 

Asian location that supports aerial refueling and passenger transit missions. 

Building Partner Capacity and Pursuing Cooperative Activities 

Cooperation Based on Shared Interests 

The investment we make in our military-to-military engagement to build the capabilities of our partner nation security forces is a critical component of the wholeof-government efforts in the region. These cost-effective efforts properly place security responsibilities in the hands of other sovereign governments and help to prevent conflicts and instability. With a long-term perspective, CENTCOM carries out 

partnership activities designed to build strong security capacity and relationships 

with our friends in the region. 

Training 

CENTCOM’s training and exchanges with our partners are critical to our regional 

cooperation. CENTCOM has spearheaded the establishment of several Training 

Centers of Excellence hosted in partner nations, providing world-class mission-specific training for our allies and partners. Existing Centers of Excellence include an 

Air Warfare Center and an Integrated Air and Missile Defense Center in the United 

Arab Emirates (UAE); the King Abdullah Special Operations Training Center in 

197 

Jordan; a NATO Partnership for Peace Combat Engineering and INTERPOL 

Counter Narcotics Center hosted in Kazakhstan; and an extensive array of associations with the other countries’ Professional Military Education programs. Developing Centers include a U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) Maritime 

Center hosted in Bahrain; a new Explosives Ordinance Disposal school with future 

Center of Excellence in Saudi Arabia; a proposed Near East South Asia (NESA) 

branch Center of Excellence in Bahrain; and the Gulf Region Communications, Computer, Command, and Control (C4) Center of Excellence hosted by the Bahraini 

Minister of Communications. 

Exchanges 

CENTCOM manages and conducts focused engagement programs with specific 

partner nations located throughout the AOR in support of the CENTCOM Theater 

Security Cooperation Plan. The objective is to understand our friend’s views and to 

strengthen relationships and regional organizations to defeat violent extremist networks or situations that threaten the security interests of the region and the United 

States. This includes capacity building. Additionally, CENTCOM Headquarters in 

Tampa, FL is host to over 193 coalition partners from 58 allied nations who make 

significant contributions to our efforts, and receive invaluable experience interacting 

with both U.S. forces and our allies. 

Equipping 

We also provide equipment and security assistance to our regional partners. These 

activities are among the most important practical steps we can take to demonstrate 

CENTCOM’s enduring commitment to our partners—and to enable interoperable 

forces in the fight. I ask for continued congressional support of these efforts, including Global Train and Equip, as well as the many security assistance programs managed by the Department of State, including Foreign Military Financing, Foreign 

Military Sales, and International Military Education and Training Program. As Admiral Mullen noted in his testimony, our security assistance authorities are inflexible, and process are too cumbersome to effectively address today’s security challenges in a timely manner. We encourage ongoing efforts to streamline the Foreign 

Military Financing process in order to cement training and sustainment relations 

with our critical partners. Accomplishing our mission at CENTCOM requires that 

we demonstrate our responsiveness to the requests of our partners when we alone 

should not carry the increasing costs of defending the international order. 

Exercises 

The final pillar of CENTCOM’s partnership activities is our military exercise program. Exercises bolster interoperability between our forces and those of our partners. Each year, our component commands conducts more than 50 exercises with 

our partner nations in the region, including 5 overseen by CENTCOM component 

commands. 

The Long-Term Value of our Exercise Program 

The Combatant Commanders Exercise and Engagement program provides critical 

support to CENTCOM joint training support, exercise and engagement requirements in support of national-level strategic priorities, readiness, and building partnerships within the AOR. Since the beginning of our operations in Afghanistan in 

2001, CENTCOM has seen reductions in our exercise program due to ongoing combat operations within the AOR. As combat operations are completed or reduced, restoring sufficient funding levels is critical to support engagement activities with our 

partners. Without restored funding levels, CENTCOM could lose the advantages 

gained from a robust exercise engagement program, affecting future access and 

presence within the AOR and our Theater Security Cooperation Plan. In the interim, we will work imaginatively to make the best use of our exercise budget. 

Disrupting Violent Extremist Organizations across the Region 

Terrorists in False Religious Garb 

The CENTCOM AOR is home to numerous Violent Extremist Organizations 

(VEO) comprising a network that, in its own right, represents a considerable threat 

to the U.S. Homeland, U.S. and Western interests, and our allies in the region. The 

most significant of these is AQ. AQ seeks to impose its morally bankrupt ideology 

worldwide, and has regional affiliates across the Arabian Peninsula, in Iraq, the 

Maghreb, and in Somalia (al-Shabaab), with associates including Tehrik-e Taliban 

Pakistan (TTP), the Afghanistan Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT). The growing cross-organizational cooperation between VEOs replicates mafia syndicates. The 

organizational success of VEOs is frequently abetted by operating with near impunity in cyberspace. 

198 

Attacking VEOs 

Along with our interagency and regional partners, CENTCOM continues to develop and implement theater-wide responses in the cyber and physical domains to 

disrupt and degrade militant networks. Over the past year, interagency efforts have 

resulted in designating al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and TTP as foreign terrorist organizations, obtaining a number of Treasury designations, Justice 

Department arrest warrants, Interpol notices, and placing over 100 individuals and 

entities on the U.S. Department of Commerce Denial List. Thanks to Congressional 

funding, the Defense Department Rewards Program has been used by commanders 

in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2010 to capture more than 700 high-value 

individuals, insurgents and terrorists. 

Preventing Security Vacuums 

In the long-term, CENTCOM is working as a part of an integrated civil-military 

effort to prevent security vacuums that foment extremism and provide sanctuary to 

VEOs. 

In Yemen, we have forged a tight bond between CENTCOM and our Embassy 

team in Sana’a to address the heightened threat of AQAP through long-term 

counterterrorism capacity-building. AQAP cemented its role as a viable and enduring threat to the U.S. Homeland by following-up the failed attempt to bomb Northwest Airlines flight 253 on 25 December 2009 with the ‘‘printer cartridge’’ parcel 

bomb plot in late October 2010. Radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi publicly spearheads 

AQAP’s campaign against the West, most notably by creating Inspire magazine in 

an effort to encourage Western-based Muslims and enable ‘‘lone wolf’’ style attacks. 

In Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) has had to navigate a challenging 

environment in which it does not yet have the monopoly of violence in much of the 

country. Our assistance has had substantive impact on the ground to include helping the LAF deploy four brigades to the south since 2006 in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1701—taking up space where Hezbollah 

had been. Additionally we have increased the capacity of the LAF Special Operations Forces that won a hard fought battle in 2007 against the al Qaeda affiliated 

Fatah al-Islam movement in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in Northern Lebanon. The LAF sustained almost 200 killed and 2,000 wounded in this operation. We value our close relationship with the LAF officer corps based on mutual 

respect and confidence. We continue to monitor the government formation process 

in Lebanon and will need to examine the final composition, policies, and behaviors 

of the next government before making any decisions regarding our relationship, including security assistance, while recognizing that continued engagement with the 

LAF is an important step in securing its status as an apolitical, non-sectarian, and 

professional organization. 

In Syria, the regime’s continuing support for terrorist organizations prevents 

CENTCOM from developing a military-to-military relationship and limits the scope 

of U.S. engagement. Consequently, we view the recent return of a U.S. Ambassador 

to Damascus as a vital piece of our regional security architecture. We stand ready 

to support Ambassador Ford’s diplomatic efforts to produce a more constructive relationship with Syria however we can, and we urge the Senate to confirm his nomination so that he may continue his important work beyond 2011. 

Across the region, Theater Security Cooperation activities work against the ability 

of Iran and extremist elements to destabilize the region. Absent these programs, 

there is an increasing potential for security vacuums to arise and open the door to 

greater influence from Iran or violent actors. Our cooperative efforts with regional 

partners are essential to the long-term effort to address these threats. 

Countering the Enemy’s Use of the Information Environment 

Our enemies are using every available lever of the information environment to 

promulgate and reinforce their ideology—and, in league with our interagency partners, CENTCOM is committed to countering the efforts of our adversaries. Our enemies operate within cyberspace (and its associated relevant physical infrastructure) 

to plan, coordinate, recruit, train, equip, execute and garner support for operations 

against the United States, its allies, and interests. The recruitment of Umar Farouk 

Abdullmutallab, the unsuccessful Christmas Day Bomber, demonstrates our adversaries’ ability to reach across borders, promote their narrative, and defy traditional 

military constructs to achieve their objectives. Clearly, in the information age, our 

military must adapt to this new domain of warfare. We ask for the support of Congress to fund our programs that attempt to counter the enemy in the information 

domain, just as we need funding to disrupt violent extremists in the physical domain. 

199 

CENTCOM Activities in the Information Environment 

Consistent with the guidance provided by Secretary Gates last December, we conduct Operation Earnest Voice (OEV), which synchronizes and oversees all of our Information Operations activities. OEV seeks to disrupt recruitment and training of 

suicide bombers; deny safe havens for our adversaries; and counter extremist ideology and propaganda. Full funding of OEV supports all activities associated with 

degrading the enemy narrative, including web engagement and web-based product 

distribution capabilities. The effective engagement of our enemies in cyberspace requires the ability for us to conduct a full-spectrum of traditional military activities 

against them in that domain, including all aspects of Information Operations and 

Strategic Communication. We coordinate with the Joint Staff, the Interagency, the 

Intelligence Community, and our coalition partners to examine the adversary’s use 

of cyberspace and identify techniques, tactics and procedures we can use to counter 

the adversary in the cyber domain. 

Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Risk of Weapons of Mass Destruction 

At CENTCOM, we recognize the serious risk and potentially devastating ramifications of a terrorist group, violent extremist organization, or state actor acquiring, 

proliferating, or using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The nexus between extremist groups, malign state actors, and WMD remains a critical concern throughout the AOR and presents a clear danger to our partners, allies, and the U.S. Homeland. CENTCOM remains vigilant in executing the nonproliferation, counter proliferation, and foreign consequence management pillars of America’s National Strategy for Combating WMD. 

Countering Proliferation and Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Countering the proliferation of WMD-related material is a fundamental aspect of 

CENTCOM’s overall efforts to combat WMD. In concert with our regional partners, 

CENTCOM is involved with the interagency effort to curtail the ability of adversaries to finance the acquisition of WMD-related items and to deny malign actors 

the ability to transport suspect dual-use materials across national borders. To this 

end, CENTCOM plays a key role in containing Iran’s evident drive for nuclear 

weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty by actively enforcing 

United Nations Security Council Resolutions that sanction the Iranian regime. 

CENTCOM also supports the interdiction and counter proliferation framework 

under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). CENTCOM’s mainstay program for 

Combating WMD engagement is the Cooperative Defense Program (CDP). The CDP 

provides a series of bilateral and multilateral engagement activities to improve U.S. 

and partner nation interoperability while strengthening partner nations’ combating 

WMD capabilities. 

Countering Piracy 

The Real and Growing Threat of Piracy 

Somali-based pirates continue to prey upon international shipping in the Gulf of 

Aden, Red Sea, and on the high seas well into the Indian Ocean. Pirates are using 

previously captured vessels as mother ships to conduct successful attacks as far as 

1,400 nautical miles from the Somali coast. The number of successful pirate attacks 

has risen from 42 in 2008, to 51 in 2009, to 68 in 2010. Pirates now hold nearly 

700 hostages for ransom. Multi-million dollar per ship ransoms ensure piracy remains lucrative for pirates and others involved in this criminal enterprise. 

A Model for International Cooperation 

CENTCOM works with international partners to help patrol the region and to 

work with interagency partners to gain the prosecution of captured pirates (though 

we currently lack an international legal framework to detain and prosecute pirates). 

Piracy is a threat to all, and has promoted international military cooperation that 

serves as a model for cooperation in other areas. We acknowledge, however, that 

military action is only one part of the solution, but an essential element nonetheless. NAVCENT coordinates the efforts of over 25 contributing nations to combat piracy at sea and coordinates with European Union (EU) Task Force Atalanta and 

NATO Standing Naval Maritime Group in Operation Ocean Shield. Pakistan is currently in command of Combined Task Force 151, the international coalition to combat piracy. NAVCENT also hosts a monthly Shared Awareness and De-confliction 

(SHADE) conference in Bahrain to foster multi-national cooperation and to encourage maritime industry to adopt best practices to defend vessels against piracy. In 

addition to Coalition, NATO, and EU representation, the conferences also include 

200 

civilian maritime organizations, and delegates from China, Russia, Japan, and 

India. 

STRATEGIC APPROACH

Many of our challenges are interconnected and require comprehensive long-term 

solutions, prompting us to adopt an overall approach that is cooperative, integrated, 

and enduring. As we undertake a diverse range of operations and activities, three 

principles guide our efforts: 

Adopting Cooperative Approaches by Partnering Based on Shared Interests 

First, we must adopt cooperative approaches to solving shared challenges. America’s strength and security depends on our ability to help our friends in the region 

defend themselves, underscoring the importance of CENTCOM’s initiatives to build 

partner capacity and pursue bilateral and multilateral initiatives. Starting from our 

shared interests, we must capitalize on the comparative advantages of all participating nations—for instance, by taking advantage of unique geography or specialized capability. Ideally, such efforts would combine the political, economic, and security spheres of those who choose to participate, strengthening the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. Our efforts to develop effective solutions for Integrated 

Air and Missile Defense in the Gulf Region represent a significant example of the 

kind of cooperative efforts that are necessary to deter and defeat our common 

threats. As mentioned above, the international coalition to counter piracy in the Somali Basin is a model for multilateral cooperation in the region that not only addresses piracy but also offers opportunities for engagement in other areas. 

Our ability to cooperate with our partners depends to a great extent on trust. As 

a consequence of the confidential diplomatic and military reporting made public by 

Wikileaks, we must patiently strengthen trust with our partners over time. We are 

up front with our partners about this episode—which has informed our enemies 

about supportive leaders as well as our tactics, techniques, and procedures. We remain committed, as ever, to forthright communication in pursuit of our shared objectives. We are reinforcing our efforts to ensure the security of our communications 

and focusing on enhancing mutually reinforcing objectives with allies and partners. 

Integrating Our Efforts by Implementing Civil-Military Solutions 

Second, the wars we are fighting today require intensively integrated, comprehensive approaches from the highest to the lowest levels, embracing diplomatic, information, military and economics in an interwoven effort that builds synergy. Promoting security and stability in the CENTCOM AOR cannot be achieved through 

military means alone. We must therefore look beyond just the traditional application of military power and integrate all elements of national power to address our 

many challenges. CENTCOM’s experience has shown that military might alone is 

not sufficient to deal with the challenges we confront along with our partners. Diplomacy and Development are just as vital as Defense in securing our national interests. CENTCOM support efforts to address the underlying conditions of instability 

that fuel current conflicts. Successful application of these instruments of national 

power, in turn, depends on our ability to achieve harmony within our civil-military 

relationships. As such, it is a security concern for us when diplomatic posts go unfilled in the region. 

The overlapping forces at work in the CENTCOM AOR—those originating from 

within and outside the region—require exceptional cross-combatant command cooperation and coordination. We have achieved progress across AOR geographic 

seams, exemplified by cooperation with PACOM on matters dealing with China and 

India and cooperation with European Command on Russia, Turkey, and the Middle 

East Peace Process. CENTCOM, and PACOM regularly synchronize efforts to combat mutual challenges such as piracy, proliferation of WMD, and support to countering VEOs. Additionally, we continue to work closely with U.S. Africa Command 

to address the state-failure in Somalia, as well as share critical assets to meet timecritical force requirements. Together we have established a counter-piracy Joint Operating Area in the Somali Basin. We team with U.S. Cyber Command to support 

global relationships in cyberspace and U.S. Northern Command to protect U.S. borders and domestic security. In all, the cross-combatant command effort is going very 

well. 

Supporting Enduring Solutions by Demonstrating Long-term Commitment 

Finally, our approach to the region must be enduring. Following through with our 

long-term commitments in the AOR improves the depth, breadth and quality of our 

relationships in the region and increases the likelihood of cooperation at the outset. 

In this region of the world, we are judged by our actions, not words. Individual inVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
201 

stances of demonstrated trustworthiness on our part resonate throughout the region 

for decades. Enduring solutions to the problems that we face also depend on stability, steady economic growth and development in governance. To that end, 

CENTCOM supports our partners’ long-term efforts to grow economically and to develop effective and legitimate institutions of government. 

RESOURCING THE FIGHT

Beyond the critical funding authorities highlighted above, accomplishing our mission requires that we fully and efficiently resource the following critical enablers. 

We appreciate Congressional support to provide our warfighters on the battlefront 

with the tools they need to accomplish their challenging missions. As we adapt to 

a thinking adversary, we recognize the need to accelerate our acquisition processes 

to enable us to out-maneuver our enemies. We also recognize the obligation to be 

good stewards of our nation’s monetary resources. CENTCOM has established stringent control mechanisms to execute our fiscal authorities and to apply the most effective oversight possible of all of our programs. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

An Indispensable Tool 

There is a considerable and justifiable appetite for ISR capabilities in the 

CENTCOM AOR. In Afghanistan, persistent ISR capabilities represent one of the 

most important and effective force multipliers and contribute directly to protecting 

our troops from the threat of improvised explosive devices through ISR. In cooperation with the ISR Task Force, we have augmented ISAF forces with a greatly increased capability to counter the Taliban and understand the environment in which 

we operate. Additionally, as we drawdown our forces from Iraq, we are adjusting 

the apportionment of ISR in a measured way to ensure that we retain adequate capability to support our force in Iraq while we provide the necessary resources to Afghanistan and elsewhere. We continue to refine our ability to fully integrate U.S. 

and coalition ISR to deny transnational extremist organizations safe haven, training 

bases, or staging areas to conduct attacks. 

Enhancing ISR Capabilities 

We greatly appreciate the support of Congress and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions and Technology in meeting the ongoing demand for more rapidly delivered ISR collection, exploitation, and dissemination capabilities. Interrelated with our ISR needs, we recognize a need to further enhance integration and 

synergy between aviation and ground elements that is critical to Combat Air Support and counterinsurgency doctrine. We support a limited objective experiment to 

refine the requirement for a manned, armed ISR asset attuned to the unique challenges of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Continued investments in ISR technology, infrastructure, architecture, tools, and personnel (particularly trained ISR 

managers) help us to build on the significant gains we have achieved in the 

CENTCOM AOR—and enable us to use the arsenal of ISR capabilities currently in 

the field. 

Critical Intelligence Capabilities 

Human intelligence and counterintelligence are just as important as technical solutions to remotely gather intelligence, especially in the conduct of operations in 

wars among the people. Such intelligence activities are inherently government functions that require a long lead time to develop. CENTCOM is posturing for sustained 

application of our human intelligence capabilities to afford us insights into adversary plans and intentions. CENTCOM is posturing for sustained application of our 

human intelligence capabilities to afford us insights into adversary plans and intentions. We are also reshaping our counterintelligence forces to face threats from hostile foreign intelligence services and VEOs that employ sophisticated cyber techniques and trusted insiders to penetrate our networks and compromise our operations. 

Improving Force Protection and Countering Improvised Explosive Devices 

The Enemy’s Weapon of Choice 

Now and for the foreseeable future, the enemy is using Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) to kill and maim our troops. These devices remain the greatest risk facing U.S. and coalition forces deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a threat 

to U.S. interests and regional stability throughout the CENTCOM AOR. In Afghanistan, IED attacks account for more than 60 percent of the U.S. and coalition force 

casualties, though IED casualties have steadily decreased over the past 6 months. 

202 

The flow of lethal aid, migration of IED technology and materials, and development 

of new tactics techniques and procedures represents a global threat. Homemade explosives, which now account for an estimated 85 percent of all IEDs, coupled with 

the proliferation of commercially available IED materials and commercial grade explosives make them relatively cheap and easy to build and employ. 

Ongoing Interagency C–IED Efforts 

CENTCOM counters the threat of IEDs by working together with all Services and 

the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). The Services continue to equip U.S. 

and coalition forces with the latest technology to mitigate and defeat IEDs. Thanks 

to Congress and the Department of Defense, CENTCOM and our national and international partners have delivered and fielded an unprecedented number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected family of vehicles throughout Afghanistan. These vehicles 

have proven critical to safeguarding the tactical mobility of our warriors in harm’s 

way. CENTCOM, in conjunction with the C–IED Senior Integration Group, and 

JIEDDO have recently fielded a variety of C–IED enablers that have proven to save 

lives on the battlefield. As a result, we are finding and clearing more IEDs in Iraq 

and Afghanistan—at a rate above 60 percent for the last 12 months and 70 percent 

over the last quarter of 2010. These improvements are due in part to more tips from 

the population, better tactics, and additional enablers, including the effective use of 

additional ISR provided by the Services to counter this threat. 

Attacking the Network 

We are going after the entire IED network and insurgent supply lines. Many of 

our recent successes have come in the use of persistent systems emplaced throughout significant threat areas to help develop insights into the local area. We are concurrently protecting the force using trained dogs, mine rollers, jammers, and 

handheld devices; the Marines in southern Afghanistan now employ nearly one dog 

per squad, and soon we will have more than 200 working dogs in Afghanistan. 

Along with the Services, JIEDDO, and academia we will continue to do everything 

in our power to ensure our servicemembers and coalition partners have the best 

technology and training available to defeat the IED threat. 

Supporting Additional C–IED Efforts 

We continue to call on the defense industry to provide innovative solutions to 

counter the threat of IEDs. Critical airlift and airdrop sorties dramatically reduce 

the number of servicemembers exposed to the IED threat. In fact, the number of 

pounds of supplies airdropped in Afghanistan has doubled every year since 2005, 

with an astonishing recovery rate of better than 98 percent. Not all critical movements can be completed by air however. We ask that Congress continue to fund 

those organizations that provide research and development for the evolution of new 

and existing counter-IED systems and technologies, especially in areas of 

predetonation, IED stand-off detection, and non-lethal weapons to deny the enemy 

the ability to deliver or emplace IEDs. We also ask that Congress provide the flexibility to rapidly and proactively counter new, emerging, and future threats that are 

either present on the battle field or potential threats that represent vulnerability 

and would be difficult to counter. 

Unity of Command and Control of C5 Networks 

Coalition, Command, Control, Communications, and Computer (C5) networks that 

meet the challenging demands of our troops in theater are essential to CENTCOM. 

Currently, the command and control of networks available to our deployed forces is 

divided among Services, agencies, and combatant commands, resulting in degraded 

and delayed actions that have allowed our adversaries to exploit this fundamental 

cyber shortfall for too long. One bright network spot, however, is the Afghan Mission Network, which enables U.S. and coalition forces and civilians to remain connected and synchronized on the battlefield and linked to supporting assets throughout the world. We seek congressional support to enable effective integration and extension of networks to wherever we fight, from maritime environments to the aerial 

layer and over rugged mountainous terrain. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, we greatly appreciate the support of Congress on behalf of America’s 

military personnel serving in the CENTCOM region. The stalwart Americans in today’s force have been fighting two wars for nearly 10 years in the CENTCOM AOR. 

With remarkable spirit, they look beyond the ambiguity and longevity of today’s 

complex, demanding operations and answer their country’s call. Their courage, character and commitment in the face of repeated deployments are inspiring. As their 

203 

commander, I am proud to serve alongside them. Thank you very much for your unflagging support of our troops in harm’s way and their families here at home. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General Mattis. 

We will try a 7-minute first round for questions. 

General, you made reference to Pakistan and noted that they, indeed, have gone after some terrorist groups, and they have suffered 

losses in that process. What you did not make reference to, though, 

is what troubles us a great deal. What troubles you, I am sure, too, 

and our leadership, is the failure of the Pakistanis to go after terrorist groups in North Waziristan and in Quetta, and those are the 

groups that cross the border and attack our force, coalition forces, 

and the Afghan people. 

Why is it, in your judgment, that Pakistan is not going after 

those terrorist groups, including the Haqqani network in North 

Waziristan and the Quetta Shura? 

General MATTIS. Mr. Chairman, there have been disconnects 

where we have not always seen eye-to-eye with Pakistan. Part of 

the reason these groups exist is, together with Pakistan, we helped 

create some of them. 

Any attempt to look at Pakistan’s security interests must include 

their difficult relationship with India. Over the years, I believe that 

Pakistan got into a position where the very groups that, in some 

cases, we helped to give birth to, became part of the landscape, the 

Kalashnikov culture, for example. 

In many cases, they have moved against these areas, and not all 

of it has been cost-free. As I noted, they have lost thousands of 

troops, killed and wounded. Especially telling is the number of junior officers they have lost, indicating an aggressive effort against 

these areas. 

I think, too, it is the most difficult terrain I have ever operated 

in, in my 39 years in uniform. The Pakistan military’s movement 

against these folks is continuing. We are now into our 24th month 

of unrelenting campaign against them. 

Chairman LEVIN. But the Pakistanis have not gone after the two 

groups that are giving us the most trouble in Afghanistan. Have 

you pressed on the Pakistan military the importance of going after 

those groups? 

General MATTIS. Yes, sir, I have. 

Chairman LEVIN. There has been a request, as you have indicated, to increase the size of the ANSF. You made a reference to 

the request that is under consideration to be an increase between 

45,000 to 70,000 above the goal set for October of this year, which 

will be met. That target of 305,000 is already met or will be met 

easily by October. 

Now when you made reference, when you say you support further growth of ANSF, did I understand you then to support the 

growth beyond the October 2011 target of 305,000 and somewhere 

between 45,000 and 70,000 personnel is the target that you support? 

General MATTIS. Yes, sir, I do. I think, though, we have to look 

at whether or not we can sustain it. I believe that President Karzai 

last week came out of his National Security Council and said that 

he now supports it, and that recommendation, of course, will have 

to be considered by the NATO Council. 

204 

Chairman LEVIN. Right. Now I made reference repeatedly to the 

importance of the July 2011 date for the beginning of reductions 

of American forces in Afghanistan. We heard, as I indicated in my 

opening remarks, from Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen a 

week or 2 ago that they support the reduction beginning in July 

2011 of U.S. forces with the pace to be determined by conditions 

on the ground. 

General Mattis, do you support the decision to set the July 2011 

date as the beginning point of reductions in U.S. forces in Afghanistan? 

General MATTIS. Mr. Chairman, I do support it. I would like to 

say that I support it because it undercuts the enemy’s narrative. 

When they say we are there to occupy Afghanistan, this helps to 

deny the enemy that moral victory. I think, too, that because it is 

a conditions-based drawdown that begins this year, I am comfortable with it from a military point of view. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Admiral Olson, do you support that date as the beginning of U.S. 

reductions? 

Admiral OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I do. As a beginning to thin out 

the force in order to accomplish a full transition eventually. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral, what has been the effect of the Afghan Local Police (ALP) effort that the special ops folks are so 

deeply involved in, in the villages of Afghanistan where you, working with the Afghans’ military and police, are working at the local 

village level to create these local police units? Can you tell us about 

these programs? 

How successful are they? What is the partnership arrangement 

with the Afghans in the operations between our special operations 

people and the ALP? 

Admiral OLSON. Mr. Chairman, that is a matter, of course, under 

General Mattis’s operational control, but I was just able to visit a 

couple of these ALP sites last week, and my sense is that this is 

having real value at a micro regional level. This is an Afghan Government program that is administered within the Ministry of the 

Interior. It is at the local level under the district governors, and it 

is local leaders who recruit and select those who will be members 

of the ALP forces. 

The role of SOF in this is to move to these remote regions in 

small numbers, establish the personal relationships that are so important to gain credibility as an advising force, and then provide 

some training and mentorship to these ALP as they gain the ability 

to defend their villages. 

In my opinion, this has had quite a powerful effect locally. These 

are not roaming armies by any means. These are certainly locals 

who have organized themselves under local leadership to protect 

their own neighborhoods. 

Chairman LEVIN. The partnering issue? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, the partnering is in that there is a small 

team of U.S. forces in a village that is then the naturally partnered 

force with the ALP in that village. They stay for months at a time 

there, and so this becomes a very strong partnership. But again, 

it is an Afghan Government-administered program with the U.S. 

forces strongly supporting it. 

205 

Chairman LEVIN. Are Afghans with us in any operation that we 

are involved in? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, in all of the operations that are conducted 

in Afghanistan, there are Afghans involved. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. 

As a follow-up to the chairman’s question, does it concern you, 

General Mattis, that the defense ministers of various allies who 

have troops and commitments in Afghanistan have said to me that, 

‘‘Well, if you are going to begin to withdraw, we will begin to withdraw as well.’’ Is that of concern to you? 

General MATTIS. It would be, sir. It is why we have to engage 

with them. 

Senator MCCAIN. So we expect them to stay, while we withdraw? 

General MATTIS. I think what we want them to do is, as we look 

at the transition process, Senator McCain, we make certain in their 

area that we follow the transition guidelines, and in some cases, 

that may mean withdrawal. In some, it may mean that they reinvest the people that they have achieved some success with into another area. Maybe that they go into training, that sort of thing. 

But there is no misunderstanding that the Americans are carrying the bulk of this fight, over 100,000 troops, and I think that 

our commitment is pretty straightforward, both fiscally and troop 

wise. 

Senator MCCAIN. I know Libya is not within your AOR, but 

would you venture an opinion as to the difficulty of establishing a 

no-fly zone? 

General MATTIS. My military opinion is, sir, it would be challenging. You would have to remove the air defense capability in 

order to establish the no-fly zone. 

So no illusions here. It would be a military operation. It wouldn’t 

simply be telling people not to fly airplanes. 

Senator MCCAIN. Declaration of a no-fly zone to the enemy would 

have a significant deterring effect on their desire to fly. I think we 

know that to be the case. 

General MATTIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Obviously, the events in Bahrain are of great 

concern to you and all of us. How much Iranian involvement have 

you seen in these? I fully understand this is a popular uprising, but 

isn’t it into some respects a proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia 

and Iran? 

General MATTIS. I think the current Tehran regime is incapable 

of trying to let other nations just take care of their own issues. 

They have to meddle and create mischief. 

The Bahrain situation I think is a legitimate popular effort. But 

I am under no illusions that the Iranians would not try to take advantage of this issue or any other, whether it be in Lebanon or 

anywhere else in the region. 

Senator MCCAIN. The loss of the Fifth Fleet headquarters would 

be a significant setback? 

General MATTIS. It would be. But right now, sir, from even the 

opposition, our sailors who live out in town, driving to and from 

work, have encountered zero anti-Americanism. I was just there 

206 

about a week ago, and there is no hostility directed towards Americans right now—obviously not from the government with whom we 

have been very good friends for 40, 50, 60 years, but not from the 

opposition either. 

It has been heartening, actually. The DOD school has been open 

every day. We are on about the 12th day with no violence. So it 

is not right now something that concerns me. 

Senator MCCAIN. Given the long-term needs of Iraq, how are the 

deficiencies of the Iraqi Security Forces—such as maintenance, 

readiness, intelligence fusion, and particularly the building of an 

air force—going to be addressed absent U.S. troops? 

General MATTIS. You hit the three points that we are concerned 

with. Under logistics, it is maintenance as well, how they keep 

their gear going. The intelligence fusion and the air sovereignty are 

critical. 

I think right now there are going to be loose ends unless the 

Iraqis ask us to stay and work on these issues. Those loose ends 

would be difficult for them to overcome on their own, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Hezbollah is now the dominant actor in the 

government of Lebanon. Do you think the United States should 

continue providing military assistance to the Lebanese air forces, 

armed forces, or is it something we should wait and see? What is 

your view of that situation? 

General MATTIS. Well, we saw Hezbollah use threats of violence 

to undercut the government. We are all very much aware of that. 

The new government is still in formation, and we will have to take 

a very close look at how it is organized and how it is formed to deal 

with Lebanon’s future. 

I think that an inclusive government is the only option that 

works with the various confessional groups that try to share power 

there. But I believe right now, if we look at the example of Egypt, 

and we look at what happened where we were able to maintain, 

under some criticism that Congress came under for giving us the 

amount of money that we gave to the Egyptian military, but we 

were able to maintain a relationship there that paid off, I think, 

when it came time to see them either ethically use their position 

to help the people of the country or what we see in Libya. 

So as we look at Lebanon, where they have never lost track of 

any of the equipment that we have given to them yet—the equipment given to the Lebanese armed forces, I think we should look 

at the quality of the government as it is put together, recognize 

that the military can actually be a bulwark against malign influence, and act in our best interest once we have made that analysis. 

Senator MCCAIN. Have you seen the news reports that a number 

of people were arrested in Iraq as a result of demonstrations? 

General MATTIS. I have. Yes, sir. The ones on, I think, the 26th? 

Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. So it is of concern that they would be arresting 

demonstrators in a country we expect them to allow demonstrations? 

General MATTIS. Sir, the demonstrations were not as large as we 

expected, but they were spread all over the country. The demonstrations, by and large, were peaceful. The Iraqi Security Forces 

were out, and al Qaeda did not take advantage. I don’t think they 

207 

could take advantage of this opportunity to kill more innocent people. 

In the midst of that, there were some people who did things like 

stone troops. There were about as many people injured on the Iraqi 

Security Force side, around 50, as there were injured total and 

killed, unfortunately, on the demonstrators’ side. Those appear to 

be contained in each case where government buildings were 

stormed. Prime Minister Maliki has said that he will investigate 

each death, each injury, and make certain they know what happened in each case. 

So I think right now what we saw was, by and large, a very restrained use of force by the Iraqi Security Forces in regards to the 

demonstrators. There was no opening fire on them. It was a much 

more restrained effort. I don’t know what all the investigations are 

going to show yet, Senator, but I would like to get back to you once 

I see what we can find through our intel sources. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

In coordination with U.S. Forces Iraq, we have determined the protests drew approximately 27,000 Iraqi citizens to 43 demonstrations across the country. 

Protestors directed many of their grievances at provincial governments. The largest 

demonstrations were in the cities of Baghdad, Mosul, Basrah, and Fallujah. Individual demonstrations ranged from a few hundred up to 8,000 protestors. While the 

protests were largely peaceful, 14 of 43 turned violent, usually after the demonstrators attempted to enter or damage government buildings. Current reporting has determined that 119 Iraqis and 4 journalists were detained across Iraq on the day of 

25 February. At this time, I do not know the specifics of each arrest. 

In several cases, security forces responded to violent demonstrators with small 

arms fire. Prime Minister Maliki has initiated investigations to determine what 

happened in these instances. In total, 11 Iraqi citizens were killed; 72 citizens were 

injured, and 45 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were wounded. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to both of you. General Mattis, thanks for your service. 

Admiral Olson, also let me join those who are thanking you for 

your extraordinary career of service to our country and the time 

particularly in which you have been the leader of SOCOM, and 

through you really to thank everyone who serves under you in that 

command. 

This is a remarkable group of Americans who I have had the 

privilege to meet as I have traveled around, particularly to battle 

zones. Honestly, every day they are performing critical and dangerous missions with a remarkable degree of skill, bravery, and I 

would say patriotism, and also, of course, effect. 

A lot of that has grown and developed under your watch. I can’t 

thank you enough for that, and thank all of them. 

Let me just give you an opportunity to develop a little more your 

metaphor that the fabric is strong, but around the edges there may 

be a little fraying of the SOF. What are the specific shortfalls that 

you would like to see us address to make sure that the whole fabric 

is as strong as you and we want it to be? 

Admiral OLSON. Thank you, sir. 

I got an email not too long ago from an operational commander 

forward who said, ‘‘Sir, the good news is that the demand for SOF 

208 

is higher than ever. The bad news is the demand is higher than 

ever.’’ 

As 100,000 U.S. troops came out of Iraq, only fewer than 1,000 

were from SOF. At the same time, we saw a requirement to move 

more than 1,500 into Afghanistan. This is the force that, as you 

said, has earned its way to real importance in terms of executing 

strategies in those conflicts. 

It is at the point where for some elements of our force, time at 

home with their families has become the abnormal condition. They 

have to adjust to being home rather than adjust to being away. It 

is those elements of the force that I am seeking to provide some 

relief for in terms of 1,000 programs. 

There is no magic answer to this. It is gaining a greater understanding of what the real issues are. It is shaving where we can 

the number of days that they are away from home for training 

when they are not forward deployed. It is putting more predictability into their lives. It is relieving every special operations member of any job that can be performed by anybody else. 

I do believe that the Services—Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps—could invest in capabilities that would provide more 

habitual, more timely support to SOF. We are in those discussions 

with each of the Services. 

I do believe that the quality of the training, the equipment, and 

the facilities that we provide them is certainly a factor in ensuring 

that this force, in which we have invested so heavily for 10 years, 

will still be with us 10 years hence. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, I appreciate that answer, and I am 

sure the members of the committee look forward to working with 

you and your staff to see if we can help you with some of those. 

General Mattis, as Senator McCain said, we had the opportunity 

to travel through some of the Arab world last week where these remarkable changes are occurring. My own feeling is that while you 

are right, there is both opportunity and challenge, that the opportunity here is greater. 

It is really remarkable to see these peaceful revolutions occur, 

which have to make both the leaders of al Qaeda up in the mountains feel that history may be passing them by, but also represent 

a real direct threat to Iran, which I think you correctly and characteristically bluntly identify as our greatest long-term threat in the 

region. 

I want to just come back to Libya briefly because I was interested that in some of our visits with young people and others in 

Tunisia, Egypt, where these revolutions have succeeded, they are 

watching how the world responds to Gaddafi’s brutality to his own 

people. Because they are taking it as a sign of if Gaddafi can survive, they worry that other leaders in the Arab world will similarly 

try to repress revolutions. 

I know the administration is considering a range of options now 

with regard to Gaddafi. I know Senator McCain asked you about 

the no-fly zone. Have you, in your CENTCOM role, been asked to 

prepare for any activities relating to Libya, including, for instance, 

the provision of humanitarian assistance, medical supplies, food, to 

people in the liberated areas of Libya? 

209 

General MATTIS. Senator, as you understand, this comes under 

Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) AOR. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes, sir. 

General MATTIS. I have dispatched ships under the order of the 

Secretary of Defense that could provide options to the President. 

Yes, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That is reassuring to hear. I know it is the 

AFRICOM. But obviously, you have a lot of assets in the region, 

and I am encouraged to hear that they are moving to be available. 

Going back to Iran, for some period of time, there was a certain 

uncertainty, if I can put it that way, about the extent to which the 

Iranians were assisting the terrorists and extremists in Afghanistan against us. It was clear that they were assisting the Shia extremists in Iraq and, unfortunately, have a lot of American blood 

on their hands as a result. 

Could you tell us a little more now about the state of our conclusions about what the Iranians are doing to help the Taliban or 

other anti-government, anti-American forces in Afghanistan? 

General MATTIS. I can give you an incomplete answer, Senator. 

They have given low levels of ammunition, money, that sort of support, improvised explosive device components, to our enemies in Afghanistan. At one point, the Taliban and Iran were very much at 

odds with each other, to include the Taliban killing a number of 

Iranian diplomats there in northern Afghanistan. 

But the reason I say I am giving you an incomplete answer is 

we are keeping a very sharp eye on some recent information we 

have to see if they are, in fact, elevating their support, which would 

be very, very unwise for them to do. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, sir. My time is up. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, we would all echo the remarks about your service, Admiral Olson. You certainly will be missed. 

When we are talking about the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan, occasionally the President talks about conditions on the 

ground. I am not sure just what is going to happen, what these 

timetables are. 

But I would say this. I have had the opportunity, going all the 

way back to the fall of 2003 when it happened to be the Oklahoma 

45th over in Afghanistan helping the ANA to train themselves, and 

they were doing really a great job. But each year when, we go back 

and see it, we see this improvement in training. I think this really 

has to be recognized. 

I don’t see Senator Hagan here now, but she and I were there 

spending New Year’s Eve in Afghanistan and had a chance to go 

down to the Kabul military training center. It is almost like looking 

at a training center here in the United States. I am talking about 

the separation between artillery and infantry, how they are doing 

it. 

We had individual interviews, with interpreters, where just at 

random we would select people, and we saw the enthusiasm they 

have for their quality of training. So I see really great improveVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
210 

ments in the quality of training over there, and that was my personal observation. 

General Mattis, are you as excited about that as I am? 

General MATTIS. Sir, the success of this last year, especially as 

we see the Afghan forces coming of age, very much is depending 

upon the training, the superb training, and it is going exactly as 

you say. We now have metrics in place where we measure them. 

Then we are seeing the improved capability in the field. It has to 

be the enemy’s worst nightmare. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I would say that is true. When we talk to 

these individuals, they want this to be a career. 

When I saw the position that the Egyptian military is going to 

be in during this new transition or whatever we are going into 

right now, I was somewhat pleased with it. One reason is that I 

have been a staunch supporter up here, probably the most staunch 

supporter, of the International Military Education and Training 

(IMET) program and what it has meant. With Egypt, it even goes 

further because we are talking about 3 decades now that they have 

done this. 

My feeling was that one of the great benefits of the IMET program is that it develops a relationship between the military of 

other countries. I have seen this throughout Africa and elsewhere, 

which is why we have been wanting to expand it. So I felt pretty 

good about that. 

I noticed that in 2010, our Egypt IMET program was at about 

$2 million and dropped down to about $1.5 million in 2011. I am 

trying to get the figure now as to what is requested for 2012. 

I would like just to get you on the record on your feelings about 

the IMET program and how much that has benefited us, particularly with the situation right now as it is in Egypt. 

General MATTIS. Senator, I think the IMET program is a strategic asset to us, where we bring those officers to our country. They 

go through training and education here. We then go on joint exchanges with them back in their country, exercises and all, and we 

see it pay off there. 

But there is a longer-term payoff, and that payoff is when I walk 

into a room as a brigadier general back in 2001, and the first discussion I have with a half dozen officers is them telling me the best 

year of their life was in Maxwell Air Force Base or in Fort Leavenworth—and we immediately start from a position of common understanding. I think this is a strategic asset to us that we should 

certainly maintain full support for. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. I appreciate that. 

Do you echo those sentiments, Admiral Olson? 

Admiral OLSON. Absolutely, sir. You can sign me up as a member 

of the IMET fan club. I was in a position long ago, a part of the 

implementation team of IMET in Tunisia, and that country was 

particularly well served by IMET. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. We were just a couple of days ago with 

Prime Minister Netanyahu. He was referring to the earthquake 

that is taking place right now. When Senator Lieberman was talking about the commands, it occurred to me that when we were in 

Stuttgart, we were with European Command, AFRICOM, and 

211 

CENTCOM. You have three commands, really, right now that are 

dealing with this problem. 

Are you guys all talking to each other? Do you feel there is no 

problem in that you are dealing with an earthquake that has taken 

place in three commands? 

General MATTIS. Sir, we have a very close working relationship, 

and there is strong collaboration between us. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Admiral Olson, we also had the opportunity of spending some 

time in Djibouti, and Admiral Losey, I guess it was, spent quite a 

bit of time with us. I was certainly impressed with what they are 

doing there. 

When I look at your statement, it says, ‘‘We now total close to 

60,000, about a third of whom are career members of SOF, meaning that they have been selected, trained, and qualified to earn the 

military occupational specialty or skill code identifier of the SOF.’’ 

Now that would be a third of the 60,000. Tell me a little bit 

about the other two-thirds that are not included in this category. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. They are the full range of enabling, 

technical, supportive capabilities—engineers, logisticians, administrators, intelligence analysts, maintenance crews, and the like— 

that make the rest of it all possible. We are a broadly capable force. 

We do have our own airplanes, our own helicopters, our own boats, 

our own mini submarines. So, this requires a supporting crew that 

has to be quite expert as well. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, we are concerned about your resources, 

that you have them, because we know what your mission is and 

what you have been able to do. Is everything going all right in 

terms of retention and recruiting? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, the recruiting is good. The recruiting has 

been pretty consistent over the last decade, even consistent across 

the 9/11 attacks. Retention has been pretty good. It has been above 

the service averages in almost every category. 

Senator INHOFE. Which is very good, too. 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Admiral OLSON. We are beginning to see at the mid-grade level, 

sort of the 8 to 10 years of service point, a slight leveling off of the 

retention. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you. 

My time has expired. But if you, maybe for the record, could 

elaborate a little bit on your numbers that you have right now as 

you look into the future and how this—whether the 60,000 is going 

to be—increasing it, if that is going to be adequate, for the record. 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, for the record, in my opinion, it is adequate. 

I believe that the key to special operations capability beyond our 

current numbers is mostly in terms of supporting special operations from the much broader range of capabilities within the department, with habitually assigned units that are timely in their 

response, that understand what special operations is and how to 

support special operations requirements. 

I am calling this the ‘‘special operations force generation concept’’ 

and working with each of the services on how they can contribute 

212 

to that and how we can contribute to their force generation cycles, 

as that is appropriate. 

The specific answer to your numbers question is that—and I am 

on record before this committee now in 3 previous years as saying 

we should not, we ought not grow more than 3 to 5 percent per 

year in our manpower because of the quality that we need to maintain as we do that. We are projected to do that for the next 3 or 

4 years. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Also let me add my appreciation, Admiral Olson, for your service 

and best wishes for your future. 

IMET is a very important part of what I would hope to be our 

outreach to the world in a way that makes good sense. I have had 

military officials from Egypt in my office before who have been 

here getting the IMET training, and I have been impressed with 

their appreciation and their understanding of what kind of military—or what the military should do in connection with government. 

My question would be do you think that the difference between 

the way the military has behaved in Libya and the way military 

behaved in Egypt is, at least in part, due to their IMET training? 

General Mattis? 

General MATTIS. I think there is no doubt it has contributed, sir. 

Each nation has its own history, its own culture. But I think the 

ethical performance by the Egyptian military was impacted by 

their time spent in our schools over these last decades. 

Senator NELSON. The same would be true in the case of Tunisia 

as well? 

General MATTIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Do we have any plans to try to expand the program? I know resources are tight right now. But one of the best 

ways of avoiding future expenditures is to have ethical military 

operatives in other countries. Are there any plans that you are 

aware of to expand this to perhaps some other countries where 

there is an interest? 

General MATTIS. I am not aware of plans to expand it. Of course, 

the Secretary of Defense can open the door to different countries 

at different times, give them more school seats, that sort of thing. 

I think it would be a resourcing issue. You would have to have 

more instructors, more classrooms, this sort of thing. I think it is 

worth looking at, but I am not aware of any plans right now to do 

so, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. Well, we will try to take this up with the Secretary. I appreciate, though, your response. 

General Mattis, I have been a strong proponent of benchmarks 

with metric measurements for Afghanistan and Pakistan. I had 

support for those in Iraq as well, and I am interested in your evaluation of the benchmarks. 

The last report was in November 2010, and it is my understanding the next report will be provided in April of this year. So 

perhaps I am a little ahead of the report progress. I would like to 

213 

know whether or not the report in November stated that the assessment of governance in focus districts showed that 38 percent 

of the population lived in the areas rated as having emerging or 

full-authority Afghan governance. 

It reflects no change through March 2010. I wonder are we 

trending up, or are we flat-lined, or are we trending down at this 

point? I am talking about both Pakistan and Afghanistan. There 

may be a difference in each of the countries. 

General MATTIS. Oh, there is significant difference, sir. Let me 

address Afghanistan, where General Petraeus and Ambassador 

Eikenberry lead our effort in supporting the Afghan governance. I 

will tell you that this is receiving a lot of attention. We are making 

progress. 

I believe it is lagging behind the security effort. I think that is 

somewhat understandable. You don’t get governance in until you 

get enough security that people can, without concern, carry out the 

governmental functions. 

At the same time, we are dealing with a country that probably 

took several hundred billion dollars’ worth of damage during decades of war, according to the International Monetary Fund. When 

you translate that into the human damage and the damage to the 

people, the education system, this sort of thing, it is a long, hard 

slog to create the kind of governmental organizations and the right 

people who can then create the kind of progress that will reflect in 

those metrics, sir. 

The Pakistan military is where I have most of my connections. 

But from what I read, I have concerns about Pakistan’s governance 

and their ability to meet the needs of their people. I believe right 

now that President Karzai may actually be in a better position on 

this than the political leadership in Pakistan. 

Senator NELSON. Both Afghanistan and we depend on the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Government to be able to take 

care of those largely isolated areas—I guess Swat and the particular areas there—where there are safe havens for al Qaeda, the 

Taliban, and other hostile operatives. That makes it much more 

difficult for us to be able to contain and degrade and defeat that 

enemy. Is that fair? 

General MATTIS. It is very fair, sir. Again, it is the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), which constitutionally is under a 

different sort of governance even within Pakistan. 

Further, I think the impact of the floods this year—we served 

alongside the Pakistan military that performed very well providing 

relief and life-saving efforts. But those floods, which were enormous in their impact—the worst in a hundred years—I don’t know 

that once the Pakistan military had done what they could do in 

terms of saving the people from those floods, that there was a sufficiently robust governmental response then to help those people put 

their lives back together. 

Senator NELSON. So the attitude towards the government may 

not be as strong as it could be if the government had a strong follow-up response? 

General MATTIS. I believe you are right. I don’t have the data. 

I haven’t looked at it specifically. But I believe you are correct, 

Senator. 

214 

Senator NELSON. Okay. My final question, General, is that as we 

trend out of Iraq and we come upon December 31, there is some 

concern that maybe the Iraqi Government will ask us to remain. 

I don’t have any indication of that, but just a general concern that 

perhaps their security is not sufficient for them to be able to selfgovern. 

If that is the case—and I asked this of Secretary Gates recently. 

If that is the case and we are in a position where we might make 

the decision to stay, I would hope that we would do so, recognizing 

that from that point forward, that we would expect the Iraqi Government to pick up a bigger share of the cost that we would incur. 

It is my understanding they are dealing with a deficit there, just 

as we are here. But it only adds to our deficit. If I have to choose 

between mine and theirs, you know what I am going to choose. If 

that happens, I would hope that we would be thinking about how 

we can make certain that the Iraqi Government picks up a bigger 

share of any costs that we would incur going forward. 

That is less a question more than a wish. In that regard, I hope 

that you will keep that in mind because, obviously, it will come indirectly under your jurisdiction. Have you had any thoughts about 

that? Should we be asked to stay? 

General MATTIS. I haven’t looked specifically at your point. However, there is clearly an increasing sense of responsibility by the 

Iraqi Government toward resourcing their own security forces. I 

think that would be a natural part of the negotiations between the 

two governments if we were asked to stay. 

Senator NELSON. Yes, I would hope that we would make that a 

part of the negotiations because that is what we would have to do. 

We can’t just assess it. We would have to have a common agreement. 

General MATTIS. I have it, sir. Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you, General Mattis, and thank 

you for your service and all the men and women under your command. We appreciate their continued sacrifice and service, and 

their families as well. Thanks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I also want to commend Admiral Olson and General Mattis for 

your distinguished service to our country. Please express our gratitude to all the troops that serve underneath you for all that they 

are doing to protect our country. 

In recent hearings, Secretary Gates as well as Secretary Vickers 

have testified that approximately one out of four detainees who 

have been released from Guantanamo have gotten back into the 

fight. Admiral Olson or General Mattis, could you tell us a little 

more about what are the details regarding some of these detainees 

who are joining the fight? 

Have there been examples where some of these detainees have 

actually injured or killed American troops that have been returned 

back into the fight? 

215 

General MATTIS. Senator, the best data we have would show approximately 25 percent have either returned, and we can confirm 

it, or we strongly suspect they have returned. 

Twenty-five percent is a concern to all of us involved in this war 

because it reinforces the enemy. It gives people some degree of 

credibility because they have been in our hands. They have gotten 

out. 

So, yes, ma’am, it is a big concern. 

Senator AYOTTE. Have there been examples where some of these 

detainees who have returned to the fight have actually injured our 

soldiers or killed our soldiers? 

General MATTIS. I don’t have a specific example of that. However, for example, we know one of them is the number two person 

in AQAP. Clearly, he is engaged in trying to do so. If he hasn’t, 

it is just because he hasn’t been successful yet, but his intent is exactly what you are suggesting. 

Senator AYOTTE. He is obviously directing members of al Qaeda 

to kill American troops. That is a deep concern, given that we released him from our detention facility. 

I am deeply concerned about our policy toward detainees and release back into theater, and I think that the least we can do for 

our troops is to hold those who are dangerous and not allow them 

to get back into theater to harm our troops. It is certainly something that I look forward to continuing to work with others in the 

Senate to make sure that we have a sensible detention policy that 

doesn’t allow these terrorists to get back into theater. 

General Mattis, I know that we have emphasized that, of course, 

Libya is not directly in your responsibility. However, you mentioned that recently you have dispatched ships to provide options 

and assets in the region itself. 

Last week, there were many nations who were sending military 

aircraft and ships to Libya in order to evacuate their own citizens 

that were in Libya. As I understand it, we sent and chartered a 

civilian ferry to try to take the civilians that were in Libya, U.S. 

citizens, to get them out of Libya. Yet that ferry actually couldn’t 

depart port for 2 days due to high winds and waves. 

Are you aware whether certain nations, including Germany and 

Great Britian, actually sent military assets to be able to get its citizens out of Libya? 

General MATTIS. Senator, I am not aware of the specifics here. 

As you will understand, I have been a little busy in my own theater. But I think what you are saying is about right, but I can’t 

confirm it. 

Senator AYOTTE. Do you know if we had wanted to, whether we 

could have sent military assets to be able to get our civilians out 

of Libya, as other countries did? 

General MATTIS. Ma’am, again, I don’t keep the Mediterranean 

picture. I am not current on it. So I don’t know what ships or aircraft were available at what time and where they were and what 

airfields were open. I really can’t give you a good answer on that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. But you are now, of course, sending some 

of our CENTCOM assets over to assist in that area, as you testified 

earlier? 

216 

General MATTIS. Yes, ma’am. We have. Those were to give 

whether it be humanitarian or whatever options the President may 

want. Those assets have been sent through the Suez Canal. 

Senator AYOTTE. Had you been asked to do that last week, is 

that something you would have been able to do earlier last week, 

as opposed to where we are now? 

General MATTIS. Yes. Well, ma’am, the way it comes to me is not 

as a request, frankly. I get orders. But, yes, ma’am, we can do it 

on order. Obviously, I have my own requirements in the theater. 

It is always a balancing act that the Secretary has to go through 

between different combatant commanders. 

Senator AYOTTE. General, you would have certainly had the capability of doing it last week, as opposed to where we are right 

now? 

General MATTIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. I appreciate both of you 

testifying before the committee today. 

Admiral Olson and General Mattis, thank you so much for your 

distinguished service to our country. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Webb. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, Admiral, greetings. I am hoping that you can help provide us a little bit of focus in terms of how we are going to approach similar situations in the future. 

Not long after September 11, a coalition of Afghan forces, assisted by a handful of special operators, Forward Air Controllers, 

kicked out the Taliban in a matter of a few weeks. We were the 

enablers, for lack of a better term, not the instruments or the creators, of societal change in that evolution. 

We took a different approach in Iraq. We are taking a different 

approach today in Afghanistan. We have undertaken a duty, I understand, what I would call the concept of negligence in the law. 

Once you undertake a duty, if you don’t see it all the way through, 

you are guilty of negligence. At the same time, we need to really 

start looking at the future in terms of how we are going to use our 

military. 

Secretary Gates made a speech at West Point recently, indicating 

that, in his view, this troop-heavy concept read pretty much nation 

building is not a model that should be applied in the future with 

respect to issues of international terrorism. At the same time, General Casey, over the past day or 2, mentioned that he wouldn’t be 

surprised to see 100,000 Army soldiers deployed in these types of 

operations 10 years from now. 

I would like to hear your thoughts on where should we be moving here in terms of the use of our ground troops in issues of combating international terrorism? General? 

General MATTIS. Senator, I think, as we look toward the future, 

I have been a horrible prophet. I have never fought anywhere I expected to in all my years. 

I believe that we have to take each situation on its own, and we 

have to define the problem to a Jesuit’s level of acceptability. It has 

to be defined to a point that the solution is very clear in terms of 

217 

what is the strategy we must adopt. The strategy, of course, is 

what are the ends, and what are the means to get there? 

The one caution I would give, having studied this problem, is 

that we cannot marry one preclusive view of war and preclude 

other types and say we just won’t do that because the very nature 

of war is the enemy will gravitate toward our perceived weakness. 

We are going to have to have a force that has a built-in shock absorber, basically can go anywhere and do anything, at the same 

time have a moderating impact on our own strategy, so we don’t 

try to go anywhere and do everything. 

It has to be a vital national interest, and we have to make sure 

we have a force that is a general-purpose force that does not allow 

the enemy to think that we are leaving some form of warfare uncovered and then works against us in that direction. 

Senator WEBB. I wouldn’t disagree with you on that at all. At the 

same time, I can recall having written a piece the day after September 11, discussing how to deal with international terrorism, and 

two of the concepts in that—you build your strategy off of operational concepts and the enemy that you are facing. 

Two of the clear concepts in that was, number one, you have to 

maintain your maneuverability, and, number two, when you are 

fighting a mobile enemy, you are at risk whenever you occupy territory and then have to defend the territory that you are occupying. 

I think that those are the decision points moving toward the future. 

Admiral, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I think when the enemy is a ponderous, 

state-sponsored, uniformed, organized fighting force, it may require 

a similar force to defeat it. But I think that is less likely in the 

future. I agree with Secretary Gates on that. 

We are much more likely to see the less regular kinds of warfare—the cyber warfare, the terrorist warfare, the non-state sponsored warfare—to which the best solution is often enabling another 

country’s forces to deal with it in that region and being, as you 

said, the supporting force, not the supported force in that fight. 

Senator WEBB. Again, clearly, in terms of international terrorism, the whole operational concept is to not align themselves 

with a state. 

By the way, I would not in any way disagree with what General 

Mattis just said about keeping all your options on the table. But 

it just seems to me with the variety of threats that face us right 

now, the type of response that we have made over the past 8 or 

9 years is not a workable model. It concerns me a good bit. 

General, I want to ask you a question about Pakistan. I have 

raised a number of questions over the past 2 years about the transparency of our funding in terms of assistance to Pakistan. Are you 

comfortable with the transparency of the money that is going into 

Pakistan, and that you know where it is going? 

General MATTIS. I am, Senator; they don’t do it by computer. So 

it is all written out by hand, and we track it right down to the end 

user. 

I have some of the most aggressive colonels and majors you can 

imagine in Islamabad working under my vice admiral there who 

218 

track this, and we routinely reject requests from them for reimbursement. 

I know it is not where they just walk in with a bill and we pay 

it. Sometimes the ones we want more evidence of outweigh the 

numbers that we just accept and say, ‘‘Yes, we know you did these 

things. So we are going to pay you.’’ For example, fuel for our 

forces and that sort of thing that comes in. 

So, yes, I think we do have a very good feel for whether or not 

we are reimbursing real costs vice any fraudulent costs. 

Senator WEBB. We have seen news reports that Pakistan has 

doubled its nuclear arsenal in recent years, as we have been providing assistance in other areas. Do you have any worries that our 

assistance to Pakistan has allowed them to fund programs such as 

their nuclear program? 

General MATTIS. I am confident there is no direct funding going 

to their nuclear program because of my confidence in tracking the 

costs we are reimbursing them for now. Obviously, they have their 

own funding, and whether or not they would spend some of that 

elsewhere, if we weren’t reimbursing—— 

Senator WEBB. Right. I understand that direct money would not 

be going over there. The concern that I have is that if we are funding programs that they otherwise would be funding and they are 

able to take that money in order to increase their nuclear arsenal, 

it is not a healthy situation for the region and for us, in my view. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Webb. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

General Mattis, let me follow up on a line of questioning Senator 

McCain began. I was not in the room at the time, but I understand 

that he got a brief answer to this so-called day of rage in Iraq. 

Let me see if I could explore this a little further. In particular, 

I would point out a Washington Post Foreign Service story that appeared on Saturday, February 26, in which it is reported that Iraqi 

Security Forces detained hundreds of people, including prominent 

journalists, artists, and intellectuals, in demonstrations that 

brought thousands of Iraqis to the streets and ended with soldiers 

shooting into crowds. 

It goes on to say that this involved more than a dozen demonstrations across the country that killed at least 29 people, as 

crowds stormed provincial buildings, forced local officials to resign, 

freed prisoners, and otherwise demanded more from a government 

they only recently had a chance to elect. 

Is this, in your judgment, General, an isolated incident? Or is it 

an example of the contagion that is sweeping the entire region? 

What does it say about the popular support of a government which 

recently was subject to election? 

I understand the complications after the elections of the government being formed in a very fragile manner without a clear consensus. How accurate is this depiction? How worried should we be 

that this country, where we have invested so much of our blood and 

treasure, might be just as unstable as some other regimes? 

219 

General MATTIS. Senator, I can’t comment directly on the accuracy of the story because the word that I have is there were dozens 

of demonstrations. But I take that as a positive sign. Those did not 

happen 15 years ago under Saddam. 

It is a nascent democracy. It is the one that has been through 

a very violent era. A critical part of our training of the Iraqi Security Forces has been the ethical use of force. They are also still operating against a very capable terrorist enemy. 

For example, the minister of defense of al Qaeda in Iraq was 

killed on that day—I believe it was on that day—by Iraqi Security 

Forces. It was a very good event for us. 

Senator WICKER. Was he part of the protests? 

General MATTIS. He was not. But my point is that the enemy operates in this country, even as the people are trying to exercise 

their freedom to protest. I believe, from what I am told, that the 

number of Iraqi Security Forces injured and the number of demonstrators injured and killed is about the same. 

The reason I bring that up is that that is oftentimes an indicator 

of whether or not a military just opened fire on a crowd. You open 

fire on a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the casualties are 

going to be significantly higher than the ones reported either by 

the government or by the newspaper article. 

Frankly, I wasn’t ready for your question. I need to go back and 

check and see if I missed something in our assessment of what 

happened that day. I need to get back to you, Senator, because the 

numbers you are citing are higher than what I was told. 

Senator WICKER. I see. 

General MATTIS. In most cases, it was when a government building was attacked, and most of the injured soldiers were in place, 

were injured by rock throwing. So that is the kind of the framework I am looking at it through. 

Senator WICKER. So I can expect you to supplement your answer 

on the record, and I appreciate that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

In coordination with U.S. Forces Iraq, we have determined the protests drew approximately 27,000 Iraqi citizens to 43 demonstrations across the country. 

Protestors directed many of their grievances at provincial governments. The largest 

demonstrations were in the cities of Baghdad, Mosul, Basrah, and Fallujah. Individual demonstrations ranged from a few hundred up to 8,000 protestors. While the 

protests were largely peaceful, 14 of 43 turned violent, usually after the demonstrators attempted to enter or damage government buildings. Current reporting has determined that 119 Iraqis and 4 journalists were detained across Iraq on the day of 

25 February. At this time, I do not know the specifics of each arrest. 

In several cases, security forces responded to violent demonstrators with small 

arms fire. Prime Minister Maliki has initiated investigations to determine what 

happened in these instances. In total, 11 Iraqi citizens were killed; 72 citizens were 

injured, and 45 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were wounded. 

Senator WICKER. As to the larger question, though, sir, of whether we need to be concerned about this government falling, much as 

governments in the region have toppled and are toppling one by 

one, what is your informed judgment as to the larger question? 

General MATTIS. Well, the election was very close. It took 

months—I think 8, 9 months—to actually get a government 

formed. In close elections in a parliamentary system, that is understandable. I think it is still a work in progress. 

220 

The performance of the Iraqi Security Forces during that long period, when there was just basically a caretaker government at 

work, gives me some degree of confidence that the security forces 

can protect this nascent democracy as it grows its roots. But one 

or two elections doesn’t make a democracy, as we all know, and 

there is a lot of work that still has to be done. Right now, I do not 

think that it is in danger of falling. 

Senator WICKER. To what extent are the supporters of Mr. Allawi 

supportive of the government as it finally emerged? 

General MATTIS. I think that is still a work in progress as well, 

as we see where Mr. Allawi falls out in the organization of the government. I spoke with him about 2 months ago in Baghdad, and 

he was still relatively positive at that time that he was going to 

have a meaningful role. That would bring the people you are referring to onboard with him. 

Since then, it has been difficult to see progress, but I think it is 

always slower than we want to see. I think there is still progress 

along those lines, but I don’t know where it is going to fall out 

right now. I think it is still too early to say. 

Senator WICKER. Finally, to what extent do we need to be concerned about Iran attempting to influence the foreign policy of 

Iraq? 

General MATTIS. I have no doubt that Iran will attempt to influence the foreign policy and domestic policy of Iraq. 

Senator WICKER. Is this a serious problem or simply one of the 

many concerns that we have? 

General MATTIS. I think Iran is going to be left behind by this 

contagion, as you described it, sweeping across the region, as they 

find that people are not interested in exchanging one authoritarian 

for one like in Tehran. So I think they have as much to worry 

about from this contagion. 

Actually, I think, in many cases, the Iraqi people are quite capable of making up their own mind without Iranian help, and that 

will continue to manifest. I am not naive about Iran’s intent here. 

Senator WICKER. I hope you are correct. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly want to thank Admiral Olson and General Mattis for 

your excellent service to our country. Thank you so much. 

The Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command 

(MARSOC) was established in 2005 and is headquartered at Camp 

Lejeune in North Carolina. Some have suggested that MARSOC 

personnel should be special operations for life, rather than rotating 

through the command on a rotational basis as they are currently 

doing. 

They argue that this would help SOCOM create and retain personnel within the special cultural and language skills that are critical for success in irregular warfare and the foreign internal defense missions. 

Admiral Olson, what is your assessment of the progress made in 

standing up and growing MARSOC, and how are they unique within the SOF? Could you also give me your thoughts on whether the 

221 

Marine operators should be special operations just for life, just as 

in the Army? 

Admiral OLSON. Thank you, ma’am. 

First, I would say we can be very, very proud of the way that 

MARSOC has been established. It did just celebrate its fifth birthday last month, and they have made tremendous progress. 

They have been deployed at the battalion level now for over a 

year with tremendous effects in western Afghanistan and earning 

an awful lot of respect from the forces with which they serve. It has 

been a very close partnership between SOCOM and the U.S. Marine Corps in building the MARSOC to the extent that it has so 

far. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps has recently approved a 

military occupation specialty for those who have been through selection and advanced training to be members of the MARSOC, 

which will help us track and retain selected members of that community. I do believe that SOF for life is a concept that ought to be 

limited, that there is great value to circulation, that it is good for 

SOCOM to circulate people through its community back out into 

the big services and to bring people from the big services into our 

community so that we are not guilty of spinning a cocoon too tightly around ourselves in the special operations community. 

I am quite comfortable with the way it is going now. Even those 

who are in for sort of one tour in the MARSOC, that is now at least 

a 4-year tour and in some cases 5 years, which goes beyond some 

of the other services in many cases. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

On February 17, Secretary Gates indicated during his testimony 

before this committee that it is unsustainable for the United States 

to fund a sizable ANSF indefinitely. He suggested that perhaps the 

United States could temporarily fund the ANSF as a sort of surge 

in security assistance and then reduce that as conditions in Afghanistan improve and as the ANSF becomes more capable. 

General Mattis, can you elaborate on what Secretary Gates discussed on February 17? 

General MATTIS. I can, Senator. If you look at what has happened with the Taliban, beaten down badly in 2001, was able to regain its balance and come back strongly, and then over this last 

year or 2, we have reversed their successes. 

So we have surged our own military. NATO has surged. The 

troop-contributing nations have—about 100,000 United States, 

about 50,000 non-U.S. coalition. We have about double that on the 

part of the Afghans. 

What you are seeing is we are going into a critical time, and we 

are going to have to fight it out. As the enemy loses—and they will 

lose—we will succeed. Then there is going to come a point where 

you don’t need as many international troops and eventually, perhaps, not as many Afghan troops and police because the enemy has 

been taken down. So the idea that Secretary Gates explained about 

a surge right now shows the normal ebb and flow that could result 

as a result of this kind of war, as the enemy’s fortunes start going 

backwards. 

Senator HAGAN. You said that you thought the ANSF could also, 

at some point, reduce its numbers? 

222 

General MATTIS. Well, I believe that at some point after the 

country gets more mature, it has more opportunity for young people. So there is not the breeding ground there for young guys to 

go join the extremists. Then the demand, the requirement for the 

size of those forces could well drop off. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Admiral Mullen has indicated that the longstanding U.S. military-to-military relationship has contributed to the professionalism 

of the Egyptian military. Experts have indicated that it is important to sustain Egypt’s annual military aid because regardless of 

how events unfold in Egypt, the military will likely preserve its 

unique position within the governing system. 

They have also argued that freezing military aid to Egypt undermines the leverage that our Government has to promote an effective transition and to persuade the Egyptian armed forces to abide 

by the peace treaty with Israel. 

General Mattis, what is your position on the future of the U.S.- 

Egyptian military-to-military relationship? How might restructuring the foreign military financing allocation to Egypt impact our 

strategic objectives in the country, as well as the Egyptian-Israeli 

peace treaty? 

General MATTIS. Senator, I believe that we should remain relentlessly engaged with the region. This is not the time to pull back. 

I am on the phone, for example, with General Anan, the chief of 

defense of the Egyptian military, on a routine basis. I have seen 

him in Egypt. There is a degree of professional respect there that 

allows us to have very candid discussions. 

He has been very proud of the fact that they are a caretaker 

military government. They are going to move quickly toward elections. I don’t think you can disconnect that from the experiences 

of his officers, who have spent years in our country going through 

schools. I think that right now the military-to-military relationship 

and the ethical performance of the Egyptian military are very 

tightly tied together. 

This has to do with regional peace. This has to do with Middle 

East peace, as you know so well from decades of peace between 

Egypt and Israel. I endorse what we are doing right now, and I 

think we should continue. 

Senator HAGAN. As far as the treaties, do you feel confident that 

they will abide by these treaties? 

General MATTIS. Yes, ma’am, I do. It is in Egypt’s best interest 

as well. But I am hesitant to get into the political arena and start 

forecasting things. 

Without a doubt, our military-to-military relationship, I think, is 

helpful in terms of being a stabilizing force and, I might add, with 

a force that used its authority in an ethical manner when a crisis 

came. 

Senator HAGAN. They did. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join in thanking both of you, Admiral Olson and General 

Mattis, for your service and the service of the courageous and dediVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
223 

cated men and women under your command. I want to ask a couple 

of questions about those men and women who are serving and sacrificing so courageously. 

Admiral Olson, last year, I believe you testified that the 

SOCOM’s Care Coalition was supporting 2,800 wounded SOF officers through a clearinghouse that works to increase the likelihood 

of their returning to service or having lives afterward. I think that 

clearinghouse exemplifies one of the SOF truths, which is that humans are more valuable than hardware, an emphasis that I certainly appreciate. 

I wonder if you could share with the committee an update on 

what SOCOM is doing to manage the kind of care, medical care, 

counseling, and other kinds of care that are necessary for these 

wounded warriors? 

Admiral OLSON. Thank you, Senator. 

I thank you for highlighting the Care Coalition. It was actually 

mentioned by Admiral Mullen as the gold standard for DOD, and 

we are quite proud of it. 

Part of the true value of the Care Coalition is that the population 

with which it works is small enough that the relationships are personal. So that when somebody calls the Care Coalition for some 

help, a wounded or a family member, they are known to the Care 

Coalition. It is difficult to scale this up too much, but so far, it is 

within a manageable level that has been quite effective. 

What they do is serve as advocates for the wounded and their 

families. They connect those who have need with those who are 

willing to provide for needs. So your term ‘‘brokering’’ and ‘‘broker 

house’’ is an accurate one. 

In addition to that, we are investing more heavily than in the 

past in rehabilitation facilities, in physical therapy experts, and 

technicians at the unit level so that those who need that frequent 

assistance have access to it on a daily basis. That has been hugely 

effective in accelerating the ability of our people to return to duty. 

It is reality that the instinct of virtually all of our wounded is 

to ask ‘‘How soon can I get back to my unit?’’ So, providing them 

accelerated opportunity to do that has become very important. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Admiral Mullen testified not long ago before this committee about the difficulty of identifying some of the 

wounds, particularly when they involve traumatic brain injury or 

post traumatic stress. Can you give the committee your assessment 

of how adequate, how effective the means are to diagnose and identify those kinds of problems? 

Admiral OLSON. Senator, frankly, I think we are very inadequate. I think the data does not collect in a meaningful way the 

information that we need to not only be responsive but, perhaps 

more importantly, to be proactive and preventive in dealing with 

those who have suffered psychological trauma as well as physical 

trauma. 

I have established what I call the ‘‘pressure on the force task 

force.’’ This is a tiger team that is going from unit to unit now. I 

will get a report back from them in about 90 days. What I have 

asked them to do is ignore the data and do sensing, rely on leaders, 

intuition, on the experience of teammates, and spend real time 

224 

with the families, to include the children, to gain an understanding 

of what really is happening in the force. 

I don’t want to get out ahead of that because I don’t want to 

taint the responses to the surveys. But I do look forward very much 

to receiving the recommendations from that team. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Your testimony speaks very powerfully to 

the potential of new developments actually on the battlefield as 

well as afterward in medical advances, potential research and development, and technology and so forth. Can you elaborate on that 

and also give us your assessment on whether the resources in the 

2012 budget are adequate for that purpose? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I would ask that the 2012 budget be supported. I don’t have a strong sense of the adequacy precisely, but 

I believe that there is enough request in the budget to give us room 

to move with respect to that. 

In terms of medical advances, I do believe that biomedical research is a very important undertaking for the military, that we 

have experiences that are unlike civilian medicine and that any investment in military biomedical research is a good investment. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

General Mattis, in light of what we are seeing in the world 

today, the recent transit through the Suez Canal of Iranian naval 

vessels, the ongoing attacks by Somali pirates, and other developments that affect our lines of communication and transport at sea, 

I wonder if you could share your views on the adequacy of the 

Navy’s funding request with respect to submarine operations and 

undersea warfare for this fiscal year and the next. 

General MATTIS. Senator, I have not looked at the Navy’s request 

because, as a combatant commander, I only look at whether or not 

they are filling my requests with those ships they have today. I am 

somewhat in the current fight. I will tell you that I get what I need 

when I ask for it. 

But clearly—CENTCOM’s future will be an increasingly naval 

future. It will not be one in which we have significant numbers of 

ground troops on the ground in various locations. So, how do we 

maintain a Navy that has the reach and can sustain our influence, 

reassure our friends, and temper any mischief by our enemies, 

make certain that they realize there is a cost? I think that is critical in the CENTCOM future. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. My time has expired, but I just want to thank both of you. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both of you. I just returned from Afghanistan 

and Pakistan. I can’t tell you how impressed I was at the quality 

of people that we have—our men and women, all of you who are 

leading them, and the job they are doing. 

With that being said, I am going to ask some questions. We will 

try to keep the answers as brief as possible to try to get through 

these. 

First of all, I will ask both of you, are we fighting a war on terror, or are we nation building? I will start, Admiral, with you. 

225 

Admiral OLSON. My responsibility is in both arenas. We present 

the SOF in two flavors. One is simply the strike flavor, the man 

hunting, the hunting aspect of counterterrorism. But at the same 

time, we are out in the villages and remote areas, working with 

locals to develop their own resources and look after their own 

neighborhoods. 

Senator MANCHIN. General? 

General MATTIS. Sir, we are fighting a war that is unlike conventional war. It requires both counterterrorism and counterinsurgency efforts. Part of that would be seen as nation building, 

but you have seen it in action over there. Whatever it is called, it 

checkmates the enemy’s designs. 

Senator MANCHIN. The other thing I would ask is the size. Can 

you all identify the size of our enemy and how much our enemy is 

being funded by—their cost of their operation against us? 

General MATTIS. Identify the size of the enemy? 

Senator MANCHIN. Is there 10,000 of them versus 100,000 of us? 

Are they getting $100 million, and we are spending $100 billion? 

General MATTIS. I will have to take the question for the record, 

sir. There is a syndicate of organizations. Al Qaeda has been—pretty much been pushed down, beaten down. They are in a kind of 

hang-on up in the FATA right now. 

Haqqani network is still robust, kind of their special forces. They 

are linked to the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are also linked to the 

Taliban in Pakistan. It is a syndicate. It comes together. It goes 

apart. It fights each other. It fights us. It is hard to get an exact 

count. It will take me a little time, but I will get you our best estimate on each of those groups in that syndicate. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

[Deleted.] 

General MATTIS. As far as the cost, I think it is very difficult to 

evaluate the cost. But clearly, I think we have to look in the future 

to how do we become cost imposing, use cost-imposing strategies on 

an enemy, rather than being in the position that you just described. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

In coordination with the AF/PAK Center of Excellence at U.S. Central Command, 

the U.S. Special Operations Command Joint Intelligence Center Special Operations 

Command estimates that the Taliban and insurgent forces inside of Afghanistan is 

between 22,000 to 32,000 fighters. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me just say, if I can, the best I could decipher from what we were getting information is I think it is fair to 

say that we have about 10 to 1 of the troops superior. We have 

about 10 troops for their 1 identified. We spend about $10 for their 

$1. It looks like money is not going to win this war. Is that a fair 

statement, Admiral? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I would have to take, for the record, your 

numbers to confirm or deny that. I do believe that the presence in 

a variety of capacities and the whole of nation approach to Afghanistan is very important. I do believe that it is less expensive to fund 

an insurgency than a counterinsurgency, certainly. 

226 

Senator MANCHIN. If I may ask this question, and this will be to 

you, Admiral. I was so impressed with special ops. We were privileged to go through a briefing and watch how they operate. 

With that being said, do you believe that you all are able to identify the Haqqanis and Quetta Shura tribes, if you will, and their 

location within Pakistan and your inability to go get them or them 

to assist you in getting them? Is there any break in that whatsoever? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I would say that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and will, as sovereign nations do, act in its own best interests 

first. It does not see itself as threatened by those groups, as our 

forces feel they are threatened by those groups. We are willing to 

assist Pakistan at the rate that they are willing to accept our assistance, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. So, basically, we have an ally who truly is not 

acting as an ally. This is just from an outsider’s opinion and looking at the operation of our people being at risk, knowing where the 

enemy is, and we can’t do anything about it. 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I would say that in many ways Pakistan is 

behaving as a great ally and taking much risk upon themselves. 

But there is perhaps more that can be done. I think that the senior-level dialogues that are taking place are very productive in this 

regard. 

Senator MANCHIN. To both of you, do you know if the literacy 

rate in Afghanistan has improved at all over 10 years? 

General MATTIS. Yes, it has. I would have to get you the numbers, sir. It is also one of the primary recruiting tools for the Afghan army. But today, we have significantly higher education. I 

will get you the numbers that can verify this. 

Senator MANCHIN. The numbers that I received show that literacy in Afghanistan is still only 28 percent. 

General MATTIS. Sir, well, considering that during the Taliban’s 

control, they didn’t build a single school and they have been trying 

to blow up the ones we are building, it has been difficult. But we 

are making progress, sir. I will get you the numbers. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Afghan literacy rates have indeed improved and are currently trending upward 

under International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)-led development efforts. In 

2008, the Department of State estimated the adult (over 15 years old) Afghan literacy rate at 43 percent for males and at 12 percent for females. In September 2009, 

an ISAF assessment estimated the adult Afghan literacy rate had climbed to 50 percent (+7 percent) for males and 14 percent (+2 percent) for females. 

Based on the October 2010 Congressional Report on Progress Toward Security 

and Stability in Afghanistan, most literate Afghans are concentrated in the cities. 

In rural areas, 90 percent of women and more than 60 percent of men remain illiterate. Under the Taliban regime girls were not allowed to go to school and fewer 

than 900,000 boys were enrolled. During the same period, university enrollment was 

only 7,881 students. In stark contrast, nearly 7,000,000 students are now enrolled 

in primary and secondary education facilities (with 37 percent of them being female) 

and university enrollment has grown to 62,000. 

Senator MANCHIN. I would ask both of you this question, too. Do 

you believe that al Qaeda still poses a threat to the United States 

of America? If that is still correct, since they are not a presence in 

Afghanistan, with all of our resources and so much of our money 

has been dedicated to that arena, where are they now, and what 

227 

are we doing to be able—are we capable of taking the fight to 

them, wherever it may be? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I think al Qaeda is struggling. I think that 

its leadership is less experienced. I think its ranks are more fractured than any time in the last decade, and they certainly have distributed. There is AQAP, al Qaeda in the Maghreb, al Qaeda in 

Iraq, and other al Qaeda associated groups in the region. So there 

is a requirement to continue taking the fight to where they are, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. General? 

General MATTIS. They are a threat. They are under terrible pressure right now. They have gone to ground in the epicenter of this 

effort, which is up in the FATA, but they have also distributed 

down into AQAP. They have been hit hard in Iraq, but they are 

still a threat to the Iraqi Government. We see links going down 

into Somalia with al-Shabaab. 

Senator MANCHIN. With the tremendous budget concerns we 

have within our own nation, if changes are made or adjustments 

are made to the operation as we know it in Afghanistan today, do 

you think it will affect the outcome at all, if we reduce the funding? 

General MATTIS. Absolutely, it will, sir. It must. I mean, right 

now, we have, just in the last year and a half, gotten the resources, 

personnel, training, Commander’s Emergency Response Program 

(CERP) funds, that sort of thing correct. We are right now approaching the time when we are going to see the results of all that. 

We are already seeing the results, but they are going to be very 

telling shortly. 

Senator MANCHIN. Admiral? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, Afghanistan SOF are operating at the edge 

of their people and at the edge of their budget. Any reduction in 

either would be detrimental to the effect, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for your patience and, of 

course, for your service. 

I would like to pursue further discussion about the sanctuaries 

in Pakistan with this lead-in. General Mattis, I was in Malajat last 

October. I know you spoke to, in your testimony, what had happened there and the positive developments. Fort Carson troops 

were there from my home State of Colorado. So it was particularly 

special to be there, and it was very impressive. 

My fear is that it is only a matter of time before insurgents reappear. Their refuge in that part of Pakistan is only about 4 hours 

from Kandahar. It is just my sense is as long as the enemy has 

sanctuaries, we are fighting with an arm tied behind our back. 

General, you have spoken to why Pakistan isn’t doing more to 

eliminate the sanctuaries. If they can’t or won’t address them, do 

you believe that the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 

and Afghan forces working together can make enough progress on 

the security front to overcome the challenges presented by the 

sanctuaries? 

Admiral Olson, I would welcome your thoughts as well after the 

General has spoken to this. 

228 

General MATTIS. Sir, the area the troops from your State were 

operating in is, obviously, close to the border area. It is subject to 

being impacted by the enemy coming out of safe havens. 

It is not that the Pakistanis have done nothing here. They have 

lost thousands of troops. They have had almost 30,000 of their civilians murdered by these enemies, and they are probably in a position of saying, ‘‘I don’t want to create more enemies right now 

than I already have.’’ They are engaged in years of the longest 

campaign and the most costly campaign that they have faced. 

I think that, while it is not perfect, we have to remind ourselves 

that the only thing more difficult than fighting with allies is fighting without allies. Thank God, we have the 49 nations alongside 

us, fighting in Afghanistan right now. 

With Pakistan, I think we have to look at both what they are 

doing and continue to try and close the gap in our understanding 

with what they are not doing. We are very candid in our discussions with the Pakistani leadership about this, and we will continue to work it. 

However, in the area that you are referring to, that kind of open 

ground coming from Kandahar over towards the border, General 

Petraeus, thanks to the increase that the President authorized, 

now has a surveillance brigade from the Army that is watching 

over that area. 

In other words, it is not just a thoroughfare. The enemy is going 

to have a very difficult time come spring when they try to reintroduce their troops back into the areas of Helmand and Kandahar, 

where they have lost the initiative. 

We are aware of the situation. We are adapting to it, and the 

Pakistanis are doing a lot. There is more they could do, but there 

is more we could be doing as well. This is the normal give-and-take 

of war, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Admiral Olson? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, we wish they would do more. Perhaps they 

could do more. But I don’t pretend to understand the internal dynamics within Pakistan, certainly the strategic implications of their 

decision-making process, to be too critical of them. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, they do have their hands full. I do know 

there is a school of thought that counterinsurgencies have never 

been successfully completed if the insurgents have sanctuaries, and 

we need to continue to worry that concept. 

If I might, General, Admiral, I would like to talk about some of 

the analysis that right now we are in a strategic stalemate in Afghanistan. That is a better situation, some would argue, than we 

had a year or 2 or 3 ago. By that, I mean neither side can achieve 

its aims through the use of arms alone. 

A follow-on thought is that we will have difficulty preserving our 

gains just because we are visitors, if you will, to the area, without 

entering into some sort of negotiations. I know there are still disagreements among many in Afghanistan, both in the Afghan community and in ISAF, what those negotiations look like, how quickly 

they should happen, and what they might accomplish. 

My opinion is—and I have heard this from the military leadership in our country and the civilian leadership—that the way home 

is through a political process and political solution, ultimately. How 

229 

do we incentivize the process further and make reconciliation and 

reintegration move more quickly? 

General MATTIS. Senator, I do not think we are in a strategic 

stalemate right now. If I was before you a year ago, I probably 

would have accepted that. I think that the enemy is now in a worsening situation. What we are doing is our strategy is that we have 

a military component. You have seen that. Everyone knows what 

that is—reinforced, well-trained troops, better strategy. I can go on. 

Then you have a civilian component. Those two are married together into a combined civilian-military effort. 

Additionally, there is a diplomatic effort to end the war. Taliban 

are going to have to say we will abide by the constitution, break 

with al Qaeda and stop using violence. They are welcome back in. 

The reconciliation process has to be a process that is owned by 

the Afghans because they are the ones who have to reconcile. We 

can support it. We should support it. The international community 

is supporting it. 

Reintegration is the bottom up, reconciliation being the top down. 

Reintegration is where we are getting young fellows to come over 

to our side, and there is a process to bring them onboard. 

So you are seeing right now a strategy of how do you incentivize 

it? First point, make certain the enemy doesn’t think they are 

going to win. That is what we have had to reverse in the last year. 

Then the diplomats have more of a chance to get these other efforts—reconciliation, reintegration—going. I hope that answers 

your question. 

Senator UDALL. Admiral Olson, do you have any additional 

thoughts? 

Admiral OLSON. Sir, I certainly agree with what General Mattis 

said. I would say that I do think we are on a path to being able 

to negotiate from a position of strength. I do believe that negotiation can accelerate the termination of a conflict, but you have to 

be able to do it from a position of strength. 

Senator UDALL. Speaking of negotiations, General, India and 

Pakistan are reportedly negotiating again over such tough topics as 

Kashmir and economic integration. I assume you and Admiral Willard share perspectives and are working together. 

Would you comment on the opportunity there? My opinion, if 

India and Pakistan could reach the point at which they had a little 

warmer relationship, it would help our efforts in Afghanistan. 

General MATTIS. I completely concur with you. Admiral Willard 

and I are in routine contact with one another, as we make certain 

that seam between the two combatant commands does not become 

a gap in our efforts to work together. 

At the same time, this India-Pakistan reconciliation has to be 

something that they take responsibility for. So we are more in a 

mode of making certain that what we are doing militarily is never 

seen as contrary to that trend. 

Senator UDALL. My time has expired. Two brief comments. I met 

with some returning civilian and military leaders from Afghanistan. Interesting ideas taking shape, which is that the Afghan civilian sector ought to surge into the Afghan rural communities. That 

is not a new idea to you, but I wanted to continue to acknowledge. 

I know the chairman has really pushed on that front as well. 

230 

Then, second, listening to you, I was reminded of President Lincoln’s great comment that it always seemed like in war the best 

generals were working for the newspapers. Listening to you two 

today, I think the best generals and admirals are working for the 

American people. So, thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

I just have a couple questions for a second round, and then we 

are going to adjourn over to the Capitol Visitor Center, room 217, 

for a closed session. There has been a request by at least one Senator for that. We should start there, hopefully, 5 minutes to 12:00, 

if no one else has any additional questions here. 

I just have two questions. One, General, is the question of whether or not you expect that President Karzai will be announcing later 

this month the first phase of provinces and districts for transition 

to Afghan security responsibility based on the joint recommendations of ISAF and Afghan officials. That is what Defense Minister 

Wardak told me was likely to happen, when he met with me in my 

office. Is that your understanding? 

General MATTIS. It is, Mr. Chairman. I believe it will be on 

March 21. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. The other question relates to the 

camp in Iraq, Camp Ashraf, where there are Iranian dissidents 

who are being continually harassed in various forms by agents of 

Iran and also by some of Maliki’s people as well. 

Now, one of the issues there are the loudspeakers, apparently 

large numbers of loudspeakers, which blare propaganda into that 

area. I am wondering whether you have taken this issue up, General, with Prime Minister Maliki and whether we are pressing this 

issue because that kind of psychological abuse is unacceptable. 

Have you raised this with Prime Minister Maliki? 

General MATTIS. I will raise it with him, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Has it been raised before, do you know? 

General MATTIS. I don’t know. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. Will you make sure that it is raised? 

General MATTIS. I will. 

Chairman LEVIN. Any other questions? If not, we are going to adjourn right away to that classified session. 

We thank both of you again for your service. We will see you over 

at the Capitol Visitor Center. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

VILLAGE STABILITY OPERATIONS/AFGHAN LOCAL POLICE

1. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, General Petraeus and others have emphasized the importance of the Village Stability Operations (VSO) and 

Afghan Local Police (ALP) programs to the strategy in Afghanistan. Under the ALP, 

Special Operations Forces (SOF) are working with local villagers to empower communities to create their own protection force answerable to the local elders and 

under the oversight of the Ministry of Interior. General Petraeus has discussed the 

possibility of dramatically increasing the size of both programs to more effectively 

undercut Taliban influence in rural areas while also better connecting these areas 

to the central government. What has been the effect of these programs on rural Afghan populations and what has been the response from the Taliban? 

Admiral OLSON. VSO and the associated ALP program have offered the Afghan 

Government its first steps toward legitimacy in key rural areas. By contributing to 

local governance, VSO provides the mechanism by which the Government of the IsVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
231 

lamic Republic of Afghanistan is able to address security, economic, judicial and developmental grievances. This has improved popular confidence in the Afghan Government and the various Afghan Security Forces. It has significantly impacted 

Taliban safehavens, freedom of movement, recruiting and operational effectiveness 

in the micro-regions where it has been implemented. As a result, the Taliban are 

increasing their efforts to intimidate communities and individuals participating in 

the VSO and ALP programs. 

General MATTIS. [Deleted.] 

2. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, do you believe the availability of U.S. Special Operations teams is a limiting factor in expanding these programs to a point where they can have a strategic impact in Afghanistan? 

Admiral OLSON. The SOF teams have a strategic impact even in small numbers, 

but the demand is outpacing the supply. 

General MATTIS. No. While the VSO/ALP mission initially required SOF’s unique 

capabilities, the program is now mature enough for conventional forces to conduct 

with SOF oversight. 

AFGHANISTAN COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS

3. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, according to published reports, the tempo of counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan by U.S. and Afghan 

SOF has increased dramatically in the last 6 months and demonstrated significant 

results. Lieutenant General Rodriguez stated recently that the Afghan people are 

playing an increasingly important role in the success of these operations by ‘‘helping 

to provide significantly more tips because they see Afghan Security Forces out 

among them more than they ever had because of the increase in the number [of Afghan Forces].’’ Reportedly, 85 percent of counterterrorism operations take place 

without a shot being fired. Do you agree with Lieutenant General Rodriguez that 

the increased presence of Afghan Security Forces has resulted in better intelligence 

because the population is more likely to come forward with information? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes. This is one of the reasons that SOF operations are partner 

led and U.S./Coalition missions are no longer unilateral. 

General MATTIS. Yes. Locally provided intelligence has increased based on the 

growth of both Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and International Security 

Assistance Forces. A more secure environment has reduced the threat of retribution 

and allowed for the establishment of numerous community-based self-defense programs, multiple ‘‘tip lines’’ to harvest indigenous information, and 74 new local police sites that collectively provide actionable intelligence. 

4. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, what has been the impact 

of this intelligence on the success of counterterrorism operations? 

Admiral OLSON. Further deployment of ANSF has led to better intelligence collection. Not only is the local population more likely to report information to the ANSF, 

the pairing of ANSF and coalition partners can greatly assist in guiding collection 

focus and methods. Specifically, the partnership of Afghan National Army (ANA) 

Special Forces with U.S. Special Forces teams has greatly increased the Operational 

Detachment Alpha’s ability to understand the human terrain and socio-cultural dynamics at the village and district level. Similarly, Afghan National Civil Order Police has seen success in manning checkpoints throughout southern Afghanistan. 

Their lasting presence along major roadways helps the Conventional Forces to better understand local populations and have demonstrated an ability to support 

counter IED initiatives in southern Afghanistan. 

General MATTIS. These operations have facilitated Coalition and Government of 

Afghanistan efforts to secure the Afghan populace. The enhanced security environment has paid great dividends and fostered popular support and trust in the ANSF, 

leading to more intelligence tips from the people. 

5. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, are news reports accurate 

that 85 percent of SOF counterterrorism operations are conducted successfully without a shot being fired? 

Admiral OLSON. Our data for 2010 indicates that, of about 2,000 counterterrorism 

operations, 86 percent did not include gunfire. 

General MATTIS. [Deleted.] 

232 

AIRLIFT SUPPORT FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

6. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, one of the most frequent concerns related to deployed SOF is the lack of rotary wing airlift to support their missions, especially 

in Afghanistan. The two primary concerns are that U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) uses its organic rotary wing airlift almost exclusively to support 

kill/capture counterterrorism missions and that airlift support from the General 

Purpose Forces is rarely available. This leaves special operations personnel performing counterinsurgency missions with very little direct support. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) mandates some action on this issue by increasing 

SOCOM’s organic capabilities and by dedicating a limited number of Navy helicopters to support of SOF. Do you believe the actions directed by the QDR will address SOCOM’s airlift needs? 

Admiral OLSON. The actions directed by the QDR adequately addressed SOCOM’s 

longer term organic helicopter needs. Surge operations still require allocation of 

General Purpose Force helicopters to support SOF operations. Further, foreign 

training requirements may place an additional demand on SOF rotary wing capabilities. 

7. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, do you believe additional capabilities should be 

grown within SOCOM or provided by the General Purpose Forces? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM’s programs of record, and those we have planned across 

the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), combined with General Purpose Forces 

provided by the Service Departments, are adequate to fulfill the current and anticipated airlift support requirements. 

INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT FOR INDIRECT ACTIVITIES

8. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, some observers contend 

that the National intelligence agencies focus their assistance to the Department of 

Defense (DOD) in Afghanistan on special operators engaged in direct action operations against the Taliban. As a consequence, it is alleged, General Purpose Forces 

and SOF engaged in indirect activities, including VSOs and population security, receive less intelligence support. Do you believe SOF performing primarily indirect 

missions in Afghanistan receive adequate intelligence support? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes, intelligence support is generally adequate and responsive. 

General MATTIS. Yes. All general purpose and SOF are provided the intelligence 

support required to accomplish their assigned missions. 

9. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, how is SOCOM working to build its organic intelligence gathering and exploitation capabilities? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM is focused on developing an organic airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability with a corresponding 

Processing, Exploitation & Dissemination (PED) capacity. The SOCOM J2 (Intelligence) and J6 (Communications) have teamed to design and build a robust Special 

Operations Information Enterprise (SIE) that will facilitate the movement, sharing, 

and coordination of information across theaters of operations, from tactical users to 

strategic decisionmakers. The intent is to fully integrate with the Service developed 

Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS) family of networks, which will enable 

the rapid sharing of critical information in a joint-combined operating environment. 

SOCOM leads DOD in the employment of Identity Intelligence tools, tactics, techniques and procedures. Partnering with the Biometric Identity Management Agency 

and the ISR Task Force, we received $79.9 million the past 2 years and developed 

a $26 million (FYDP) training program at Fort Bragg, NC, resulting in the fielding 

of 1,426 biometric systems that led to 2,686 tiered Watchlisted and IED associated 

persons of interest. Our Sensitive Site Exploitation (SSE) program leverages biometrics, forensics and document/media exploitation as mission enablers to defeat 

terrorists and their networks. SOCOM is also a leader in tagging, tracking, and locating technology, as well as in providing SOF with a world-class reconnaissance, 

surveillance, and target acquisition capability that includes still/video, sensor trigger 

and unattended ground sensors/unattended maritime sensors (UGS/UMS). 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

10. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, some have argued that you, as the Commander 

of SOCOM, should have greater influence on personnel management issues which 

are generally within the purview of the Services, but which directly impact the asVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00238 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
233 

signment, promotion, compensation, and retention of SOF. Do you believe you are 

adequately empowered to influence the personnel management decisions of the 

Services as they apply to SOF? 

Admiral OLSON. Until recently, no. However, DOD Directive 5100.01, Functions 

of DOD and its major components, approved by the Secretary of Defense on 21 December 2010, requires the Services to ‘‘coordinate’’ personnel policies with SOCOM, 

and this has the potential to improve SOCOM’s influence in this regard. 

UNDERSEA MOBILITY STRATEGY

11. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, last July, SOCOM cancelled the Joint MultiMission Submersible program and announced a new Undersea Mobility acquisition 

strategy focused on the development and fielding of a family of wet and dry combat 

submersibles to meet the requirements of SOF. These actions follow the extremely 

costly development and fielding of the Advanced SEAL Delivery System, which was 

ultimately rendered inoperable by a November 2008 battery fire. Please describe the 

decisionmaking process that led to the change in acquisition strategy. 

Admiral OLSON. In the programming and budgeting process for fiscal year 2012, 

the Department conducted a detailed review of the JMMS program. Based on the 

review, it was determined that the planned program to develop and field a fleet of 

JMMS was unaffordable due to current and expected future competing priorities for 

SOCOM resources. In addition, during the JMMS material solutions analysis, another feasible alternative had been identified to develop and field a fleet of smaller, 

less-capable dry combat submersibles that could operate from Dry Deck Shelter 

equipped submarines and surface ships. Simultaneously, SOCOM has been looking 

at alternate commercial submersible concepts and experimenting with a commercialoff-the-shelf submersible that showed promising results at reduced cost. 

Accordingly, SOCOM revised its undersea mobility acquisition strategy to use the 

funds originally programmed for JMMS to develop a fleet of affordable Dry Combat 

Submersibles (based on commercial technologies and practices) and the necessary 

Dry Deck Shelter and submarine modifications to support them. This enables 

SOCOM to field a larger number of undersea vehicles sooner than the original 

JMMS approach. 

12. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, how would you characterize the technological, 

cost, and schedule risks associated with development of a new family of dry combat 

submersibles? 

Admiral OLSON. Technical risk is medium to simultaneously meet the ‘‘iron triangle’’ of payload, speed, and range requirements due to current battery technology. 

Commercial off-the-shelf and Government off-the-shelf silver-zinc battery technologies are rated at Technology Readiness Levels 7–9, so they should be reliable. 

However, they have not demonstrated the power required for our ideal submersible 

in a realistic environment. Our Dry Combat Submersible program is focused on 

identifying what is affordable and achievable within current budgets and technologies. 

Cost and schedule risk are both assessed as medium level risk based primarily 

upon the risk associated with safety certification. SOCOM is using commercial design standards and processes (e.g. American Bureau of Shipping) wherever possible 

to help reduce these risks through a more determinant certification process. 

SOCOM is also working closely with the U.S. Navy to properly scope any certifications they require for operations associated with nuclear submarine. 

13. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, how does SOCOM intend to avoid the costly 

development and reliability issues that plagued the development and operation of 

the Advanced SEAL Delivery System? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM intends to leverage commercial submersible design, fabrication, and safety certification methodology to provide timely, reliable, and costeffective capabilities. Design studies are also planned to cultivate the submersible 

industrial base. SOCOM intends to use American Bureau of Shipping classed competitive prototypes to affirm speed, range, and payload thresholds prior to ordering 

the Dry Combat Submersible-Light lead ship. Additional economies will accrue from 

using proven sonar systems and communication systems from our wet SEAL Delivery Vehicles. 

14. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, what is the appropriate role for the Naval Sea 

Systems Command in the development and acquisition of SOCOM’s undersea mobility platforms? 

234 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM will use the engineering expertise of Naval Sea Systems 

Command (NAVSEA), its shipyards, and laboratories to support the Dry Combat 

Submersible (DCS) programs, especially in the areas of engineering and safety certification. We are working with NAVSEA to identify experts and define roles such 

as the subsea engineering found at Naval Surface Warfare Centers. NAVSEA will 

perform system safety certification of all submersibles that will operate from submarines. SOCOM will perform system safety certification of any DCS submersibles 

(including prototypes) that will not operate from submarines. SOCOM is also using 

the expertise of commercial engineering and safety certification agencies such as 

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) to provide independent review and classification services for DCS programs. ABS has certified 47 submersibles that operate for 

extended periods every day, carrying civilian and non-DOD government personnel 

for research, tourism, and the oil industry. 

MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS

15. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, DOD recently announced that it was discontinuing use of the term ‘‘psychological operations’’ in favor of the term ‘‘Military 

Information Support Operations.’’ Why do you believe such a change was necessary? 

Admiral OLSON. The U.S. Armed Forces have long recognized the vital importance 

of conveying truthful information to influence foreign governments, organizations, 

groups, and individuals. Military information activities in both wartime and peacetime have been described as ‘‘psychological warfare’’, ‘‘psychological operations’’ and 

PSYOP. 

In recent years, the term ‘‘psychological operations’’ became anachronistic and 

misunderstood. Although PSYOP activities relied on truthful information credibly 

conveyed, to some people PSYOP connoted propaganda, brainwashing, manipulation 

and deceit. In some cases, the negative connotations of the term discouraged commanders and our civilian interagency partners from making use of military PSYOP 

capabilities to advance national objectives. 

To overcome the stigma of the name and allow DOD to better utilize these military information capabilities in an interagency environment, the Chief of Staff of the 

Army, General Casey, and I recommended to the Secretary of Defense that we replace the term ‘‘psychological operations’’ or PSYOP with Military Information Support Operations (MISO) to more accurately convey the nature of the activities. The 

Secretary directed DOD to implement the change this fiscal year. 

16. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, what operational and doctrinal impacts do you 

believe such a change will have? 

Admiral OLSON. The change will have no operational or doctrinal impacts. It is 

only an administrative terminology change. The definition and all policy, legal, organization, and doctrinal guidance previously applied to PSYOP remain in effect for 

MISO. 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS MISSIONS

17. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, in recent years, SOF have taken on an expanded role in a number of areas important to countering violent extremist organizations, including those related to information and military intelligence operations. 

Some have advocated significant changes to SOCOM’s Title 10 missions to make 

them better reflect the activities SOF are carrying out around the world. What 

changes, if any, would you recommend to SOCOM’s Title 10 missions? 

Admiral OLSON. Over the past year, SOCOM has reviewed the set of special operations activities listed in Title 10 through the Strategic Capabilities Guidance process. We have identified a set of operations and activities that better reflect how SOF 

supports national strategies, global campaign plans, and theater plans. We have 

also come to realize that operations-counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, and others-often blend in today’s complex environment. It is now 

much more difficult to neatly categorize a specific operation as one type versus another. Therefore, we see the need to differentiate between operations and activities. 

To provide clarity in how SOF executes its missions, we have developed a framework for SOF Core Operations and Activities. Core Operations are the operational 

contexts within which SOF operate, often in concert with conventional forces and 

interagency partners. Core Activities, however, are unique capabilities that SOF 

apply in different combinations tailored for an operational context. A core special 

operation activity is a stand-alone, operationally significant, military capability that 

SOF can apply independently or in combination as part of a global, Geographic 

235 

Combatant Command, or joint force commander’s campaign or operation. I will be 

reviewing the revised list of operations and activities over the next few months with 

SOF senior leaders. The revised list, which could possibly become the basis for a 

Title 10 legislative proposal, includes the following: 

Core Operations: 

Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Counterinsurgency 

Counterterrorism 

Foreign Internal Defense 

Stability Operations 

Support to Major Combat Operations and Campaigns 

Unconventional Warfare 

Core Activities: 

Advise and Assist 

Civil Affairs Operations 

Hostage Rescue and Recovery 

Intelligence Preparation of the Environment 

Interdiction and Offensive Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations 

Military Information Support Operations 

Operational Preparation of the Environment 

Reconnaissance and Surveillance 

SOF Combat Support and Combat Service Support 

Strikes and Raids 

Support to Insurgency 

COUNTERING RADICAL IDEOLOGIES

18. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, in 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second-in-command, declared that ‘‘We are in a battle, and more than half of it is taking place in the battlefield of the media.’’ The new National Military Strategy lists 

‘‘countering violent extremism’’ as the first National Military Objective and stresses 

the importance of long-term ‘‘whole of nation’’ approaches to countering extremism 

beyond short-term activities of killing and capturing extremists. However, earlier 

this year, a non-partisan study highlighted the lack of a U.S. strategy to counter 

radical ideologies that foment violence (e.g. Islamism or Salafist-Jihadism). What is 

SOCOM’s role in supporting efforts by the geographic combatant commands to 

counter the spread of violent extremist ideology and the radicalization of vulnerable 

populations? 

Admiral OLSON. SOF, specifically MISO support the geographic combatant commands in countering VEO ideologies and radicalization of vulnerable populations 

through several means. SOCOM Military Information Support units have been deployed in direct support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan (OEF), Iraq (New 

Dawn), and the Philippines (OEF–Philippines) from the onset of those operations, 

often in collaboration with coalition forces and other U.S. Government Agencies. 

Outside the areas of conflict, SOCOM deploys Military Information Support 

Teams (MISTs) to countries supporting military objectives to erode support for extremist ideologies and deter tacit and active support for VEOs. Deployed at the request of both the GCC and the respective U.S. Ambassador, MISTs provide the 

GCCs with a direct engagement tool to improve partner nation capabilities to combat VEOs and resist the spread of their associated ideologies. 

SOCOM also resources and manages two effective trans-regional military information support programs: the Trans-Regional Web Initiative (TRWI), and the Regional 

Magazine Initiative (RMI). Both programs provide the GCCs a capability to conduct 

influence operations to directly address VEO ideology, facilitation, and radicalization 

without putting boots on the ground. 

In addition to forces provided and programs executed, SOCOM also supports the 

GCCs by providing direct planning support. 

19. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Olson, to what degree does SOCOM draw upon research conducted by DOD’s Minerva and Human Social Cultural Behavioral Modeling programs? 

Admiral OLSON. 

Minerva Research Initiative (MRI) 

MRI is a DOD-sponsored, university based social science program initiated by the 

SECDEF in 2008. The program’s goal is to improve DOD’s basic understanding of 

236 

the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world 

of strategic importance to the US. SOCOM has been an integral part of two of the 

five projects: (1) ‘Finding Allies for the War of Words: Mapping the Diffusion and 

Influence of Counter-Radical Muslim Discourse’ and (2) ‘Terrorism, Governance, and 

Development’ 

SOCOM has fostered multiple relationships between DOD project managers; academics; and SOCOM planners, analysts, and interagency personnel. 

Human Social Culture Behavior (HSCB) Modeling Program 

In 2008, OSD established the HCSB modeling program. The mission of the 6-year 

program is to research, develop, and transition technologies, tools, and systems to 

help planners, intelligence analysts, operations analysts, and others represent, understand, and forecast sociocultural behavior at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. SOCOM representatives have been in close collaboration with HCSB 

project managers to garner better insights regarding objectives, identify those 

projects that are of importance to SOCOM, and engage with appropriate academics 

to ensure they understand our interests. 

SOCOM received funding to write a program called ANTHRO ANALYST (AA) 

FOR J2 SOCPAS. AA is an advanced application allowing a user to quickly input 

elevation, population density, and intelligence information to generate and predict 

human terrain as well as habitable areas. 

SOCOM attends the Air Force Office of Scientific Research annual program reviews and provides updates to appropriate offices and directorates within the command. SOCOM continues to leverage the projects’ findings and to incorporate appropriate information into efforts across the command. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CLAIRE MCCASKILL

CAMP ASHRAF

20. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, in recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on U.S. policy in Iraq, as well as during this hearing before the 

committee, the plight of residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq was discussed. In addition, prominent former government officials have recently raised concerns about the 

welfare of the residents at Ashraf, including former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, General Peter Pace (Ret.), and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The 

approximately 4,000 Iranian dissidents and their advocates continue to allege 

abuses and harassment by members of the Iraqi security services. The harassment 

includes tactics such as continuous exposure to loudspeakers, as Chairman Levin remarked, and up to and including serious physical harm against camp residents. To 

what extent do U.S. military forces have contact with the residents of Camp Ashraf? 

General MATTIS. U.S. military forces had limited contact regarding Camp Ashraf 

since Government of Iraq has taken over responsibility. In the wake of the incident 

on 8 April that led to a number of deaths and injuries, we have requested access 

to Camp Ashraf but so far have been refused by the Iraqi Government. We have 

been told the Iraqi Government is undertaking an investigation on events there, and 

the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad and General Austin are making clear U.S. policy 

and the way forward with the Iraqi Government 

21. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, has any U.S. military equipment provided to the Iraqi military or security forces been used to harass or endanger the 

residents of Camp Ashraf? 

General MATTIS. It is possible that any given Iraqi unit which operated in the vicinity of Camp Ashraf may have had some U.S.-provided equipment in its inventory, 

particularly vehicles. Since 2003, the United States has provided millions of dollars 

worth of defense equipment to the Government of Iraq which is widely distributed 

across the Iraqi Security Forces. 

Overhead photographs taken during the 8 April 2011 events at Camp Ashraf appear to include images of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) 

among the vehicles employed by Iraqi forces. The HMMWV, which has been supplied in large numbers to the Government of Iraq, is a characteristic U.S. military 

vehicle. It is possible that some at Camp Ashraf on 8 April are among the many 

which have been delivered to Iraq by the United States over the course of the past 

8 years. 

22. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, what is your opinion of the Government 

of Iraq’s willingness and ability to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf? 

237 

General MATTIS. The events of 8 April that led to a number of deaths and injuries 

are of serious concern. In the wake of that incident, we have requested access to 

Camp Ashraf but so far have been refused by the Iraqi Government. Most important 

is the assurance that residents will NOT be forcibly transferred to a country where 

there are grounds for believing the residents would be persecuted, tortured, or unfairly put on trial based on their political or religious beliefs. The Government of 

Iraq (GoI) has also publicly committed to undertake an investigation as to what exactly happened on April 8 that led to a number of deaths and injuries. We continue 

to urge restraint and nonviolence as means to facilitate an appropriate solution to 

the situation. I respectfully defer to the Department of State (DOS) for any details 

concerning specific issues. 

23. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, what is your assessment of Prime Minister al-Maliki’s long-term plans for Camp Ashraf? 

General MATTIS. The Government of Iraq’s stated policy is that the People’s 

Mujahideen Organization of Iran must leave Iraq by the end of 2011 with the cooperation of the United Nations and international organizations. DOS is working to 

find a negotiated settlement to the situation. I respectfully defer to DOS for any details concerning specific issues. 

AFGHAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES

24. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, during his testimony on DOD’s 2012 

budget request, Secretary Gates stated that he was still uncertain how the United 

States was going to continue to train and fund the ANSF once U.S. forces have 

withdrawn or been reduced. I believe that investing in ANSF is extremely important 

to long-term stability in Afghanistan. However, I also have concerns that the U.S. 

Government may not have adequately come to grips with just how expensive it will 

be to sustain ANSF over the long term ($12.8 billon is requested for next year). The 

total gross domestic product (GDP) of Afghanistan is about $29.8 billion a year, so 

it is unrealistic to expect the Afghans to pay for full ANSF costs anytime soon. What 

long-term branch plans are being developed to sustain the training and funding of 

the ANSF beyond 2014? 

General MATTIS. The international community has acknowledged that while the 

transition of lead security responsibility will be completed by December 2014, financial support of the ANSF and other parts of the Afghan economy will be necessary 

past 2014. Senior Civilian Representative Sedwell, as recently as February, commented that the ANSF will need some level of funding through 2025. U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM), in collaboration with other U.S. Government agencies, is 

developing economic initiatives to enable more coordinated and effective international community assistance. This effort will help transition Afghanistan from an 

aid based economy to more of a self-sufficient, trade based economy putting the Government of Afghanistan on a path to meeting the expenditures of a robust ANSF. 

25. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, what checks and balances do you have 

in place to ensure that U.S. weapons and equipment provided to the ANSF are accounted for and do not end up in the hands of the Taliban or other terrorist groups? 

General MATTIS. In March 2009, the Combined Security Transition Command in 

Afghanistan established a functional organization within its command to register 

and monitor the transfer of equipment to Afghanistan. This organization carries out 

the requirements of Section 1225 of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, 

which requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that a program of registration and 

monitoring is in place in Afghanistan. 

26. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, given the repeated and frequent requests 

by the United States on the NATO members for increasing troop and equipment 

contributions for ANSF trainers, what do you think is an equitable and reasonable 

cost-sharing for ANSF training in terms of manpower and funding? 

General MATTIS. The North Atlantic Council has agreed to expand the NATO 

ANA Trust Fund to include funding for sustainment costs. Timely provision of these 

funds will represent a welcome, tangible demonstration of fiscal cost sharing. We 

continue to make a concerted effort to increase NATO and other international partner fiscal contributions. 

Our coalition partners have made good faith efforts to fill manning requirements 

for ANSF trainers within their capabilities and national interests. We will continue 

to work with our coalition partners, NATO and others, to meet the needs of NATO 

Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTM–A). 

238 

IMPACTS OF MIDDLE EAST TURMOIL

27. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, the political upheaval in Egypt, Libya, 

Tunisia, Yemen, and elsewhere in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility (AOR) is of 

great concern. Given the rapidity of the change and the subsequent fragility of the 

geo-political status quo, there seem to be numerous potential impacts on CENTCOM 

operations. What, if any, impact do you assess the turmoil in the Middle East could 

have on the function of Northern Distribution Network and on the logistical tail 

needed to support coalition operations in the region, especially related to fuel and 

the cost to transport it? 

General MATTIS. The current situation in the Middle East is expected to have 

minimal impact on fuels operations supported through the Northern Distribution 

Network since these fuel sources, both crude and refined products, originate from 

Southeastern Europe, Caucasus Region, Central Asian States, and Russia. 

28. Senator MCCASKILL. General Mattis, what is your opinion of the effects of the 

turmoil on some of the more autocratic Central Asian leaders, including and especially Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan? Do you anticipate any impact on our air or rail 

transit agreements as they stand? 

General MATTIS. I view the influence of the changes in the Middle East on Central Asian leaders as minimal in the short term due to the deep entrenchment of 

leaders among the social, political and economic elite, the existence of little political 

opposition, and the lack of a coordinated social network capability to organize and 

implement a challenge. I consider Uzbekistan to be at low risk for instability leading to a change in government. I do not anticipate any impacts to our air or rail 

agreements as they stand. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK BEGICH

RELIANCE ON FOREIGN FUEL SOURCES

29. Senator BEGICH. General Mattis, as you noted in your testimony, countries in 

your AOR contain more than half of the world’s proven oil reserves and nearly half 

of its natural gas. As a result, this area also has some of the world’s busiest trade 

routes. It’s also one of the world’s most volatile regions. I am extremely concerned 

with the national security implications of relying on foreign sources for fossil fuels 

when we have significant reserves in the United States, specifically in the State of 

Alaska. I know DOD buys most of its fuel from local refineries in proximity to Iraq 

and Afghanistan for the vast majority of our requirements in the area. In which 

countries are those refineries located? 

General MATTIS. Our contracted suppliers that move fuel through the various 

ground lines of communication report that fuel is sourced from refineries in Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, 

Oman, Iraq, and various European countries. 

30. Senator BEGICH. General Mattis, what would be the impact to operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan if those refineries no longer could meet our needs? 

General MATTIS. To mitigate supply chain disruptions, CENTCOM has developed 

redundant and complementary fuel supply capability to satisfy fuel demand in both 

Iraq and Afghanistan. Should supply be reduced because of the loss of a refinery 

or refineries, our supply chain managers have the ability to shift fuel orders to alternate sources. CENTCOM has established minimum storage requirements at current operating and intermediate storage locations to enable us to continue operations until alternate means of supply can be implemented. Additionally, 

CENTCOM can implement fuel conservation measures, relocate aircraft, and reduce 

certain operations in order to mitigate the effect of reduced fuel availability. 

31. Senator BEGICH. General Mattis, what would the impact be of a Suez Canal 

or other trade route disruption on operations in CENTCOM’s AOR? 

General MATTIS. The Suez Canal is an important trade route and any interruption to current commercial transit through the Suez could have an impact on global 

resupply, as transit times without the use of the Suez Canal would increase by approximately 10 days. However, temporary closure of the Suez and ensuing disruption to the transit lanes would have little to no impact on operations in the 

CENTCOM AOR. Adequate stores of fuel are on hand that would provide a buffer 

until alternate supply routes are established. 

239 

32. Senator BEGICH. General Mattis, what role do these energy resources play in 

regional and internal instability in your area of operations? 

General MATTIS. Energy resource problems are prominent in our region, particularly in States where meeting growing domestic demand for electricity has become 

more challenging. For some governments, the energy resource supply and demand 

imbalance, and subsequent populace discontent, come as States continue converting 

traditional crude oil-based energy industries to those based on more efficient natural 

gas. In other countries, inadequate energy resources and infrastructure could have 

a more lasting destabilizing impact. 

Competition over shared hydrocarbon resources also has the potential to undermine regional stability, as challenges to poorly defined territorial borders where 

shared energy resources exist can quickly turn historic accommodation to more volatile, intrusive demands over ownership. 

33. Senator BEGICH. General Mattis, in your opinion, does U.S. consumption of 

oil and natural gas from these countries perpetuate instability? 

General MATTIS. No. In my opinion, just the opposite is true. U.S. consumption 

boosts economic stability in these countries, as this is a fundamental exercise of 

international commerce providing economic benefit to a lengthy supply and consumer chain. 

34. Senator BEGICH. General Mattis, in your opinion, how do recent protests, 

uprisings, and calls for reform in many of the countries in your AOR potentially impact availability of energy resources to the United States? 

General MATTIS. The wave of unrest is currently confined to nations that are relatively small oil and gas producers. If the wave migrates to larger energy producing 

regions, energy resource availability could be more significantly impacted. 

35. Senator BEGICH. General Mattis, how would potential disruptions impact operations in CENTCOM? 

General MATTIS. CENTCOM is well postured to endure an array of possible disruptions that may occur. We have ample storage at current operating and intermediate storage locations, fuel conservation measures, plus the redundant and complimentary fuel supply chain capabilities that have been developed. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS

36. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, in response to the 

major uprising against the Qadhafi regime, how would you rate the risk that a postQaddafi Libya turns chaotic and provides a safe haven for al Qaeda and associated 

groups to exploit? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM respectfully defers this question to AFRICOM as Libya 

is under their area of concern. 

General MATTIS. [Deleted.] 

IRAN

37. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Mattis, I am concerned, as I know you are, with 

Iran’s continuing deployment of hundreds of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that can reach our forces and our allies throughout the region. Do you believe 

you have sufficient ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability to defend against this 

threat now and in the future? 

General MATTIS. [Deleted.] 

38. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Mattis, I am concerned with Iran’s mix of conventional and asymmetric warfare capabilities and the threat they pose to U.S. interests in the Gulf. If Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, which as you 

know would drastically affect the flow of petroleum to the world economy, do you 

have everything you need to deter and defeat this threat? 

General MATTIS. [Deleted.] 

39. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Mattis, do we have sufficient support from allies 

to achieve our goals? 

General MATTIS. Yes. Our regional partners, in particular the Gulf Cooperation 

Council nations, increasingly recognize the threat posed by Iran. We have a shared 

240 

interest with these partners to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities, and we have 

seen an increased level of cooperation in that regard. At the same time, we recognize the territorial integrity of our partners, continue to act in concert with them, 

and relentlessly engage to support mutually reinforcing objectives. 

40. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Mattis, two Iranian Navy ships were permitted 

by Egypt to sail through the Suez Canal this month. The Iranians have said they 

are traveling to Syria for a training mission. While other military ships have travelled through the Canal, since 1979 no Iranian military ship has done so. What do 

you think is the reason for Iran’s activity? 

General MATTIS. Iran increasingly asserts its military capability across the region 

in order to expand its influence and to assume the role of regional hegemon. Iran’s 

regular navy deployed the two ships through the Canal and to the Mediterranean 

Sea and Syria as part of their semi-annual cadet training cruise. These cadet 

cruises have a two-fold mission of training the next generation of naval officers and 

showing the Iranian flag. The cruises included foreign port visits, which support 

Iran’s strategic effort to portray itself as a regional military power. 

41. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Mattis, what actions are we taking, if any, in 

response to Iran’s activity? 

General MATTIS. With respect to Iranian naval vessels transiting the Suez Canal, 

we have not responded with any operational actions, though CENTCOM continues 

to closely monitor such activity. CENTCOM maritime operations are clearly observable by Iranian vessels, sending a clear message of U.S. presence and readiness, but 

also a sign of commitment to our partners. 

PIRACY

42. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, last week, as you 

know, Somali pirates killed four Americans on a yacht they had captured. Admiral 

Mullen said in discussing the incident that more than 30 warships are involved in 

the anti-piracy drive underscoring the ‘‘significance of the challenge [of piracy] and 

also the priority in terms of focus.’’ Despite this presence, Somali pirates continue 

to hijack vessels, and last year they seized 53 ships and took 1,181 hostages. Admiral Mullen further stated that hunting down the sea bandits in such vast waters 

was like searching for a ‘‘needle in a haystack.’’ How are you adapting your tactics 

to deal with what is now a more lethal threat to U.S. citizens? 

Admiral OLSON. I defer to General Mattis on questions concerning how forces 

under his operational control are employed. SOCOM is responsible for equipping 

SOF and providing the Geographic Combatant Commands with fully trained SOF. 

For counter piracy activities, SOF elements are trained to respond to hostage scenarios in a maritime environment in a manner that best protects U.S interests and 

the lives of U.S. citizens. SOF is generally not brought in unless there exists a lethal threat to U.S. citizens. I believe our current tactics, techniques, and procedures, 

or TTPs, are sound and we have made no recent significant changes. However, 

SOCOM will continue to assess the threat and modify our TTP’s appropriately. 

General MATTIS. We continue to adapt our tactics, as do the pirates. The scope 

and scale of the piracy enterprise has expanded considerably in recent years, and 

represents a challenge to both commercial and military elements of the international maritime community. Working with our Coalition, European, and NATO 

partners we have established three Naval Task Forces in the region that have 

placed up to 30 military vessels at any given time in key locations to deter attempted pirate attacks. Our CENTCOM Maritime Component Commander also 

hosts a bi-monthly Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) conference in 

Bahrain to ensure multi-national deconfliction of activity and cooperation among all 

counter piracy activities in the region. In addition to Coalition, NATO, and European representation, the conferences also include civilian international maritime organizations and delegates from non-affiliated countries such as China, Russia, 

Japan, and India. 

In addition to these international military efforts, we continue to coordinate closely with the maritime industry on communicating to merchant vessels the importance of adhering to the International Maritime Organization’s Best Management 

Practices. Statistics indicate that the employment of these practices, to include welltrained embarked security teams, is a significant deterrent against pirates. 

43. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, considering that this 

is essentially an international criminal issue, do you have the authority to respond? 

241 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM respectfully defers this question to CENTCOM and the 

other combatant commanders as they are responsible for military operations within 

their area of control. 

General MATTIS. Yes, we have several counter-piracy authorities. Legally speaking, the use of military assets to conduct counter-piracy operations is permitted 

under both domestic and international law. U.S. counter-piracy operations in the 

CENTCOM AOR are conducted pursuant to the Counter-Piracy Execute Order and 

in accordance with the Law of the Sea and U.N. Security Council Resolutions pertaining to suppressing piracy in the Horn of Africa Region. 

Suppressing piracy has been a traditional maritime military activity dating back 

hundreds of years. Counter-piracy operations are conducted to preserve freedom of 

navigation on the high seas, ensure the free flow of commerce, and protect the sea 

lines of communication. Criminal prosecution, albeit an effective tool to keep captured pirates from returning to their activities and deterring other would-be pirates, 

is a means to accomplish the military mission of preserving freedom of navigation. 

44. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, the root cause of piracy is often a failed state. What do you need from diplomatic and developmental 

resources to address piracy? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM respectfully defers this question to AFRICOM as they 

are working with Department of State on how to deal with the root causes of piracy 

emanating from Somalia. 

General MATTIS. While we can inhibit piracy on the sea with military action, ultimately the solution to the problem of piracy lies ashore, with stable governments 

that can control their sovereign territory. I fully support ample funding for diplomatic and developmental resources as part of an integrated civilian-military effort 

to maintain international support and unity of effort in combating issues of mutual 

concern such as piracy. 

45. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, what steps should 

the private sector take to protect itself from piracy? 

Admiral OLSON. I expect they will follow all Legal options available. SOCOM is 

not in a position to speak about what the private sector should or should not do 

in order to protect itself from piracy. 

General MATTIS. The most effective deterrent against pirates is to adhere to the 

International Maritime Organization’s Best Management Practices. These practices 

include the use of professional, well-trained embarked security teams, adherence to 

established security routes through the region, notification of sailing intentions to 

the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), employing speed and 

evasive maneuvering when approached, and construction of onboard fortified citadels. 

46. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, are you concerned 

that companies may take overly aggressive measures in response to piracy? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM is not in a position to comment on what measures the 

private sector may take or how those measures could impact Combatant Command 

Counter-Piracy efforts. 

General MATTIS. No. CENTCOM continues to advocate the importance of adhering 

to the International Maritime Organization’s Best Management Practices. Statistics 

indicate that employing these practices, to include well-trained embarked security 

teams, provides a deterrent against piracy. The next iteration of Best Management 

Practices will recommend the practice of embarking armed security teams in order 

to prevent ship crew members from performing this function. 

TERRORISM AND PROLIFERATION

47. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, I am concerned with 

reports that Iran is acting as an intermediary with North Korea to supply Syria 

with various forms of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile technology. 

In April 2010, the Obama administration called in Syria’s ambassador to ask about 

reports that Syria had transferred Scud and Fateh 110 missiles to Hezbollah. With 

the longer-range Scuds and more accurate Fatah 110s, how do you see this affecting 

the strategic balance in the region? 

Admiral OLSON. [Deleted]. 

General MATTIS. I do not believe Hezballah’s acquisition of SCUDs and Fateh 

110s will significantly alter the regional balance of power. These new weapons enable Hezbollah to strike deeper into Israeli territory and enhance the group’s power 

242 

projection, but Israel already defends against comparable missile threats from Syria 

by maintaining a high defensive posture and employing modern air defense and offensive systems. 

48. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, this year’s National 

Military Strategy (NMS) states: ‘‘the intersection between states, state-sponsored, 

and non-state adversaries is most dangerous in the area of WMD proliferation and 

nuclear terrorism. And then it goes on to say the prospect of multiple nuclear armed 

regimes in the Middle East with nascent security and command and control mechanisms amplifies the threat of conflict, and significantly increases the probability of 

miscalculation or the loss of control of a nuclear weapon to non-state actors.’’ How 

confident are you that al Qaeda or associated insurgent groups could not acquire 

or steal a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials from Pakistan that they could then 

in turn use in a nuclear September 11 scenario? 

Admiral OLSON. [Deleted.] 

General MATTIS. The nexus of Violent Extremist Organizations and WMD proliferation is among my most pressing concerns. CENTCOM, along with our interagency partners, conducts a range of activities to combat WMD proliferation. With 

respect to Pakistan, I know Islamabad regards its nuclear program as the country’s 

most important strategic asset and continues to place highest priority on nuclear security. Its nuclear security program is well established and we remain confident in 

Pakistan’s ability to safeguard its nuclear weapons and stockpile. 

49. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, how are the growing 

U.S.-Pakistan tensions impacting our ability to protect against that scenario? 

Admiral OLSON. [Deleted.] 

General MATTIS. At this time, I do not believe the present tensions between the 

United States and Pakistan will significantly impact the security of Pakistan’s nuclear program. However, continuing tensions between the United States and Pakistan could undermine the effectiveness of long-term U.S. support to the Pakistan 

Army, which could in turn indirectly impact Pakistan’s nuclear program security. 

But at this point such connectivity is spectulative and not based on concrete facts. 

AFGHANISTAN

50. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, when I traveled to 

Afghanistan and Pakistan a few months ago I heard repeatedly from our commanders on the ground that our mission in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to 

Pakistan’s harboring of al Qaeda, Taliban, and aligned organizations. U.S.-Pakistan 

relations have chafed greatly over the past year, particularly recently, and while 

Pakistani military has indeed suffered casualties in their fight against insurgency 

groups, our assessment remains that insurgents enjoy a relative safe haven in Pakistan. How are we going to execute a redeployment strategy in Afghanistan if Pakistan does not go after the insurgency within its borders? 

Admiral OLSON. I defer this question to the combatant commander since he has 

operational responsibility for that area. 

General MATTIS. Insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan somewhat limit our ability to 

accomplish the mission in Afghanistan. Despite this considerable challenge, we continue to make significant progress in our campaign. It is important to note that 

Pakistan has taken a number of difficult steps and has suffered over 30,000 casualties in the fight against insurgents in their Northwest. 

Our intent is to simultaneously degrade the enemy’s capacity while we enhance 

the capacity of our Afghan and Pakistani partners to a point that they can pursue 

this effort without direct U.S. intervention. Such efforts are adversely affected by 

Pakistani requests that we reduce our footprint. Despite the challenges we currently 

face in Pakistan, we are committed to our long-term strategic relationship with 

them. We will continue to transfer the lead for security and governance to our partners in accordance with ISAF objectives, the Afghan-led transition process, and U.S. 

national strategy regarding both Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

LEBANON

51. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Mattis, you state that you value the relationship 

with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and that you would like to see how the government develops before making a decision regarding continuing U.S. aid to the 

LAF, despite Hezbollah’s role in the new government. What factors will you look for 

with respect to the new government in Lebanon and the LAF in order to shape your 

243 

strategic outlook with respect to Lebanon or the LAF, and particularly the advisability of continued aid or military-to-military transactions? 

General MATTIS. [Deleted.] 

CENTRAL ASIA

52. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, Kyrgyzstan has been 

a major refueling station for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. The Northern Distribution 

Network with the other central Asian republics has provided us with important 

logistical support. How solid are the military relationships in Central Asia for the 

United States? 

Admiral OLSON. All of our SOF military relationships with the Central Asian 

countries fall under the purview of CENTCOM. SOF elements under U.S. Special 

Operations Command-Central Command have established good tactical level military relationships with Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan through CounterNarcotics Training (CNT) programs. 

General MATTIS. Our military to military relationships in Central Asia are generally good and improving, despite being comparatively new. I have been encouraged 

by the support of our Central Asian partners. We have made strides in further developing the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) over the last year in particular. 

Of course, our Central Asian partners offer support in accordance with domestic 

concerns. We have seen Russia accommodate our NDN efforts, which has helped to 

allay a significant concern among our partners. Central Asian states are at times 

reluctant to provide public or direct support of our efforts because of their Sovietera Afghanistan experiences as well as concerns about provoking violent extremist 

organizations. Continued support for our military-to-military programs, IMET, and 

exercises is critical to continuing to improve these relationships. We are committed 

to conducting all military-to-military activities in concert with broader DOS strategy 

and policy within the Central Asian region. 

53. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, does Russia remain 

neutral with respect to these relationships or does it attempt to disrupt them? 

Admiral OLSON. [Deleted.] 

General MATTIS. Russia’s influence is a significant factor in the strategic calculus 

of Central Asian states, but has so far not significantly disrupted U.S. policies in 

the region. Russia supports efforts in Afghanistan, most notably by enabling recent 

enhancements to the NDN. 

Russia is concerned about the growth of violent extremism as well as the flow of 

narcotics and other illicit cargo through Central Asia into Russia. At the same time, 

Russia is sensitive to the potential expansion of U.S. influence and the prospects 

of permanent U.S. bases in the region, and engages in information operations to 

counter and contain U.S. influence. As Central Asia’s most influential trading partner, Russia has substantial influence over most of the Central Asian nations. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

COOPERATIVE SECURITY LOCATIONS IN IRAQ

54. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, I have a question about the establishment 

of cooperative security locations in CENTCOM as a vital tool for your theater security plans. Assuming the current plan for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq by December 2011 is carried out, we should still want to maintain a positive collaborative 

relationship with the Government of Iraq in a very strategic location of the region 

for our national interests. Is there value to you and the United States to establish 

forward operating sites and cooperative security locations in Iraq for future operations? 

General MATTIS. While there is potential value to establishing security assistance 

sites and cooperative security locations in the CENTCOM region, the establishment 

must be balanced against many factors, to include host nation support, operational 

need, and possible future U.S. funding to develop and sustain these locations. 

55. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, would the establishment of these locations 

have an impact on your withdrawal plans? 

General MATTIS. The establishment of cooperative security locations would not be 

consistent with the current U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement or current U.S. policy for 

departure of U.S. forces. 

244 

56. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, what impediments, if any, preclude you 

from establishing the agreements necessary to establish these locations? 

General MATTIS. The establishment of cooperative security locations is not consistent with the current U.S.-Iraq security agreement, which calls for the full withdrawal of U.S. forces by end 2011, and is consistent with current U.S. policy. It is 

also worth noting that the current U.S.-Iraq security agreement, which has authorized the U.S. military presence in Iraq from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011, 

stipulates that ‘‘Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching or transit 

point for attacks against other countries.’’ 

THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION

57. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, on the issues of theater security cooperation 

plans, I am aware that you have very few forces assigned to you during peacetime. 

Any exercises or collaborative training you plan to accomplish with other nations 

in your region must be supported by rotational U.S. forces sourced from the Services. Realizing that it has been some time since you were able to devote any significant resources to theater security cooperation in a peaceful region, are you comfortable with the arrangement to rely on rotational forces for the overwhelming majority of your security cooperation requirements? If, not, what changes would you 

propose? 

General MATTIS. Yes. I am satisfied we are meeting our theater security cooperation objectives through a robust program of exercises, events, and activities across 

our AOR. The engagements include individual training utilizing subject matter experts, fielding equipment through Foreign Military Sales and direct commercial 

sales, increasing interoperability via mil-to-mil engagements, and executing bi-lateral and multi-lateral training exercises to develop partner capability and capacity. 

One area that does present a problem is the need for sufficient and sustained Foreign Military Financing and a more responsive Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system 

that delivers urgent operational capabilities to meet our partner requirements. Too 

often, we are not able to meet their requirements in a timely manner due to an 

overly complicated foreign military sales system. I strongly support the recent initiatives of the Secretary of Defense directed Security Cooperation Reform Task 

Force and believe it is a definitive step in the right direction. 

AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION

58. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, the Office of the Special Inspector General 

for Afghanistan Reconstruction recently published a report questioning the U.S. 

plan to invest $11.7 billion to construct facilities for over 300,000 ANSF. Are you 

aware of that report? 

General MATTIS. Yes. I am aware of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Audit released on January 26, 2011. 

59. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, what are you doing to address the concerns 

raised in the report? 

General MATTIS. We are working with the Combined Security Transition Command in Afghanistan (CSTC–A) to incorporate the majority of the report’s recommendations to extend our planning horizon and develop long-range operations 

and maintenance plans. CSTC–A is currently updating their guidance documents to 

incorporate the planning principles referenced in the report which should improve 

the identification of future projects and better document their priorities. 

60. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, can you provide a long-range construction 

plan to meet the facility requirements for Afghan forces with the funds that Congress has provided? 

General MATTIS. Afghan National Security Force generation drives the timeline 

for the construction planning and execution. Fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 

are significant program years for construction, with $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2011 

and $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2012 from the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF). 

This ASFF funded infrastructure must support the diverse requirements of over 

305,000 ANA and Afghan National Police personnel at locations throughout Afghanistan. 

245 

BAHRAIN NAVAL BASES

61. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, given the uncertainty in the region, including Bahrain, as well as the crisis we are facing here at home with deep deficits, 

in your opinion, should taxpayer funds exceeding $370 million continue to be expended this fiscal year on the complete revitalization of our navy base at Manama, 

Bahrain, and our base at Isa, or would a pause be prudent to allow for further assessment of our requirements in the region? 

General MATTIS. The CENTCOM AOR presents limited opportunity for U.S. basing options. Bahrain remains one of our staunchest allies and provides us an optimum location. Current and future contingency operations in the region dictate the 

need to spend military construction (MILCON) funds now to address shortfalls. The 

current MILCON augments ship berthing space due to severe degradation of pier 

facilities, and provides critical ammunition storage for current and future operations. The MILCON program also includes quality of life improvements to alleviate 

overcrowding and provide acceptable living standards. Continued execution of 

MILCON funds in Bahrain is an essential CENTCOM mission support requirement 

and integral to CENTCOM Global Defense Posture initiatives. Reduced expenditure 

of MILCON funds in Bahrain will significantly impact operations now and in the 

future. 

62. Senator MCCAIN. General Mattis, from an operational perspective, do you currently have an alternative port to Manama for support of 5th fleet? If not, do you 

believe it would be wise to use MILCON funds to develop one? 

General MATTIS. No. The U.S. relationship with Bahrain remains strong and we 

do not currently see the need for an alternative port to Manama, Bahrain. In the 

event the situation dramatically changes with respect to either the bilateral relationship or U.S. policy, we will present options to DOD and Congress. 

SOCOM MAJOR WEAPONS PROGRAMS

63. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Olson, SOCOM has historically relied on the modification of service common equipment with SOF-peculiar technology as the basis of 

its equipping strategy—a strategy that has proven enormously successful in a number of areas. However, over the last several years, the command has undertaken efforts internally to develop major weapons programs, some at significant cost, such 

as the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), the Joint Multi-Mission Submersible (JMMS), and the Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR). While the 

specific issues and outcomes associated with the development of these three particular programs differ, they have brought attention to the ability of SOCOM to develop and ultimately field major weapon systems, particularly in an increasingly resource constrained environment. Do you believe SOCOM is properly structured to 

successfully undertake the development and fielding of major weapons systems? 

Admiral OLSON. The structure of the Special Operations Research, Development 

and Acquisition Center (SORDAC) is not staffed or intended to be staffed, to support 

Major Defense Acquisition Programs. For programs such as the ASDS or JMMS, 

SORDAC enters into agreements with Service component acquisition offices to support our efforts. Traditionally SOCOM relies on the Services to develop major programs (e.g. ASDS) so that SORDAC can focus organic capabilities on the integration 

of new technologies, modifying service platforms, and developing new capabilities 

that the Services are not well positioned to do. SORDAC has had success in using 

the Joint Acquisition Task Force model to rapidly field new capability by integrating 

teams from the various service offices to meet urgent needs. 

64. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Olson, what lessons has SOCOM learned, not just 

from the aforementioned programs, but as a whole, in its efforts to develop and field 

systems to satisfy its requirements? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM has developed its acquisition approach around the following four key principles which have enabled the successful acquisition of SOF 

unique equipment: deliver capability to the user expeditiously, exploit proven techniques and methods, keep warfighters involved throughout the process, and take 

and manage risks. SOCOM has shown that a dedicated corps of SOF acquirers is 

essential to rapidly, agilely, and successfully field SOF unique capability. SOCOM 

has been working closely with the Services to improve the synergy of Service and 

SOCOM acquisition activities through biannual acquisition summits co-chaired by 

the OUSD/AT&L and the SOCOM Commander. 

246 

65. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Olson, to what degree is SOCOM looking to leverage commercially available and proven technology in the development of solutions 

to satisfy SOF-peculiar requirements? 

Admiral OLSON. The SORDAC, the SOCOM acquisition arm, balances the need 

for advanced technology with rapid fielding of needed capability. In an effort to provide Special Operations deployed forces with required assets, SORDAC Program Executive Offices (PEOs), constantly evaluate existing technology, service available, 

and off the shelf solutions (commercial off-the-shelf and government off-the-shelf). 

There are a number of venues that provide direct insight into technology currently 

available or technology that will be available in the near term. The Technology and 

Industry Liaison Office (TILO) serves as the interface to industry, providing a venue 

for open dialogue and market research in support of the command. SOCOM utilizes 

the TILO as a conduit for industry to present products and services to the command 

for evaluation. Additionally, SORDAC’s Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, 

constantly evaluates technology with a near term potential to mature into fielded 

capability. SORDAC S&T initiated the Rapid Exploitation of Innovative Technology 

for SOF (REITS) program in 2010 to expedite technology which had the potential 

to rapidly transition to the field. Examples of current technology being evaluated 

in a Special Operations environment through the REITS program are; vehicle shock 

mitigation systems and mobile solar power generating systems. SORDAC S&T also 

sponsors an open experimentation venue which provides an opportunity for industry 

to demonstrate emerging technologies and capabilities which could support SOF. 

Experimentation creates synergy among industry partners and connects SOF operators to developers during concept assessments. The PEOs continually evaluate existing standalone equipment and package them to provide an enhanced capability to 

meet a new capability gap. For example, the Austere Location Force Protection 

Commodity Procurement Project packages off-the-shelf equipment to provide an integrated force protection system to support remotely deployed SOF Teams. Off-theshelf equipment is a critical aspect of SORDAC’s strategy to balance capability that 

will save lives today with the need to provide a technological leap that will provide 

SOF Operators with a significant tactical advantage in the field tomorrow. 

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS SHORTFALLS

66. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Olson, does SOCOM have any shortfalls in the 

availability of training resources, particularly ranges and facilities that are affecting 

the ability of your forces to prepare and train for specific deployments and missions? 

If so, please describe in detail these shortfalls and the effect they have on the ability 

of your forces to adequately train for specific deployments and missions. 

Admiral OLSON. Many SOF units are unable to conduct all of their training requirements at or within close proximity of their home stations. Some training requirements, including long-range, full-mission profile validation exercises for example, require SOF to train at other installations. It is difficult to conduct training 

missions that accurately replicate operations routinely conducted by the Combined 

Joint Special Operations Task Forces in Afghanistan, and previously Iraq. These 

long-range live-fire exercises generally include mounted and dismounted ground elements supported by helicopters and tactical aircraft. Additionally, SOF units may 

conduct training with SOF-unique weapons systems that require larger Surface 

Danger Zones than weapons systems employed by conventional forces. 

Ever increasing competition with conventional ground and aviation units for limited training range resources is adversely impacting SOF access to Service-owned 

ranges. For example, there are a very limited number of ground tactical ranges on 

U.S. Navy installations for Navy SOF to train. The majority of ground tactical 

ranges within the Department of the Navy are located on U.S. Marine Corps installations. This has challenged Navy and Marine Corps leadership to balance the training requirements of Navy SOF with those of Marine Corps units vying for use of 

the same ranges and training areas. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) training continues to be hampered by the lack 

of adequate restricted airspace for SOF to execute fully integrated training events 

in which the full range of ‘‘shoot, move, and communicate’’ skills are rehearsed with 

UAS ISR support. Federal Aviation Administration Certificates of Waiver and Authorization allow limited access to the National Airspace System; however, the restrictions placed on UAS flights in these areas do not allow for adequate training 

for SOF. 

67. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Olson, what is planned to address these shortfalls? 

247 

Admiral OLSON. SOF is working closely with the Services to develop courses of 

action that allow SOF reliable and predictable access to resources such as training 

ranges for ground and aviation elements. 

SOCOM is currently conducting a range study to examine the specific problems 

SOF is encountering with respect to ranges and training areas. The analysis will 

include SOF range access shortfalls, range saturation levels at home station, as well 

as adequacy of master range plans and existing agreements with the Services. Additionally, the study will determine if SOCOM components currently have adequate 

access to simulators and range simulation devices that could mitigate their requirements for range access. Findings and recommendations from this study will be 

staffed and presented to the SOCOM Commander. 

SOCOM is addressing range and training area issues with each Service during 

scheduled warfighter talks. SOCOM is also hosting periodic range conferences and 

working groups with representatives from our components as well as the Services. 

The intent of these conferences is to exchange ideas, information, and seek solutions 

to any range issues identified. 

The Navy has established a range working group with Marine Corps, Naval Special Warfare Command, and SOCOM participation to coordinate resolution of a request from Navy SOF for increased access to ranges and training areas on the west 

coast. 

U.S. Army SOCOM is working with the Army to determine the feasibility of establishing SOF training centers at select ranges on Army installations. The Army 

G3/5/7 is analyzing and modeling Army SOF requirements (specifically, long-range 

mobility full mission profile validation exercises) to determine supportability on 

identified Army installations. 

SOCOM and its components are working in numerous areas to bolster and support mission training requirements. These include: investment of MPF–11 dollars to 

fund SOF-peculiar modifications of existing ranges and facilities; expanded use of 

nontraditional training areas such as contracted facilities; and development of plans 

for SOF-managed training areas. 

68. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Olson, what can Congress do to help you address 

and improve the specific training requirements for SOF? 

Admiral OLSON. DOD faces an increasing challenge from the cumulative effect of 

continuing urbanization and the increasing application of environmental requirements to military readiness activities—sometimes through novel or overly broad interpretation of law. Congress will have to balance the two public goods—military 

readiness and environmental protection. Some issues may require congressional action, while others can be relieved by changes within the regulatory agencies. 

Under Title 10, U.S.C., ownership of real property—to include ranges—is a responsibility of the Services. The Commander, SOCOM cannot own real property. 

SOF units are tenants on installations and do not own the ranges on which they 

operate and train. 

It is therefore critical that Congress adequately fund SOCOM to continue using 

home station, as well as other Service installation ranges and training support. 

Having sufficient resources also allows SOCOM to fund range enhancements and 

improvements, where appropriate, to meet SOF-unique training requirements. 

SOF access to Service ranges can be adversely impacted by challenges associated 

with land withdrawal agreements, National Environmental Policy Act actions, aviation airspace issues, and civilian encroachment on Federal lands. As Service initiatives addressing these challenges move forward, congressional advocacy, as appropriate, may be warranted. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SCOTT BROWN

IRANIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS

69. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, today Iran is producing higher enriched uranium and is moving closer to possessing the weapons-grade uranium needed for a 

nuclear weapon. Neither economic sanctions nor diplomacy have worked to diminish 

Iran’s goal to enrich uranium. The President has stated that he intends to ‘‘use all 

elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.’’ 

What is your assessment of Iran’s role in the CENTCOM AOR? 

General MATTIS. Iran’s persistent destabilizing behavior runs counter to the 

United States, and more importantly, regional country interests. Likewise, Iran uses 

its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp-Qods Force to expand soft power influence 

across the region and beyond via religious, cultural and humanitarian outreach, 

248 

while at the same time executing destabilizing activities. Iran’s nuclear program is 

a serious, destabilizing factor in the region and is widely believed to be part of the 

regime’s broader effort to expand its influence. 

70. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, what would it mean for the neighbors of Iran 

and the entire Middle East if Iran were to secure a nuclear weapon? 

General MATTIS. A nuclear armed Iran would dramatically shift the balance of 

power between Iran and key regional nations. This shift and perceived failure of the 

international community in allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, would likely 

spark a regional arms race as Iran’s neighbors would be apt to redress the balance. 

In the short term, the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon will place tremendous pressure on other countries to follow suit. The effects of these developments 

would rapidly extend beyond our region. A nuclear-armed Iran would most likely 

be more assertive and more aggressive with regional states, leading to less stability 

in an already unstable region. Possession of a nuclear weapon would likely embolden Iran to engage in ‘‘saber rattling’’ to intimidate or coerce its neighbors and 

enhance or increase Iran’s perceived status as a leader in the Gulf region. Iran 

might not provide nuclear technology or weapons to its surrogates, due to concerns 

over control, accountability, and international repercussions. However, those surrogates, with a nuclear-armed sponsor, may be emboldened to act more aggressively, 

though not necessarily under Iran’s control or on Iran’s behalf. 

71. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, do you agree that a nuclear-armed Iran poses 

an unacceptable risk to the United States? 

General MATTIS. Yes. Iran remains the most significant threat to regional stability. Although the United Nations Security Council has spoken out against Iranian 

actions through additional sanctions, the regime continues its destabilizing activities 

globally. A nuclear armed Iran would significantly impede our global priorities of 

preventing WMD proliferation, retaining strategic access and ensuring the security 

and free flow of global commerce, especially energy resources. This would create a 

significantly more complex problem for our national security team and for the U.S. 

economy. Also, we could see other countries in the region finding it necessary to develop nuclear weapons or significantly increase conventional weapons to deter a nuclear armed Iran. We should endeavor with our international partners to take 

strong measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 

TRANSITION IN IRAQ

72. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, do we have a contingency plan in place if 

Iraq security forces are not making progress by the end of this year? 

General MATTIS. We are currently on track to remove U.S. security forces from 

Iraq by 1 January 2012 and will be ready to support U.S. Government led efforts 

through the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq. If the Government of Iraq requests 

U.S. forces remain to assist Iraqi Security Forces after December 31, 2011, and the 

U.S. Government agrees to such a request, the U.S. military has the capability to 

assist. 

73. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, during the transition in Iraq how do we prevent a mass exodus of institutional knowledge from occurring as a result of DOS 

taking over too abruptly? 

General MATTIS. The same military personnel with institutional knowledge assigned to the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq are currently working closely with 

our partners in DOS to support a smooth transition. We share a common objective 

for continuity and stability during the transition in Iraq. Preparations have been 

underway for some time and began with a comprehensive assessment of what was 

necessary to ensure a successful transition. A plan was developed and went into execution in the summer of 2010, including the identification of a multitude of tasks 

that will transition from U.S. Forces-Iraq to the U.S. Embassy-Iraq, CENTCOM, 

and the Government of Iraq, or be discontinued altogether. 

74. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, what is the psychological dimension of the 

transition in Iraq? 

General MATTIS. The psychological impact of the transition in Iraq varies. The 

American public may view the transition as positive. For the majority of the Iraqi 

people, the transition will be a positive experience that marks the re-emergence of 

Iraq in a regional and international context. Iraqi nationalism and the emergence 

of a representative government are all positive trends towards a new and prosVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
249 

1 CIA World Fact Book. 

2Mullen Testimony, SASC Hearing, February 23, 2010: Page 6 ‘‘Achieving sustainable security requires developing Afghan governing capacity, cultivating the conditions needed for conflict 

resolution, neutralizing insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan, and countering corruption. Absent 

these conditions, we will not succeed.’’ 3Mullen Testimony, SASC Hearing, February 23, 2010: Page 7. 

perous future for Iraq. The future security and prosperity of Iraq now rests with 

its citizens. At the same time, some citizens in Iraq may view the transition with 

angst and uncertainty as the U.S. transitions from a Defense Department led effort. 

75. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, will our Iraqi military partners have the confidence and incentives necessary to keep security tight after we are gone? 

General MATTIS. Current assessments project some gaps in the Government of 

Iraq security capabilities will continue to exist. The Iraq Security Forces Fund combined with Foreign Military Sales cases directly address required equipment and 

training to deal with capability requirements. With these efforts, some shortfalls 

such as an air sovereignty capability requiring much longer timelines to put in place 

will continue to exist. Our primary strategic objective remains assisting the Government of Iraq in building and forging a professional, self-reliant, and effective security force capable of maintaining internal security and deterring external threats. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

U.S. FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO AFGHANISTAN

76. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, I understand the number of ANSF has increased dramatically in the past year. Pending the funding level provided for 2011, 

we have committed about $20 billion towards training and equipping the ANSF in 

2010 and 2011. We provided roughly the same amount in the preceding 7 years. It 

is unclear to me that Afghanistan has the budget to sustain these forces once we 

drawdown in Afghanistan in 2014 or sometime between now and then. Unlike Iraq, 

which has significant oil revenue, Afghanistan’s total GDP is about $30 billion.1 Are 

we establishing a long-term U.S. financial commitment with the Afghan Security 

Forces Fund, or is there a transition plan that ensures Afghanistan sustains their 

security forces once we have trained and equipped them? 

General MATTIS. The international community has acknowledged that while the 

transition of lead security responsibility will be completed by December 2014, financial support of the ANSF and other parts of the Afghan economy will be necessary 

past 2014. CENTCOM, in collaboration with other U.S. Government agencies, is developing economic initiatives to enable more coordinated and effective international 

community assistance. This will move Afghanistan from an aid based economy to 

a more self-sufficient trade based economy that will put Government of Afghanistan 

revenues on a path to eventually meet the expenditures of a robust ANSF which 

is capable of both meeting Afghanistan’s security requirements and achieving U.S. 

strategic objectives in Afghanistan. 

SAFE HAVENS IN PAKISTAN

77. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, last week, Admiral Mullen stated in his written testimony before this committee that one of the necessary conditions to succeed 

in achieving sustainable security in Afghanistan and Pakistan requires neutralizing 

insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan.2 On the next page he testified that ‘‘Insurgent 

groups such as the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network operate unhindered 

from sanctuaries in Pakistan.’’ 3 Putting these two comments together, it leaves me 

with the impression we are not on a path to success unless these safe havens in 

Pakistan are addressed. How confident are you that coalition or Pakistani forces 

will neutralize these sanctuaries—including those sanctuaries utilized by the 

Haqqani and Quetta Shura groups—in the next 12 months? 

General MATTIS. I don’t believe Pakistan will reverse its current policy within the 

next 12 months and eliminate sanctuaries enjoyed by the Quetta Shura Taliban and 

Haqqani Network. However, satisfactory end-states are attainable in Afghanistan 

even if the sanctuaries persist. Combined counterinsurgency operations beginning in 

late 2009 succeeded in ejecting the Taliban from key districts in southern Afghanistan despite Taliban sanctuary across the Pakistani border. Continued security 

gains and Afghanistan Government progress in security, governance, and development over the next several years have the potential to neutralize the Taliban as a 

250 

strategic threat, even if sanctuaries in Pakistan allow insurgents to maintain influence in outlying areas and sustain a certain level of violence throughout Afghanistan. 

IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM

78. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, last month, the quarterly report issued by 

the International Atomic Energy Agency reiterated concern about undisclosed nuclear-related activities that Iran has undertaken since 2004 related to the development of a nuclear payload for a ballistic missile. Will you update the committee on 

the latest estimates for when Iran could develop a nuclear weapon and when it 

could launch an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile? 

General MATTIS. The Iranian regime continues to flout U.N. Security Council resolutions on its nuclear and missile programs. Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better 

position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. Iran is technically 

capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few 

years, if it chooses to do so. Iran would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred 

method of delivering a nuclear weapon. It continues to expand the scale, reach, and 

sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable 

of carrying a nuclear payload. 

PIRACY ATTACKS

79. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, I am alarmed at the sharp rise in piracy attacks on the high seas in the last 4 years. According to the International Maritime 

Bureau, the number of pirate attacks against ships has risen every year for the last 

4 years, and ships reported 445 attacks in 2010, up 10 percent from 2009. The number of crew members taken hostage has increased from 188 in 2006, to nearly 1,200 

crew members in 2010. The recent killing of four Americans traveling on a sailing 

yacht demonstrates that the pirates threaten the safety of our citizens in international waters. In addition, the freedom to safely travel on the open ocean enables 

trade, which is the lifeblood for many American jobs. I certainly can appreciate that 

anti-piracy missions require significant resources and present many legal issues because most of these instances occur in international waters, but what needs to be 

done to reverse the increasing trend in piracy attacks? 

General MATTIS. While we can inhibit piracy on the sea with military action, ultimately the problem of piracy must be solved on shore, primarily in Somalia with 

a stable government which can enforce the rule of law over its sovereign territory. 

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

80. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, many of us are concerned about the number 

of missiles and ships required to deploy an adequate BMD for our Nation and for 

our allies. The challenge is that in addition to protecting the U.S. Homeland, we 

need to protect our forward based troops and our allies. As a result, there are likely 

going to be a demand for BMD assets in European Command, Pacific Command, 

and CENTCOM—which is your AOR. Has CENTCOM established present and future requirements for both missiles and launchers regarding BMD in your AOR? 

General MATTIS. Yes. We have identified BMD requirements for the CENTCOM 

AOR and they are based on our assessment of potential threats, present and future. 

81. Senator BROWN. General Mattis, do you expect that the CENTCOM requirements for these assets will be fully satisfied now and in the future? 

General MATTIS. No, I do not. There simply are not enough assets to deal with 

the global threat. As our adversaries improve their capability both in quality and 

quantity, the threat becomes ever more challenging and we must continuously reexamine the gap. Hence, we advocate for more interceptors now and additional systems as they become available. However, we are taking other steps to deal with the 

growing threat. We have engaged our partners and encouraged them to invest in 

their own BMD. 

Our adversaries will likely continue to outpace us in terms of sheer numbers of 

ballistic missiles compared to our interceptor inventory. However, we don’t need to 

match them one for one. We believe we can establish a credible deterrent by establishing an integrated, interoperable, collective defense with our regional partners. 

Therefore, in order to adequately defend against the missile threat in our region, 

we must maximize production capacity, to not only close our own capability gaps, 

251 

4 SIGIR Quarterly Report and Semiannual Report to Congress. Pages 5 and 16. 

but also to enable rapid delivery of these critical systems to our partners once they 

commit to procuring them. 

SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

82. Senator BROWN. Admiral Olson and General Mattis, the information and oversight the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has provided 

over the last several years has been invaluable to my colleagues and I to evaluate 

the U.S. mission in Iraq. The most recent SIGIR quarterly report suggests SIGIR 

has experienced some challenge in obtaining detailed information from DOD in the 

course of fulfilling its congressionally mandated requirements.4 Will you each commit to be forthcoming in providing information to SIGIR for adequate reporting of 

the transition during this year? 

Admiral OLSON. Yes. 

General MATTIS. Yes. CENTCOM has always, and will continue to fully support 

SIGIR to the very best of our ability by providing the detailed information they require to execute their oversight functions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

ROLE OF U.S. GROUND FORCES IN FUTURE CONFLICTS

83. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, on February 25, 2011, Secretary Gates made 

the following comment regarding the force structure that will be needed in the years 

ahead: ‘‘The Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end 

scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements—whether 

in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere . . . But in my opinion, any future defense 

secretary who advises the President to again send a big American land army into 

Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined’.’’ This past 

week, we had the 20th anniversary of coalition forces driving Saddam Hussein’s 

Army out of Kuwait. Clearly, land forces played a huge role in Operations Desert 

Shield and Desert Storm. Remarkably, 150,000 coalition ground troops and 1,500 

tanks were able to push the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait in just 100 hours. Is that 

type of military operation truly a thing of the past? 

General MATTIS. I agree with the Secretary that the most plausible scenarios for 

military intervention involve naval and air engagements. These forces are particularly well suited to conducting short-notice, reactive and expeditionary actions to 

counter threats to our national interests. However, there remain plausible scenarios 

today where a U.S. ally or interests are so threatened by a force that only a joint 

force including robust, integrated land forces would be able to defend our partners 

and U.S. interests, as we saw in Operation Desert Storm. I expect this reality will 

continue to be a dominant feature of my Command’s AOR and for that reason we 

must always be able to rely on our Army’s core land force capabilities. 

84. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, if such a scenario arose again in the near 

future, would it be possible to drive the enemy out through primarily naval and air 

engagements? 

General MATTIS. A combination of air, land, and sea engagements is critical in 

influencing enemy courses of action and their will as an opposing force. An example 

illuminating the limitation of an air power only campaign includes the NATO air 

campaigns over Bosnia in 1995. Successful engagements are derived by concurrent 

balance of forces that offer the greatest strategic flexibility while building on momentum to create opportunities for rapid achievement of objectives. 

85. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, would it have been possible to conduct the 

initial phases of Operation Enduring Freedom—in which we invaded Afghanistan, 

inflicted severe damage on the Taliban and al Qaeda, and held key ground in Afghanistan—using primarily naval and air forces? 

General MATTIS. No. During the early phases of combat operation in Afghanistan 

in October 2001, naval and air forces were largely focused on disrupting the Taliban 

and al Qaeda and preventing their use of terrorism training camps. However, 

CENTCOM assessed that the indigenous ground forces could not prevail without 

U.S. and allied assistance on the ground. 

252 

U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

86. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, several startling recent events in Iraq call 

into question the Iraqi Security Forces’ ability to maintain peace, including violent 

protests and the bombing of the Baiji Oil Refinery—the largest in Iraq. During your 

testimony, you alluded to the possibility that terrorist organizations such as al 

Qaeda are behind this recent unrest. How concerned are you that al Qaeda or its 

affiliates will return to Iraq and take root again following the departure of U.S. 

forces? 

General MATTIS. The Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) network continues to suffer setbacks. 

AQI efforts to reinvigorate a Sunni support base will likely fall short of achieving 

its objective. The majority of Sunnis in Iraq strongly oppose the al Qaeda network 

for the harsh tactics the group imposes. The transition to Iraqi-led counterterrorism 

operations has already taken place and the Iraqi Security Forces have demonstrated 

the ability to aggressively and accurately pursue AQI entities. Iraq will undoubtedly 

face challenges long after the departure of U.S. forces; however, the Government of 

Iraq and its security forces are demonstrating the ability to prevent AQI from advancing. 

87. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, several military and civilian leaders have 

expressed serious concern about the Iraqi Air Force’s ability to protect its own air 

space once U.S. forces redeploy home. The Iraqis had aggressively pushed to purchase 18 American-made F–16s, but they announced postponement of the planned 

purchase in order to shift that funding to domestic priorities. In light of this unfortunate delay, what steps have you taken to enable Iraq to adequately defend its airspace following the U.S. withdrawal? 

General MATTIS. While current intelligence assessments describe the threat to 

Iraqi air sovereignty as minimal, shared contingency planning addresses any potential threats and provides a framework for mitigation procedures. Iraq has taken the 

initial steps towards self-reliance in air defense with the objective of acquiring two 

long-range radar systems that will provide them a capable early warning system. 

This is the first piece in the development of a sustainable air sovereignty posture, 

of which the F–16 case was to be the next essential step. These radar systems, one 

to be provided through Iraqi Security Forces Funding and the other through an 

FMS case, will provide a foundational capability in air defense. We are working 

with them to have the radar capability installed and operational by the end of 2011. 

CENTCOM also intends to conduct military-to-military bilateral contingency planning with GoI. The GoI will still need to acquire a capable air defense weapon system in the future, whether it is the F–16 or another platform. While the GoI will 

investigate all options, including a like-capability from other countries, CENTCOM 

will continue to encourage a U.S. manufactured solution as we believe this will provide the best sustainable capability for Iraqi air defense. 

PIRACY

88. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis and Admiral Olson, Somali pirates are a lingering threat off the Horn of Africa and now even in the Indian Ocean. The February 22 murder of four Americans on a private, hijacked vessel near Oman served 

as a wake-up call. This year alone, Somali pirates have mounted over 50 attacks, 

hijacked several ships, and have taken over 200 crewmembers hostage. It appears 

that piracy is increasing in numbers, reach, and determination, despite the growing 

number of U.S. and international assets committed to protecting the maritime commons. In your mind, what is the most effective strategy to guard against piracy and 

secure the use of maritime routes off the east coast of Africa and throughout the 

Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean? 

Admiral OLSON. SOCOM provides specially trained and equipped forces to support 

the counter-piracy strategies of the geographic combatant commanders. 

General MATTIS. While we can inhibit piracy on the sea with military action, ultimately the problem of piracy must be solved on shore, primarily in Somalia with 

a stable government that can enforce the rule of law over its sovereign territory. 

SOCOM FUNDING

89. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Olson, in January, Secretary Gates announced several ‘‘efficiency’’ cuts, including $2.3 billion from the SOCOM budget. At the same 

time, our Nation asks more than ever of our SOF. Recently, you stated ‘‘We are 

doing more with more, but the more we’re doing it with doesn’t match the more 

253 

we’ve been asked to do . . . we are beginning to show fraying around the edges.’’ You 

have also stated that deployment frequency for SOF is exceedingly high, while 

SOCOM lacks the resources to meet the current demand. Will losing this $2.3 billion detrimentally impact SOCOM operations? If so, why? 

Admiral OLSON. Senator Cornyn, thank you for affording me the opportunity to 

answer this extremely important question. Secretary Gates has directed cost consideration in all we do, and a ‘‘culture of savings’’ to ensure that we optimize the resources entrusted to us. His direction for improving DOD business operations last 

summer was clear; identify our savings and efficiencies initiatives over the next 5 

years under the notion that those savings would be reinvested. The Department’s 

stated goal was to significantly reduce excess overhead costs and apply savings to 

force structure and modernization—not a reduction of the DOD topline through efficiency cuts. 

CDR SOCOM’s efforts in resourcing tactical units, divesting of obsolete and redundant capabilities, and leveraging Service common capabilities are consistent 

with the Secretary of Defense efficiency focus. Realigning the $2.3 billion across the 

FYDP did not have a negative impact on SOCOM. In fact, it allowed us to address 

growing capability gaps and improve battlefield performance by invigorating our acquisition agenda. SOCOM was able to realign funding towards Undersea Mobility 

and AC–130J Gunship recapitalization. Additionally, we were able to realign funding to improve SOF operational readiness and improve our human capital strategy. 

Key efforts such as Foreign Language Proficiency Pay, Marine Corps Forces Special 

Operations Command sustainment, flying hours funding, and Warrior Rehabilitation were enhanced. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY

90. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, in recent years, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly operating in areas outside their traditional competencies. 

We have seen examples of combat commanders standing up agricultural unions, 

dealing with veterinary issues, water issues, health issues, human services issues, 

and conducting elections in their areas of operations. While most of these tasks have 

been executed successfully, due in part to the sheer tenacity and determination of 

our military, many have been completed without the support and expertise of the 

relevant U.S. Government agencies. Could you comment on what legislative modifications you think are necessary in order to improve interagency security cooperation? 

General MATTIS. Transitioning our military forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan 

will become more difficult if we cannot maintain assistance in the economic and governance areas on the civilian side. Robust resourcing for the State Department, the 

U.S. Agency for International Development, and other agency and department missions are some of the best investments for reducing the need for military forces to 

be employed. 

91. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, do you see the need for a more comprehensive review or possible reorganization of some government agencies to better support 

our expeditionary military? 

General MATTIS. Improved interagency coordination begins with an adequate level 

of resources available to our civilian interagency associates and partners. It is vitally important to support and fully fund the requests made by these departments 

and agencies in the 2011 and 2012 budget requests that address and build the capabilities and capacity required for the future success of the National Security Strategy. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review offers important contributions to both improving efficiencies and allowing us all to better understand 

how our partners operate. 

92. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, under current DOD organization, Iraq and 

Afghanistan fall within CENTCOM’s AOR. However, within the DOS organizational 

structure, they fall under two separate regional bureaus. Similarly, Pakistan and 

India fall under the same DOS regional bureau, but under two different DOD unified combatant commands. These problems are not limited to the DOD and DOS 

maps. It would seem that this misalignment of geographic regions between Federal 

agencies would cause inherent challenges in the area of interagency coordination. 

In your opinion, does this lack of common demarcation of the world’s regions hamper effective interagency cooperation and coordination on national security? 

General MATTIS. No. Differences in the Areas of Responsibility geographic demarcations do not restrict accomplishment of assigned missions among COCOMs and 

254 

civilian leaders across the Federal Government, to include diplomatic coordination, 

interagency cooperation, advancing U.S. interests, and protecting U.S. national security. 

IRANIAN INTERFERENCE IN IRAQ

93. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, you noted in your testimony that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC–QF) is equipping militants in 

Iraq and Afghanistan who have attacked U.S. and coalition forces, undermining stability and governance in both nations. Through these actions, Iran has essentially 

been waging a proxy war against U.S. troops. Your testimony also highlights a recent January 2011 large-caliber improvised rocket-assisted mortar attack against 

U.S. forces in Iraq that, in your words, ‘‘demonstrated Iran’s malicious intent and 

ability to escalate violence when they desire.’’ What concerns do you have regarding 

the potential for the Iranian regime to obtain a greater, destabilizing influence in 

Iraq following the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops in December 2011? 

General MATTIS. IRGC–QF will likely continue to support Shia militant groups in 

Iraq after U.S. forces withdraw, just as IRGC–QF continued to support Lebanese 

Hizballah after the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon in 2000. IRGC–QF 

will likely attempt to replicate the Hizballah model in Iraq via Shia militia groups 

such as Kata’ib Hizballah, Asaib Ahl al-Haqq and Muqtada al Sadr’s Promise Day 

Brigade. Their intent is to have a loyal proxy with legitimate seats in the Iraqi Government and a capable, responsive militia. These militia groups, backed by IRGC– 

QF and Lebanese Hizballah, could collectively destabilize the security gains made 

in Iraq should Iran and these militias believe increased violence would benefit their 

interests and increase their influence. 

94. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, in your view, what is the best strategy, 

short of contingency operations, that the United States can employ to deter Iran’s 

destabilizing activities in the region? 

General MATTIS. I believe the most effective strategy is one that mobilizes the 

international community to implement sufficient diplomatic and economic pressure 

to further isolate Iran forcing the regime to change its destabilizing behavior. In the 

meantime, CENTCOM will continue to work through institutions, alliances, and 

coalitions to dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. To this end, we will 

continue to pursue security cooperation with our allies and regional partners while 

helping to strengthen their defensive capabilities. We will also continue to support 

interagency efforts that blend economic, diplomatic, informational, and military 

tools to deter Iran. 

B–1 BOMBERS

95. Senator CORNYN. General Mattis, the B–1 bomber has been operating over Afghanistan in support of our troops on the ground and has proven itself a critical 

component of our long-range strike operations overseas. Senior U.S. military leaders 

have consistently acknowledged that the B–1 fleet is doing an outstanding job. In 

a recent confirmation hearing, General David Petraeus stated that the B–1 is a 

‘‘great platform’’ and a ‘‘very capable bomber.’’ In your view, what role has the B– 

1 fleet played within CENTCOM’s AOR, and what unique capabilities has it brought 

to the table, as compared to other platforms? 

General MATTIS. The B–1 is a very capable combat aircraft that combines precision targeting and guided munitions. The B–1 can deliver up to 48,000 pounds of 

munitions and can loiter for 7 hours before needing aerial refueling. During the first 

6 months of OEF, the B–1 dropped 38 percent of all weapons delivered while flying 

only 5 percent of the overall sorties. In addition, the bomber dropped twice as many 

precision munitions as the coalition partners combined. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, 

the aircraft flew less than 1 percent of the combat missions while delivering approximately 43 percent of the precision munitions. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(255) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:48 a.m. in room SD– 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, McCain, 

Inhofe, Wicker, Brown, Ayotte, and Collins. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 

Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Jessica L. Kingston, 

research assistant; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Jason W. Maroney, 

counsel; Thomas K. McConnell, professional staff member; William 

G.P. Monahan, counsel; John H. Quirk V, professional staff member; and Russell L. Shaffer, counsel. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; Daniel A. 

Lerner, professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member; and Michael J. Sistak, research assistant. 

Staff assistants present: Kathleen A. Kulenkampff, Brian F. 

Sebold, and Breon N. Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Tressa Guenov, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Patrick 

Hayes and Joanne McLaughlin, assistants to Senator Manchin; 

Chad Kreikemeier, assistant to Senator Shaheen; Ethan Saxon, assistant to Senator Blumenthal; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to 

Senator Inhofe; Joseph Lai, assistant to Senator Wicker; Charles 

Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; Ryan Kaldahl, assistant to 

Senator Collins; and Taylor Andreae, assistant to Senator Graham. 

256 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. I want to welcome 

Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, and General Amos to the 

committee this morning to testify on the plans and programs of the 

Department of the Navy in our review of the fiscal year 2012 annual budget and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request 

of the administration. We are pleased to welcome General Amos to 

his first posture hearing as Commandant and to welcome Admiral 

Roughead for what will probably be his last posture hearing before 

the committee as Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). 

We are grateful to each of you for your great service to our Nation and for the valorous and truly professional service of the men 

and women under your command, and we’re grateful to their families for the vital role families play in the success of careers and 

missions of our Armed Forces. 

As we discuss the budget issues here at home, our eyes are principally focused on places far from here. Nearly 20,000 marines are 

partnered with an equal number of Afghan security forces (ASF) in 

Helmand Province, in the effort to bring security and stability to 

the people of southern Afghanistan. The marines have seen some 

tough fighting in clearing those areas of Taliban. They have also 

performed brilliantly in working with ASFs and local Afghan leaders to keep these communities free of insurgent control and to help 

the Afghan people build a better future. These efforts are showing 

progress, with villages secured in the central Helmand River Valley, market bazaars are reopening, and children are returning to 

school. 

The marines are also helping to establish community watch 

groups throughout Helmand Province, which are enabling local villagers to provide for their own security and to prevent a return of 

the Taliban. 

When we met for the Navy posture hearing last year, the Marine 

Corps was completing its drawdown of forces in Iraq and was in 

the midst of its redeployment to Afghanistan. The Navy has also 

been contributing directly to the war effort in U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) as well and has 14,000 Active and Reserve sailors on the ground and another 10,000 at sea in CENTCOM, including ongoing individual augmentee support to operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

New challenges have emerged in recent days. Two ships with a 

Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) of over 1,000 marines aboard 

are in the Mediterranean. Missile-launching ships are available 

should the President choose to use them to strike Libyan targets, 

including military aircraft, air defenses, airstrips, command centers, and bases. 

Before exercising any use of force option, the President is appropriately seeking support from the international community, in particular the support of other countries in the Arab and Muslim 

worlds and in the region. It has been reported that some Arab 

states are apparently considering coordinating with the African 

Union in support of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. Also, France 

and the United Kingdom are drafting a resolution for possible use 

at the United Nations (U.N.). Meanwhile, discussions are ongoing 

257 

at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters in 

advance of a defense ministerial meeting on March 10 and 11. 

Under the War Powers Act, the administration would need to 

consult with Congress before exercising a military option involving 

the use of force and to notify Congress promptly if a decision were 

made to use force. 

The use and possible use of our forces overseas makes it even 

more important that our budget provides for their success and their 

wellbeing. Our witnesses this morning are faced with a number of 

critical issues that confront the Department of the Navy and the 

budget, such as balancing modernization needs against the costs of 

supporting ongoing operations. We also know that you are facing 

serious complications due to the fact that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have a full year budget for the current fiscal 

year. 

Many of the ongoing challenges facing the Department of the 

Navy (DON) center on acquisition programs. For instance, we have 

had great concerns about cost problems in the shipbuilding arena, 

including the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. Since last year, 

we approved a revised acquisition strategy for LCS that will result 

in $2.9 billion in savings compared to the previous shipbuilding 

plan and has also contributed, at least in part, to the fact the Navy 

is buying additional ships in this budget and has added purchases 

of additional 41 F–18 aircraft to help address a potential shortfall 

in tactical aviation. 

We will be monitoring closely to ensure that the DON actually 

achieves these savings and gets costs under control in other acquisition programs. The Navy has made modest progress in achieving 

the goal of a 313-ship fleet by increasing the size of the Navy fleet, 

and that has increased from a low of 274 ships in March 2007 to 

a planned level of 288 during fiscal year 2012. 

We need to see more success stories, such as the savings from 

the LCS program or the savings from more efficient production of 

the Virginia-class submarine or the savings from the F–18 multiyear program if the Navy is going to make continued progress in 

building the size of the fleet. The future strength of the Navy depends on holding firm on these cost reduction efforts and expanding them across the whole acquisition portfolio. 

The Marine Corps has announced their intention to cancel the 

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. DON acknowledges 

the importance of the Marine Corps’ amphibious assault mission 

and of the continuing relevance of that mission and capability to 

the Nation’s defense. This mission in turn depends on an ability to 

move ashore from 20 to 30 miles out to sea with armored vehicles. 

That has been the purpose of the EFV program. So we need to hear 

this morning on the status of the alternatives to the EFV to 

achieve that mission. 

The Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 has dictated that DOD make significant changes in its regulations and 

procedures governing the acquisition system. While I’m certain 

that this legislation will help correct past problems, I also know 

that we will succeed only through concerted efforts within the executive branch to implement that legislation and improve past behavVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
258 

ior within DOD. We look forward to hearing this morning how the 

Navy is proceeding to implement the provisions of that act. 

Another concern surrounds future ship and aircraft force levels. 

As I have previously mentioned, the Navy budget would buy an additional 41 F–18 aircraft, but the budget would buy fewer Marine 

Corps and Navy versions of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). 

Additionally, the Navy is planning to conduct a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) on some 150 F–18 aircraft already in our inventory. We need to understand the net effect of all these changes 

and how that alters the prospect of having empty carrier air wings 

later in this decade. 

Readiness continues to be a major concern for our committee. 

Without a final fiscal year 2011 appropriations act to match this 

committee’s 2011 authorization of additional resources for readiness, the Navy readiness posture is in great jeopardy. Specifically, 

the funding needed in this fiscal year, in addition to the original 

budget request, is roughly $60 million for aircraft depot maintenance and $34 million for ship depot maintenance. 

During last year’s budget review cycle, this committee authorized 

those additional resources to meet the CNO’s identified unfunded 

priorities for fixing shortfalls in the Navy aircraft and ship depot 

maintenance accounts in the fiscal year 2011 budget. While the 

Senate Appropriations Committee matched that additional funding, 

there has been no final appropriations act. Delaying the final appropriations act for fiscal year 2011 has already had a negative effect on readiness. The Navy has cancelled five ship availabilities. 

Further delay on appropriations will result in additional cancellations. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget continues an inadequate request for 

ship and aircraft depot maintenance, as I mentioned. For these two 

areas, the Navy budget request is short some $367 million, which 

would only exacerbate an already stressed state of naval readiness. 

Turning to operational energy issues, I want to commend Secretary Mabus for his foresight and aggressive goals and his successful testing of alternative fuels from renewable sources. The 

sooner we can free ourselves from the shackles of fossil fuels, the 

better off our Armed Forces will be along with the Nation. 

I understand that last year one Marine company deployed to Afghanistan with renewable power systems to recharge batteries and 

laptops and energy-efficient lighting for tents, among other items. 

Since then, fuel use has decreased 90 percent and two patrol bases 

now operate entirely upon that renewable energy. I congratulate 

you, Secretary Mabus and the Marines, for that initiative. 

I also want to commend Secretary Mabus on his recent announcement that DOD will take new steps to enhance cooperation 

on clean energy and energy security by furthering last year’s 

Memorandum of Understanding between DOD and the Department 

of Energy. 

Last year’s committee report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 contained language expressing this 

committee’s concerns with the planned relocation of 8,000 marines 

and their families from Okinawa to Guam. We recommended a reduction of $320 million from the request for construction of aircraft 

parking, site preparation, and utilities on Guam, since we conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
259 

cluded that these funds were budgeted ahead of need. The committee also recommended that authorization for the construction of 

future projects be deferred until we were provided with essential 

and relevant information. To date, the committee has not received 

that information on any of these six items that we requested. This year’s budget request contains $181 million in similar 

projects. DOD has not yet shown that tangible progress has been 

made to implement a final decision on the replacement facility that 

meets the operational requirements for the marines on Okinawa, 

and we should not proceed with such an important, costly endeavor 

until we have complete, detailed information and realistic plans. To 

do otherwise would risk billions in taxpayers’ dollars and could potentially put our strategic posture in a crucial region in jeopardy. 

So we look forward to hearing testimony this morning from our 

witnesses on these and other issues that are facing the Navy, and 

again we strongly commend you on your great service to the Nation 

and on the initiatives that you have taken. 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today and I thank them for 

their service to the country. They join us in interesting times. 

There are a lot of issues that are now before us and the President 

and the Joint Chiefs and also our military leadership have to handle various situations that are unfolding in the world, some of it 

on a day-to-day basis. So, I’m very interested in hearing General 

Amos’ and Admiral Roughead’s assessments of some of these situations. 

I remain concerned—by the way, in case—I know that our witnesses didn’t miss it, but the Chinese announced a 12 percent or 

12.5 percent increase in their defense budget. We all know that 

that is not a true reflection of their defense spending, and a lot of 

their recent behavior in my view has emphasized the need for a 

naval presence in that part of the world, a very significant one, 

which may in future years turn our attention again to our overall 

maritime strategy. 

The JSF is an issue that we have been over and over and over 

again both in hearings and with the witnesses. General Amos, I 

would really appreciate it if you would keep us informed almost on 

a monthly basis. Secretary Gates has said, as we all know, that the 

Marine Corps version of the F–35 is on ‘‘probation.’’ This has really 

been a—I hate to keep throwing around the word ‘‘disgraceful,’’ but 

the cost overruns and delays have been unfortunately characteristic of a lot of our acquisition problems and challenges over 

the past several years. 

I know, General Amos, that you will keep us informed. But we 

don’t want to be surprised about anything that happens with the 

F–35. In these tough fiscal times, we do have an obligation to our 

citizens to make sure that—we always have that responsibility, but 

now in these tough times, that responsibility has even been increased. 

General Amos, I appreciate your decision concerning the EFV. I 

know it was a tough one for you and I’ll be very interested in hearVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
260 

ing your views on what we will do instead of the EFV in the future, 

particularly in light of my opening comments. Our whole shipbuilding costs are really something which is disturbing us. Secretary Mabus, how you’re going to fit the submarines as well as our 

other shipbuilding requirements all into a very tight budget, I 

would be very interested in hearing how you’re going to approach 

that. 

Finally, on the LCS, I would just quote not my own views, but 

from Norman Polmar. Over the years we learn to respect the views 

of certain individuals who are experts and I would quote from an 

article that Norman Polmar wrote called ‘‘A Crisis in Leadership’’ 

in January. He basically said: ‘‘And more recently, the Navy has 

again changed course on the LCS program. The program began a 

decade ago when the Navy awarded contracts to two industry 

teams to develop and build competitive LCS designs ‘at the speed 

of light.’ As successive CNO and surface warfare flag officers attested, each team was to build up to two ships.’’ At the last hearing 

I went through the numbers of the ships that were begun and cancelled, at huge costs. 

‘‘After competitive evaluation, the Navy would select one design 

to fulfill the requirement for a total LCS force of about 55 ships.’’ 

I go on to quote Norman Polmar: ‘‘Into 2010, the Navy continued 

to praise this approach to the LCS program, even though both designs have been late and far above planned costs. The design selection also was delayed with the penultimate declaration by the 

Navy’s leadership being that the winning design would be chosen 

in November 2010. 

‘‘Then, without warning, in November the Navy announced a 

‘split decision.’ The leadership now wants to buy 10 additional 

ships from each builder. The claim is made that the existing competition had driven down costs for both designs. 

‘‘That is a questionable claim in view of the more than doubling 

of the costs of prototypes of both designs, major problems in development and producing their mission modules, and increased costs 

of supporting a large number of both LCS configurations in the 

fleet. The two LCS designs have different sensors, computers, software, tactical displays, propulsion systems, et cetera. Those will 

cause increased maintenance and support costs, increased personnel training costs, and restrict flexibility in personnel assignment, an important factor in view of the small LCS crew size. The 

different combat systems of the two LCS designs will create problems related to operating the mission modules. Developing a new 

common combat system for both designs could cost up to $1.8 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. Adapting one 

of the combat systems to the other design would cost just under $1 

billion.’’ 

That’s Norman Polmar’s view, and we’ll see, Mr. Secretary. We’ll 

find out. I’ll be here for a few more years, and we’ll see whether 

your decision was correct, or whether Norman Polmar and I were 

correct, when you made a snap decision in November that we had 

to approve two different shipyards to do the job that for years you 

told Congress and the American people that you were going to select one. 

261 

This kind of thing erodes, enormously erodes, the credibility of 

the Navy’s plans and programs, at least for this member. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and I thank them 

for their service to their country. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Secretary Mabus, let me call on you first. 

Secretary Mabus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR., SECRETARY 

OF THE NAVY 

Mr. MABUS. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the 

committee: I have the honor of appearing here today representing 

the sailors, marines, civilians, and their families that make up our 

Department of the Navy. Today the Navy and Marine Corps are 

conducting missions across a full range of military operations. They 

remain the most formidable expeditionary fighting force the world 

has ever known and, thanks to your support, they will continue to 

meet the multitude of missions entrusted to them by our Nation. 

As the chairman pointed out in his opening statement, today we 

face an immediate crisis, the absence of a defense appropriations 

bill and the increasingly serious problems of operating under a continuing resolution (CR). The pressure of the CR has already significantly impacted procurement and reduced the resources available 

to maintain readiness. If the CR continues for the entire year, we 

will be forced to reduce aircraft flight hours and ship steaming 

days, cancel up to 29 of 85 surface ship availabilities, defer maintenance on as many as 70 aircraft and 290 engines, and defer up to 

140 maintenance and construction projects across the country. 

In addition, lack of legislative action will prevent the construction of two Arleigh Burke destroyers, one Virginia-class submarine, 

and one mobile landing platform, prevent procurement of two nuclear reactor cores, and delay increased funding for the Ohio-class 

replacement, reduce Marine Corps procurement by a third after the 

Marine Corps rebalances its manpower accounts, create a $4.6 billion shortfall in operations and maintenance accounts, and create 

a nearly $600 million shortfall in combined Navy and Marine Corps 

manpower accounts. 

These measures not only place additional stress on the force and 

on our families; they will weaken the industrial base and affect 

over 10,000 private sector jobs. The disruption to our fleet and 

shore maintenance and modernization schedules may take years to 

recover from and will come at a much greater cost. We strongly request congressional action to address the implications of the CR. 

This is particularly important when considering that submission 

of the fiscal year 2012 budget was based on the fiscal year 2011 

request. 

The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request for the Navy of 

$161 billion, an increase of only one-half of 1 percent from fiscal 

year 2011, includes funds this year for 10 ships and 223 aircraft. 

It maintains our commitment to take care of our people, build a 

strong research and development and industrial base, and to grow 

the fleet. 

The $15 billion request for OCO, which represents a drop of $3.5 

billion from fiscal year 2011, includes funds to sustain operations, 

262 

manpower, infrastructure, as well as procure equipment to support 

operations in Afghanistan. 

During the budget development, we were keenly aware of the fiscal position of the country and the necessity to be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ dollars. The resulting request is a strategy-driven document, informed by fiscal realities. I think it balances competing requirements and does what is best for the country, the 

Navy and Marine Corps, and our sailors and marines. 

We began this budget cycle by examining every aspect of what 

we do and how we do it. Consequently, $42 billion in the Navy efficiencies were identified over the 5 years. As a result of these efficiencies, we have been able to add one Aegis destroyer, three T– 

AOX fleet oilers, and one T–AGOS ocean surveillance ship to our 

shipbuilding plan. With our dual-block LCS strategy, this increases 

the total number of ships in the Future Years Defense Program 

(FYDP) from 50 to 56, including one Joint High-Speed Vessel to be 

built for the Army. 

The savings allow us to buy additional F/A–18s, extend the service life of up to 150 aircraft as a hedge against delays in the deployment of the F–35B, and allow us to continue investing in unmanned systems, which are becoming increasingly important on 

the battlefield. 

The upcoming year will see the deployment of Fire Scout to Afghanistan and continuing testing of the UCAS–D, the forerunner 

of an integrated carrier-based system. 

In 2010, one of the most important efforts was the decision endorsed by Congress to pursue the new LCS through a dual-block 

buy procurement strategy. At an average cost of less than $440 

million per ship and with the cost reductions we have seen on 

LCS–3 and –4, the new strategy will save taxpayers $2.9 billion. 

This plan is one that’s good for the Navy, good for taxpayers, good 

for the country, and demonstrates what can be accomplished when 

sound acquisition principles are followed and enforced. 

We heard the message from Congress very clearly. We need more 

ships, but they have to be affordable. The LCS strategy supports 

the industrial base by keeping workers employed at two shipyards 

and is indicative of DOD’s push to ensure acquisition excellence. 

The fixed-price contracts used for LCS, I hope, will be a model. 

They are the result of effective competition, give the government 

full ownership of the technical data package used in construction, 

and afford greater congressional oversight. With the new strategy, 

we get more ships, more quickly, and more affordably. 

As was pointed out, significant additional savings were also 

achieved through termination of the EFV. It’s important to emphasize that this decision in no way changes our Nation’s commitment 

to amphibious warfare. We have to maintain an amphibious assault capability that will put marines ashore ready for the fight. 

But the EFV is simply not the vehicle to do this. Conceived in 

the 1980s, the EFV is a two-decade-old solution to a tactical problem that has since fundamentally changed. Its cost per unit would 

have consumed half the Marine Corps’ total procurement from fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2025 and 90 percent of its vehicle-related operation and maintenance account. 

263 

In aviation programs, we, as you, are closely monitoring the JSF, 

particularly the Marine Corps variant, the F–35B. After a 2-year 

period of focused scrutiny, we’ll be able to make an informed recommendation about resolving the technical and cost issues. 

Ashore, we continue to confront rising health care costs caused 

by an increasing number of beneficiaries, expanded benefits, and 

increased utilization. To deal with these trends, we have to implement systematic efficiencies and specific initiatives to improve 

quality of care and customer satisfaction, but at the same time 

more responsibly manage costs. We concur with the recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense to ensure fiscal solvency 

and benefit equity for our retirees. 

Finally, we are continuing efforts to invest in and develop alternative energy. The latest headlines from around the world reinforce 

the basic point: Energy is first and foremost an issue of national 

security. We cannot allow volatile regions of the world to control 

the price and affect the supply of the fuel we use. 

Last year, the Navy and Marine Corps took huge steps forward, 

including, again as was pointed out earlier, flying an F–18 Hornet 

on biofuel, conducting a large expansion of solar power, and beginning expeditionary energy initiatives in Afghanistan. The Third 

Battalion, Fifth Marines, was the outfit that you talked about, Mr. 

Chairman, and in the middle of some of the heaviest fighting in 

Helmand Province they have demonstrated not only the ability to 

reduce their use of fossil fuels, but also to make them better fighters. One foot patrol saves 700 pounds of batteries that they don’t 

have to lug through the battlefield, simply by using some of these 

renewable energy devices. 

What we’re doing there is already saving lives. We will continue 

these investments this year and will continue to move toward our 

goal of at least 50 percent alternative energy use by 2020. 

In closing, I want to thank you again for your support. Thank 

you for always looking out for our sailors, our marines, their families, and for your support of efforts to make the Navy and the Marine Corps better, stronger, and better able to defend our great Nation. It’s a solemn privilege to lead the naval services during an era 

of protracted war and of national challenge. I have been profoundly 

moved by the sacrifice and devotion that I have witnessed daily in 

the sailors and marines who defend us. The Navy and Marine 

Corps are and will remain ready to do any mission America gives 

them. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mabus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR. 

Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, I have the honor of appearing 

here today on behalf of the nearly 900,000 sailors, marines, and civilians that make 

up the Department of the Navy. I have appeared before this committee on a number 

of occasions, and I am happy to be here again, along with the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to report on the readiness, 

posture, progress, and budgetary requests of the Department. We consider ourselves 

privileged to lead the dedicated men and women of the Department who are selflessly serving the United States all around the world. 

Today, your Navy and Marine Corps are conducting missions across the full range 

of military operations. They are engaged in combat in Afghanistan, stability operations in Iraq, deterrence and ballistic missile defense (BMD) in the Pacific, Arabian 

264 

Gulf, and the Mediterranean, as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief 

operations across the globe. Our unmatched global reach, endurance, and presence 

continue to allow the Navy and Marine Corps—in partnership with our sister Services—to secure and advance America’s interests wherever challenges or crises have 

arisen, as well as operate forward to prevent crises from occurring. We remain the 

most formidable expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known, and with 

your continued support, the Navy and Marine Corps will continue to meet the multiplicity of threats that endanger international peace and security. 

But today we are very concerned about the absence of a Defense Appropriations 

Bill for fiscal year 2011 and the negative effects of operating under a continuing resolution for the remainder of the year. We are equally concerned about passage of 

a bill that reduces the topline from the level requested in the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget. Either course of action significantly impacts the resources available 

to grow the fleet and jeopardizes recent efforts to restore and maintain readiness 

levels commensurate with the standards expected of the Navy and Marine Corps. 

Without legislative action, limiting fiscal year 2011 procurement accounts to fiscal 

year 2010 levels will: 

• Prevent start of construction of one Virginia-class submarine to be built 

in Groton and Newport News which will break the existing multi-year contract. 

• Prevent start of construction of one Mobile Landing Platform to be built 

in San Diego. 

• Prevent start of construction of one or possibly both programmed Arleigh 

Burke-class destroyers to be built in Bath and Pascagoula due to DDG– 

1000/DDG–51 swap language that prevents award of either ship unless 

both are authorized and appropriated. 

• Preclude fourth and final increment of full funding for construction of 

CVN–78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) and advance procurement for CVN–79. • Prevent procurement of two nuclear reactor cores for refueling of one aircraft carrier and one ballistic missile submarine, as well as delay increased 

funding for research and development of the Ohio-class replacement and replacement of two Moored Training Ships that provide half of the force’s nuclear training capability. 

• Prevent completion of one Arleigh Burke-class modernization. • Reduce Marine Corps procurement by $563 million. This would add to 

equipment shortfalls generated by 9 years of conflict and prevent equipment replacement or purchase of four H–1 helicopters, numerous LAVs, 

MTVRs, LVSRs; tech upgrades to counter IED jammers; communication 

and intelligence equipment; tactical fuel systems to power our vehicles and 

generators; engineering equipment to move ammo, gear and supplies; air 

conditioners and heaters to take care of marines and sensitive gear; and 

EOD improvements to protect them. 

Reductions to expected procurement levels will create additional stress on the 

force, as units in service pick up additional commitments to cover the seams created 

by fewer available platforms. 

Likewise, fixing fiscal year 2011 operations to fiscal year 2010 levels has created 

a $4.6 billion shortfall in Navy and Marine Corps operations, maintenance, and 

training accounts. Faced with this prospect, the Department began efforts in January to mitigate the impacts of operating under the continuing resolution, which over 

the course of the fiscal year will cause us to: 

• Reduce aircraft flight hours and ship steaming days, including a reduction of four non-deployed air wings’ flight hours to minimal flight-safety levels. 

• Cancel up to 29 of 85 surface ship availabilities. 

• Defer maintenance on 70 aircraft and 290 aircraft engines, bringing the 

combined backlog of aviation maintenance close to 1-year redlines. 

• Defer 41 facilities maintenance projects and 89 new construction projects 

in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, 

North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, and Guam. These 

cuts equal an approximate 50 percent reduction and will eliminate, among 

many projects, dry dock certifications, bachelor quarters maintenance 

projects, repairs to explosive handling wharves at Bangor and Kings Bay 

that support ballistic missile operations, and modernization projects to support introduction of new training aircraft. 

The combined effects of the continuing resolution will directly impact the strength 

of the industrial base and over 10,000 private sector jobs at shipyards, factories, and 

Navy and Marine Corps facilities across the country. The degradation or loss of perVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
265 

ishable skill-sets within our workforce, including many nuclear workers, and the 

disruption to both our fleet and shore maintenance and modernization schedules 

will take 3 years to recover based on rotational schedules alone—and only at significantly greater cost than requested in the fiscal year 2011 President’s Budget. Finally, there is almost a $600 million shortfall in Navy and Marine Corps manpower accounts. As a result of this shortfall, the Services must raid other accounts 

in order to meet payroll for the duration of the year. We are currently living within 

funding constraints by limiting or conducting short-notice permanent change of station moves; however, this tactic places significant hardship on our military families 

and is not sustainable over the entire fiscal year. 

We strongly request congressional action to address the implications of the Continuing Resolution on our forces and our people by taking action to enact the fiscal 

year 2011 President’s Budget. 

DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES

As I testified last year, there are four imperatives I believe the Department of the 

Navy must address to maintain preeminence as a fighting force and successfully 

meet the challenges of the future. They are: 

(1) Taking care of our sailors, marines, civilians, and their families 

(2) Treating energy as a strategic national security issue 

(3) Creating acquisition excellence 

(4) Continuing development and deployment of unmanned systems 

These priorities underpin every action of the Department, from supporting current 

operations to developing the current year’s budget request, finding efficiencies within the Department, and preparing our Navy and Marine Corps for the future. 

Fundamentally, it comes down to a question of resources, of ensuring that our 

people have what they need to do their jobs, ensuring the Nation that the Navy and 

Marine Corps uses our fiscal and energy resources wisely, and ensuring that 

seapower, as a resource, remains readily available to meet the Nation’s policy requirements and the orders of the Commander in Chief. 

SEAPOWER: A CRITICAL STRATEGIC ENABLER

It is clear that we live in a time of sweeping change and an era of strategic realignment. The President has stated that we ‘‘must pursue a strategy of national 

renewal and global leadership—a strategy that rebuilds the foundation of American 

strength and influence.’’ Seapower has always been a part of that foundation and 

will continue to be an indispensible asset to American leadership and economic 

strength in the global community of nations. American seapower, as it has done for 

generations, continues to guarantee freedom of navigation and international maritime trade, underpinning global economic stability and facilitating continued global 

economic growth. No other component of American military power is as flexible or 

adaptable as seapower. I see one of my primary responsibilities as Secretary to be 

ensuring continuation of this responsiveness, flexibility, and adaptability through 

the policies we adopt and in the ships, aircraft, and weapons systems that we build. 

Maritime nations have many inherent strategic advantages. Naval forces operating in the open ocean provide an effective conventional deterrent to those who 

threaten regional stability or promote extremism. Strong expeditionary forces can 

swiftly respond to crises and make potential adversaries pause before committing 

hostile actions. But should deterrence fail, our combat ready naval forces must be 

prepared to conduct sustained combat operations. 

The Navy and Marine Corps are America’s ‘‘Away Team.’’ They exist primarily to 

protect our Nation far from home and respond quickly to crises wherever and whenever they occur. Exploiting their inherent mobility and maneuverability at sea, 

naval forces gather information, perform surveillance of seaborne and airborne 

threats, defend regional partners, deter prospective adversaries, interdict weapons 

of mass destruction, disrupt terrorist networks, conduct humanitarian assistance 

and disaster relief, and support the work of American diplomacy. This variety of capabilities is a primary feature of seapower, and it provides the President and our 

Nation with unmatched flexibility to deter conflict and, if necessary, project power 

from the sea to defend U.S. national security interests. The ability to accomplish 

these tasks without placing a large presence ashore and absent concerns of sovereignty is absolutely critical in our world of increasingly sophisticated threats and 

growing geopolitical complexity. 

It is for these reasons, and in order to improve global force projection capabilities 

that the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are working on an Air Sea Battle concept to improve joint capabilities and cooperation in addressing anti-access/area-denial challenges. 

266 

Unique in history, the blanket of maritime security and stability provided by 

American maritime power is the first to be used for the good of the whole world. 

But in order to ensure continued American leadership in issues of maritime policy 

and security, we strongly recommend accession of the United States to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, an action that has been similarly and repeatedly recommended by multiple Secretaries of the Navy and Chiefs of Naval Operation. Accession by the United States would enhance stability of the navigational rights inherent to the Convention and would strengthen our bargaining position in international discussions of Arctic Policy and access to resources and sea lines of communication. 

CURRENT OPERATIONS

Over the past year, our forces have successfully navigated the world’s growing 

complexity and have consistently demonstrated the utility, effectiveness, and flexibility of seapower and maritime forces. 

Following completion of the Marines Corps’ mission in Iraq, the primary operational focus of the Department has been supporting the war effort in Afghanistan. 

Over 30,000 marines and sailors are committed to the fight there, working all across 

the country, with the largest concentration operating as Regional Command-Southwest along the Helmand River Valley. 

In my visits to the marines on the ground throughout the year, I had the opportunity to look firsthand at the progress made by our increased presence in Helmand. 

In December, I visited three Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) with increasing levels 

of stability in three separate districts of Helmand: Sangin, Marjah, and Nawa—or 

as the marines put it, I went to look at where the fight is, where the fight was, 

and where there is no fight. 

In Nawa, I saw a strong partnership between the local government, Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army, and our Marines—who have built the capacity of their partners so that they may shortly assume responsibility for their own 

security. The district is very safe, and because of the success of the counter-insurgency effort, Nawa is growing in both political strength and economic activity. 

In Marjah, after successful operations to clear it last spring, the markets are 

open, schools are being built, and a local government is working to build capacity. 

In my visit just 3 months ago, I personally walked the streets of Marjah to witness 

the progress, something that even in the summer of 2010 would have been unthinkable. Then, just stepping outside the gates of our FOB would have generated a 

pitched battle. Now, it brought out street vendors and men on motorbikes. 

I also went to Sangin District near the Kajaki Dam in Northern Helmand, which 

has been a Taliban stronghold for years and for the past few months has been the 

main effort of the fight in Helmand. Our marines in Sangin have been conducting 

intensive combat and security missions in support of the counterinsurgency strategy, and concurrently—even in the midst of the fight, have been testing new solar 

energy equipment to expand their operational reach. Together with their partners 

from the Afghan National Security Forces, they have taken the fight to the Taliban 

and are facilitating the Afghan Government’s reestablishment of local control. 

Elsewhere across Central Command, the Navy has over 14,000 sailors on the 

ground supporting joint and coalition efforts and another 10,000 sailors at sea supporting combat operations, including from our carriers operating in the Indian 

Ocean, where we are launching approximately 30 percent of the strike or close air 

support missions that watch over our marines and soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. 

In addition to combat operations, the Navy and Marine Corps remain globally engaged in a host of other security and stability operations. On any given day, more 

than 72,000 sailors and marines are deployed and almost half of our 286 ships are 

underway, ready to respond where needed. 

It was the Navy and Marine Corps that were the first on scene after both the 

devastating earthquake in Haiti and the summer’s catastrophic floods in Pakistan. 

Within hours of the January 12th earthquake, both Navy and Marine Corps assets 

were en route to Haiti. A total of over 10,000 sailors and marines and 23 ships, including the carrier USS Carl Vinson, the Bataan and Nassau Amphibious Ready 

Groups, and the hospital ship USNS Comfort ultimately participated in Operation 

Unified Response. 

Halfway around the world, after Pakistan was struck by devastating August 

floods that impacted nearly a fifth of its population, helicopters from the USS 

Peleliu and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit supported the Government of Pakistan through delivery of 2,000 tons of relief supplies and by contributing to the resVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
267 

cue of over 10,000 people. Later, the ships of the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready 

Group deployed early to provide a continuous U.S. humanitarian presence. 

In response to the administration’s strategic direction, the Navy is scaling up our 

BMD force and their deployments to enhance our deterrent posture, especially in 

the defense of Europe. Our multi-mission, BMD-capable, Aegis cruisers and destroyers now routinely deploy to the Mediterranean and the Arabian Gulf, as well as the 

Western Pacific to extend our deterrent umbrella for our allies. I had the opportunity a few months ago to visit the destroyer USS Ramage after she completed her 

first BMD deployment, and I can assure you that the sailors on these ships are 

some of the most professional and dedicated men and women in the country, and 

they are incredibly excited about their work. We appreciate Congress’ continued 

support of the destroyer and cruiser modernization programs that are bringing additional BMD capability to the fleet. 

Our growing BMD capability is complemented by our traditional sea-based, strategic nuclear deterrent centered upon our globally deployed and proficient ballistic 

missile submarine force. 

In the Western Pacific, as an integral part of U.S. diplomatic actions, several 

times last year the USS George Washington sortied to the South China Sea and the 

Sea of Japan in response to territorial disputes with North Korea and open North 

Korean provocation. In late November, after the North Korean artillery attacks on 

Yeonpyeong Island west of Inchon, the George Washington strike group conducted 

a training exercise with the South Korean Navy in order to demonstrate the continuing value and strength of our alliance. 

We are also working to build regional capacity and resolve security issues of common international concern. 

In support of our Maritime Strategy, both the Navy and Marine Corps routinely 

engage with nations all around the world to build capacity and forge stronger maritime partnerships. In the ‘‘Rim of the Pacific’’ or RIMPAC exercise, 32 ships, 5 submarines, and more than 170 aircraft from 14 nations participated in the world’s 

largest multinational maritime exercise encompassing every aspect of traditional 

naval warfare. 

Global Partnership Stations in Africa, South America, and the Pacific are training 

hundreds of sailors, marines, and coastguardsmen from dozens of nations and are 

bringing advanced medical and civil engineering assistance to those in need. The Africa Partnership Station alone has trained with 32 African and European partners 

since 2007. Between them, Pacific Partnership 2010—conducted by the USNS 

Mercy—and Continuing Promise 2010—conducted by the USS Iwo Jima—treated 

over 100,000 patients and conducted over 20 civil engineering projects. 

In the Caribbean and South America, we continue to work with the Coast Guardled Joint Interagency Task Force-South to synchronize forces from 13 nations and 

interdict the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States. In 2010 naval forces 

contributed to the seizure of over 133.2 tons of cocaine, 3.2 tons of marijuana, 92 

boats and aircraft, and $2.7 billion in drug revenue. 

In the Gulf of Aden and western Indian Ocean, the Navy remains committed to 

counter-piracy efforts with approximately 16 partner nations. Combined Task Force 

151, in cooperation with forces from the EU, NATO, and other nations deploying individual units or task groups, is operating off of Yemen and in the Somali Basin 

to protect the safe passage of maritime commerce. Where our forces are located, pirate activity has fallen, but the areas involved are huge, and as Secretary of State 

Clinton said in April 2009, the solution to Somalia piracy lies largely with Somalia, 

through building its capacity to police itself and offering young pirates viable alternatives to that way of life. We are treating the symptoms of piracy, rather than its 

fundamental cause: Somalia’s failure as a state. Despite the international community’s commitment, piracy has both continued to increase and move further offshore, 

a measure of pirate resiliency and the strong economic incentives that underpin it. 

Nine of 10 pirates captured are ultimately freed as there is often insufficient evidence or political will to prosecute them, or to incarcerate them after conviction. We 

strongly endorse additional international efforts to address these concerns. 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET SUBMISSION

Over the past year, I have visited with thousands of sailors and marines stationed 

with our forward operating forces at sea and our combat forces in Afghanistan. I 

can report, based on both the direct observations I mentioned and from personal inputs from Joint and Combined commanders, that the quality of our sailors and marines is superb and we are continuing to protect America’s interests abroad. But 

while we are prevailing today, we must also build the foundation for the Navy and 

Marine Corps of tomorrow. 

268 

During the development of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget submission our 

Navy and Marine Corps leadership team made numerous difficult tradeoffs to preserve current readiness while better posturing the Navy and Marine Corps for the 

challenges of the future. I believe that the result provides a balanced approach that 

will enable the Services we lead to successfully perform our assigned missions, even 

while setting a course for future success. It is important, however, to reiterate that 

the fiscal year 2012 budget was developed based upon ultimate passage of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget. If the continuing resolution now in place remains the 

de facto budget for the year, or if a Defense Appropriations Bill is passed that reduces the amounts requested in the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget, the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget will not be sufficient to recover from delays, cancellations, and mitigations we have been forced to put in place this year. 

Over the past year, we have examined every aspect of what we do and how we 

do it in order to eliminate waste and move every resource possible toward operations and successfully executing our missions now, and in the future. At the direction of the Secretary of Defense, in June 2010, the Services were formally asked to 

continue this process through an efficiencies review, which we developed through 

three complementary approaches; buying smarter, streamlining our organization 

and operations, and being more efficient in the way we use, produce, and acquire 

energy. This effort has had a substantial impact on our overall budget, allowing us 

to invest more in our core warfighting missions and enhance our acquisition plans. 

Savings were also derived from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-mandated, Defense-wide efficiencies. 

Since the review began, the Department of the Navy has identified approximately $35 billion in self-generated efficiencies over the next 5 years. When DOD-wide efficiencies are factored in we will achieve $42 billion in savings. These savings will 

facilitate adding one guided-missile Aegis destroyer, three T–AO(X) fleet oilers, and 

one T–AGOS ocean surveillance ship to our shipbuilding plan, which with our dualblock LCS strategy will increase the total number of ships in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) from 50 to 56, including one joint high speed vehicle to be 

built for the Army, an average of more than 11 ships per year. We were also able 

to accelerate a Mobile Landing Platform from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2012 

and increase R&D funding to support the accelerated procurement of the T–AO(X), 

and the development of the next amphibious dock-landing ship (LSD(X)). 

The savings allowed additional investments in the Next Generation Jammer to 

provide greater protection for tactical aircraft, electronic warfare systems, ballistic 

missile sets, and the new air and missile defense radar that will equip our DDG– 

51 Flight III destroyers. The savings allowed increased funding for a new generation 

of sea-borne unmanned strike and surveillance aircraft; and gave us the ability to 

buy additional F/A–18s and extend the service life of 150 aircraft as a hedge against 

more delays in the deployment of the F–35B, the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. 

We addressed Marine Corps needs by increasing equipment funding for units in 

dwell and for repair and refurbishment of Marine equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on heavy usage rates, we requested $2.5 billion for Marine reset 

in the fiscal year 2012 OCO request, and estimate a $5 billion reset liability upon 

termination of the conflict in Afghanistan. We also added funding for fire and maneuver platforms, command and control capabilities, and intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance. 

We found the $35 billion through a close and systematic review of our programs 

and by cutting excess capacity in our support establishment. Over the FYDP, with 

congressional support we will reduce Navy manpower ashore and reassign over 

6,000 personnel to operational missions at sea; use multi-year procurement and production efficiencies to save more than $1.1 billion on the purchase of new airborne 

surveillance, jamming, and fighter aircraft; and disestablish both Second Fleet and 

excess staffs for submarine, patrol aircraft, and destroyer squadrons plus one carrier 

strike group staff. 

Programmatically, one of the most important efficiency efforts was the decision 

endorsed by Congress to pursue the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) through a 

dual-block buy procurement strategy. Over the past years the message from Congress has been clear, we must build more battle force ships as affordably as we can, 

consistent with the statutory requirements laid out in the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. We heard that message clearly, and are grateful to the administration for its support and to the many Members of Congress who worked with 

the Navy to make the LCS program an example of what can be done right when 

strict acquisition standards are laid out and enforced. 

With an average cost of $440 million per ship, and with the cost reductions we 

have seen demonstrated on LCS–3 and –4, the Navy will save taxpayers approxiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
269 

mately $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016. More importantly, the fact 

that prices were so dramatically reduced from the initial bids in 2009 will allow us 

to save an additional $1 billion—for a total of $2.9 billion—through the dual award 

of a 10-ship contract to each bidder. This plan is truly one that is good for the Navy, 

good for taxpayers, and good for the country. 

At the recommendation of both the Commandant and myself, significant additional savings were also achieved by the Department of Defense through termination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. The nation absolutely 

must retain and rebuild an amphibious assault capability that will get marines from 

ship to shore in a protected amphibious tracked vehicle ready for the fight. This is 

a core capability the Marine Corps must have. But the EFV is not the vehicle to 

do this. Conceived in the 1980s, the EFV was the previous generation’s solution to 

a tactical problem that has since fundamentally changed. Just as importantly, the 

EFV’s cost per unit would have eaten up over half of the Corps’ total procurement 

account and 90 percent of the Corps’ vehicle-related operation and maintenance account; the requirements levied on the vehicle outstripped what could affordably be 

achieved. 

We are committed to developing and fielding an effective, survivable and affordable amphibious capability that will meet the Corps’ amphibious requirements. This 

will be done through upgrading existing vehicles, through service-life extensions, 

and by working with OSD and industry to go as fast as possible in the acquisition 

and contracting process to develop a successor program to the EFV, one that will 

meet today’s requirements for this critical Marine Corps capability. 

We are also closely overseeing the Joint Strike Fighter program. In particular, we 

are providing additional focused attention on the Marine Corps variant, the F–35B, 

which the Secretary of Defense has placed on a 2-year probation. During this time, 

solutions to the unique F–35B technical issues will be engineered and assessed 

while production will be held to a minimum sustaining production rate of six aircraft per year in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. This low-production rate is 

required to ensure continuity in the engineering workforce involved in the design 

and assembly of the F–35B at the prime contractor and key vendors without a loss 

in learning and to sustain the supplier base of F–35B unique parts. After this 2- 

year period of focused F–35B scrutiny, an informed decision will be made about how 

to proceed with development and production of this variant, to include the potential 

for program cancellation. 

I want to point out that it is only the F–35B (STOVL) variant that is on probation. The F–35C variant, which will be flown off of our aircraft carriers, is doing 

satisfactorily and will be procured by both the Navy and the Marine Corps. 

The President’s budget request of $161 billion will maintain our commitment to 

take care of our people, build a strong R&D and industrial base, and grow a fleet 

capable of sustaining our preeminence as the world’s most formidable expeditionary 

force. The fiscal year 2012 request of $15 billion for contingency operations includes 

incremental costs to sustain operations, manpower, equipment and infrastructure 

repair as well as equipment replacement to support our operations in Afghanistan 

and elsewhere. 

The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request includes funds for 10 Navy 

battleforce ships, including: 

• two Virginia-class submarines, 

• one Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, 

• one Mobile Landing Platform ship, 

• one Joint High Speed Vessel, 

• one Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, and 

• four Littoral Combat Ships. 

In aviation, we have requested 223 aircraft in the fiscal year 2012 baseline budget, including: 

• 13 F–35 Joint Strike Fighters for both the Navy and Marine Corps, 

• 24 MH–60R and 

• 11 P–8As to replace the aging current ASW and maritime patrol squadrons, 

• 18 MH–60S for logistics support, 

• one KC–130J, 

• 25 H–1 variant helicopters, 

• 30 MV–22 tilt-rotor aircraft, 

• 28 F/A–18E/F fighter/attack planes, 

• 12 EA–18G to continue replacing the veteran EA–6B, 

• five E–2D Advanced Hawkeyes, 

• 36 Joint Primary Aircraft Trainers for our student aviators, and 

270 

• 20 Unmanned Aircraft. 

The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request also contains funding for the Navy 

Unmanned Combat Aerial System demonstration and continues development of the 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) unmanned system. 

The individual efficiency initiatives the Department has put in place will continue 

to further streamline our organizations and operations, will reshape and reduce 

both capacity and personnel associated with the Department’s ‘‘tail,’’ and will contribute to the dramatic transformation already underway in how the Department 

does its business. More importantly, they will sharpen the operating ‘‘tooth,’’ free 

up critical resources for maintaining and accelerating our shipbuilding and aviation 

acquisition plan, maximize fleet capabilities, and help preserve a strong industrial 

base. 

TAKING CARE OF SAILORS, MARINES, CIVILIANS, AND THEIR FAMILIES

The Navy and Marine Corps have continued to recruit and retain the high quality 

men and women we brought into the Services in the past years, and 2010 was no 

exception. Both the Navy and Marine Corps met or exceeded their mission quotas 

and quality standards. 

We recognize that quality of life programs are important for morale and the military mission. We recruit sailors and marines, but we retain families. We continue 

to provide a wide array of readiness programs, including deployment support services, morale and welfare services, and child and teen programs. These award winning career management, training, and life-work balance programs are nationally 

recognized for their excellence not only by respected national human resource organizations, but even more by the marines and sailors that benefit directly from them. 

Medical care for our Wounded Warriors, already outstanding, continued to get 

better throughout the year. Since Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom 

began, over 12,000 marines and sailors have been wounded in action. Their service 

and sacrifice mandates that we provide quality care for those who have given so 

much for our country. Our medical community continues to meet this challenge and 

make advances in dealing with the signature wounds of the current wars: traumatic 

brain injuries, mental health issues, amputation, and disfiguring injuries, and Navy 

Medicine continues to reach out to its colleagues in both civilian and Veterans Affairs hospitals to improve our understanding and improve overall care for our people. 

But care for our Wounded Warriors does not end in the hospital. We have undertaken a commitment to bring our Veterans back into the workforce of the Department of the Navy through several Wounded Warrior outreach programs and hiring 

conferences. We are not there yet, but we are moving towards the goal of being able 

to say to every Wounded Warrior—if you want a job, we have one for you. As a representative example, in the past year alone, the Naval Sea Systems Command hired 

200 Wounded Warriors. In 2011 we will continue to make employment opportunities 

for Wounded Warriors a priority for the Department. 

It is important to note that rising health care costs within the Military Health 

System continue to present a fiscal challenge for the Department. Like the Secretary of Defense, both I and Departmental leadership are particularly concerned 

that the rate at which health care costs are increasing and the relative proportion 

of the Department’s resources devoted to health care cannot be sustained; the Military Health System is not immune to the pressure of inflation and market forces 

evident in the civilian health care sector. 

The military faces a growing number of eligible beneficiaries, expanded benefits, 

and increased utilization throughout the military health care system. As a Department, we must be resolute in our commitment to implement systemic efficiencies 

and specific initiatives which will improve quality of care and customer satisfaction 

but will at the same time more responsibly manage cost. We have made progress, 

but there is more to do. We concur with the recommendations made by the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense; we must create incentives such as the Home Delivery 

Pharmacy Program and implement modest fee increases, where appropriate, to both 

ensure the fiscal position of the system and ensure equity in benefits for our retirees. 

Taking care of sailors and marines also means aggressively addressing the issues 

of sexual assault prevention and response. Last year, you supported the establishment of a new Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPRO) reporting 

directly to me to focus attention on the issue, develop effective training, and coordinate prevention and response programs across the Navy and Marine Corps. However, it is clear through sexual assault surveys that this crime remains a significant 

problem in the Services, and within some populations we have seen a negative trend 

271 

of an increased number of assaults. But I can assure you that we are not accepting 

this trend, and we will not rest while any cases of this awful crime continue to 

occur. 

In 2010, the Department moved forward on expanding the opportunities for 

women in the Navy. We established a comprehensive plan to integrate women into 

the submarine force, beginning with our ballistic missile and guided missile Ohioclass submarines. This summer, the first 21 women officers were selected for nuclear training—and they have begun their approximately 15-month training pipeline. The first of these officers will get to their boats beginning in November 2011. 

We are preparing to move forward with successfully implementing Congressional 

guidance with respect to repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ in 2011. 

Overall, the fiscal year 2012 budget reflects a carefully crafted request for the fiscal support and resources necessary to sustain the force in light of the ongoing demands on our people and their families. Thank you for your continuing support. 

ENERGY SECURITY AND LEADERSHIP

Energy consumption in the Navy and Marine Corps has become a strategic vulnerability, an operational Achilles’ heel, and a readiness challenge. This has made 

our energy usage a national security issue of rising importance. As a Department, 

we rely too much on fossil fuels, making our forces susceptible to fluctuations in 

both price and supply. Dramatic shifts in cost and availability can be caused by a 

host of manmade or natural events in volatile areas of the world. Those potential 

shocks could have, in turn, strategic, operational, and tactical effects upon our 

forces. A survey of headlines around the world today demonstrates exactly the point 

we are trying to make—energy is first and foremost an issue of national security. 

Without sustainable and reliable sources of energy and increased efficiency in our 

platforms, we may find ourselves paying an exorbitant price for operating our fleet, 

training our aviation and ground forces, and running our installations that support 

them. The ability to train and prepare forces for deployment could be curtailed. 

Worse still, our naval forces may find that future adversaries target our operational 

dependence on petroleum, as we see in attacks on fuel convoys in Afghanistan 

today. Our dependence on a fragile fuel distribution network increases our footprint, 

drains resources from the tip of the spear to supporting logistics lines, and ties up 

combat forces for security. Thus, energy diversity and efficiency are essential to 

maintain our warfighting capabilities and enhance our combat effectiveness. 

This is a topic I have spoken on a great deal, in front of this committee last year, 

around the world in speeches to industry and military audiences, and in conversations with international leaders. Through these events and discussions, it has become clear that energy security is not just an American issue—it is an issue that 

affects both our allies and potential adversaries alike. History has taught us that 

competition for resources has been one of the fundamental causes of conflict for centuries, and today, competition for energy still provides one of the most inflammatory 

sources of potential conflict. 

Energy, or more specifically denial of energy, could affect many of our NATO partners in Europe and indeed the strength of the alliance itself. Many of our partners 

are dependent upon external sources for their energy, so for them—denial of energy 

is a weapon, one just as real as the threat of tanks or airplanes. 

For all these reasons, and in order to improve our long-term strategic position and 

enhance the future operational effectiveness of our forces, I have charged the Navy 

and Marine Corps with accelerating the exploration and exploitation of new ways 

to procure, produce, and use energy. 

This effort began in October 2009, when I issued my five energy goals for the Department, the most important of which commits the Navy and Marine Corps to generate at least 50 percent of all the energy we use from alternative sources no later 

than 2020. Alternative sources include all renewable forms of energy such as solar, 

wind, geothermal, and ocean energy, as well as biofuels and nuclear energy. 

We are on track to meet all our goals, and throughout 2010, we demonstrated 

progress through many energy programs, partnerships, and initiatives. Throughout 

the year, we successfully conducted both ground and airborne tests of an F/A–18 

Hornet and MH–60 Seahawk helicopter, and ran a Riverine Command Boat (experimental) on renewable biofuel blends made from either camelina or algae. Recently, 

we also completed testing of a marine gas turbine engine that will enable us to certify our frigates, destroyers and cruisers for biofuel operations. In each case, there 

was no impact on performance and no degradation to engine reliability. Together, 

these tests represent critical milestones for the Department’s goal of demonstrating 

the Great Green Fleet in 2012 and its planned deployment in 2016. In late 2010, 

272 

the Navy conducted concurrent but unrelated tests of a more efficient F/A–18 engine 

in order to generate an increase in the aircraft’s range. 

Afloat, as I discussed last year, the USS Makin Island is using a hybrid-electric 

drive to dramatically lower its fuel usage at slow speeds, which we estimate will 

generate life-cycle savings of up to $250 million at today’s fuel prices. Over the next 

few years, we will continue to move forward with installation of a similar system 

on new construction DDGs and look at the feasibility of retrofitting the fleet with 

these systems in the course of routine shipyard availabilities. 

The Marine Corps is also aggressively exploring energy efficiency solutions in its 

operating forces in theater and in the supporting establishment. The Marines realize that energy as a resource influences a Commander’s operational freedom of maneuver, and its conservation and wise use can save lives on the battlefield. Reduced 

logistics support and fewer convoys for expeditionary forces would free up resources 

and limit the exposure of marines to ambush and IEDs. Energy efficiency equals 

better combat effectiveness. 

At home, the Marine Corps demonstrated their traditional spirit of innovation by 

scouring the commercial world for rugged solutions, building two Experimental Forward Operating Bases (ExFOB) at Quantico and Twentynine Palms. New alternative energy technologies tested at the ExFOB deployed this fall with the Third 

Battalion, Fifth Marines (3/5), posted to Sangin District in the north of Helmand 

Province. Immediately upon arrival, they began evaluating expeditionary solar 

power generators at their FOBs and combat outposts to supplement or replace fossil 

fuels. They have done this even while engaged in near constant combat against a 

determined enemy in one of the most hotly contested districts of the war. 

When I visited Sangin, I heard first-hand from a Marine First Lieutenant about 

what worked, what did not, and how his marines in India Company of 3/5 were 

using the equipment. Two patrol bases are operating entirely on renewable energy, 

and another with a 90 percent reduction. One of the team-portable systems, called 

GREENS (Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System), is being used 

to provide power for the Operations Center, small radios, and small electronic equipment. Across the battalion’s operating area, manportable SPACES (Solar Portable 

Alternative Communications Energy System) are being used by individual squads 

to recharge their radios and other combat electronics. This capability made it possible for a foot patrol to operate for 3 weeks without battery resupply, reducing their 

burden by 700 pounds and saving more than $40,000. 

By deploying these renewable solar energy technologies the marines in Sangin 

have been able to expand their operational reach, eliminate or minimize their need 

for fossil fuels in their generators, and dramatically reduce the need for often dangerous logistic support. 

At Camp Leatherneck, the marines have likewise begun a small bio-fuel pilot 

project for Helmand Province, purchasing locally produced cotton oil from an Afghan 

facility to mix with their own fuel. At Leatherneck, a standard generator is producing power from a 20–80 mix of cotton oil to fuel, yielding a 20 percent reduction 

in demand for fuel, while simultaneously demonstrating to Afghan farmers that 

there are alternatives to opium, and demonstrating to Afghan leaders that they can 

power their own economy from within Afghanistan. I am monitoring its progress 

closely. 

As the ExFOB gets all this feedback from returning marines, our expeditionary 

energy systems and programs will continue to improve and we will move even further down the road of energy efficient, combat effective forces. 

In addition to these tactical and platform applications, we have implemented a 

number of energy projects at our facilities ashore. We are actively exploring for new 

geothermal resources to augment our existing 270 MW geothermal power plant at 

China Lake. Last year we established the Nation’s first grid-connected wave buoy 

at MCB Kaneohe Bay, HI. Last December the marines completed a 1.5 MW solar 

installation situated atop six acres of a landfill. The installation was unique because 

the equipment foundations were designed not to perforate the membrane covering 

the garbage below. Our budget request asks for continued support of these and similar projects in order to enhance our efficiency and maximize our move to greater 

independence and more resilient infrastructure. 

Finally, throughout the year we developed partnerships with a number of Federal 

agencies, states, academic institutions, and industry partners including the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, NASA, and the Small Business Administration. 

It is precisely because of the spirit of innovation that these partnerships embody 

that our Nation remains a world leader in its unrivaled capacity to stimulate and 

exploit cutting-edge ideas and new technologies. The U.S. Navy has always been a 

technological leader and has excelled at embracing change, particularly in propulsion systems and energy sources. We moved from wind to coal in the 19th century, 

273 

from coal to oil early in the 20th century, and added nuclear power 60 years ago. 

In every transition there were opponents to change, but in every case these changes 

increased our combat effectiveness by an order of magnitude. 

I have tasked the Navy and the Marine Corps to once again pioneer technological 

change through alternative energy sources. I am pleased with the progress to date, 

and expect it to sharply enhance the long-term strategic agility of our operating 

forces, as well as better posture the Department for an age of fiscal austerity and 

potential energy volatility. I want to stress, however, that every action and program 

we undertake is focused on generating improved warfighting capability and strategic flexibility, it is not just change for change’s sake. 

CREATING ACQUISITION EXCELLENCE

Our future combat readiness is dependent upon the design, development and acquisition of weapons, platforms, and information technology. The current ships and 

aircraft of the Navy and Marine Corps provide decisive advantages over today’s 

threats. But that edge must be constantly sharpened and modernized against constantly evolving technologies. We must continue to invest in intelligence, precision 

missiles and munitions, networked command systems, stealth technology, unmanned vehicles and ground fighting systems. 

To retain our advantage across multiple warfighting areas, we rely heavily upon 

both our dedicated personnel and the expertise resident in America’s private sector. 

Throughout my tenure, I have taken the opportunity to visit shipyards, aircraft 

plants, vehicle factories, maintenance facilities, and warfare centers for detailed 

briefings and a firsthand look at the people responsible for designing and building 

our fleet and equipping our sailors and marines with vital weapon systems and 

technologies necessary to do their jobs. One cannot fail to recognize the creativity, 

dedication, and skills of our Nation’s workforce. 

Yet, with government spending increasingly constrained, affordability, cost containment and total ownership costs are more important than ever. Because acquisition costs are rising faster than our top-line and because replacement systems can 

be more expensive than the platforms or weapon systems being replaced, we are 

putting tomorrow’s force at risk. 

Both on our own and as a result of Secretary Gates’ guidance, the Department 

has devoted considerable effort to finding efficiencies, reducing support costs, and 

scrubbing our acquisition process to mitigate this impact. In accordance with the 

Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act passed by Congress in 2009, we have made 

the requirements and acquisition processes more rigorous in order to better manage 

the resources entrusted to us by the American taxpayer, and we are working with 

OSD to develop a streamlined process for acquiring information technology in a 

more responsive manner to better equip the warfighter with emerging technologies 

and ward off the cyber threat. 

This requires constant examination of every single one of our policies, practices, 

priorities, and organizations, with a clear focus on controlling cost. Our acquisition 

community has been extensively engaged with industry and the Services to streamline processes, and they are ruthlessly evaluating both requirements and the supporting analyses in order to get more value out of the overall acquisition system. 

The Navy and Marine Corps will continue initiatives already in place to improve 

processes and to instill discipline in procurement. In 2010, we strengthened our cost 

estimating group and met statutory requirements to obtain independent cost estimates, and we have incorporated Defense-wide best practices in the formulation of 

all our major programs. We have made our cost estimates more realistic and are 

using these improved cost and schedule plans to make necessary capability tradeoffs 

and difficult investment decisions at the front end of the requirements process rather than during design or construction. 

A professional acquisition workforce is a key element in our overall acquisition excellence initiative and a driver in our strategy to preserve our fighting edge at an 

affordable cost. Accordingly, and with your strong support, we are rebuilding the acquisition workforce within government to fulfill Federal oversight of the acquisition 

process and ensure that accountability to taxpayers is the foremost concern of our 

employees. In the last year, the Department has added nearly 1,300 acquisition professionals towards the goal of increasing the community by 5,090 over the FYDP. 

Our acquisition strategies have been shaped to expand the use of fixed-price contracts, leverage competition, and tighten up on the use of incentive and award fees 

to ensure quality systems are consistently delivered on budget and on schedule. The 

new acquisition plan for the LCS epitomizes this strategy, and is indicative of the 

type of fixed-price contracts that will be the model for the future. The LCS blockbuy contracts are the result of effective competition and give the government full 

274 

ownership of the technical data package used in construction. This will ensure our 

ability to pursue competitive strategies for LCS Seaframe requirements in fiscal 

year 2016 and beyond and affords greater congressional oversight of the program. 

With the new LCS strategy, we get more ships, at a faster rate, and at less cost. 

The LCS dual-block procurement strategy also contributes to meeting another acquisition goal of both this Committee and the Navy through its strong support of 

the industrial shipbuilding base. Modernizing today’s force and recapitalizing the 

fleet affordably cannot be accomplished without a healthy industrial base and strong 

performance by our industry partners. We have worked hard to procure our ships, 

aircraft, and weapon systems at a rate intended to bring stability to the industrial 

base and enable efficient production. The Navy’s shipbuilding and aviation plans 

were developed with particular regard to maintaining the unique characteristics and 

strength of the industrial base and our efforts have promoted increased competition, 

greater innovation, and better capacity within the base. 

Over the FYDP, we will continue to build upon our progress to date and we will 

work with our shipyards, aircraft manufacturers, weapon systems providers and 

systems integrators to build the best possible fleet for the future. 

DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF UNMANNED SYSTEMS

The complex nature of today’s security environment, as well as current and future 

anti-access/area-denial threats faced by the United States, require that the Navy 

and Marine Corps continue to advance in unmanned systems and exploit the contributions they make to warfighting capability. Unmanned systems are unobtrusive, 

versatile, persistent, and they reduce the exposure of our sailors and marines to unnecessary threats or dangerous environments. They can perform a vast array of 

tasks such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, hydrographic monitoring, mine detection, targeting, and precision strike. 

Navy and Marine Corps unmanned systems have already made key contributions 

to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 

Enduring Freedom, unmanned aircraft systems have flown thousands of flight 

hours, enhancing the effectiveness of our combat operations and undoubtedly saving 

lives. Unmanned ground vehicles employed by the Marine Corps have conducted 

thousands of missions detecting and/or neutralizing improvised explosive devices. 

Off the Horn of Africa, unmanned systems contribute to surveillance and tracking 

of suspected or confirmed pirate vessels. 

The range of tasks that these capabilities may fulfill will grow substantially over 

time. I am determined to ensure that your Navy and Marine Corps are at the cutting edge of this military capability. 

Our vision for the future will exploit unmanned systems in every domain of our 

operating environment (sea, air, and land) while maintaining an affordable price. 

The Department’s Unmanned Systems will move from adjunct capabilities supporting manned systems and platforms to providing autonomous, networked, and 

interoperable independent capabilities—much as naval aviation matured from an 

adjunct to the Battle Fleet to a combat capability in its own right in the first half 

of the 20th century. 

We will field unmanned systems in the near term to: 

• Provide sensing, influence and effects where manned systems are limited 

by range, endurance or risk. 

• Shift from relying primarily on manned platforms to accomplish missions 

to combinations of manned platforms, robots, augmented human performance, and remotely operated and unmanned systems that make operational 

sense. 

• Increase the combat effectiveness of sailors and marines, their platforms 

and combat organizations to better operate against multiple types of 

threats. 

In implementing this vision, we will embrace Unmanned Systems as critical tools 

in our warfighting quiver of capabilities. We will integrate them into everything we 

do across the full range of military operations to enhance our combat effectiveness 

and efficiency. We will invest in the infrastructure to ensure we have the capabilities and capacity to properly task, collect, process, exploit and disseminate the information so the intelligence data gets to the decision makers and warfighters. The initiatives and investments contained in the fiscal year 2012 budget request will continue moving us along this desired track. I look forward to reporting our progress 

toward this vision throughout the year. 

275 

CONCLUSION

Today I have laid out our strategic posture as well as the goals and priorities that 

guide the Department’s investment portfolio and future direction. These goals and 

programs will significantly influence our future capabilities and ensure we remain 

ready to deter regional conflict or respond rapidly and decisively to emerging crises. 

Our specific requests are reflected in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget submission. 

In order to retain a ready and agile force capable of conducting the full range of 

military operations, we must carefully weigh risks and apply our available resources 

efficiently and carefully. This year’s request reflects our strategy-driven priorities 

and the disciplined trade-offs that you and the American taxpayer expect of us. The 

Department’s efficiency efforts have been beneficial in terms of enhancing our ability to invest in the future even while preserving and extending our force structure. 

This is not a one-time event, as we will continuously work to increase efficiencies 

in every project, program, and operation, afloat and ashore. The budget request ensures that we will retain the world’s most powerful and agile expeditionary force. 

The CNO, Commandant, and myself are committed to that aim and to being effective stewards of the Nation’s resources. 

As Secretary, I have seen firsthand the selfless courage of our young marines and 

sailors in Helmand; the dedication of our medical community caring for our wounded; the professionalism of our surface, submarine and aviation sailors; and the incredible technical skills of the maintenance crews that sustain them. I have also 

borne witness to the sacrifices of our personnel in hospitals in theater and at the 

National Naval Medical Center. A single visit to Bethesda will make you marvel at 

the resilience of the human spirit and the unflagging patriotism of our American 

service men and women. 

Your Navy and Marine Corps are performing at a high operational tempo, at unparalleled levels of skill and dedication, and with remarkable results afloat, at 

depth, aloft, in cyberspace, and ashore. Thanks to your support, this level of performance has been sustained with the modern platforms, weapons systems, and 

training necessary to underwrite our readiness. Your continued support recognizes 

and sustains the sacrifice of our sailors, marines, civilians, and their families. The 

support of this committee for our key programs and our people has been instrumental to operational success of the Navy and Marine Corps and maintenance of 

the world’s most flexible instrument of national policy—a modernized and ready 

naval expeditionary force. 

It is a solemn privilege to lead the Naval Services during an era of protracted war 

and national challenge. I have been honored by the trust the President and Congress have placed in me, and even more honored by the sacrifice and sterling devotion I have witnessed by those sailors and marine who go forward into harm’s way 

to defend us. Preserving our values and our way of life is ultimately dependent upon 

our being prepared to use decisive force against those who threaten them. The Navy 

and Marines have been ready to do so for 235 years, and will continue to be ready. 

You can count on it. 

Thank you again for your support. Godspeed. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Admiral Roughead. 

STATEMENT OF ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL 

OPERATIONS 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, sir. Chairman Levin, Senator 

McCain, members of the committee: It’s my honor to appear before 

you in my 4th year as the CNO, representing more than 600,000 

sailors, Navy civilians, and families who operate and live globally. 

I appreciate your continued support for them as they continue to 

carry out our maritime strategy. 

Our Navy continues to meet operational commitments and respond to crises as they emerge. We’re engaged in Afghanistan and 

in Iraq, with, as you mentioned, 14,000 sailors on the ground in 

those countries and with 2 aircraft carriers now in the CENTCOM 

area of operations, 14,000 at sea. From the carrier, we provide 

276 

about 30 percent of the fixed wing air sorties that fly in support 

of our troops in Afghanistan. 

Our presence in the Middle East also gives us the flexibility to 

respond to the sweeping changes that we see taking place there. 

But our interests extend beyond that, and so do our operations. 

Today we have about 65,000 sailors and about 40 percent of our 

force deployed. They’re globally present and they’re persistently engaged. They provide deterrence in northeast Asia and presence in 

the western Pacific. They conduct counter-piracy operations in the 

Indian Ocean and they’re building maritime partnerships in Africa, 

South American, and the Pacific. 

The demand continues to grow for the offshore option our Navy 

and our Marine Corps team provides the Nation. We assume the 

lead for the first phase of the Phased Adaptive Approach for ballistic missile defense in Europe and we’re working with the Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) on providing that same capability ashore. 

We created the new Information Dominance Directorate on my 

staff, which has enabled us to make better decisions and investments in countering anti-access and area denial strategies. We recently established the Tenth Fleet, our cyber fleet, which has demonstrated its expertise by conducting joint and naval operations in 

the cyber network cryptology and space arenas. 

To deliver the above, we’ve been pushing the fleet hard. We have 

288 ships today. That’s the smallest that we have been since 1916, 

when our interests and our responsibilities were nowhere near 

what they are today. That’s why 313 ships remains the floor of our 

future force and why sustaining fleet capacity is essential to reaching that floor. 

Since I’ve become CNO, I’ve focused on ensuring the Navy is 

ready, that our quality of work and quality of life are fulfilling to 

the men and women of our Navy, and that we place underperforming programs back on track. We’ve introduced stability, affordability, and capacity into our shipbuilding and aviation plans, and 

with the assistance of Congress, we have advanced capabilities to 

meet the most likely evolving threats. 

We’ve secured a fixed-price dual award for 20 LCSs. We’ve addressed the strike fighter capacity with a multi-year F–18 procurement, and pending resolution of the CR, we will build two Virginiaclass submarines per year, another DDG–51, start the Mobile 

Landing Platform, construct and refuel our aircraft carriers as 

planned, and continue the design of our replacement strategic deterrent submarine. 

I’m pleased with our accomplishments and I thank Congress for 

their continued support of our acquisition strategy. 

Our fiscal year 2012 budget request is a balanced approach to increasing fleet capacity, maintaining warfighting readiness, and developing and enhancing our Navy total force. This budget goes beyond ships and aircraft. It enhances electronic warfare, information 

dominance, integrated air and missile defense, and anti-submarine 

warfare capabilities for evolving challenges. 

It continues to develop a family of unmanned systems that will 

work in concert with our manned systems to secure access and establish maritime superiority when and where we choose. It continues our effort over the last 2 years to reduce total ownership 

277 

costs and leverages the opportunity presented by the Secretary of 

Defense’s efficiencies to reduce excess overhead, improve readiness, 

and reinvest in warfighting capability and capacity that improves 

the long-term sustainability of our force. 

Importantly, it supports the Secretary of Defense’s health care 

initiatives included in the President’s budget, which continue our 

efforts in health care to improve internal efficiency, incentivize behavior, ensure all our beneficiaries are treated equitably, and enhance our ability to deliver high-quality health care for years to 

come. 

You can be exceptionally proud of our sailors and Navy civilians, 

who they are and what they do. Today’s sailors are the best with 

whom I have ever served. I ask you for your strong support of our 

fiscal year 2012 budget request. I thank you for all you do to support the men and women of the U.S. Navy, our enduring global 

force for good. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Roughead follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee, it is my honor 

and pleasure to appear before you, in my 4th year as Chief of Naval Operations 

(CNO), representing the more than 600,000 sailors and civilians of the U.S. Navy. 

As we have done for more than 235 years, our Navy is forward-deployed around the 

world protecting our national security and prosperity. Today, our dedicated Navy 

men and women are operating globally at sea, on land, in the air, and in space and 

cyberspace. I appreciate your continued support for them and their families. 

As the demand for our Navy continues to grow, our Maritime Strategy, which I 

issued more than 3 years ago with the Commandants of the Marine Corps and the 

Coast Guard, continues to guide our Navy’s operations and investments. Its core tenets are enduring and our Navy is executing daily the six core capabilities it articulates for our sea Services: forward presence, deterrence, sea control, power projection, maritime security, and humanitarian assistance and disaster response. 

With your support, since becoming CNO, our Navy has placed underperforming 

programs back on track; we have introduced stability, affordability, and capacity 

into our shipbuilding and aviation plans; and we have advanced capabilities to meet 

the most likely evolving threats. We improved the performance of several programs, 

most notably the Littoral Combat Ship. After cancelling the LCS ships we had 

planned for 2007 because of unacceptable costs, last year we were able to secure 

a price for 20 ships through a dual award strategy that will add new and needed 

capabilities to our Fleet, bring important stability to the industrial base, and get 

us closer to the minimum of 313 ships our Navy needs. I thank Congress for their 

support of this strategy. We delivered five new ships in 2010, including one Virginia-class submarine, two Arleigh Burke destroyers, and two T–AKE logistics ships. 

We commenced testing and low-rate initial production of the P–8A Poseidon MultiMission Maritime Aircraft and continued testing and low-rate initial production of 

the E–2D Advanced Hawkeye. Through multi-year procurement contracts for F/A– 

18E/F and EA–18G, and Virginia-class submarines, and planned multi-year procurements for the MH–60R/S and E–2D, we are introducing affordability in our aviation 

and shipbuilding plans and realizing significant savings. For example, on the Virginia-class Multi-Year Procurement alone, the savings has been $3.2 billion. We are 

advancing capability to meet emerging threats, particularly in Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and information dominance. In BMD, we assumed lead for the first 

phase of the President’s Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for BMD of Europe and 

we are working with the Missile Defense Agency on providing Aegis Ashore capability to support the second phase of the PAA. Our newly-established Fleet Cyber 

Command/U.S. 10th Fleet demonstrated its expertise conducting joint and naval exercises and operations in the cyber, network, cryptology, signals intelligence, information warfare, electronic warfare, and space arenas. We also achieved the early 

operational deployment of the MQ–8B Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle, the first successful flight of our Navy Unmanned Combat Air System demonstrator, and a memorandum of agreement with the Air Force 

278 

to pursue increased commonality between the Global Hawk and Broad Area Maritime Surveillance programs. 

Our Navy continues to meet planned operational commitments and respond to crises as they emerge globally. We remain engaged in operations in Afghanistan and 

in Iraq. Our Navy has more than 14,000 Active and Reserve sailors on the ground 

and another 10,000 at sea in Central Command, including ongoing Individual 

Augmentee support to both operations. Our aircraft carriers provide about 30 percent of the close air support for troops on the ground in Afghanistan and our Navy 

and Marine Corps pilots fly an even greater percentage of electronic attack missions 

there. 

Because our national interests extend beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, so do the operations of our Navy. More than 40 percent of our Navy is underway daily; globally 

present and persistently engaged. Last year, our Navy provided deterrence against 

North Korea; conducted counter-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean with a coalition of several nations; trained local forces in maritime security as part of our Global Maritime Partnership initiatives in Africa and the Pacific; responded with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to the earthquake in Haiti and the flood 

in Pakistan; and conducted the world’s largest maritime exercise, which brought together 14 nations and more than 20,000 military personnel, to improve coordination 

and trust in multi-national operations in the Pacific. Navy sealift continues to deliver the lion’s share of heavy war and humanitarian equipment in the Central 

Command and Pacific Command areas of responsibility, while Navy logisticians operate the seaport and airport facilities that ensure this vital materiel arrives on 

time. Our sailors remain forward throughout the world, projecting U.S. influence, 

responding to contingencies, and building international relationships that enable the 

safe, secure, and free flow of commerce that underpins our economic prosperity. 

Our Navy’s global presence guarantees our access and freedom of action on and 

under the sea. We are developing with the Air Force and Marine Corps the Air Sea 

Battle concept that will identify the doctrine, organization, training, procedures, and 

equipment needed for our Navy to counter growing military threats to our freedom 

of action. This joint effort will inform the conceptual, institutional, and material actions needed to employ integrated forces that support U.S. operations to project 

power and influence, protect allies and partners, and secure our national objectives 

in peace and war. 

I remain committed to supporting our Active and Reserve sailors, Navy civilians, 

and their families. Our Navy continues to be recognized as a highly-ranked place 

to work as a result of its workforce planning, life-work integration, diversity, and 

training opportunities. We met or exceeded overall officer and enlisted active recruiting goals last year and we are accessing a force of extreme high quality. We 

continue to move forward on assigning women into our submarine force, with the 

first women submariners on track to report aboard SSBNs and SSGNs by the end 

of this year. We remain committed to performance as a criterion for promotion in 

our Navy, and have successfully transitioned the majority of our civilian personnel 

out of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). Our remaining NSPS employees are scheduled to convert by the end of this year. I appreciate the support 

of Congress for our Fleet and the dedicated sailors, Navy civilians, and their families that serve our Nation every day. 

My priorities for the Navy remain unchanged: to build tomorrow’s Navy, to remain ready to fight today, and to develop and support our sailors, Navy civilians, 

and their families. We continue to advance our Navy in each of these areas thanks 

to your support. 

Our Navy remains the most capable maritime force in the world; however, we are 

stretching our force to meet combatant commander demands. Since 2000, our Navy’s 

ship-underway days have increased by approximately 15 percent, yet we have about 

10 percent fewer ships in our Fleet. Greater demand for our forces has led to longer 

deployments and shorter dwell, or turnaround times, which increase stress on our 

sailors and drive up maintenance requirements for our ships and aircraft. We are 

implementing force management measures in the near term to stretch the capacity 

of our 286-ship force to meet increasing global requirements while providing the 

necessary maintenance our Fleet needs to reach its expected service life. Our Navy 

is different from other Services in that we reset our force ‘‘in stride’’; that is, we 

rely upon regular maintenance of our ships and aircraft, and training and certification of our crews between deployments, to sustain our force. I thank Congress for 

their support of our fiscal year 2011 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) request, 

which would enable our Navy’s continuous reset and translate into decades of service for each ship and aircraft, a significant return on investment. 

Regrettably, the continuing resolution (CR) for fiscal year 2011 prevents us from 

applying the increased fiscal year 2011 O&M funding to improve our readiness, and 

279 

it negatively impacts our ability to procure our future Navy and support our sailors, 

Navy civilians, and their families. It has forced us to take mitigation measures that 

include: reducing operations, limiting numerous contracts for base operating support, slowing civilian hiring, reducing Permanent Change of Station notifications for 

our sailors from about 6 months lead time to less than 2 months, not initiating the 

Small Business Innovative Research program, and delaying procurement contracts 

for new capabilities and existing production lines. Starting this month, we will cancel or scale back ship maintenance availabilities in Norfolk, Mayport, and San 

Diego, and cancel more than a dozen Military Construction (MILCON) projects in 

several States. If the CR lasts all year, we will have no choice but to make permanent these mitigations and others, significantly reducing our operations, maintenance, and training. We will be forced to further reduce facilities sustainment, cancel training events and additional surface ship availabilities, and defer maintenance 

on our aircraft, which would result in almost a 1-year backlog in aviation maintenance. The impact of these actions will jeopardize the efforts we made in recent 

years to restore Fleet readiness. Without relief, we will procure only one Virginiaclass submarine and break the multiyear contract. Agreements made with our surface combatant builders, as a result of the DDG–1000/DDG–51 swap, precludes us 

from awarding any DDG–51s in fiscal year 2011 unless both ships are appropriated. 

In addition, without relief, we will delay the new start Mobile Landing Platform; 

we will constrain aircraft carrier construction and refueling, negatively impacting 

operational availability, increasing costs, and delaying CVN–79 delivery by up to 1 

year; and we will limit aviation and weapons procurement to fiscal year 2010 quantities, impacting E–2D and Standard Missile production. A full-year CR will also 

defer essential research and development in unmanned aerial systems and significantly delay the design of our replacement strategic deterrent submarine and the 

recapitalization of our nuclear operator training infrastructure. It will eliminate our 

ability to source out-of-cycle overseas contingency operations demands for increased 

Fleet presence and activated Navy Reserve sailors. Operating under a continuing 

resolution for a full year at the fiscal year 2010 level would have negative effects 

on our Fleet, on the ship and aviation industrial base, and on the many workers 

who support naval facilities. Your support in addressing this critical current and 

long term readiness issue is appreciated greatly. 

Our fiscal year 2012 budget submission achieves the optimal balance among my 

priorities, but it is based on our funding request for fiscal year 2011. If the CR lasts 

all year, we will need to revisit our fiscal year 2012 request to properly balance our 

Navy for today and in the future. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request continues to 

rely on a combination of base budget and overseas contingency operations (OCO) 

funding, but it reduces the extent to which we rely on OCO funding for enduring 

missions. Our fiscal year 2012 request continues the effort we started 2 years ago 

to reduce the cost to own and operate our Fleet. We leveraged the opportunity presented by the Secretary of Defense to significantly reduce excess overhead costs, and 

apply the savings to warfighting capability and capacity, by executing a deliberate, 

thoughtful, and integrated approach to finding efficiencies that improve the longterm sustainability of our force. We are taking steps to buy smarter, streamline our 

organizations and operations, realign manpower, and pursue energy efficiencies. 

Through these efforts, and with your support, we will improve readiness and 

warfighting capabilities and optimize organizations and operations, including increasing the number of ships and aircraft in our procurement plans and enhancing 

or accelerating anti-access capabilities, unmanned systems, and energy initiatives. 

Our fiscal year 2012 budget request supports our Maritime Strategy and continues to support our forces, take care of our people, rebalance our force to meet 

current and future challenges, and reform how and what we buy. Highlights follow. 

BUILD TOMORROW’S NAVY

Since the release of our Maritime Strategy, I have stated our Navy requires a 

minimum of 313 ships to meet operational requirements globally. This minimum remains valid; however, we continue to examine this requirement to address increased 

operational demands and expanding requirements for BMD, intra-theater lift, and 

forces capable of confronting irregular challenges. Our fiscal year 2012 submission 

funds 10 ships, including 2 Virginia-class fast attack submarines, 1 Joint High 

Speed Vessel (JHSV), 1 LPD–17, 1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), 1 DDG–51, and 

4 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), which reflects our new LCS procurement plan under 

the dual award strategy. Our submission also supports the acquisition of an oceanographic ship. I thank Congress for their support of our LCS acquisition strategy and 

for our shipbuilding program. With your support over the last 3 years, we have been 

280 

able to improve the balance among capability, capacity, affordability, and 

executabilty in our shipbuilding plan. 

As I reported last year, I remain concerned about the capacity of our Fleet in the 

future. Starting in the 2020s, many of our existing cruisers, destroyers, and submarines will reach the end of their service lives. During this period, it will be particularly critical to procure sufficient new ships to offset these decommissionings to 

avoid a rapid decline in force structure. In the same timeframe, we will begin to 

procure the replacement for our Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, the most survivable leg of our Nation’s nuclear deterrent triad. While we have reduced the cost 

of that submarine substantially, our total shipbuilding budget will be pressurized 

in that decade as we seek to recapitalize our surface and submarine forces while 

sustaining warfighting readiness and supporting our people. I am confident our 

near-term force structure plans provide the capability and capacity we need to meet 

demands today, but in this decade we must address how to best resource the shipbuilding programs required in the 2020s. 

Our fiscal year 2012 program funds 203 manned aircraft. We have increased our 

procurement of P–8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft to provide needed anti-submarine warfare capacity to our Fleet and facilitate a successful transition from our 

legacy P–3 Orion aircraft. Our fiscal year 2012 submission also procures 28 F/A– 

18 E/F aircraft, extending the F/A–18 procurement through fiscal year 2014 and 

purchasing 41 more aircraft than requested in last year’s budget submission. I remain committed to the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and was pleased to see the 

first flight of the F–35C last year. The timely delivery of the F–35C remains critical 

to our future carrier airwing strike fighter capacity; however, we are procuring additional F/A–18 Super Hornets to address the decrease in strike fighter capacity we 

have identified. I thank Congress for their continued support of the F–35 program 

and our overall strike fighter fleet. 

Our Navy is also looking beyond our ships and aircraft and investing in information capabilities that span space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum. We 

moved boldly last year with the establishment of U.S. 10th Fleet and the Deputy 

CNO for Information Dominance. That restructuring has enabled us to focus on enhancing our electronic warfare, information dominance, integrated air and missile 

defense, and anti-submarine warfare capabilities. I request Congress’ support for 

these programs as they position our Navy to successfully conduct operations in an 

evolving anti-access environment today and in the future. 

A viable, highly technical, and specialized industrial base is essential to sustaining the capability and capacity of our future Navy. Our shipbuilding and aviation industrial base is a strategic national asset and a significant contributor to our 

Nation’s economic prosperity, employing more than 97,000 uniquely-skilled Americans while indirectly supporting thousands more through second- and third-tier suppliers. The highly specialized skills in our shipbuilding base take years to develop; 

and, if lost, cannot be easily or quickly reconstituted. A viable shipbuilding industrial base, underpinned by predictable, level-loaded ship procurement, is essential 

to meet our Nation’s naval requirements. 

I remain committed to delivering a balanced and capable Fleet that will meet our 

national security requirements. I seek your support for the following initiatives and 

programs: 

AVIATION PROGRAMS

Aircraft Carrier Force Structure 

Our nuclear-powered aircraft carrier fleet is capable of flexibly employing capabilities that span from power projection and deterrence to humanitarian assistance and 

disaster response. Our 11-carrier force structure is based on worldwide presence and 

surge requirements, while also taking into account training and maintenance requirements. Our Navy has put in place measures to minimize the impact of the 10- 

carrier period between the inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN–65) and commissioning of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78). After the delivery of CVN–78, we will 

maintain an 11-carrier force by continuing the refueling program for Nimitz-class 

ships and delivering our Ford-class carriers at 5-year intervals starting in 2020. 

CVN–78, which is approximately 20 percent complete, is the lead ship of our first 

new class of aircraft carriers in nearly 40 years. These new carriers incorporate an 

innovative flight deck design that provides greater operational flexibility, a nuclear 

propulsion plant that generates more than 50 percent greater energy while decreasing maintenance requirements, and a combination of measures that reduce manning 

by more than 1,200 sailors. Among the new technologies being integrated in these 

ships are the Dual-Band Radar, the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System 

(EMALS), and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), which will enable the carrier 

281 

to increase its sortie generation rate by 25 percent and lower total ownership costs. 

AAG is currently undergoing commissioning testing at our land-based testing facility and, in December, EMALS successfully launched an F/A–18 aircraft. Both systems are on schedule to support delivery of CVN–78 in September 2015. 

Strike Fighter Capacity 

I remain committed to the F–35 JSF program. The timely delivery of the F–35C 

carrier variant is critical to our future carrier airwing strike fighter capability and 

capacity. As a result of delays in the F–35 program, we are closely managing our 

strike fighter inventory to address the decrease in strike fighter capacity that is projected to peak in 2018 as our F/A–18A–D aircraft reach the end of their service life. 

Our actions include managing the service life of our A–D aircraft, extending the 

service life of our A–D aircraft, buying new F/A–18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, and 

maintaining wholeness in the F–35C program. With these measures, we can manage our current strike fighter inventory to meet TACAIR requirements. 

F–35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter 

The F–35 program gives us the advanced sensor, precision strike, firepower, and 

stealth capabilities our Fleet needs. I continue to base our Initial Operating Capability (IOC) timeline for the F–35C on the level of capability delivered at the completion of Initial Operational Test and Evaluation of the F–35C equipped with Block 

3 software. We are reviewing the results of the in-depth Technical Baseline Review 

and restructuring of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase to 

determine our IOC. While the overall system demonstration and development schedule has slipped, we have not reduced the total number of airplanes we plan to buy. 

Our fiscal year 2012 request procures seven F–35C aircraft. We are monitoring the 

program closely and managing our existing strike fighter capacity to meet power 

projection demands until the F–35C is delivered. Procurement of an alternate engine for the F–35 increases our risk in this program. The Navy does not have a requirement for an alternate engine; indeed, we would only take one model to sea. 

Its additional costs threaten our ability to fund currently planned aircraft procurement quantities, which would exacerbate our anticipated decrease in strike fighter 

capacity throughout the remainder of this decade. 

F/A–18A–D Hornet and F/A–18E/F Super Hornet 

Our F/A–18A–D Hornet aircraft were originally designed for a service life of 6,000 

flight hours. Through a life assessment program and High Flight Hour (HFH) inspections, which have been in place for 3 years, we have been able to extend the 

service life of our legacy F/A–18A–D aircraft to 8,600 flight hours. Our fiscal year 

2012 budget requests funding to pursue a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) 

for 150 F/A–18A–D aircraft, commencing in fiscal year 2012 at a rate of about 40 

per year, that would further extend the service life of these aircraft to 10,000 flight 

hours. We are also conducting a life assessment program for our Super Hornet aircraft to extend their original 6,000-hour service life design to 9,000 hours. The F/ 

A–18A–D HFH and SLEP are necessary measures to address our strike fighter inventory while preserving our investment in F–35C. To further reduce risk, we are 

accelerating the transition of 10 legacy F/A–18C squadrons to F/A–18 E/F Super 

Hornets, and our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding to procure more F/A–18E/ 

F Super Hornets than we requested last year. I thank Congress for their support 

of the F/A–18 program as we introduce F–35C into our Fleet. 

EA–18G Growler 

The Navy has been a leader in Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) for more than 

half a century and AEA is in high demand. AEA provides one of the most flexible 

offensive capabilities available to the joint warfighter and is becoming increasingly 

important as technology capable of manipulating the electromagnetic spectrum matures. We are leveraging the mature and proven F/A–18E/F Super Hornet airframe 

to recapitalize our AEA capability with the EA–18G Growler. Although the EA–18G 

currently utilizes the same ALQ–99 Tactical Jamming System as the EA–6B, we are 

developing a new system, the Next Generation Jammer, as a replacement for the 

aging ALQ–99. The Next Generation Jammer will incorporate a Modular Open System Architecture and improved reliability and maintainability to provide a robust, 

flexible jamming capability that can evolve to address emerging threats. The EA– 

18G is in full rate production and we have accepted delivery of 43 aircraft. We have 

transitioned three EA–6B Prowler squadrons to EA–18G Growlers and two more 

squadrons are currently in transition. Our first EA–18G squadron deployed in November to Iraq. Our program of record will buy 114 total EA–18G aircraft, recapitalizing 10 carrier-based EA–6B squadrons and 4 expeditionary squadrons, all to be 

282 

stationed at NAS Whidbey Island. The program continues to deliver on schedule and 

our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for 12 EA–18Gs. 

P–3C Orion and P–8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft 

Our P–3C Orion aircraft remain in high demand today across a range of missions 

including Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, and time-critical Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. Our Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) force 

is a direct enabler for troops on the ground in Central Command while also ensuring access and battlespace awareness at sea. Because we are operating our P–3Cs 

at a high rate, about 100 P–3 aircraft have been grounded since February 2005 for 

fatigue life and we anticipate continued groundings through the remainder of the 

P–3 program. Through significant Congressional support for P–3C wing repairs and 

sustainment, as of February, we have a current inventory of 84 mission aircraft; a 

58 percent increase since last year. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests about $100 

million to continue our P–3C sustainment program. Continued investment in this 

program and in the modernization of our P–3s is critical to ensure we retain sufficient capacity to conduct maritime battlespace awareness and support to land forces 

in Central Command, while successfully transitioning to the P–8A. 

The P–8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft is ideally suited for regional 

and littoral operations, and is our pre-eminent airborne capability against submarine threats. Procurement of P–8A will deliver needed capacity for these missions. The P–8A is scheduled to reach initial operating capability and will begin replacing our aging P–3 Fleet in 2013. The current delivery schedule enables transition of two squadrons per year. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for 

11 P–8A aircraft. I request Congress’ support for the P–8A program schedule and 

for our P–3 sustainment and modernization program, the combination of which is 

essential to our transition to the next generation of MPA capability while avoiding 

future gaps in our MPA force. 

E–2D Advanced Hawkeye 

The E–2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, will replace the E–2C and represents a 

two-generation leap in airborne radar surveillance capability. The E–2D will improve nearly every facet of tactical air operations and add overland and littoral surveillance to support theater Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) against air 

threats in high clutter, complex electro-magnetic and jamming environments. The 

airborne radar on the E–2D, with its improved surveillance capability, is a key pillar of the Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC–CA) concept. Four test 

aircraft have been delivered to the Navy and we will commence operational test and 

evaluation in late 2011. The first Fleet squadron transition is planned for 2013, with 

an IOC scheduled for late 2014. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests six E–2D aircraft. We plan to procure 75 aircraft, with the final aircraft procurement in 2019 

and Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2022. 

MH–60R/S Multi-Mission Helicopter 

The MH–60R and MH–60S are in full rate production. The MH–60R multi-mission helicopter replaces the surface combatant-based SH–60B and carrier-based SH– 

60F with a newly manufactured airframe and enhanced mission systems. With 

these systems, the MH–60R provides focused surface warfare and anti-submarine 

warfare capabilities for our strike groups and individual ships. The MH–60S supports surface warfare, combat logistics, vertical replenishment, search and rescue, 

air ambulance, airborne mine counter-measures, and naval special warfare mission 

areas. We have delivered 85 MH–60R and 187 MH–60S to our Fleet and our fiscal 

year 2012 budget requests funding for 24 MH–60R and 18 MH–60S helicopters. 

SURFACE SHIP PROGRAMS

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 

LCS is a fast, agile, networked surface combatant optimized to support naval and 

joint force operations in the littorals with capability to support open-ocean operations. It will operate with focused-mission packages to counter mine, small boat, 

and submarine threats in the littorals. The modular design and open architecture 

of the seaframe and mission modules provide the inherent flexibility to add or adapt 

capabilities as new technologies mature or to counter threats that emerge beyond 

the Mine Countermeasures, Surface Warfare, and Anti-Submarine missions currently planned for LCS. These ships will employ a combination of manned helicopters and unmanned aerial, surface, and undersea vehicles. 

USS Freedom (LCS–1) completed her first operational deployment to the Southern 

and Pacific Commands in April 2010, 2 years early. While deployed, USS Freedom 

successfully conducted counter-drug missions and validated its open ocean capaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
283 

bility, allowing us to learn valuable lessons from these real-world operations. USS 

Independence (LCS–2) was commissioned in January 2010 and is currently in Norfolk undergoing post-delivery tests and trials. We are seeing demonstrated performance and stability in the construction of LCS–3 and LCS–4 that captures lessons 

learned from the first ships. PCU Fort Worth (LCS–3) was launched and christened 

in December and is completing final construction. PCU Coronado (LCS–4) is almost 

50 percent complete and is scheduled to be launched and christened later this year. 

Both LCS–3 and LCS–4 are experiencing minimal change and are scheduled to be 

delivered to the Navy in 2012 on cost and on schedule. 

I thank Congress for approving the Navy’s dual award strategy in December 2010. 

This strategy enables the Navy to save over $2 billion in acquisition costs and acquire these ships well below the congressionally-mandated $480 million cost cap set 

in 2009. It allows our Navy to acquire an additional Littoral Combat ship, increasing needed capacity in our Fleet. I am impressed and satisfied with the capabilities 

of both LCS designs and remain committed to procuring 55 of these ships. Consistent with the dual award strategy, our fiscal year 2012 budget requests four LCS 

seaframes at a total cost of $1.8 billion. The budget also requests two mission packages in fiscal year 2012. These packages provide the vital center for LCS’s combat 

capability and we have aligned LCS mission module procurement with that of our 

LCS seaframes. I request your continued support as we continue to acquire the future capacity and capability the Fleet requires. 

Ballistic Missile Defense 

The Navy’s mature and proven maritime BMD capability will play a primary role 

in the first phase of our Nation’s Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for the missile 

defense of our NATO Allies in Europe. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding 

to increase our current BMD ship capacity from 21 ships (5 cruisers and 16 destroyers) to 41 BMD capable ships by 2016. This planned capacity expansion will eventually include all of the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and nine Ticonderogaclass cruisers. Until we grow our BMD ship capacity, our existing BMD ships may 

experience longer deployment lengths and less time between deployments as we 

stretch our existing capacity to meet growing demands. 

As part of the PAA, we are working with the Missile Defense Agency to adapt 

Navy’s proven and flexible Aegis BMD capability for use in an ashore configuration 

by repackaging components of the afloat Aegis Weapons System into modular containers for deployment to pre-prepared forward sites. The Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex is currently under development, with fabrication to begin in 

Kauai, HI, in 2013. This complex is a key enabler of the Aegis Ashore capability, 

which will be tested prior to shore placement overseas in 2015. This phased approach provides needed technology and capacity to pace the threat; it serves as a 

conventional counter to trends in global ballistic missile technology; and it allows 

for technological maturation through 2020. 

DDG–51 Flight IIA and Flight III 

To keep pace with the evolving air and missile defense threats, we restarted the 

DDG–51 Flight IIA production line in the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 

budgets with advanced procurement buys for DDG–113, –114, and –115. The restarted DDG–51 Flight IIA destroyers provide Navy with a proven multi-mission 

combatant that fills critical warfighting needs across the spectrum, and is the first 

warship built from the keel up to conduct maritime BMD. They will be the first 

Aegis ships to be built with the Open Architecture Advanced Capability Build 

(ACB)–12 Aegis Combat System. ACB–12 will allow these surface combatants to be 

updated and maintained with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, yielding 

reduced Total Ownership Cost and enhancing the ability to adapt to future military 

threats. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for the construction of DDG– 

116 as part of our plan to build seven more of the Flight IIA class over the FYDP 

(an increase of one DDG–51 over last year’s budget). We also request just over $75 

million to support research and development for ACB–12, which will support the integration of this critical system on DDG–113 and our development of Aegis Ashore. 

The follow-on to DDG–51 Flight IIA is the DDG–51 Flight III, which will commence with the construction of DDG–123. Flight III ships will be tailored for Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) and include the Air and Missile Defense 

Radar (AMDR), upgraded command and control software and hardware, and enhanced electrical power and cooling. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding 

for a total of eight DDG–51 Class ships, including funding for the first Flight III 

ship in fiscal year 2016. 

284 

Modernization 

To counter emerging threats, we continue to make significant investments in 

cruiser and destroyer modernization to sustain our combat effectiveness and to 

achieve the 35 year service life of our Aegis fleet. Our destroyer and cruiser modernization program includes Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) upgrades, as 

well as advances in warfighting capability and open architecture to reduce total 

ownership costs and expand mission capability for current and future combat capabilities. In addition to HM&E upgrades, key aspects of our destroyer and cruiser 

modernization programs include the installation or upgrade of the Aegis weapons 

system to include an open architecture computing environment, addition of the 

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), an upgraded SQQ–89A(V)15 anti-submarine 

warfare system, and improved air dominance with processing upgrades and Naval 

Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air capability. Our destroyers also receive integration of the SM–6 missile, while our cruisers receive installation of the AN/SPQ–9B 

radar and an upgrade to Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Block 1B. Maintaining 

the stability of the cruiser and destroyer modernization program is critical to our 

ability to provide relevant capability and capacity in our future Fleet. Our fiscal 

year 2012 budget requests funding for the modernization of four cruisers (three 

Combat Systems and one HM&E) and three destroyers (one Combat System and 

two HM&E). 

DDG–1000 

The DDG–1000 Zumwalt guided missile destroyer will be an optimally crewed, 

multi-mission surface combatant optimized for long-range precision land attack. In 

addition to providing offensive, distributed and precision fires in support of forces 

ashore, these ships will serve as test-beds for advanced technology, such as integrated power systems, a sophisticated X-Band radar, and advanced survivability 

features, which can inform future ship designs. Following a Nunn-McCurdy breach 

due to the reduction in procurement to three ships, we restructured the DDG–1000 

program to remove the highest risk technology, the Volume Search Radar, from integration into the platform. DDG–1000 is more than 37 percent complete and is 

scheduled to deliver in fiscal year 2014 with an initial operating capability in fiscal 

year 2016. 

Joint High Speed Vessel 

The JHSV will deliver a new level of organic logistic and maneuver flexibility for 

combatant commanders. JHSV is a high speed, shallow draft ship. Its unique design 

allows the ship to transport medium payloads of cargo and/or personnel to austere 

ports without reliance on port infrastructure. JHSV–1 and –2 are currently under 

construction by Austal USA in Mobile, AL and are scheduled to be delivered in fiscal year 2012 and 2013. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for the construction of the third JHSV. We are currently developing a Memorandum of Agreement with the Army that would transfer programmatic oversight and responsibility 

for the entire JHSV program, including operations and maintenance, to the Navy. 

Upon the signing of the agreement, all JHSVs when delivered would be operated 

by the Navy’s Military Sealift Command and manned by civilian or contract mariners. 

SUBMARINE PROGRAMS

Virginia-class SSN 

The Virginia-class submarine is a multi-mission submarine designed to dominate 

the undersea domain in the littorals, access denied environments, and the open 

ocean. Now in its 14th year of construction, the Virginia program is demonstrating 

its continued ability to deliver this critical undersea asset affordably and on time. 

The Navy continues to realize a return on investment in the Virginia cost reduction 

program and construction process improvements through enhanced shipbuilder performance on each successive ship. A majority of the submarines contracted via 

multiyear procurement have delivered under budget and ahead of schedule, and 

their performance continues to exceed expectations with every ship delivered. I am 

pleased with the accomplishments of the combined Navy-Industry team and anticipate additional improvements as we ramp up production to two submarines per 

year, as requested in our fiscal year 2011 and 2012 budget submissions. 

SSBN and Ohio Replacement 

The Navy remains committed to recapitalizing the Nation’s sea-based strategic deterrent, the most survivable leg of our nuclear triad. With a fleet of 14 Ohio-class 

ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), we have been able to meet the strategic needs 

285 

of the Nation since 1980. This class will begin retirement after more than 40 years 

of service in 2027. 

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirmed that our Nation will continue to rely 

on a reliable and survivable sea-based strategic deterrent for the foreseeable future. 

To ensure the Navy is able to meet the Nation’s demand in this critical capability, 

our fiscal year 2012 budget requests research and development funds for the design 

of the Ohio-class replacement, enabling construction of the class beginning in 2019. 

The Ohio replacement will possess the endurance and stealth required for continuous, survivable strategic deterrence for decades to come. Appropriate R&D investment is essential to design a reliable and survivable submarine capable of deterring 

all potential adversaries. Over the past year, the Ohio replacement program has 

been thoroughly reviewed and all aspects of the program were aggressively challenged to drive down engineering and construction costs. Our fiscal year 2012 request represents best balance of needed warfighting capabilities with cost. The Ohio 

replacement program will leverage the many successes of the Virginia SSN program 

to achieve acquisition and total ownership cost goals. These efficiencies and a record 

of acquisition excellence are critical to minimize risk to our total force structure 

while recapitalizing sea-based strategic deterrence between fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2033. 

AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE SHIPS

LPD–17 Class Amphibious Warfare Ship 

The San Antonio-class LPD (LPD–17) amphibious warfare ships provide the Navy 

and Marine Corps the ability to embark, transport, control, insert, sustain, and extract combat marines and sailors on missions that range from forcible entry to forward deployed crisis response. These ships have a 40-year expected service life and 

will replace four classes of older ships: the LKA, LST, LSD–36, and the LPD–4. Of 

the 11 ships in our program of record, 5 ships have been delivered, 3 have completed 

their initial deployments, and 4 are under construction. We continue to resolve material reliability concerns with the class and apply the lessons learned during initial 

operation of the early ships to those under construction. Quality continues to improve with each ship delivered as we work closely with the shipbuilder to address 

cost, schedule, and performance issues. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding to procure the final ship in the program. 

LHA Replacement (LHA(R)) 

LHA(R) is the replacement for our aging Tarawa-class ships, which will reach the 

end of their extended service life between 2011–2015. LHA(R) will provide flexible, 

multi-mission amphibious capabilities by leveraging the LHD–8 design. The America (LHA–6) is now more than 30 percent complete and on schedule for delivery in 

fiscal year 2014. Beginning with LHA–8, the Navy will reintegrate the well deck 

into the large deck amphibious assault ships. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests 

funding for research and development to support reintegration of the well deck into 

the design of the large deck amphibious ship and the construction of LHA–8 in fiscal 

year 2016. 

Mobile Landing Platform 

Based on commercial technology, the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) will enable 

the transfer of equipment, personnel, and sustainment at-sea, and delivery ashore 

in support of a wide range of contingency operations. Our fiscal year 2012 budget 

requests funding for one MLP and we intend to procure a total of three MLPs. We 

expect the first ship to deliver in fiscal year 2013 and project initial operating capability and incorporation into the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) for 2015. In 

the Maritime Preposition Force, each of our existing Maritime Preposition Squadrons will be augmented by one MLP, one T–AKE combat logistics ship, and a Large 

Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off cargo ship. The three T–AKE are all under contract 

with projected delivery dates beginning this year and going through fiscal year 

2013. 

INFORMATION DOMINANCE PROGRAMS

Unmanned Systems 

Our Navy is developing a ‘‘family’’ of unmanned systems over, on, and under the 

sea to provide unique capability, in concert with our manned platforms, to rapidly 

secure access and establish maritime superiority at the time and place of our choosing. We are developing information architecture that will allow us to rapidly assimilate data into information for our commanders, enabling shorter decision cycles that 

will give us an advantage in joint and maritime operations. 

286 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Our unmanned aircraft family of systems includes the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAS, which will enhance our situational awareness and shorten 

the sensor-to-shooter kill chain by providing persistent, multiple-sensor capabilities 

to Fleet and Joint Commanders. Through our recent memorandum of agreement 

with the Air Force, we are pursuing greater commonality and interoperability between BAMS and the Air Force’s Global Hawk UAV. Our Vertical Take-off and 

Landing Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle (VTUAV) is on its second deployment 

aboard the USS Halyburton (FFG–40) and will deploy in an expeditionary role to 

support combat operations in Afghanistan later this year. Our fiscal year 2012 budget includes about $12 million in research and development funding to facilitate development of a weapons-capable VTUAV ready for deployment in late fiscal year 

2012. Our fiscal year 2012 request also includes funding to develop a medium range 

maritime-based UAS and a Small Tactical Unmanned Aerial System that will support a variety of ships, Naval Special Warfare and Navy Expeditionary Combat 

Command units, and Marine Corps elements. 

The Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft System Demonstration (NUCAS–D) will 

prove carrier suitability of an autonomous, unmanned, low-observable, carrier-based 

aircraft. This effort includes maturing technologies for aircraft carrier catapult 

launches and arrested landings, as well as integration into carrier-controlled airspace. Initial flight tests to demonstrate carrier suitability are scheduled to start 

next year and autonomous aerial refueling demonstrations are planned for 2014. We 

will leverage the lessons learned from operating the demonstrator in developing a 

low-observable unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike system 

(UCLASS). The UCLASS program will shorten the timeline to find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess time sensitive targets. UCLASS will integrate with the carrier air wings and increase the flexibility, versatility, and capability of the carrier 

force. We are currently developing the UCLASS acquisition strategy with OSD. 

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles 

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) provide an innovative technological solution to augment manned platforms. Our Navy has logged more than 85,000 hours 

of UUV operations to improve battlespace awareness. Our small-body Littoral 

Battlespace Sensing (LBS) oceanographic autonomous undersea gliders have demonstrated the ability to conduct 6-month long autonomous operations and will 

achieve Initial Operating Capability this year. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests 

about $13million for research, development, and procurement of the LBS glider. We 

are also developing Large Diameter UUVs (LDUUV) with the capability to autonomously deploy and manage a variety of sensors and payloads. The development of 

these highly capable vehicles will require investment in commercially and militarily 

beneficial alternative energy technologies, including refinement of fuel cell technology and cutting edge battery technologies. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests 

about $47 million to develop an LDUUV, and I remain committed to conduct fully 

independent UUV missions with durations of 2 months by 2017. This capability will 

allow full scale employment and deployment of LDUUV squadrons in the 2020s. 

Mobile User Objective System 

Our Maritime Strategy demands a flexible, interoperable, and secure global communications capability that can support the command and control requirements of 

highly mobile and distributed U.S. and coalition forces. Satellite communications 

give deployed forces a decisive military advantage and often offer the only communication means to support ongoing operations. Rapidly expanding joint demand for 

more access at ever-higher data rates requires moving beyond our current legacy 

Ultra High Frequency (UHF) satellite capabilities. The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) will help satisfy those demands when initial operational capability is 

reached in fiscal year 2012. The first satellite in our planned constellation of five 

is scheduled for on-orbit capability in May 2012. Our fiscal year 2012 budget submission continues our investment in MUOS to replace the aging UHF Follow-On 

(UFO) constellation. I request your continued support of MUOS and the critical 

narrowband communication capability it will provide to the joint warfighter. 

Next Generation Enterprise Network 

The Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) is a Department of the Navy 

enterprise network that will provide secure, net-centric data and services to Navy 

and Marine Corps personnel after the current Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) 

network stands down. In July, Navy awarded Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services 

with the NMCI continuity of services contract to transition the Navy out of NMCI 

and into NGEN. NGEN will sustain the services currently provided by NMCI, while 

287 

increasing government command and control of our network and enabling secure, 

reliable, and adaptable global information exchange. The initial NGEN contracts are 

expected to be awarded in the first quarter of fiscal year 2012. Our fiscal year 2012 

budget requests an additional $22 million to support government command and control of our networks and improve our network situational awareness and defense. 

Remain Ready to Fight Today 

Our Navy continues to experience a high tempo of global operations which I expect to continue even as combat forces draw down in Afghanistan. Global trends in 

economics, demographics, resources, and climate change portend an increased demand for maritime power and influence. America’s prosperity depends upon the 

seas: 90 percent of world trade moves on the world’s oceans and underwater telecommunications cables facilitate about $3.2 trillion of commerce each year. As new 

trade patterns emerge, such as those that will result from the expansion of the Panama Canal and the opening of the Arctic, and as disruption and disorder persist in 

our security environment, maritime activity will evolve and expand. Seapower allows our Nation to maintain U.S. presence and influence globally and, when necessary, project power without a costly, sizeable, or permanent footprint ashore. We 

will continue to maintain a forward-deployed presence around the world to prevent 

conflict, increase interoperability with our allies, enhance the maritime security and 

capacity of our traditional and emerging partners, confront irregular challenges, and 

respond to crises. 

High operational demand for our force over the last decade has led to longer deployments, lower dwell time, and reduced maintenance time for our surface ships. 

If these trends continue, our force will be less ready and less available than it is 

today because of increased stress on our sailors and a reduction in our Fleet capacity as ships fail to reach their expected service lives. We have initiatives currently 

underway to address these trends. We are moving approximately 1,900 sailors from 

shore billets onto our ships to meet operational demands while maintaining acceptable Fleet readiness levels and sailor dwell time. To enhance the material readiness 

of our Fleet, we are improving our ability to plan and execute maintenance by increasing manning at our Regional Maintenance Centers (RMCs), and by institutionalizing our engineered approach to surface ship maintenance, converting the 

successes of our Surface Ship Lifecycle Maintenance initiative I began 2 years ago 

into the Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning Program Activity. I remain focused on ensuring our Navy has a force that is maintained and trained to provide 

the capability and forward presence required in the two areas of interest identified 

in our Maritime Strategy, the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf, while preserving our ability to immediately swing from those regions and our Fleet concentration areas in the United States to respond to contingencies globally. 

Our fiscal year 2012 base budget and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 

funding requests balance the need to meet increasing operational requirements, sustain our sailors’ proficiency, and conduct the maintenance required to ensure our 

ships and aircraft reach their full service lives. It does not address the potential impacts of a full-year continuing resolution on our ongoing operations and maintenance afloat and ashore. Highlights follow of initiatives that ensure our Navy remains ready to fight today. 

Depot Level Maintenance 

Our ships and aircraft are valuable capital assets that operate in unforgiving environments. Keeping these assets in acceptable operating condition is vital to their 

ability to accomplish assigned missions and reach their expected service lives. Timely depot level maintenance, based on an engineered assessment of expected material 

durability and scoped by actual physical condition, will preserve our existing force 

structure. Continued investment in depot level maintenance is essential in achieving 

and sustaining the force structure required to implement our Maritime Strategy. 

Our combined fiscal year 2012 base budget and OCO funding requests fulfill 94 percent of the projected ship depot maintenance requirements necessary to sustain our 

Navy’s global presence and 95 percent of our aviation depot maintenance requirements, servicing 742 airframes and 2,577 engines. The actual extent of our depot 

maintenance requirements will be determined by the final funding levels for fiscal 

year 2011. I request that you fully support our baseline and contingency funding 

requests for operations and maintenance to ensure the effectiveness of our force, 

safety of our sailors, and longevity of our ships and aircraft. 

Shore Readiness 

Our shore infrastructure enables our operational and combat readiness, and is essential to the quality of life and quality of work for our sailors, Navy civilians, and 

their families. High operational demands, rising manpower costs, and an aging fleet 

288 

of ships and aircraft cause us to take deliberate risk in shore readiness, specifically 

in sustaining our shore infrastructure. We have focused our facilities sustainment, 

restoration, and modernization funds on improving our housing for unaccompanied 

sailors and investing in energy efficient building modifications. To source these enhancements, we have temporarily cancelled our demolition program and reduced our 

facilities sustainment posture to 80 percent of the modeled requirement. We have 

targeted our shore readiness investments in areas that have the greatest impact on 

achieving our strategic and operational objectives. These areas include support to 

our warfighting missions and capabilities, nuclear weapons security, quality of life 

for our sailors and their families, and energy enhancements. We remain on track 

in our Homeport Ashore initiative to provide sufficient accommodations to our junior 

single sailors by 2016, and we continue our support for family services. We plan to 

complete an expansion of 7,000 child care spaces in fiscal year 2011, allowing us 

to meet OSD’s mandate of providing child care for 80 percent of the potential need 

in fiscal year 2012. 

Training Readiness 

Our Navy is leveraging modeling and simulation (M&S) extensively across the 

Fleet training continuum to reduce at-sea training requirements and associated operating costs and energy use. These virtual environments stress critical command 

and control warfare skills and fine tune basic warfighting competencies without 

going to sea. They provide synthetic events that are scalable and repeatable, including the ability to train multiple strike groups simultaneously. Synthetic training 

provides a complex, multi-faceted threat environment that cannot be efficiently recreated at sea on a routine basis. Ship command and control simulations, in conjunction with the Fleet Synthetic Training (FST) program, support unit level and 

integrated pre-deployment training and certification, including Joint Task Force Exercises, Ballistic Missile Defense Exercises, and LCS qualification and certification 

training. In fiscal year 2012, our Navy’s use of simulators will reduce steaming days 

by 603 days for a savings of $30 million, and flying hours by 5,400 hours, for a savings of $35 million. The Fleet has placed FST as a top training priority with the 

objective to increase simulator use and synthetic training to reduce Fleet operating 

costs. 

Although we are maximizing our use of synthetic training, it cannot completely 

replace our need to conduct live training. Simulators cannot replicate the physical 

environment, risks, stress, or experiences that live training provides. Naval units 

must be able to practice and hone their skills in the air and at sea. Having the right 

facilities and the ability to practice skill sets in a live operating environment are 

necessary for the proficiency and safety of our sailors and for the warfighting effectiveness of our Fleet. 

The proliferation of advanced, stealthy submarines continues to challenge our 

Navy’s ability to guarantee the access and sustainment of joint forces. Robust antisubmarine warfare (ASW) training with active sonar systems is vital for our Navy 

to effectively address this threat. The Navy remains a world leader in marine mammal research and we will continue our investment in this research in fiscal year 

2012 and beyond. Through such efforts, and in full consultation and cooperation 

with other Federal agencies, we have developed effective measures that protect marine mammals and the ocean environment from adverse impacts of mid-frequency 

active (MFA) sonar while not precluding critical Navy training. We continue to work 

closely with our interagency partners to further refine our protective measures as 

scientific knowledge evolves. It is vitally important that any such measures ensure 

the continued flexibility necessary to respond to future national security requirements. 

In January, we announced our plan to initially focus JSF homebasing on the west 

coast in accordance with 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review direction and the JSF 

Transition Plan. We also announced that we are suspending work on the Outlying 

Landing Field (OLF) draft environmental impact statement (EIS) planned for the 

East Coast until at least 2014. At that time, we will re-evaluate the requirement 

for an OLF based on our east coast JSF basing and training requirements. We continue to experience capacity shortfalls at our current East Coast field carrier landing practice sites that present challenges to meeting our current training requirements under both routine and surge conditions for existing Navy aircraft. We will 

continue to ensure we meet all our training requirements by implementing the 

measures necessary to use all available facilities. 

Energy and Climate Change 

The Secretary of the Navy and I are committed to advancing our energy security. 

I consider energy an operational imperative and I established the Navy’s Task Force 

289 

Energy more than 2 years ago to improve combat capability, assure mobility, and 

green our footprint. We will achieve these goals through energy efficiency improvements, consumption reduction initiatives, and the aggressive adoption of alternative 

energy and fuels. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will improve our combat capability by increasing time on station, reducing time spent alongside replenishment 

ships, and producing more effective and powerful future weapons. 

Our tactical energy efforts fall into two categories: technical and behavioral 

changes that use energy more efficiently, and testing/certification of alternative 

fuels. We are making good progress on our efficiency initiatives. The USS Makin 

Island (LHD–8) uses hybrid propulsion and we are installing the same system on 

LHA–6 and LHA–7. We are developing a hybrid electric drive system for the DDG– 

51 class and I anticipate a land-based test as early as this summer. We continue 

to introduce advanced hull and propeller coatings and solid state lighting in our 

ships, and we are developing the Smart Voyage Planning Decision Aid to achieve 

more efficient ship routing. We are also implementing policies that encourage sailors 

to reduce their personal energy usage. These incremental initiatives add up to significant efficiency improvements. 

Our alternative energy programs are progressing. We are aggressively certifying 

elements of our operational force for biofuel use. To date we have operated the 

‘‘Green Hornet’’ F/A–18 and MH–60S on camelina-based JP–5 fuel and the RCB– 

X riverine craft on algal-based F–76 fuel. Operational testing of energy efficiency 

upgrades to the Allison 501k engine completed last month and is a key milestone 

toward certification of our Navy combatants with marine gas turbine engines. 

We have reduced our energy use ashore by more than 14 percent since 2003, as 

a result of our energy efficiency efforts, including energy efficiency building upgrades, energy management systems, procurement of alternative fuel vehicles, and 

achievement of sustainable building standards for all new construction and major 

renovation projects. Our continued investments in advanced metering and energy 

audits will help identify further opportunities for efficiency gains and alternative energy use. Our approach remains focused on integrating the right technology at the 

right time in the right place while transforming Navy culture and behavior for long 

term sustainability. 

Since establishing Task Force Climate Change in 2009, our Navy has taken several actions to better understand and address the potential impacts of climate 

change on our Navy. We have increased our operational engagement in the Arctic, 

participating this past summer in Operation Nanook/Natsiq with Canada. We are 

re-assessing regional security cooperation, through our African, Southern, and Pacific Partnership station missions to include consideration of climate change adaptation, especially with respect to improving water security. We are also participating 

with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other Federal agencies to survey in the Arctic and improve our environmental observation 

and prediction capability worldwide. Scientific observations indicate that current 

changes to the climate are occurring on a decadal scale, giving our Navy enough 

time to conduct the studies and assessments necessary to inform future investment 

decisions. 

Second East Coast Carrier-Capable Homeport 

The Navy continues to focus on achieving the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review 

direction to upgrade the carrier port of Mayport. Much like the dispersal of west 

coast aircraft carriers between California and Washington, a second homeport on 

the east coast to maintain aircraft carriers is prudent in the event of a natural or 

man-made disaster in Hampton Roads. The dredging project funded in fiscal year 

2010 is underway and will ensure unimpeded access to Mayport. Our fiscal year 

2012 budget requests funding for the Massey Avenue corridor improvement projects. 

We plan to request funding for the Wharf F recapitalization in fiscal year 2013, and 

the remaining projects within the FYDP, to establish Naval Station Mayport as a 

nuclear carrier-capable homeport by 2019. 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

The Navy has consistently supported a comprehensive and stable legal regime for 

the exercise of navigational rights and other traditional uses of the oceans. The Law 

of the Sea Convention provides such a regime with robust global mobility rules. I 

believe it essential that the United States become a full Party to the treaty. The 

Convention promotes our strategic goal of free access to and public order on the 

oceans under the rule of law. It also has strategic effects for global maritime partnerships and American maritime leadership and influence. Creating partnerships 

that are in the strategic interests of our Nation must be based on relationships of 

mutual respect, understanding, and trust. For the 160 nations who are parties to 

290 

the Law of the Sea Convention, a basis for trust and mutual understanding is codified in that document. The treaty provides a solid foundation for the United States 

to assert its sovereign rights to the natural resources of the sea floor out to 200 nautical miles and on the extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, which 

in the Arctic Ocean is likely to extend at least 600 nautical miles north of Alaska. 

As a non-Party to the treaty, the United States undermines its ability to influence 

the future direction of the law of the sea. As the only permanent member of the 

U.N. Security Council outside the Convention, and one of the few nations still remaining outside one of the most widely subscribed international agreements, our 

non-Party status hinders our ability to lead in this important area and could, over 

time, reduce the United States’ influence in shaping global maritime law and policy. 

The Law of the Sea Convention provides the norms our sailors need to do their jobs 

around the world every day. It is in the best interest of our Nation and our Navy 

to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. We must demonstrate leadership and provide to the men and women who serve in our Navy the most solid legal footing possible to carry out the missions that our Nation requires of them. 

DEVELOP AND SUPPORT OUR SAILORS, NAVY CIVILIANS, AND THEIR FAMILIES

Our sailors, Navy civilians, and their families are the backbone of our Maritime 

Strategy. They make us who we are. Their skill, innovation, and dedication turn our 

ships, aircraft, weapons and systems into global capabilities that prevent conflict, 

build partnerships, and, when necessary, project combat power to prevail in war. 

Our investment in our sailors, Navy civilians, and their families ensures our Navy’s 

continued maritime dominance today and in the future. 

Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests authorization and funding for 325,700 Active 

and 66,200 Reserve end strength. This request includes the migration of more than 

1,800 military billets from shore and staff activities into the Fleet to man new ships 

and squadrons, restore optimal manning cuts, add needed information technology 

and nuclear operators to our force, and restore billets for fiscal year 2013 to extend 

USS Peleliu in commission. This migration will enhance our forces afloat; however, 

the transition will present challenges to our ability to maintain sea-shore flow for 

some of our enlisted sailors and sustain manning levels across the force. We are 

aware of these challenges and believe the transition is manageable. Our fiscal year 

2012 end strength request also begins to move end strength previously supported 

by OCO funding, namely our Navy Individual Augmentees (IAs), into our baseline 

program. We will execute a phased draw down of our OCO end strength as we 

project a gradual reduction of IA demands in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should IA demand remain at current levels, or increase over time, we will be challenged to meet 

manning requirements for our Fleet. Our Navy continues to size, shape, and stabilize our force through a series of performance-based measures designed to retain 

the skills, pay grades, and experience mix necessary to meet current and future requirements. 

Our fiscal year 2012 end strength reflects efficiencies in our manpower account 

that reduce excess overhead by disestablishing several staffs, but not their associated ships and aircraft, for submarine, patrol aircraft, and destroyer squadrons, as 

well as one Carrier Strike Group staff. We are disestablishing the headquarters of 

Second Fleet and transferring responsibility for its mission to U.S. Fleet Forces 

Command. These efficiencies streamline our organizations and allow us to reinvest 

the savings into warfighting capability and capacity. 

I would like to touch briefly on the issue of changes to the health care benefit. 

Navy Medicine has been a leader in implementing pilot testing for the Department 

in a new concept called the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Beneficiaries have welcomed Navy Medicine’s Medical Home Port initiative and it shows in their satisfaction scores. I am convinced that our beneficiaries will readily accept very modest 

changes to copayments as long as we continue to invest in these transformational 

approaches to delivering high quality health care. The proposals in the President’s 

budget are consistent with our efforts over the last several years: a focus on internal 

efficiency, incentivizing the health behaviors we want, and ensuring all of our beneficiaries are treated equitably. I request you support these timely and appropriate 

efforts. 

The tone of our force continues to be positive. In 2010, we conducted the Navy 

Total Force Survey, which was the first of its kind to assess the work-related attitudes and experiences of Active and Reserve sailors and Navy civilians. The survey 

reported that Navy personnel are, overall, satisfied with the quality of their leadership, benefits, compensation, and opportunities within the Navy for personal growth 

and development. The survey results reaffirmed what more than 20 national awards 

291 

have recognized: that our Navy is a ‘‘Top 50’’ organization and an employer of choice 

among today’s workforce. 

Our fiscal year 2012 budget request represents a balanced approach to supporting 

our sailors and their families, sustaining the high tempo of current operations, and 

preserving Fleet and family readiness. Highlights follow of our efforts to develop 

and support our sailors, Navy civilians, and their families. 

Recruiting and Retention 

Our Navy has enjoyed strong recruiting success over the past 3 years, and we expect this trend to continue through fiscal year 2011. Fiscal year 2010 marked the 

third consecutive year Navy met or exceeded its overall enlisted recruiting goals in 

both the Active and Reserve components and we continue to exceed Department of 

Defense quality standards in all recruit categories. We accessed the highest quality 

enlisted force in history last year, with more than 97 percent having traditional 

high school diplomas. Active officer recruiting for fiscal year 2010 also exceeded our 

overall goals. Reserve officer recruiting exceeded our fiscal year 2009 levels, but 

achieved only 95 percent of our fiscal year 2010 goal. Reserve medical officer recruiting continues to be our greatest challenge as the requirement for medical officers 

has increased by more than 100 percent since fiscal year 2008. We continue to explore new avenues for recruiting, including expanding our social media engagement 

to maintain a dialogue with potential applicants and influencers nationwide. 

Navy will remain competitive in the employment market through the disciplined 

use of monetary and non-monetary incentives. Using a targeted approach, we will 

continue our recruiting and retention initiatives to attract and retain our best sailors, especially those within high-demand, critical skill areas that remain insulated 

from economic conditions. We are taking advantage of current high retention rates 

and success in accessions by reevaluating all special and incentive pays and bonuses 

and reducing them where possible. Judicious use of special and incentive pays remains essential to recruiting and retaining skilled professionals in the current economic environment, and will increase in importance as the economic recovery continues. Our goal remains to maintain a balanced force, in which seniority, experience, and skills are matched to requirements. 

To ensure we stay within our congressionally-authorized end strength, we are executing force stabilization measures that include Perform-to-Serve (PTS) for enlisted 

sailors and a series of Selective Early Retirement (SER) boards for Unrestricted 

Line (URL) captains and commanders. PTS considers the manning levels in each 

enlisted rating and reviews the record of sailors eligible for reenlistment to determine if the sailor should remain in the rating, convert to an undermanned specialty, 

transition to the Reserves, or separate from the Navy. The SER boards will address 

the excess inventory of Active component captain (O6) and commander (O5) URL 

officers in our Navy to ensure sufficient senior officers are available at the right 

time in their careers to serve in critical fleet billets. We project approximately 100 

URL captains and 100 URL commanders will be selected for early retirement 

through this process. With these performance-based measures, we expect to meet 

our fiscal year 2011 authorized Active end strength of 328,700 and Reserve end 

strength of 65,500 by the end of the fiscal year. We will be challenged to meet our 

Active and Reserve end strength targets in fiscal year 2012 using existing force 

shaping measures. As a result of continued high retention and low attrition across 

the force, we are facing increasing pressure to use involuntary force shaping measures to remain within our authorized end strength. 

Diversity 

Demographic projections estimate that today’s minorities will make up more than 

one third of our Nation’s workforce by 2020; by 2050, that projection increases to 

about half of our workforce. Our ability to access and retain the talents of every 

component group in our society is critical to our mission success. Recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce, reflective of the Nation’s demographics at all levels of 

the chain of command, remains a strategic imperative and a focus area for leaders 

throughout our Navy. To foster a Navy Total Force composition that reflects America’s diversity, we are focusing our efforts on outreach, mentoring, leadership accountability, training, and communication. Our diversity outreach efforts have contributed to our 2014 U.S. Naval Academy and Naval Reserve Officers Training 

Corps classes being the most diverse student bodies in our history. We have increased diverse accessions through targeted recruiting in diverse markets, developing relationships with key influencers in the top diverse metropolitan markets, 

and aligning Navy assets and organizations to maximize our connection with educators, business leaders and government officials to increase our influencer base. We 

continue to expand our relationships with key influencers and science, technology, 

292 

engineering, and mathematics-based affinity groups to inform our Nation’s youth 

about the unique opportunities available in our Navy. We are also building and sustaining a continuum of mentorship opportunities that includes the chain of command, individual communities, social networking, peer-to-peer relationships, and affinity groups. We will continue to ensure that all sailors are provided with opportunities to develop personally and professionally. 

Women on Submarines 

After notifying Congress last year of our intent to assign women to submarines, 

the Secretary of the Navy and I have authorized female officers to serve aboard 

Ohio-class SSBN and SSGN submarines. This will enable our submarine force to leverage the tremendous talent and potential of the women serving in our Navy. The 

first 18 female submarine officers commenced the standard 15-month nuclear and 

submarine training pipeline in 2010, and will begin arriving at their submarines at 

the end of this year. These officers will be assigned to two ballistic missile (SSBN) 

and two guided missile (SSGN) submarines which have the space to accommodate 

female officers without structural modification. The plan also integrates female supply corps officers onto SSBNs and SSGNs at the department head level. In December, the Secretary of Defense notified Congress of Navy’s intent to expend funds to 

commence design and study efforts regarding reconfiguration of existing submarines 

to accommodate female crew members, as well as to design the Ohio replacement 

SSBN with the flexibility to accommodate female crew members. 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

I am pleased Congress voted to repeal section 654 of title 10, U.S.C., commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ (DADT) statute. Legislative repeal affords 

us the time and structured process needed to effectively implement this significant 

change within our Armed Forces. As I testified in December, we will be able to implement a repeal of DADT in our Navy. I assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness, 

and cohesion of the Navy to be low. Our implementation process will be thorough, 

but timely. We are preparing the necessary policies and regulations to implement 

this change in law and training sailors and leaders at all levels to ensure they understand what repeal means to them, their families, and the Navy. Before repeal 

can occur, the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

must certify that the change can be made in a manner consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and 

retention of the Armed Forces. I will provide Navy’s input to the certification process and I remain personally engaged in this process. 

Sailor and Family Continuum of Care 

We remain committed to providing our sailors and their families a comprehensive 

continuum of care that addresses all aspects of medical, physical, psychological, and 

family readiness. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request expands this network of services and caregivers to ensure that all sailors and their families receive the highest 

quality healthcare available. 

Navy Safe Harbor is at the forefront in Navy’s non-medical care for all seriously 

wounded, ill, and injured sailors, coastguardsmen, and their families. We have expanded our network of Recovery Care Coordinators and non-medical Care Managers 

to 12 locations across the country. Safe Harbor continues to provide exceptional, individually tailored assistance to a growing enrolled population of more than 600 individuals. Over 116,000 sailors and their spouses have participated in Operational 

Stress Control (OSC) training, which actively promotes the psychological health of 

sailors and their families by encouraging them to seek help for stress reactions 

early, before they become problems. The Warrior Transition Program (WTP) and Returning Warrior Workshops (RWW) are essential to post-deployment reintegration 

efforts. The WTP offers an opportunity for IA sailors redeploying from a combat 

zone to decompress, turn in their gear, and receive tools that will help them ease 

their transition back to their home and families. The RWW is designed to address 

personal stress that may be generated by deployment activities and it supports and 

facilitates the reintegration of the deployed sailor with his/her spouse and family. 

The RWW also provides a safe, relaxed atmosphere in which to identify and address 

potential issues that may arise during post-deployment reintegration. 

Stress on the Force 

While the overall tone of our force remains positive, current trends suggest that 

high operational tempo, increasing mission demands, lean manning, force shaping, 

and economic conditions are placing increased stress on our Navy personnel. Our 

fiscal year 2012 budget requests increased funding to improve our program manager-level support of our suicide prevention and stress control programs. 

293 

Suicide dramatically affects individuals, commands and families. Over the last 

year, we expanded our approach to preventing suicides from historic suicide surveillance and annual awareness training to include more comprehensive resilience 

building and tailored suicide prevention training, peer intervention, research and 

analysis. We saw a reduction in our number of suicides from 46 in calendar year 

2009 to 38 in calendar year 2010. Our calendar year suicide rate also decreased 

from 13.3 per 100,000 sailors in 2009 to 10.9 per 100,000 sailors in 2010. Our 2010 

suicide rate is below the national rate of 19.0 per 100,000 individuals for the same 

age and gender demographic; however, any loss of life as a result of suicide is unacceptable. Suicide prevention is an ‘‘all hands, all the time’’ effort involving our sailors, families, peers, and leaders. We continue to work towards a greater understanding of the issues surrounding suicide to ensure that our policies, training, 

interventions, and communications are meeting intended objectives. 

We are integrating our suicide prevention efforts into the broader array of programs we offer to improve the resilience of our force. These programs, aimed at reducing individual stress, address issues, such as substance abuse prevention, financial management, positive family relationships, physical readiness, and family support. 

We continue our efforts to eliminate sexual assault by fostering a culture of prevention, victim response and offender accountability. Sexual assault is incompatible 

with our Navy core values, high standards of professionalism, and personal discipline. We have organized our efforts in this critical area under the Navy Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. The SAPR program and the 

Naval Safety Center and Alcohol and Drug Prevention Program are currently developing an integrated approach to sexual assault prevention that includes clear leadership communication, bystander intervention training for sailors to help them recognize and interrupt risky situations, and training for military investigators and 

lawyers on issues specific to sexual assault investigation and prosecution. 

Learning and Development 

Education and training are strategic investments that give us an asymmetric advantage over adversaries. To develop the highly-skilled, combat-ready force necessary to meet the demands of the Maritime Strategy and the Joint Force, we have 

15 learning centers around the country providing top-notch training to our sailors, 

Navy civilians and members of the other Services. In fiscal year 2010, we completed 

learning and development roadmaps for all enlisted ratings, providing sailors with 

detailed information about the required training, education, qualifications and assignments they need to succeed in their career fields. We continue to leverage a 

blended training approach, integrating experienced instructors, advanced technology, and state-of-the-art delivery systems with modularized content in order to 

provide the right training at the right time in a sailor’s career. We are balancing 

existing education and training requirements with growth in important mission 

areas such as cyber defense, missile defense, and anti-submarine warfare. Cultural, 

historical, and linguistic expertise remain essential to successfully accomplishing 

the Navy’s global mission, and our budget request supports our Language, Regional 

Expertise, and Culture (LREC) program as well as the Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands 

Program sponsored by the Joint Staff. Last year the LREC program provided language and cultural training to more than 120,000 sailors en route to overseas assignments. We recognize the importance of providing our people meaningful and relevant education, particularly Joint Professional Military Education (JPME), which 

develops leaders who are strategically-minded, capable of critical thinking, and 

adept in naval and joint warfare. Our resident courses at Naval War College, nonresident courses at Naval Postgraduate School and in the Fleet Seminar program, 

and distance offerings provide ample opportunity for achievement of this vital education. 

CONCLUSION

You can be exceptionally proud of our sailors. They are our Nation’s preeminent 

force at sea, on land, and in air, space, and cyberspace. While the future is not without challenges, I am optimistic about our future and the global opportunities our 

Navy provides our Nation. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request represents a balanced approach to increasing Fleet capacity, maintaining our warfighting readiness, 

and developing and enhancing our Navy Total Force. I ask for your strong support 

of our fiscal year 2012 budget request and my identified priorities. Thank you for 

your unwavering commitment to our sailors, Navy civilians, and their families, and 

for all you do to make our U.S. Navy an effective and enduring global force for good. 

294 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you so much, Admiral, and again, thank 

you for your extraordinary service over the decades. 

General Amos. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, COMMANDANT 

OF THE MARINE CORPS 

General AMOS. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, and 

members of the committee: It is indeed my honor to appear before 

you today for the very first time as the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps to articulate the posture of your Corps. Today the Corps 

serves as America’s expeditionary force in readiness, a balanced 

air, ground, logistics team of 202,000 Active, 39,000 Reserve, and 

35,000 civilian marines. Our ability to serve as our Nation’s principal crisis response force is due in large part to this committee’s 

and Congress’ continued strong support. Thank you for that. 

Today, there are over 32,000 marines forward-deployed around 

the world. As we sit here, it’s half past 7 in the evening in Afghanistan. The rainy season has hit. The evenings remain cold and 

damp in this nation, where 20,000 of our young men and women 

are engaged in full-spectrum combat and counterinsurgency operations. 

I’m encouraged by the significant progress they have made in the 

Helmand Province and you have my assurance that this effort remains my top priority. Sergeant Major Kent and I spent Christmas 

with our marines and sailors in Afghanistan and I am happy to report that their morale is high and their belief in their mission is 

strong. 

Partnered with the U.S. Navy, we are forward deployed and forward engaged. This past year alone, our afloat forces conducted humanitarian assistance operations in Pakistan, Haiti, and the Philippines. They recaptured the pirated ship Magellan Star, rescuing 

its crew from Somali pirates, and partnered with allied forces in 

engagement missions in the Pacific Rim, Latin America, Africa, 

and Eastern Europe. 

Right now over 400 marines from the First Battalion, Second 

Marine Regiment, who deployed last week from Camp Lejeune, 

NC, within 20 hours of notification, are embarked aboard two amphibious vessels with a full complement of fixed and rotary wing 

assets. These marines are poised in the Mediterranean, prepared 

to do our Nation’s bidding. 

Our role as America’s crisis response force necessitates that we 

maintain a high state of readiness. You’re either ready to respond 

to today’s crisis with today’s force today or you risk being late and 

thus irrelevant. 

I am keenly aware of the fiscal realities confronting our Nation. 

During these times of constrained resources, the Marine Corps remains committed to being the best stewards of scarce public funds. 

We maintain a longstanding tradition with Congress as DOD’s 

penny-pinchers. Our institutionalized culture of frugality positions 

us as the best value for the defense dollar. For approximately 8.5 

percent of the annual defense budget, the Marine Corps provides 

the Nation 31 percent of its ground operating forces, 12 percent of 

its fixed wing tactical aircraft, and 19 percent of its attack helicopters. 

295 

This year’s budget submission was framed by my four servicelevel priorities. We will: number one, continue to provide the best 

trained and equipped marines in Afghanistan; number two, rebalance our core and posture it for the future; number three, better 

educate and train our marines to succeed in increasingly complex 

environments; and lastly, number four, we will keep faith with our 

marines, our sailors, and our families. 

While these priorities will guide our long-term plan for the Marine Corps, there are pressing issues facing our Corps today that 

concern me, issues for which I ask Congress’ continued assistance 

in solving. Our equipment abroad and at home stations has been 

heavily taxed in the nearly 10 years of constant combat operations. 

The price tag for reset is $10.6 billion, of which $3.1 billion has 

been requested in fiscal year 2011 and $2.5 billion is being sought 

in fiscal year 2012. The remaining $5 billion will be needed upon 

the completion of our mission in Afghanistan. 

The F–35B Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) JSF is 

vital to our ability to conduct expeditionary operations. Continued 

funding and support from Congress for this program is of utmost 

importance. During the next 2 years of F–35B scrutiny, I will be 

personally involved with the program and closely supervising it. 

Both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy 

have reaffirmed the necessity of the Marine Corps’ amphibious assault mission. We must develop an affordable and capable amphibious combat vehicle to project marines from sea to land in permissive, uncertain, and in hostile environments. I ask for your continued support to reach this goal. 

To ensure the Marine Corps remains a relevant force with a capacity and capability to respond to the demands of future security 

environments, we recently conducted a detailed internally-driven 

force structure review. The results of this effort provide America a 

strategically mobile, middleweight force, optimized for forward 

presence, and rapid crisis response. 

As we look to the future, the Marine Corps is committed to finding ways to be more energy efficient. Since 2009, we have aggressively pursued energy-efficient capabilities that will make marine 

units more energy self-sufficient, increase our combat effectiveness, 

and protect the lives of our young men and women. Two weeks ago, 

I signed our new bases to battlefield energy planning guidance, 

with such goals, metrics, and a plan for implementation. 

Finally, I would like to comment on the impact of the current CR 

as it has impacted our operations and our programs. As of today, 

$567 million in military construction (MILCON) contracts have not 

been awarded. $2.4 billion of MILCON is at risk for the remainder 

of this year. These projects impact the lives of marines, the local 

economies of the communities around our bases and stations, and 

are projected to generate over 63,000 jobs from the Carolinas to 

Hawaii. 

If the CR extends through the entire fiscal year, 13 bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ) totaling 5,000 affected spaces will not be 

built, thus stymieing our BEQ modernization efforts. These 13 

BEQs will allow 8 infantry battalions to move out of 50-year-old 

Cold War barracks. 

296 

1 As of December 2010, there were approximately 20,700 marines in Afghanistan including 

marines serving in external billets (e.g. transition teams and joint/interagency support, et 

cetera); 6,200 at sea on Marine Expeditionary Units; and 1,600 marines engaged in various 

other missions, operations and exercises. The 30,000 statistic excludes over 18,000 marines assigned to garrison locations outside the continental United States such as in Europe, the Pacific, 

et cetera. 

Finally, the CR could prove catastrophic to our procurement accounts, resulting in the loss of almost one-third of our procurement 

budget capabilities. 

Lastly, you have my promise that in these challenging times 

ahead, the Marine Corps will only ask for what it needs, not what 

it might want. We will make the hard decisions before coming to 

Congress and we will redouble our efforts toward our traditional 

culture of frugality. 

As has been the case for over 235 years, your Marine Corps 

stands ready to respond whenever the Nation calls, wherever the 

President may direct. 

Once again, I thank each of you for your continued support. I’m 

prepared to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Amos follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. JAMES F. AMOS, USMC 

AMERICA’S EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN READINESS

The Marine Corps is America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness—a balanced airground-logistics team. We are forward-deployed and forward-engaged: shaping, 

training, deterring, and responding to all manner of crises and contingencies. We 

create options and decision space for our Nation’s leaders. Alert and ready, we respond to today’s crisis, with today’s force . . . TODAY. Responsive and scalable, we 

team with other Services, allies and interagency partners. We enable and participate in joint and combined operations of any magnitude. A middleweight force, we 

are light enough to get there quickly, but heavy enough to carry the day upon arrival, and capable of operating independent of local infrastructure. We operate 

throughout the spectrum of threats—irregular, hybrid, conventional—or the shady 

areas where they overlap. Marines are ready to respond whenever the Nation calls 

. . . wherever the President may direct. 

—GENERAL JAMES F. AMOS

America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness 

Today, your U.S. Marine Corps is foremost America’s Expeditionary Force in 

Readiness. Established originally by an act of the Second Continental Congress on 

November 10, 1775, your Marine Corps has evolved over 235 years into a balanced 

air-ground-logistics team that is forward deployed and forward engaged: shaping, 

training, deterring, and responding to all manner of crises and contingencies. 

Through the ongoing support of Congress and the American people, your Marine 

Corps is a cohesive force of 202,100 Active Duty marines; 39,600 Selected Reserve 

marines; and 35,000 civilian marines. At any given time, approximately 30,000 marines are forward deployed in operations supporting our Nation’s defense.1 This 

year, as our Nation recognizes a decade since the tragic events of September 11, 

your Marine Corps has been conducting Overseas Contingency Operations for an 

equal amount of time. From Task Force 58 with 4,400 marines launching from 6 

amphibious ships to secure critical lodgments in Afghanistan in late 2001 to our 

counterinsurgency efforts in the Al Anbar province of Iraq and to our current operations in the Helmand River Valley of Afghanistan, your marines have been forward 

deployed in the Service of our Nation. 

Yet, during this time the Marine Corps has not been confined solely to major combat operations and campaigns. From our rapid response aiding fellow Americans 

and enabling joint and interagency relief efforts following Hurricane Katrina’s 

floods, to our noncombatant evacuation operation of 14,000 American citizens from 

Lebanon in 2006, to our numerous and ongoing security cooperation missions with 

nations of Africa, Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim, and Latin America, the U.S. Marine Corps continues to demonstrate the agility and flexibility expected of America’s 

297 

2 1022 deaths = 851 killed in action (hostile) and 171 deceased (non-hostile). 

principal crisis response force. Over the course of the past year alone, your brave 

men and women who wear the Marine uniform and who bring a diversity of talent 

in service to our Nation, have simultaneously: 

• Waged an aggressive full-spectrum counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan while concurrently increasing combat power nearly two-fold (i.e. 

from 10,600 to 19,400) in accordance with the President’s December 2009 

Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy; 

• Successfully completed our mission in Iraq, bringing stability to Al Anbar 

province. This achievement was not without sacrifice and suffering in that 

1,022 2 marines gave their lives and 8,626 marines were wounded in action; • Partnered with allied forces in engagement missions throughout every 

Geographic Combatant Commander’s Area of Responsibility; 

• Conducted foreign humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions 

in Pakistan, Haiti, and the Philippines; 

• Participated in maritime security operations to ensure freedom of navigation along vital sea lines of communication, to include the recapture of the 

vessel Magellan Star and rescue of its crew from Somali pirates; and 

• Rapidly reinforced U.S. Embassies in Port au Prince, Haiti; Conakry, 

Guinea; Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; and most recently Cairo, Egypt to assist and 

protect diplomatic personnel amidst crises in these foreign capitals. 

Their actions align with the functions of our Corps as seen in the new Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5100.01, Functions of the Department of Defense 

and Its Major Components, and are a critical link to the continued prosperity and 

security of our Nation and the survival of our friends, allies, and partners. The performance of your marines on the global stage adds to our storied legacy of sacrifice 

and success—under even the most adverse conditions—inspiring a sense of pride 

and confidence in the American public that their marines are able to respond quickly, ensuring the Nation’s interests will be protected. 

Future Security Environment 

Public law, defense policy, our doctrine and operating concepts, and the future security environment shape how we organize, train, and equip our forces. As we look 

ahead, we see a world of increasing instability, failed or failing states, and conflict 

characterized by: 

• Poverty, unemployment, urbanization, overpopulation, and extremism; • Competition for scarce natural resources; and • Rapid proliferation of new technologies to include capabilities to disrupt 

cyber networks, advanced precision weaponry, and weapons of mass destruction. 

These troubling socio-economic and geopolitical trends converge in the littorals— 

regions along the world’s coastline where the sea joins with the land. The majority 

of the world’s population lives near the sea. The trend towards accelerated birth 

rates in the developing world, coupled with ongoing migration from rural to urban 

landscapes, results in hyper-populated coastal regions, burdened by the cumulative 

stressors of criminality, extremism, and violence. 

Littoral cities increasingly may assume what some have called feral qualities, 

raising the potential for conflict, providing a measure of sanctuary for our adversaries, and posing challenges to governmental sovereignty and regional security. It 

is in this complex environment that your U.S. Marine Corps will operate. We stand 

optimally postured to conduct a range of operations for Joint Force commanders, 

bridging the gap between operations at sea and on land. 

Nonetheless, we are committed to the prevention of conflict as we are to responding to it. Indeed, 21st century security challenges require expansion of global engagement—facilitated through persistent forward naval presence—to promote collective approaches to addressing common security concerns. Accordingly, forward deployed Marine forces will increasingly conduct theater security cooperation activities 

and will build partnership capacity through security force assistance missions with 

our allies and partners around the globe. The goal of our engagement initiatives is 

to minimize conditions for conflict and enable host nation forces to effectively address instability as it occurs. 

Role of the Marine Corps 

The United States is a maritime nation with global responsibilities. With a naval 

tradition as the foundation of our existence, we remain firmly partnered with the 

U.S. Navy. Forward deployed, we retain the ability to come from the sea rapidly 

298 

3 (1) Security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners; (2) A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity; (3) respect for universal values at home and around the world; and 

(4) an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges. 2010 National Security Strategy 

Pg, 7. 

to conduct missions across the range of military operations. Our persistent forward 

presence and multi-mission capability present an unparalleled ability to rapidly 

project U.S. power across the global commons—land, sea, air, space, and cyber. 

Amphibious forces with robust and organic logistical sustainment provide a maritime Super Power significant advantages, including the ability to overcome the tyranny of distance and to project power where there is no basing or infrastructure— 

a strong deterrent capability for our Nation. To Marines, ‘expeditionary’ is a state 

of mind that drives the way we organize our forces, train, develop and procure 

equipment. By definition, our role as America’s crisis response force necessitates a 

high state of unit readiness and an ability to sustain ourselves logistically. We must 

be ready to deploy today and begin operating upon arrival, even in the most austere 

environments. The U.S. Marine Corps affords the following three strategic advantages for our Nation: 

• A versatile ‘‘middleweight’’ capability to respond across the range of military operations. We fill the gap in our Nation’s defense as an agile force 

capable of operating at the high and low ends of the threat spectrum or the 

indistinct areas in between. 

• An inherent speed and agility that buys time for national leaders. Our 

flexibility and rapid response capability present unique opportunities to develop strategic options, shape the environment, and set conditions to deploy 

the full capabilities of the Joint Force and other elements of national power. 

• An enabling and partnering capability in joint and combined operations. 

Our unique forward posture aboard amphibious ships, manned by welltrained, uniformed sailors, positions us to be the ‘first to fight.’ 

USMC Priorities 

My four service level priorities informed this year’s budget submission. These priorities were influenced by and derived from a number of factors to include our understanding of the 21st century battlefield based on lessons learned over nearly a 

decade at war, our examination of the future security environment, our doctrine and 

operating concepts, and our current and future budgetary and programmatic requirements. 

These priorities are aligned with the principal recommendations of the 2010 

Quadrennial Defense Review, meeting its end state of ensuring that the Marine 

Corps is able to ‘‘prevail in today’s wars, prevent and deter conflict, prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies, and preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer Force.’’ My priorities also support America’s four enduring 

strategic interests as identified in the 2010 National Security Strategy.3 To that 

end, we will: 

• Continue to provide the best trained and equipped Marine units to Afghanistan; 

• Rebalance our Corps, posture it for the future, and aggressively experiment with and implement new capabilities and organizations; 

• Better educate and train our marines to succeed in distributed operations 

and increasingly complex environments; and 

• Keep faith with our marines, our sailors, and our families. 

The above priorities guide my long-term plan for the Marine Corps; however, 

there are pressing issues facing our Corps today that give cause for concern. 

• Equipment: Our equipment abroad and at home station has been ‘‘heavily 

taxed’’ in the nearly 10 years of constant combat operations. We require 

funding to reset equipment being utilized overseas and to reconstitute 

home-station equipment and modernize for the future. This is critical to 

maintaining readiness throughout the Corps. 

• The Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing F–35B Joint Strike Fighter: 

The F–35B is vital to our ability to conduct combined arms operations in 

expeditionary environments. Continued funding and support from Congress 

for this program is of utmost importance. 

• Amphibious Combat Vehicle: We will begin the development of an affordable and capable amphibious combat vehicle to replace the recently-cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. The capability inherent in 

299 

4This sum includes both ‘‘Blue in Support of Green’’ funding, Overseas Contingency Operation 

funding, and other Navy funding for USMC needs (e.g. chaplains, medical personnel, amphibious ships, et cetera.) 5 Based on provisions of the National Defense Authorization and Appropriation Acts for Fiscal 

Year 2010. 

a ship-to-shore connector is critical to our expeditionary nature, as affirmed 

by the Secretary of Defense. 

• End Strength: The drawdown of our Active component from 202,100 to 

186,800 must be conditions-based, and only after completion of our mission 

in Afghanistan. We must keep faith with our Marine Corps family by allowing appropriate time and support for those departing the force and to ensure the resiliency of our units still engaged in war. 

• Family Readiness Programs: Like our equipment, marines and their families have been ‘‘heavily taxed’’ since September 11. We will continue to 

fund family readiness and family support programs that are vital to the 

health and welfare of our entire Marine Corps family. 

• Amphibious Ships: The Navy and Marine Corps have determined a minimum force of 33 ships represents the limit of acceptable risk in meeting 

the 38-ship amphibious force requirement for the Assault Echelon. Marines 

are best postured to engage and respond to the Nation’s security interests 

from amphibious ships. 

The Marine Corps needs the continued support of Congress in confronting these 

critical issues and the many others discussed below. My promise to Congress is that 

we will do our part by continuing to be good stewards of our taxpayers’ dollars. 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budgetary Submission 

The Marine Corps maintains a longstanding tradition in DOD as being ‘‘Penny 

Pinchers.’’ A prime example of our many noteworthy cost-saving measures is our 

practice of units deploying to Afghanistan utilizing equipment sets maintained and 

repaired in country—a measure saving significant funds annually on costs associated with the cycle of deployment and redeployment. Our institutionalized culture 

of frugality, streamlined business practices, lean structure, and multi-mission capability, position us as the ‘‘best value’’ for the defense dollar. This fiscal year we are 

seeking over $40 billion 4 to fund ongoing operations, provide quality resources for 

our marines, sailors, and their families, conduct reset of equipment stressed from 

nearly 10 years at war, and prepare our forces for future missions. For approximately 8.5 percent 5 of the annual Defense budget, the Marine Corps provides the 

Nation approximately 31 percent of its ground operating forces (Combat, Combat 

Support and Combat Service Support), 12 percent of its fixed wing tactical aircraft, 

and 19 percent of its attack helicopters. 

During these times of constrained resources, the Marine Corps remains committed 

to streamlining operations, identifying efficiencies, and reinvesting savings to conserve scarce public funds. At the direction of the Secretary of Defense in June 2010, 

the Services conducted an efficiencies review and our fiscal year 2012 budget is the 

result of a thorough study of all of our business activities. Already one of the most 

economical of the Military Services, we achieved our DOD efficiency goal. We captured overhead efficiency savings by focusing on three main efforts: 

• Buying smarter through acquiring platforms more intelligently 

• Streamlining our operations 

• Being more efficient in the way we use, produce, and acquire energy 

This effort has had a marked impact on our overall budget, allowing us to invest 

more in our core warfighting missions and enhancing our acquisition plans. The efficiency initiative drove adjustments to our programs and ensured restoration of funding in areas where needed most. Additionally, we used funds realized from efficiencies to support programs originally not funded. We reinvested savings into critical warfighting programs to enhance readiness. We anticipate unit equipment readiness to increase by fiscal year 2014 through the purchase of additional equipment 

beginning in fiscal year 2012. This readiness increase will allow the Marine Corps 

to equip, train, and prepare units earlier in the pre-deployment cycle. Other expansions that we were able to address include enhancing funding for facilities with direct operational impact, energy and water investments at bases and installations, 

command and control and logistics programs, and equipment modernization. 

In addition to our frugality and aggressive pursuit of finding efficiencies to enhance our warfighting capacity inherent in our budget request, your Marine Corps 

remains the first and only military Service whose financial statements have been 

deemed audit ready. We are continually striving to be good stewards of the public 

300 

6 Infantry battalions will continue to remain just below 1:2 dwell time due to relief in place/ 

transfer of authority requirements. 7Our most stressed occupational specialties based on percentage of marines beyond a 1:2 

dwell are: (1) Geographic Intelligence Specialist, (2) Imaging Analyst/Specialists, (3) Signals Collection Operator/Analyst, (4) Unmanned Aerial Systems Operator/Mechanic, and (5) European, 

Middle East, and Asia-Pacific Cryptologic Linguists. 

trust and know the ongoing financial audit will serve to both strengthen our financial management practices and give us actionable business intelligence to support 

our decisionmaking process in supporting our operational forces at home, abroad, 

and in harm’s way. 

PRIORITY #1: CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE BEST TRAINED AND EQUIPPED UNITS TO

AFGHANISTAN

Operation Enduring Freedom 

We have made great progress in Afghanistan; this effort remains our number one 

priority until we attain our national objectives. At present over 20,000 marines are 

deployed in Afghanistan. This mission ultimately involves almost 60,000 marines, 

or just under one-third of our Active-Duty Force, factoring in deployment, redeployment, training cycles and other direct support. We will continue providing forces in 

Afghanistan capable of full-spectrum combat and counterinsurgency operations, 

while balancing our capabilities to perform what the Nation will likely ask of us in 

the future. We will ensure that marines, sailors, and the units in which they serve, 

receive the best possible training and equipment to succeed in the many types of 

missions we are conducting in this complex, dynamic environment. 

Our successes within Helmand Province are paving the way for economic development and governance. Marine commanders on the ground and Afghan officials indicate that freedom of movement for the local populace has improved. Bazaars and 

markets are flourishing; critical infrastructure projects are underway. Today, 10 of 

13 districts in Helmand Province are under the control of the Afghan central government. Daily, 135,000 children attend school, which is more than a 60 percent increase from 2008 levels. Formerly dangerous places like Marjah, Now Zad, and 

Garmsir, untrafficable due to improvised explosive devices just 1 year ago, now have 

significant activity occurring in commercial centers. Yet, other challenges remain as 

we now seek to capitalize on our 2010 successes. We are currently expanding battlespace northward into other hostile locations such as the district of Sangin, where 

our forces are going ‘‘head-to-head’’ with Taliban resistance. 

As America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness, we are ready to execute any mission assigned in support of crisis and contingency response. In addition to our Afghanistan commitment, we continue to source forward-based and deployed forces to 

meet Geographic Combatant Commander requirements. In light of our operational 

demands, and through the support of Congress in authorizing our end strength of 

202,100 Active-Duty Forces, our combat units are beginning to realize an approximate 1:2 dwell time.6 Other units vary at more favorable dwell-time levels depending on their mission. We anticipate the 1:2 dwell ratio for combat units to remain 

relatively stable provided current deployed force levels are not increased; however, 

increased operational demands in Afghanistan or elsewhere may result in dwell 

times inconsistent with fostering a resilient Total Force. 

Some marines in select military occupational specialties continue to fall into what 

is known as a high-demand, low-density status. This is a key indicator that the combat demand for Marines with these skills does not match, or exceeds, the current 

manpower requirement and/or inventory. In addition, there are currently 14 of 211 

occupational specialties where the on-hand number of marines is less than 90 percent of what is required.7 Our recently completed force structure review addressed 

all these concerns. We are working actively to recruit, promote, and retain the right 

number of Marines in the right occupational specialties thus promoting resiliency 

of our Total Force. 

Training for Full Spectrum Counterinsurgency Operations 

Our comprehensive training program conducted at our premiere desert training 

base in Twentynine Palms, CA, has been credited by leaders throughout the Corps 

with providing a dynamic environment that replicates the many tasks, challenges, 

and requirements required of units in a counterinsurgency setting. Our newly-instituted Infantry Immersion Trainers are realistic, reconfigurable, and provide comprehensive training environments that develop small unit tactics and individual 

skills for deploying infantry squads. The Infantry Immersion Trainer supports essential training such as control of supporting arms, language, improvised explosive 

device recognition and defeat measures, human terrain understanding and close 

301 

8 ‘‘The wars we are fighting today and assessments of the future security environment together demand that the United States retain and enhance a whole-of-government capability to 

succeed in large-scale counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations in environments ranging from densely populated urban areas and mega-cities, to remote mountains, 

deserts, jungles, and littoral regions.’’ 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Pg. 20. 9 2011 National Military Strategy of the United States, pg. 10. 

quarters battle. Introducing battlefield effects simulators, culturally appropriate role 

players, and interactive avatars at the Infantry Immersive Trainers teaches marines 

to make legally, morally, ethically, and tactically sound decisions under situations 

of great stress. It also contributes to reducing the effects of combat stress. I view 

this training program to be of vital importance to our Operating Forces. 

Equipping for the Afghan Effort 

Marine units are operating in Afghanistan with high rates of ground equipment 

readiness. Through the generosity of Congress, we have received funds for the rapid 

fielding of urgent need items in support of our Afghanistan effort. The Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle program continues to meet urgent requirements while we actively pursue vehicle upgrades to outpace emerging threats, enhance mobility, and improve vehicle performance. We can accomplish this goal 

through engineering changes and capability insertions in current production, 

planned orders, and fielded vehicles. We have a requirement for 3,362 vehicles in 

the family of MRAP vehicles, including 1,454 MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles. To date, 

we have fielded 1,214 MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles to our units in Afghanistan and 

have met the theater requirement. 

To date, we have fielded 34 Assault Breacher Vehicles, 5 of which are in Afghanistan, to enhance the mobility of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). We 

plan to field a total of 52 Assault Breacher Vehicles. Production of the remaining 

18 vehicles remains on schedule and is fully funded with final delivery scheduled 

for the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. 

In our continuing efforts to find improvised explosive devices by all possible 

means, we are tripling our successful Improvised Explosive Device Dog Detection 

program and are also undertaking a research and development effort to train dogs 

with improved detection capabilities with fielding expected this fall. This year, we 

will have fielded 647 specially trained Labrador retrievers who work off-leash, supporting our infantry units in ground combat operations. We also have fielded a wide 

array of intelligence collection sensors and analytic and processing systems to include the Multimedia Archival Analysis System, the Ground Based Observational 

Surveillance System, the Tactical Remote Sensor System, the Communication Emitter Sensing and Attacking System, and improvements to the Tactical Exploitation 

Group, to name a few. 

Lastly, in December 2010, we deployed a reinforced company of 17 M1A1 Main 

Battle Tanks to join our efforts in Regional Command SouthWest to provide increased force protection and firepower. Today, these tanks are fully integrated with 

our forces operating in our most highly-contested regions, and are rapidly proving 

their utility in this environment by enabling our marines to increase operational 

tempo. They also demonstrate the commitment of Coalition Forces to the security 

of Southern Afghanistan. 

PRIORITY #2: REBALANCE THE CORPS, POSTURE FOR THE FUTURE, AND AGGRESSIVELY

EXPERIMENT WITH AND IMPLEMENT NEW CAPABILITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Posture for the Future and Force Structure Review 

The Marine Corps has deployed MAGTFs in support of irregular warfare missions 

such as our counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief efforts in Pakistan, Haiti, and the Philippines, and engagement missions such as our theater security cooperation exercises in support of every Geographic Combatant Commander. 

Despite these and many other operational successes over the past decade, new 

challenges await us requiring the same spirit of innovation and institutional flexibility that have been the bedrock of our Corps for 235 years. The 2010 Quadrennial 

Defense Review highlights an expanding need over the next two decades for military 

forces skilled at countering irregular threats,8 and the 2010 National Security Strategy signals a need for increased engagement activities. Both of these thrusts necessitate marines who are not only fighters, but also trainers, mentors, and advisors. 

The 2011 National Military Strategy advances the idea that ‘‘strengthening international and regional security requires that our forces be globally available, yet regionally focused.’’ 9 Likewise, Geographic Combatant Commanders have continued to 

302 

10 In the past 20 years, U.S. amphibious forces have responded to crises and contingencies 114 

times—a response rate double that during the Cold War. 11 At present, approximately 100 marines remain in Iraq serving in individual augment, transition team and other miscellaneous billets. 

register their growing need for forward-postured amphibious forces capable of conducting security cooperation, regional deterrence, and crisis response.10

This past fall, we conducted a detailed force structure review to develop the optimum mix of capabilities for our role as America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness 

in the post-Afghanistan security environment. The force structure review addressed 

21st century challenges confronting our Nation and its Marine Corps, aiming to 

build on our historic role as the Nation’s crisis response force. The review sought 

to provide the ‘‘best value’’ in terms of capability, cost, and readiness relative to the 

operational requirements of our forward-engaged Geographic Combatant Commanders. The results of that effort provide for a strategically mobile, ‘‘middleweight’’ 

force optimized for forward-presence and rapid crisis response. We will be light 

enough to leverage the flexibility and capacity of amphibious ships, yet heavy 

enough to accomplish the mission when we get there. Sea-based forces, in particular, will be invaluable for discreet engagement activities, rapid crisis response, 

and sustainable power projection. 

Our review also aimed for a force structure that provides capability and capacity 

across the range of military operations, while simultaneously providing for resiliency in our Total Force. With likely reductions in forward basing and strategic 

transportation, the importance of regionally-focused headquarters and forces, both 

forward-postured and immediately deployable with a minimum of strategic lift, is 

paramount. We have thus built a Joint Task Force-capable headquarters at several 

Geographic Combatant Command locations. As we aim to implement signature outcomes of the force structure review, marines on a day-to-day basis will be forwarddeployed and engaged, working closely with our joint and allied partners. When crises or contingencies arise, these same marines will respond—locally, regionally, or 

globally if necessary—to accomplish whatever mission the Nation asks of us. 

To best meet Geographic Combatant Commander needs and ensure optimal configuration as America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness, we require Congressional 

support to reset our equipment, develop new organizational structures, and begin 

implementing initiatives from our force structure review. These measures ultimately 

will improve our ability to function within the Joint Force, execute distributed operations, command and control in complex environments, and conduct persistent engagement missions. As we are entrusted with the resources and funding to posture 

ourselves for the future, we will continue to conduct responsible examination required of a disciplined force to ensure that we implement every refinement—from 

the smallest to the most sweeping—in a manner that provides the Nation with a 

lean force, capable of rapidly projecting the Nation’s power and strategic influence. 

EQUIPPING

Reset of the Total Force. Resetting the Marine Corps for the future after nearly 

a decade at war is my number one equipping priority. This past year, we completed 

our mission in Iraq, effecting the retrograde of more than 25,000 marines,11 382,000 

items of equipment, 10,800 short tons of aviation support equipment, and nearly 

11,000 containers from Al Anbar province via Jordan and Kuwait to the U.S. and 

elsewhere. This drawdown of equipment over the course of 1 year was a significant 

logistical and operational achievement. We also accomplished the rapid shift of critical equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan in support of the deployment of the 2d Marine Expeditionary Brigade. This shift of materiel within a theater of operation became one of the largest redeployments in U.S. history, both in terms of equipment 

moved and distances involved. 

The Marine Corps is currently sourcing highly-trained and ready forces to meet 

global combatant commander requirements. 

• Approximately 98 percent of deployed units report the highest levels of 

readiness for their assigned mission. 

However, high deployed-unit readiness has come at the expense of home-station, 

nondeployed units, which have sourced organic equipment and personnel to meet 

the needs of our deployed forces. 

• Approximately 68 percent of nondeployed units report degraded levels of 

readiness. The largest contributing factor is equipment; approximately 37 

percent of nondeployed forces report degraded levels of equipment supply. 

This lack of equipment impacts the ability of nondeployed forces to respond 

rapidly to other potential contingencies and represents lost core training opVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
303 

portunities early in the deployment cycle in preparation for Overseas Contingency Operations. 

The equipment redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan in support of the 2009 surge 

included most of our deployed medium tactical fleet, the majority of our fleet of 

MRAP vehicles, light armored reconnaissance vehicles, other hard-to-move equipment, and theater-specific items. While shifting this equipment directly to Afghanistan enabled the Marine Corps to meet critical operational timelines, it resulted in 

the deferment of previously-planned post-Operation Iraqi Freedom reset actions. 

These same assets comprise a significant portion of the Marine Corps’ total reset 

liability and depot maintenance costs. Thus, a consequence of delaying reset actions 

on this equipment is the acceptance of considerable risk in the long-term readiness 

and future availability of our ground equipment. In addition, increased usage rates 

of our ground equipment and harsh operating environments over these many years 

at war have resulted in our ground equipment far exceeding planned peacetime 

usage rates by a factor of six. 

It is vital that we reset our equipment from nearly 10 years at war to maintain 

the necessary levels of readiness to posture ourselves for the future. 

• We estimate the cost of reset for the Marine Corps to be $10.6 billion. $3.1 billion has been requested in fiscal year 2011 to reduce this liability, 

leaving a $7.5 billion deficit. $5 billion of the $7.5 billion reset liability will 

be incurred upon termination of the conflict in Afghanistan. (Note: $2.5 billion has been requested for reset in fiscal year 2012. These estimates assume no reset generation beyond fiscal year 2012 and thus do not include 

any reset requirements for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014.) 

This funding will support the depot-level maintenance of our Operation Enduring 

Freedom equipment, procurement of combat vehicles and major weapons systems, 

engineering equipment, ammunition expenditures, and combat losses. The reset estimate is based on current circumstances and will change as operational requirements are re-evaluated. Moreover, as long as the war continues, our costs for reset 

will grow accordingly. 

Reconstitution of Equipment 

Our experiences in combat operations over the past decade have shown us that 

our legacy 20th century tables of equipment are inadequate with regard to the demands of the modern battlefield. As we move towards finalizing our force structure 

review by conducting a thorough Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities assessment, we will finalize determination on the costs associated with modernization of equipment sets necessary to 

support our future operations. 

• However, at this time, our initial estimate of reconstituting our tables of 

equipment is $5 billion, which is an amount entirely separate from our 

reset costs. We have begun to address our reconstitution shortfall by requesting $253 million in fiscal year 2012 for equipment procurement. 

As our force structure review is implemented, we will continue with deliberate assessments of the modernization requirements for equipment that optimizes our postAfghanistan posture while simultaneously reinforcing our frugal and responsible 

roots. Our Service Reconstitution Equipment Strategy will guide the identification 

of emerging requirements for refining the capabilities of our status as a middleweight force, our support to the Geographic Combatant Commanders, our service 

level prioritization, and resource allocation. 

Marine Aviation 

We are transitioning our entire inventory of fixed and rotary wing aircraft to support our future force and require ongoing support from Congress for this comprehensive aviation modernization effort. The continued development and fielding of the 

short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F–35B Joint Strike Fighter remains the 

centerpiece of this effort. The capability inherent in a STOVL jet facilitates our maneuver warfare doctrine and fills our need for close air support in the many austere 

conditions and locations where we will likely operate in the future. Around the 

world, there are 10 times as many 3,000-foot runways capable of handling a STOVL 

jet as there are 8,000-foot runways required of conventional fighter aircraft. Additionally, we maintain the organic ability to build an expeditionary 3,000-foot runway 

in a matter of days in support of aviation operations. The capabilities of the STOVL 

F–35B enable the Marine Corps to replace three legacy aircraft types—F/A–18, EA– 

6B, and AV–8B—which once fielded will save DOD approximately $1 billion per 

year in operations and maintenance costs. The F–35B program has made significant 

progress to date including 22 successful vertical landings so far this year which is 

304 

more than double that achieved all last year. I am confident that we will field this 

aircraft in accordance with responsible timelines. This matter has my unwavering 

attention, and I am personally overseeing this program. With a fully-fielded fleet of 

F–35Bs, the Nation will maintain 22 capital ships—11 carrier and 11 amphibious 

assault—with fifth generation strike assets aboard—a significant deterrent and response capability for our Nation. 

Our legacy aircraft supporting operational missions are consuming service life at 

a rate up to three times faster than scheduled. Averaged across our complete fleet, 

we are consuming aircraft service life at a rate 1.85 times faster than planned. This 

reality results in compressed timelines between re-work events and in earlier retirement of aircraft than originally programmed. The majority of our legacy platforms 

are nearing the end of their service lives, and most production lines are closed. New 

aircraft with low average ages and robust service life projections are the future of 

our aviation force and its support of Marine Corps and joint operations. As we transition to these new capabilities, we are mindful of the need to ensure a fully-integrated and networked force to provide Marine aviation to the MAGTF and the Joint 

Force. 

We are exploring the viability of transformational platforms such as the Cargo 

Unmanned Aircraft System. The Cargo UAS will facilitate the delivery of logistics 

to remote locations when weather or threat systems preclude manned aviation sorties or overland resupply convoys. 

Our new aircraft will provide increased range, speed, standoff, time on station, 

lift capability, and will be critical to tomorrow’s MAGTF. By 2020, we will transition 

more than 50 percent of our aviation squadrons to new aircraft and complete fielding of the tilt-rotor MV–22 Osprey assault support aircraft and the upgraded UH– 

1Y Huey utility helicopter. We will field new close air support platforms such as the 

AH–1Z attack helicopter and the STOVL F–35B. We also will have new platforms 

for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and an entirely new family of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Lastly, we will introduce greater lifting power to the 

MAGTF with a new model of the heavy-lift CH–53 cargo helicopter. 

Ground Combat and Tactical Vehicle Strategy 

The priority for our Ground Combat Element is our ship-to-shore tactical mobility. 

The seamless transition of our Operating Forces from the sea to conduct sustained 

operations ashore, in particular to support three balanced Marine Expeditionary 

Brigades (i.e. two sea-based Joint Forcible Entry Marine Expeditionary Brigades reinforced by a third Maritime Prepositioning Force-based Marine Expeditionary Brigade) as well as for conducting irregular warfare missions, necessitates an appropriate mix of ground combat vehicles. We are focusing our efforts on developing and 

fielding a family of vehicles with a balance of performance, protection, payload, 

transportability, fuel efficiency, and affordability that supports the rapid concentration and dispersion of combat power, supports strategic deployment concepts and 

meets our worldwide operational commitments. 

Our Ground Combat and Tactical Vehicle Strategy is currently in its third phase 

of development. Its overall goal is to field a ground combat vehicle portfolio structured to support the ground combat element. Vehicles in this portfolio include the 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the Marine Personnel Carrier, and a new amphibious 

combat vehicle. 

In the complex future security environment, the execution of amphibious operations requires the use of the sea as maneuver space. An amphibious combat vehicle 

is essential to our ability to conduct surface littoral maneuver and seamlessly 

project ready-to-fight Marine units from sea to land in permissive, uncertain, and 

hostile environments. As the Secretary of Defense affirmed earlier this year, the 

cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is by no means a rejection 

of the Marine Corps amphibious assault mission. 

The standing, validated requirement for, and development of, an amphibious combat vehicle will ensure we continue to develop the right platform—at the right 

price—to support rapid ship-to-shore movement. To that end, we are now pursuing 

an integrated new vehicle program with three components, crafted from inception 

for affordability and leveraging the investment made in the EFV. We intend to mitigate risks associated with a new vehicle program and to maximize value by use of 

an integrated acquisition portfolio approach. This approach will have three synchronized efforts: 

• Acceleration of the procurement of Marine Personnel Carriers 

• Investment in a service life extension program and upgrades for a portion 

of the existing amphibious assault vehicles 

• Development of a new amphibious combat vehicle 

305 

12 ‘‘Timely response to crisis situations is critical to U.S. deterrent and warfighting capabilities. The timeliness of U.S. response is a function of U.S. forward deployed forces and 

prepositioned forces with adequate organic movement capability . . . .’’ Joint Publication 3–35, 

Joint Deployment and Redeployment Operations, 7 May 2007, pg I–8. 13Since September 11, U.S. amphibious forces have responded to crises and contingencies at 

least 50 times, a response rate more than double that of the Cold War. 

We intend to manage these complementary capabilities, requirements and acquisitions from a portfolio perspective. 

NAVY SUPPORT

The Navy Marine Corps Team. As part of the Joint Force, the Marine Corps and 

the Navy partner to leverage the significant advantages provided by amphibious 

forces—a point reinforced by joint doctrine.12 The Navy and Marine Corps team will 

be postured and engaged forward to be most operationally relevant to the needs of 

our Nation. Together, we provide the capability for massing potent forces close to 

a foreign shore while maintain a diplomatically sensitive profile. When needed, we 

are able to project this power ashore across the range of military operations at a 

time of our Nation’s choosing, collectively demonstrating the essence of naval deterrence. 

Amphibious Shipping 

The Marine Corps’ requirement to deploy globally, rapidly respond regionally, and 

train locally necessitates a combination of tactical airlift, high-speed vessels, amphibious ships, maritime preposition shipping, organic tactical aviation, and strategic airlift. The inherent flexibility and utility of amphibious ships is not widely 

understood, as evidenced by the frequent—and erroneous—assumption that ‘‘forcible 

entry capabilities’’ alone define the requirement for amphibious ships. The same capabilities that allow an amphibious task force to deliver and support a landing force 

on a hostile shore enables it to support forward engagement and crisis response. In 

fact the most frequent employment of amphibious forces is for steady state engagement and crisis response. The Geographic Combatant Commanders have increased 

demand for forward-postured amphibious forces capable of conducting security cooperation, regional deterrence, and crisis response reflecting the operational value 

of amphibious forces for missions across the range of military operations.13 In an 

era of declining access and strategic uncertainty, I anticipate that this upward demand trend will continue. 

Our principal contribution to U.S. Global Defense Posture is our ‘‘rotationally responsive’’ forces aboard amphibious ships. These forces combine the advantages of 

an immediate, yet temporary, presence, graduated visibility, and tailored, scalable 

force packages structured around the MAGTF. Rotational Amphibious Ready 

Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units forward deployed in three Geographic Combatant Command areas of responsibility, not only provide the capability for crisis response, but also present a means for day-to-day engagement with partner nations. 

Rotational forces also offer additional flexibility for decisionmakers in the event that 

forces are required to rapidly re-deploy across divergent regions and conflicts. 

In January 2009, the Navy and Marine Corps agreed that the force structure requirement to support a 2.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigade lift is 38 total amphibious 

assault ships. In light of the fiscal constraints, the Department of the Navy agreed 

to sustain a minimum of 33 total amphibious ships in the assault echelon. This 

number gives a capability needed for steady state operations and represents the 

minimum number of ships needed to provide the Nation with a sea based power projection capability for full spectrum amphibious operations—including the amphibious assault echelon of two Marine Expeditionary Brigades. 

The Marine Corps is committed to the spiral development of the America Class 

LHA (R), which is 27 percent complete. We expect the Navy to take delivery of 

LHA–6 in fiscal year 2014 with availability to deploy beginning in fiscal year 2017. 

In terms of LHA–7, we anticipate the contract award in late fiscal year 2011 with 

fabrication commencing the following year. These two ships are maximized for aviation, and I believe it is essential that a well-deck be reintroduced in LHA–8 as currently planned. The ongoing procurement and commissioning of the final two of our 

planned 11 San Antonio-class LPD–17 ‘‘Common Hull Forms’’ is critical to providing 

the lift capacities and operational capabilities to support the full range of military 

operations up to and including forcible entry. 

Maritime Prepositioning Assets 

The Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) program exists to enable the rapid deployment and engagement of a Marine Air Ground Task Force anywhere in the 

306 

world in support of our National Military Strategy. The current MPF, which has 

been employed 55 times since 1985, is composed of a fleet of 16 ships divided into 

3 Maritime Prepositioning Ships Squadrons located in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia), and Pacific Ocean (Guam and Saipan). With the restructure of the Maritime Prepositioning Force-Future, the Marine Corps and Navy have 

focused on an interim solution to enhance current MPF with three new ships to enable future sea-basing concepts. The addition of three Mobile Landing Platforms 

(MLP) and three T–AKE auxiliary dry cargo ships to the Maritime Prepositioning 

Ship Squadrons, coupled with existing Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-On, Roll-Off 

(LMSR) cargo ships, will enable the MPS squadrons to conduct at-sea, sea-state 

three, selective offload of vehicles, personnel, and equipment without complete reliance on fixed ports ashore. The introduction of MLPs, T–AKEs, and LMSRs provide 

the Navy and Marine Corps team a substantial step in enhancing our current seabasing capabilities. 

The Department of the Navy is currently funding the full MPF program of 16 

ships through fiscal year 2012; however, the DoN POM–13 places one Maritime 

Prepositioning Squadron (6 ships) in a Reduced Operational Status beginning in fiscal year 2013. We will continue to optimize the MPF program to remain responsive 

and relevant to Geographic Combatant Commander requirements. 

Naval Surface Fire Support 

The Marine Corps has an enduring requirement for fire support from naval vessels in the range of 41–63 nautical miles to support amphibious operations in the 

littorals. These fires are needed by tactical commanders to maneuver towards battlefield objectives once ashore, contributing to joint doctrine for assured access. They 

serve as a component of the balanced and complementary joint triad of fires. Yet, 

unlike tactical aviation and ground fire systems, naval surface fires are unique and 

vital for their volume, lethality, accuracy, and all-weather capability. 

Planned reductions in the procurement of certain naval ships along with cancellation of specific weapons programs over the past few years have led to a deficiency 

in systems available for naval surface fires. Completed in 2009, the Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of Alternatives identified the optimum U.S. Navy programs 

to support Marine Corps naval surface fire support requirements. This study established the baseline capabilities of the current naval surface fire support program of 

record (13nm projectile of the 5-inch gun and the Advance Gun System of the DDG– 

1000) to be insufficient in mitigating fire support gaps. The study determined that 

extended range 5-inch munitions would serve as a complementary alternative to the 

three DDG–1000s. Dramatic improvements in 5-inch projectiles can extend the 

naval surface fire support maximum range, across the 106 guns in the surface fleet, 

from 13 to 52 nautical miles with precision, high angle attack for use in operations 

in urban terrain, and potential effectiveness against moving targets. We also support ongoing research and development of transformational technologies like the 

electromagnetic rail gun with its potential to revolutionize the reach, coverage, and 

responsiveness of ship-based naval gunfire to ranges in excess of 200 nautical miles. 

Assured Access 

We remain vigilant of burgeoning anti-access/area denial threats proliferating 

around the globe, particularly in the Pacific Rim. The family of guided rockets, artillery, mortars, missiles and subsurface systems like mines and quiet submarines, 

pose a challenge to the power projection capability of seaborne expeditionary forces 

and threatens DOD’s ability to prevent and deter conflicts and prepare for a wide 

range of contingencies. 

Marine Air Ground Task Forces ashore and aboard amphibious shipping will support operations to ensure the freedom of action of U.S. and Allied forces by establishing expeditionary bases and airfields or defending advance bases. Marine Short 

Take-off and Vertical Landing aviation assets will be of particular value in overcoming adversary anti-access and area denial capabilities since they can operate 

from short or degraded airfields, can be rapidly dispersed, and can utilize both large 

carriers and amphibious ships for attack, maintenance, force protection, and dispersal purposes. The Joint Force Commander can leverage these unique capabilities 

to ensure the sea control necessary for the conduct of subsequent joint operations, 

whether they be power projection, forcible entry, or freedom of navigation. 

In this regard, we are partnered with the joint community to develop an overarching concept to attain operational access. This year, we will employ our 

wargaming capability in Expeditionary Warrior 2011 to examine operations designed to overcome anti-access challenges. We are partners with the U.S. Navy and 

the U.S. Air Force in the development of the Air-Sea Battle Concept aimed at integrating capabilities to defeat these advanced weapon systems in maritime areas of 

307 

strategic interest. We also continue to participate in the U.S. Army’s Joint Forcible 

Entry Warfighting Experiment, examining capabilities to conduct airborne and amphibious forcible entry operations. 

PERSONNEL AND ORGANIZATONAL INITIATIVES

People. Today’s Marine Corps represents less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the U.S. 

population, and the individual Marine remains our most valuable asset. Our 

202,100 Active Duty and 39,600 Selected Reserve end strength allow us to meet current operational commitments while promoting resiliency throughout our Total 

Force. In fiscal year 2010 Marine Corps Recruiting Command accessed 1,703 officers 

(100.18 percent of the 1,700 officer goal). Our fiscal year 2011 accession mission is 

1,650 active duty officer accessions with the same goal projected in fiscal year 2012. 

In terms of enlisted accessions, we are exceeding our internal quality standards of 

95 percent enlisted recruits entering the Marine Corps possessing a high school diploma and 63 percent qualifying in the DOD I–IIIA mental group categories (DOD 

quality standards are 90 percent and 60 percent respectively). We will achieve our 

mission of 31,500 enlisted Active component non-prior service recruits in fiscal year 

2011. Enlistment Bonuses remain vital to meeting the continuing requirement for 

high demand skills. We are continuing to experience unprecedented retention in 

both first-term and career marines. 

We will continue to shape our Total Force to provide the ideal grade and military 

occupational specialty mix needed for sustainment. Our force structure review developed ways to increase unit readiness within our operating forces to ensure 99 percent manning of enlisted billets and 95 percent manning of officer billets. At the 

close of the Future Years Defense Program, we will work with the Secretary of Defense on a responsible drawdown of our end strength that is aligned with the future 

mission demands of a post-Operation Enduring Freedom security environment. I am 

determined to ‘‘keep faith’’ with our marines and their families by designing and 

executing a responsible drawdown from our current 202,100 end strength such that 

we avoid reduction-in-force actions and early retirement boards. 

The Marine Corps is committed to making concerted efforts to attract, mentor, 

and retain the most talented men and women who bring a diversity of background, 

culture and skill in service to our Nation. Our diversity effort is structured with the 

understanding that the objective of diversity is not merely to achieve representational parity, but to raise total capability through leveraging the strengths and talents of each and every marine. The success of our pioneering Female Engagement 

Team program in Afghanistan, which is an offshoot of a similar effort we employed 

in Iraq, is one way that the Marine Corps utilizes diversity within our ranks for 

operational benefit. 

We are currently developing a comprehensive, Service-wide strategy on diversity, 

an effort facilitated through our standing Diversity Review Board and a Diversity 

Executive Steering Committee chartered to establish the foundations for diversity 

success in the Total Force. The Marine Corps has established minority officer recruiting and mentoring as the highest priority in our recruiting efforts. Along with 

the other Services, we have provided timely input to the congressionally-sanctioned 

Military Leadership Diversity Commission and look forward to release of the Commission’s final report scheduled for March 2011. 

Marine Air Ground Task Force Enhancements 

To further posture ourselves for the future, we are evaluating the internal workings of our MAGTFs to account for the distributed operations, decentralized command and control, dispersed forces and diffuse threats inherent on the modern battlefield. We are implementing a diverse suite of command and control systems within all elements of the MAGTF. We continue to work to build the capacity of new 

organizations like the Marine Corps Information Operations Center to achieve nonlethal effects in today’s irregular and complex environments. We are ensuring the 

rapid analysis, fusion, and dissemination of intelligence down to the tactical level 

by continuing implementation of the Marine Corps Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance Enterprise. We also aim to reorganize our intelligence collection and 

exploitation capabilities, increasing the ratio of resources to users. We will also capitalize on the capabilities of unmanned aircraft systems via an increase in capacity. 

We are developing regionally-focused Marine Expeditionary Brigade command elements that are joint task force capable, with habitually aligned subordinate elements, to improve Geographic Combatant Commander effectiveness and speed of response. We have recently stood up one such element in Bahrain in support of U.S. 

Central Command. To better standardize operations and training for units and staff 

in our ground combat element, we established the Marine Corps Tactics and Operations Group, which reached full operational capability in May 2010. Among other 

308 

measures, this organization’s mission is to support the refinement of our doctrine, 

including how our infantry companies will fight in the future. Building on the successes of the Marine Corps Tactics and Operations Group for the ground combat element, we are also developing and establishing a Marine Corps Logistics Operations 

Group capability for the Logistics Combat Element along with reorganizing Marine 

Logistics Groups to establish standing Combat Logistics Battalions habitually 

aligned to specific Marine Expeditionary Units and infantry regiments. 

Over the past decade, we have become more reliant on equipment sets resulting 

from the emergence of new threats, perhaps most notably the improvised explosive 

device. This trend has resulted in the acquisition of some resources that are incompatible with the ethos of an agile, expeditionary force. To that end, we have begun 

an effort known as ‘‘Lightening the MAGTF,’’ a measure aimed at reducing the size, 

weight, and energy expenditure of our forces from the individual rifleman to wholesale components of the MAGTF. 

Sustained combat operations and worldwide theater security cooperation and 

training commitments over the last decade point towards an essential requirement 

for the Marine Corps Reserve to continue focusing at the operational, rather than 

strategic level of warfare. Since September 11, our Marine Corps Reserve has engaged continuously in combat operations as well as in regional security cooperation 

and crisis prevention activities in support of the Geographical Combatant Commanders. This operational tempo has built a momentum among our warfighters and 

a depth of experience throughout the ranks that is unprecedented in generations of 

Marine Corps reservists. In fact, today’s Marine Corps Reserve is more highly 

trained, capable, and battle-tested than at any time since the Korean War. 

The transition in utilization of the Marine Corps Reserve from a strategic to operational Reserve, as affirmed by our force structure review, expands our ability to 

perform as America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness. Sharing the culture of deployment and expeditionary mindset that has dominated Marine Corps culture, 

ethos and thinking since our beginning more than 2 centuries ago, the Marine Corps 

Reserve is optimally organized, equipped, and trained to perform as an Operational 

Reserve. 

Institutions for Irregular Warfare 

Irregular operations (e.g. Counterinsurgency, Stability Operations, Foreign Internal Defense, Unconventional Warfare and Counterterrorism) often occur in response 

to crisis and are executed in austere conditions—situations often entailing employment of marines. Our experiences countering irregular threats in ‘‘Small Wars’’ is 

a result of responding to complex crises involving a mix of security, economic, political, and social issues—usually under austere physical conditions. Our approach to 

irregular warfare is based on the understanding that people, ideas and organizations—not platforms and advanced technology—are the keys to success in operating 

in complex and irregular warfare environments. Naval forces conducting theater security operations and security force assistance to build partnership capacity also 

provide the Nation the potential for immediate crisis response capability and options 

for escalation or de-escalation. Building on our lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are developing options to re-organize, consolidate, and strengthen our institutions that emphasize our irregular warfare and multi-mission capability such as 

the Center for Advanced Operational Culture and Learning, the Security Cooperation Training and Education Center, and the Center for Irregular Warfare. The objective is to gain unity of effort, increase effectiveness and efficiency, and reduce redundant capacity. 

We established the Marine Corps Training and Advisory Group (MCTAG) within 

the past 5 years to train, equip, and deploy Marines for Security Force Assistance 

missions in support of Geographic Combatant Commander theater security cooperation plans. The MCTAG provides conventional training and advisor support to Host 

Nation Security Forces. This organization also offers planning assistance to Marine 

regional component commands in developing and executing partner nation training 

programs. The MCTAG is scheduled to reach full operating capability in September 

2011 and to date has directly trained more than 180 marines and sailors and assisted in the training of more than 600 marines and sailors, who themselves have 

conducted in excess of 150 deployments to more than 50 countries worldwide. The 

MCTAG has also developed programs of instruction to train joint service advisors/ 

trainers deploying on theater security cooperation missions as well as programs of 

instruction to train light infantry battalions from the Republic of Georgia in executing combat operations in Afghanistan. 

Because the Marine Corps functions in an integrated fashion throughout all traditional domains—land, sea, air, and space—it is a logical step forward for us to be 

optimally organized, trained and equipped to operate synergistically on the modern 

309 

battlefield, which now includes the cyber domain. As U.S. Cyber Command matures 

and sponsors initiatives to increase cyber operational capacity, we are taking deliberate steps to build additional Marine Corps cyber capability and capacity to meet 

joint and service-level demands. 

We see the continued development of organic cyber capabilities, capacities, and 

awareness as a critical element to retain speed, precision, and lethality across the 

entire spectrum of operations. We are working to incorporate scenarios into our exercises to increase opportunities for marines to leverage cyber capabilities while also 

training marines to operate where cyber-enabled warfighting capability may be degraded and/or contested. Additionally, we are integrating tailored cyber education 

into our officer and enlisted professional education programs. We are continuing to 

examine our options for recruiting, training and retaining our cyber workforce. This 

is especially challenging given the highly specialized skill sets and the competition 

for such in both the Federal and Private sectors. 

Formed in 2006, Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is currently 

conducting an internal reorganization into three mirrored battalions. Upon completion of this reorganization in fiscal year 2014, MARSOC will have one regiment consisting of 3 battalions, 12 companies, and 48 Marine Special Operations Teams. 

Since December 2009, MARSOC has maintained an enduring battalion-level Special 

Operations Task Force headquarters and 2 companies in Afghanistan along with 

persistent Marine Special Operations Team engagements in other high priority regions. 

Since its inception, the Marine Corps has resourced MARSOC with significant investments in military construction for training facilities, barracks and headquarters. 

In the near term, MARSOC will have 2,678 personnel. Our force structure review 

recently evaluated ways to increase the number of combat support and combat service support marines (e.g. logisticians, intelligence personnel, et cetera) enabling 

MARSOC’s operations. I intend to add 1,001 marines to MARSOC, which will increase its capacity by 44 percent. These marines, who are above and beyond the 

planned fiscal year 2014 personnel increase, will better enable it for effective special 

operations. 

The Marine Corps serves as the DOD Non-Lethal Weapons Executive Agent responsible for developing program recommendations and stimulating non-lethal 

weapons requirements. Non-lethal effects are part of the DOD portfolio of capabilities that enhance the Joint Force Commander’s ability to act in a timely manner 

to detect, deter, prevent, defeat, or, if necessary, mitigate the effects of an attack. 

Non-lethal capabilities provide the Joint Force the ability to selectively target hostile threats, covered or concealed by civilian assets, while avoiding collateral damage. Geographic Combatant Commands are registering increased demand for nonlethal weapons options to include items such as arresting nets, dazzler lasers, acoustic hailing devices, electric stun guns, blunt impact munitions, and non-lethal warning munitions. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program continues to support joint 

and combined non-lethal weapons research, development, training and exercises in 

support of all Geographic Combatant Commands. 

Expeditionary Energy 

The Marine Corps is leading the development of expeditionary energy solutions 

for DOD and the Department of the Navy—reducing energy demand in our platforms and systems, increasing the use of renewable energy, and instilling an ethos 

of energy and water efficiency in every marine. Our priority is force protection—saving lives by reducing the number of marines at risk on the road hauling fuel and 

water. We also aim to help marines travel lighter and move faster through the reduction in size and amount of equipment and the dependence on bulk supplies. 

In February 2011, we issued a ‘‘Bases to Battlefield’’ Expeditionary Energy Strategy Implementation Planning Guidance, which sets goals, performance metrics, and 

a plan for implementation by 2025. This strategy supports congressional and Department of the Navy goals to increase energy security through the use of alternative fuels and energy efficiency. Since 2009 we have aggressively pursued renewable energy and energy efficient capabilities that will make Marine units more energy self-sufficient, and ultimately increase our combat effectiveness. 

Within a year, we stood up an Experimental Forward Operating Base, sourced 

commercial and government technologies, trained an infantry company with renewable energy technology, and deployed them to Afghanistan in the winter of 2010 

where they operated two patrol bases entirely on renewable energy. As a result, our 

forces required less fuel and batteries, reducing risk to marines and saving money. 

This year, the Experimental Forward Operating Base will focus on the requirements 

of a major battlefield energy user—the Command Operations Center and the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
310 

mand Element—and will evaluate a second round of energy technologies to support 

expeditionary operations. 

In fiscal year 2012 we are devoting more resources—in current programs and new 

areas—to build a foundation to achieve our goals for increased energy efficiency and 

renewable energy by 2025. As a starting point, we anticipate savings of petroleum 

over the Future Years Defense Program in our Overseas Contingency Operations of 

100,000 to 150,000 barrels. For example this year, we are procuring mobile electric 

power sources to achieve 17 percent fuel efficiency using U.S. Army-funded development and Marine Corps-funded procurement monies. We are also fielding Enhanced 

Efficiency Environmental Control Units to achieve 15–30 percent power efficiency 

improvements. 

Installation Energy 

We are also devoting more resources to our Energy Investment Program than ever 

before. These funds will be used to implement the results of recent and ongoing energy audits at our installations; install more efficient systems and reduce overall energy consumption. Additionally, new facilities will continue to incorporate the latest 

energy sustainability and efficiency features. This effort aboard our installations 

complements our Corps-wide initiative to develop an energy ethos and culture of 

conservation. 

TRAINING

Training MAGTFs. We are utilizing our Marine Corps Service Campaign Plan as 

a roadmap to strengthen and maintain our core competencies and to ensure we remain America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness well into the future. This effort 

also will also help synchronize our Service level security cooperation activities in 

support of national strategy and guide the type of training and exercises we must 

conduct, in particular at the Marine Expeditionary Brigade level. 

Our amphibious core competency figures prominently in our Service Campaign 

Plan, and as a result we have undertaken an array of exercise planning in this critical skill area. We will soon be conducting a MAGTF large scale exercise that will 

refine our capability to conduct amphibious power projection and sustained operations ashore in a joint and interagency environment. In late-2010 we conducted Exercise Bold Alligator 2011, the first large-scale amphibious training exercise with 

the Navy on the east coast in almost 10 years. This synthetic training event practiced planning for forcible entry operations against conventional and asymmetric 

threats and a large scale non-combatant evacuation operation. We will take lessons 

learned from this exercise and build upon them for the next iteration of this important exercise with the U.S. Navy scheduled in the coming year. 

We are reviewing the core functions of our organizations and, where appropriate, 

adding irregular warfare capabilities to reflect the full spectrum of possible employment options as a core task set for the Marine Expeditionary Brigade. We view integration with other government agencies and coordination with nongovernment organizations as essential to our success in irregular warfare and have significantly increased interagency participation in numerous exercises and training venues such 

as Expeditionary Warrior-09/10, Emerald Express, Joint Urban Warrior-09, and 

Joint Irregular Warrior-10. We aim to capitalize on our current theater security cooperation and partnership capacity building activities with our allies and partners 

in all operational environments providing our national leaders with strategic options 

to shape outcomes, prevent and deter conflicts, strengthen ‘‘at risk’’ states, and deny 

enemy safe-havens. 

PRIORITY #3: BETTER EDUCATE AND TRAIN OUR MARINES TO SUCCEED IN DISTRIBUTED

OPERATIONS AND INCREASINGLY COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS

Professional Military Education and Small Unit Leader Development 

We are planning more investments in the education of our noncommissioned officers and junior officers, as they have assumed vastly greater responsibilities in both 

combat and garrison. This focus on education will better train them for decisionmaking during distributed operations against more diffused threats over broader 

areas of the battlefield. The primary initiative to address this priority is to increase 

markedly their opportunities to attend resident professional military education. We 

are currently evaluating ways to increase throughput at resident professional military education courses with options for both constrained and unconstrained manpower and resource increases. We are evaluating traditional paradigms relative to 

course lengths and instructional methodology, with the specific objectives of tripling 

throughput at the Expeditionary Warfare School (career level) and doubling resident 

Command and Staff College (intermediate level) throughput. 

311 

14 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, pg 54; 2010 QDR Independent Panel Report, pgs 

75–77. 

These key leaders also impact unit cohesion and our overall effectiveness in combat. Introducing these leaders into a unit at the right time and stabilizing them in 

a life cycle continuum of a unit positively impacts a unit’s effective training, performance and resiliency during pre-deployment training and post combat. These 

leaders are in the best position to influence our cultural ethos with its emphasis on 

intangible qualities such as esprit de corps, integrity, and ‘‘service to country during 

time of war.’’ We are currently reviewing manpower policies and models and will 

ensure these key leaders are present and able to lead a cohesive unit throughout 

its life-cycle continuum, including rigorous predeployment training and post-deployment actions. This effort will ready our units for any fight, whether irregular or 

combat. 

We also intend to infuse Values Based Training, rooted in our core values of 

Honor, Courage and Commitment, at all levels of professional development to foster 

resilience and to enable effective operations, especially in complex irregular environments. Our overall goal is to institutionalize efforts to develop more mature, educated, and capable non-commissioned officers and maneuver unit squad leaders. As 

these concepts mature, there will be costs in terms of military instruction and facilities for which we will require congressional support. 

Regionalization and Specialization 

The increased call for engagement, as seen in our force structure review and in 

strategic guidance, requires marines with improved cultural and language skills and 

formal education. To develop better specialization for anticipated future missions 

and operating environments, we will expand our Foreign Area Officer and Regional 

Affairs Officer programs, as well as opportunities to send more officers through 

graduate level training, fellowships and research opportunities—ideas supported by 

findings and recommendations of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and the 

2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel Report.14 This effort will extend to our ‘‘Whole of Government’’ approach toward irregular warfare as we seek 

greater exchanges and fellowships with the elements of the Interagency. 

Marine Corps University 

We are continuing to implement recommendations of our 2006 Officer Professional 

Military Education Study (the Wilhelm Report) and are making significant strides 

in terms of resources and facilities enhancing the campus of the Marine Corps University (MCU). We have programmed approximately $125 million in Military Construction between fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 for new academic facilities for 

the Marine Corps War College, Command and Staff College, and the School of Advanced Warfighting. In addition, we will expand the Staff Noncommissioned Officer 

Academy at the main campus in Quantico. These funds represent only a down payment on a larger commitment to double the size of the University campus and to 

upgrade our enlisted academies worldwide. Completion of the MCU master plan will 

require the demolition and relocation of tenant units aboard the campus. Detailed 

documentation of costs associated is ongoing; however, we estimate over $400 million is needed to complete the master plan. Our ultimate goal is to develop the MCU 

into a premier institution with world-class faculty, facilities, students, and curricula; 

we will require the assistance of Congress in this goal. 

PRIORITY #4: KEEP FAITH WITH OUR MARINES, OUR SAILORS AND OUR FAMILIES

Keeping Faith 

We expect and demand extraordinary loyalty from our marines—a loyalty to 

Country, family, and Corps. Our Nation has been at war for a decade, placing unprecedented burdens on marines, sailors, families, wounded warriors, and the families of the fallen. They have all made tremendous sacrifices in the face of danger. 

We owe them all a reciprocal level of loyalty. Our approach to caring for their needs 

is based on the same unwavering faithfulness they have demonstrated to the Marine Corps. We will ensure their needs are met during times of deployment and in 

garrison by providing the services, facilities, and programs to develop the strength 

and skills to thrive on the challenges of operational tempo. When needed, we will 

restore them to health. We will also transition them back to civilian life, and in the 

cases of our fallen marines, we will support and protect their surviving spouses and 

dependents. We will do this by focusing on several areas this fiscal year. 

312 

15 Calendar year 2010 suicides = 37 whereas calendar year 2009 suicides = 52. 

Combat Stress, Resiliency, Medical, and Mental Health Care 

We continue to advocate for the highest quality medical care and facilities for our 

servicemembers, retirees, and their families. To ensure the Department can continue to provide the finest health care benefits in the country to our beneficiaries, 

we fully support the medical efficiencies and adjustments in TRICARE included in 

the President’s budget proposal. 

The evolving security environment requires a physically and mentally resilient 

marine able to endure extended exposure to ambiguous, stressful, and ever-changing 

situations. Young leaders find themselves on the vanguard of a protracted war, 

adapting to a variety of situations and scenarios. To improve their resilience, we are 

working aggressively and creatively to build a training continuum that better prepares them for the inevitable stress of combat operations and to equip them with 

the necessary skills required to cope with the challenges of life as a marine. 

Instruction founded and focused on our core values helps provide some of this resilience, especially in irregular warfare and complex environments. A program combining the ‘‘best practices’’ of mental, emotional and physical fitness will best instill 

in our marines the resiliency needed to endure the stressors of combat and enhance 

their ability to perform effectively across the range of military operations. We are 

developing a comprehensive program to improve the resiliency of our marines both 

in garrison and in combat. 

We are partnered with the Navy to address the Nation-wide dearth of qualified 

mental health care providers, which challenges our ability to provide care at some 

of our bases and stations and, in some cases, to our reservists in remote locations. 

During calendar year 2010, we saw a nearly 30 percent decrease in the number of 

suicides within our Total Force.15 We are too early in our suicide studies to identify 

what specific initiative(s) have resulted in this dramatic turnaround. However, we 

have implemented a number of measures on multiple fronts. Some of these include 

the following: 

• Evocative Peer-led Training Program: ‘‘Never Leave a Marine Behind’’ 

suicide prevention program for noncommissioned officers and junior marines. We are expanding this training to include staff noncommissioned officers and commissioned officers this year. 

• DSTRESS Line Pilot Program with TRICARE West: ‘‘By Marines—For 

Marines’’ call center designed to assist with problems at an early stage. The 

call center is staffed by veteran marines, providing anonymous service to 

all current marines, veteran marines, their families, and loved ones. 

• Combat and Operational Stress Control and Operational Stress Control 

and Readiness Teams: Utilizing unique training programs across the Total 

Force and ensuring the presence of mental health professionals in front-line 

units as a primary prevention tool to help Marines identify and mitigate 

stress. 

• Marine Resilience Study to Assess Risk and Resilience: We are participating in a longitudinal research study that will examine risk across three 

domains: biological, psychological and social. The outcome of this study will 

inform our future work in the area of building and maintain resiliency 

across the Corps. 

We will continue advocating to the medical community for better diagnostic and 

increased treatment options for marines with severe injuries including post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. In collaboration with the other Services, 

we developed a set of events-based parameters, mandating that our leaders search 

out marines who have experienced a concussive event. This measure no longer relies 

on identification of impacted servicemembers solely on their willingness to seek help 

on their own initiative. These protocols are in place now in Afghanistan, and we are 

already seeing a culture change in the attitude of marines about being treated early 

for a traumatic brain injury. 

We have established an in-theater Restoration Center that brings comprehensive 

concussion diagnosis and management as close to the front lines as possible to ensure that appropriate care is available as quickly as possible. We are currently developing policy and applications to track traumatic brain injury from ‘‘point of injury’’ to ‘‘return to full duty’’ separately but in parallel with medical documentation. 

These measures will empower commanders with the information they need to monitor the health of a marine who has suffered a concussive event and intervene appropriately for the duration of a marine’s career and long after the initial injury.’’ 

313 

Transition Assistance 

We believe transition assistance should be a process not an event. We have established a goal to make the Marine Corps Transition Assistance Management Program more value added for our departing marines. From 2009 to 2010, we conducted functionality assessments of the Transition Assistance Management Program 

and the Lifelong Learning Program and noted many deficiencies. In response, we 

established two Transition Assistance Operational Planning Teams in 2010 to assess existing programs. We have developed an ‘‘end-to-end’’ process improvement 

plan that will begin at the point of initial accession into the Marine Corps and continue through post separation. We are initiating actions and integrating existing capabilities that will most directly improve the quality of support provided to marines 

within 6 months prior to separation and those who have been separated at least 6 

months. 

Marines have expressed a desire for assistance navigating Department of Veterans Affairs benefit processes such as in cases of enrollment for and access to education benefits. We will modify existing websites to improve access and enhance opportunity for separating marines to speak directly to Marine Corps support personnel who are trained to remove administrative benefit processing barriers. We 

will improve networking opportunities to help marines find meaningful employment 

and are adapting our current job fairs to support increased networking opportunities 

that will allow them to meet mentors and employers. 

Marines have asked for an opportunity to connect with employers and learn how 

to translate their intangible and tangible attributes. Our transition workshops will 

be overhauled to address these needs. Marines are also seeking help to simplify enrollment processes for the Post-9/11 Montgomery GI bill and to gain access to academic institutions that will provide the quality and level of business education and 

skills private industry demands. We have initiated a Leader-Scholar Program, 

which includes academic institutions who value marines’ service commitment and 

pledge special enrollment consideration. While the support varies from school to 

school, we now have 75 participating institutions with the goal of an additional 25 

by the end of this year. As we gain momentum, we will continue to change the transition assistance program from its current event focus to that of a process that reintegrates marines into the civilian sector with the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

to leverage and communicate their Marine Corps time and experience. 

Family Readiness Programs 

We increased baseline funding for family support programs beginning in fiscal 

year 2010 to ensure appropriate wartime footing. Programs benefitting from this 

measure include the Unit, Personal and Family Readiness Program; Marine Corps 

Family Team Building Program; Exceptional Family Member Program; School Liaison Program; and other miscellaneous Marine Corps Community Services Programs 

supporting remote and isolated commands, deployed marines, and independent duty 

marines and families. We are currently conducting a complete review to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of these programs. Our goal is to determine where expansion may be needed to further assist our families and where programs can be 

streamlined to reduce redundancy. 

Wounded Warrior Care 

Marines continue to suffer numerous wounds, trauma, and injuries during operations in combat and during training missions. Many of these brave heroes with significant injuries are convalescing at military treatment facilities here in the National Capital Region and across our Nation at other major military treatment facilities. Our Wounded Warrior Regiment provides non-medical care management services to wounded, ill, and injured marines and their families. The Wounded Warrior 

Regiment continues to improve existing programs and add new support mechanisms. We have increased support to wounded, injured, and ill Reserve marines 

through additional Recovery Care Coordinators, enhanced family support at military 

treatment facilities, and one-on-one orientation sessions. We also provide Integrated 

Disability Evaluation System Support through Regional Limited Duty Coordinators 

and Wounded Warrior Attorneys. We have also initiated a mandatory Warrior Athlete Reconditioning Program. Outreach is an important aspect of the Regiment’s 

nonmedical care delivery and management. The Sergeant Merlin German Wounded 

Warrior Call Center extends support to marines and families through advocacy, resource identification and referral, information distribution, and care coordination, 24 

hours a day, 7 days per week. 

The comprehensive care coordination provided by the Wounded Warrior Regiment 

throughout the phases of recovery has been highly successful. The results of internal 

assessments have substantiated that creation of the Wounded Warrior Regiment 

314 

has had a positive impact on the support offered wounded, injured, and ill marines 

and families. The Marine Corps will continue to honor the commitment to our 

Wounded Warriors and to help them return to full duty or successfully reintegrate 

into their communities. 

Behavioral Health Integration 

Behavioral health needs since September 11 have become increasingly complex 

with individuals often requiring assistance in a number of areas at one time. Marines with more than two deployments have been identified as a higher risk population. According to the Joint Mental Health Assessment Team, psychological health 

problems remain steady at 11 percent of marines for the first and second deployments, but increase to 22 percent for those who have deployed three or more times. 

Sixty-five percent of marines are under 25 years old. Associated with this young 

force are high-risk factors that include communication and coping skills, isolation, 

combat-related wounds and substance abuse. Drawdown of end strength following 

Operation Enduring Freedom and return to garrison life will likely result in additional behavioral healthcare requirements as marines redeploy and adjust to the 

garrison environment. We continue to move forward with our integration of prevention and intervention programs initiated in 2009. We have established a Behavioral 

Health Branch at our headquarters for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Headquarters Marine Corps Health Services also has created and filled a new billet for 

a Director of Psychological Health. 

Military Construction 

The Marine Corps maintains its commitment to facilities and infrastructure supporting both operations and quality of life. Our military construction and family programs are important to success in achieving and sustaining our force structure and 

maintaining readiness. For many years, we funded only our most critical facility 

needs. As a result, our installations were challenged to properly house and operate 

the additional forces required to meet our planned end strength increase. Between 

fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2010, we received $6.9 billion in new construction 

and design. With this funding, we are providing new quality of life facilities, improved operational and training facilities, and more modern utility infrastructure 

systems. 

Our fiscal year 2012 military construction budget request is $1.4 billion. With 

these requested funds, we will provide bachelor enlisted quarters, aviation support 

facilities, and improvements to quality of life, utilities and infrastructure, and professional military education facilities. Additional family housing efforts in fiscal year 

2012 include improvements to existing housing units and funding for the operations, 

maintenance, and leasing of 1,100 units worldwide and oversight of 22,000 

privatized units. 

CONCLUSION

The U.S. Marine Corps remains the Nation’s crisis response force-of-choice. Our 

continued success in Afghanistan and throughout the globe is made possible by the 

loyal sacrifice of our incredible men and women in uniform, civilian marines, and 

our Marine Corps family. The personnel, equipment, and training that have given 

us success over the nearly past 10 years at war has come through the ongoing support of Congress and the American people. I promise that your Marine Corps understands the value of each dollar provided and will continue to provide maximum return for every dollar spent. 

In the coming year, we will begin a deliberate transformation into a force optimized for the likely threats of the next 2 decades. We understand and appreciate 

the contribution that each marine has made for this great Nation, and we recognize 

the heavy burden it has placed on their loved ones. We remain ‘‘Always Faithful’’ 

to our Marine Corps family, to Congress, to our chain of command, and to the American people. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you so much, General Amos. 

Let’s start with a 7-minute first round. 

General, over the weekend there was reported, and it’s been reaffirmed here today, that 400 marines from Camp Lejeune have arrived in Greece. Have they now joined the 1,300 marines of the 

26th MEU on those two amphibious ships? I know they went to 

Greece, but are they on board those two ships now? 

315 

General AMOS. Yes, sir, they’re on board and the ships are at 

sea. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

The newspapers reported yesterday—and this goes to both you, 

Admiral Roughead and General Amos—that some of the capabilities of the two amphibious assault ships as follows: Harrier jump 

jets that can engage in air-to-ground and air-to-air combat, as well 

as maintain surveillance on ground positions. They have attack 

helicopters on board; transport aircraft, including cargo helicopters 

and the V–22 Osprey, so you have a capability there for long-range 

transport; as well as landing craft capable of reaching the Libyan 

coast. 

Are there any other capabilities, major capabilities, that I’ve left 

out, and is what I have just described accurate? Admiral Roughead, 

why don’t we start with you. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir, those are accurate capabilities, and 

I would say that in addition to that on board the large amphibious 

ships there is a medical team with operating room capabilities. So 

there’s significant capacity there, and also they’re quite well loaded 

with humanitarian assistance items as well. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

General? 

General AMOS. Chairman, that’s an accurate portrayal of the 

physical equipment and those capabilities therein. That force is capable of performing a variety of missions. They’re trained. They can 

do everything from a raid to an amphibious assault, to a noncombatant evacuation, forcible entry, trap mission, those kinds of 

things. So there’s a lot of capability that resides in those two vessels. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Admiral, is it also correct that, in addition to those two ships, we 

have in the Mediterranean ships that are currently available that 

have missile-launching capability against land targets? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 

Chairman LEVIN. General, let me switch to Afghanistan. Can you 

give us your assessment of what’s called the Interim Security for 

Critical Infrastructure, which is a separate program I understand 

from the Afghan local police program? Can you tell us about that 

program, the Interim Security for Critical Infrastructure? Is that a 

name which resonates at all with you? 

General AMOS. Sir, it does not. I’m going to have to take that for 

the record and get back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

[Deleted.] 

Chairman LEVIN. It didn’t resonate with me either, and we read 

about it and I was curious about it. But if you could get us that 

for the record that would be helpful. 

Secretary Mabus, can you tell us where we are in the process of 

moving marines from Okinawa to Guam, and how we are going to 

complete the program given the strong opposition to it in Okinawa? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, sir. To echo what the Secretary of Defense said 

earlier, we are waiting for substantive movement on the Futenma 

replacement facility by the Japanese before taking any major subVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
316 

stantive steps of our own. But in the interim we have signed the 

record of decision on the environmental impact statement. We held 

a lot of hearings. We had a lot of interaction with the people of 

Guam. 

My under secretary has been to Guam numerous times to meet 

with the Government of Guam and with the people of Guam, and 

he has identified four overarching goals for Guam. 

First, is a one Guam and one U.S. Government response to 

Guam. Second, is that whatever resources are put there should be 

renewable type energy projects, or a green Guam. Third, is that we 

will be sensitive to cultural matters, such as Pagat Cave and Pagat 

Village, the Guam cultural items that have been identified as crucial. Fourth, is that at the end of the day that there will be a net 

negative footprint, so that we will use less land for military purposes than we are using today. 

But again, before we take substantive moves to implement the 

road map that was agreed to several years ago we are awaiting 

Japanese Government moves on the Futenma replacement facility. 

The last thing I will say is that the Japanese Government has 

deposited the amounts of money that it had committed to into our 

Treasury up until this point. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, the Japanese Government moves that 

you refer to include a signature on a document, is that correct? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, sir, and also something substantive in terms of 

beginning the construction of a replacement facility for our 

Futenma Air Base. 

Chairman LEVIN. That is what the opposition in Okinawa strongly opposes, is that signature on that document, as I understand. 

Mr. MABUS. I understand there’s opposition to that in Okinawa. 

I also understand there’s opposition to Futenma in Okinawa. 

Chairman LEVIN. Right, both. The opposition is so strong—I 

think it was unanimous in the Okinawa legislative body. The prospects it seems to me are not great that this is going to happen this 

fiscal year. Can you comment on the likelihood that we’re going to 

get the Japanese sign-off on both the replacement facility and on 

the signature for that document? 

Mr. MABUS. I will simply quote what Secretary Gates said in previous hearings, which he said that he was hopeful that progress 

would be made soon, and I believe by ‘‘soon’’ he meant in this fiscal 

year. 

Chairman LEVIN. Hopeful, but not necessarily optimistic; is that 

fair? 

Mr. MABUS. I believe his word was ‘‘hopeful.’’ I don’t want to put 

words in his mouth. But he expressed that he was—I can’t think 

of a different word than ‘‘hopeful’’—to go forward. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. Are you personally optimistic it’s 

going to happen this year? 

Mr. MABUS. I believe that the Japanese Government understands 

what our position is and that, absent movement, that we cannot go 

forward. So they understand the urgency. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

317 

General Amos, have you had a chance to look at the air capabilities that the Libyans have now as far as fixed wing and helicopters? 

General AMOS. Senator, yes, sir. I’ve looked at what they have. 

Senator MCCAIN. What has been your assessment? 

General AMOS. I think it’s modest. I think their greatest threat 

is their helicopter-type forces. That’s just my assessment standing 

from afar. 

Senator MCCAIN. Their air defenses? 

General AMOS. They have air defenses, sir. I’m unfamiliar with 

the depth of those air defenses, but they have some. 

Senator MCCAIN. But my information—I wonder if you have the 

same thing—they are Soviet-style, somewhat older versions of surface-to-air missile capability. 

General AMOS. Yes, sir, I believe that’s correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. Isn’t it true that the air assets are concentrated 

in about four air bases right around Tripoli? 

General AMOS. I believe that’s correct, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. So the air assets, both fixed wing and helicopter, are going out of a relatively small area around Tripoli, operating out of those areas; is that true? 

General AMOS. Yes, sir, predominantly. I believe that’s correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you have any assessment of the numbers of 

aircraft that they have, both fixed wing and helicopter? 

General AMOS. Senator, I just know the general capabilities. I’ve 

not spent time looking at the precise numbers. 

Senator MCCAIN. Has it been your experience in combat that if 

the enemy controls the air above, particularly in terrain like Libya, 

it gives them an enormous advantage? 

General AMOS. Sir, I think there are several things that will give 

the enemy an enormous advantage. One is the ground movement 

of forces, vehicles, military on the ground. I think it’s a very complex environment, where the Gaddafi forces are predominantly located. So I think it’s more than just aviation. I think it’s very complex. 

Senator MCCAIN. But you have very little doubt that control of 

the air above, particularly in an untrained enemy, gives you an 

enormous advantage in any conflict? True? 

General AMOS. Sir, I would say it would give you an advantage. 

I’m not sure about his air force. 

Senator MCCAIN. Have you heard that Gaddafi is still flying in 

mercenaries in to Tripoli from other countries? 

General AMOS. No, sir, I have not heard that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Did you hear that he has two Airbuses that are 

shuttling back and forth? 

General AMOS. No, sir, I have not heard that. 

Senator MCCAIN. You have been getting regular briefings? 

General AMOS. We do, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. The ships that are offshore, the Harriers, they 

also have surveillance pod capability? 

General AMOS. They do, sir. The Harriers are carrying an ISR 

pod. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do they have jamming capability? 

General AMOS. Yes, sir, they do. 

318 

Senator MCCAIN. So we could jam Gaddafi’s communications, including television? 

General AMOS. Sir, excuse me. I misunderstood you. I thought 

you said camera capability. You’re talking jamming capability? 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes. 

General AMOS. They do not. 

Senator MCCAIN. What assets would have those, the jamming capability? Airborne Warning and Control System? 

General AMOS. Sir, it would be that, and I’d have to refer to the 

CNO, but it would probably be aircraft, EA–6Bs off the carrier. 

Senator MCCAIN. Admiral? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir, the jamming that would be required, whether for communications or for their air defense system, 

I believe you would require EA–6Bs or the Growlers that we’re now 

introducing to the fleet. 

Senator MCCAIN. How far away are those? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise is the 

closest capability. The USS Enterprise is currently in the Red Sea. 

Senator MCCAIN. Are there plans to move it? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. At the present time, plans are for her to remain in the CENTCOM area of operations, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Not move into the Mediterranean? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. There has been no order issued to do that, 

no, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, in the withdrawal from Iraq is 

it your personal opinion that Iraq will be able to take over logistics, 

intelligence, and air sovereignty missions that the United States 

has been carrying out? 

General AMOS. Senator, I’ve always believed that—I can’t speak 

to the degree of where they are today because the marines are out 

of there and we’re focused primarily in Afghanistan and other parts 

of the world. But we were certainly on a glide slope to make that 

happen. 

Senator MCCAIN. Admiral? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I believe we are on that path, yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. So you’re not concerned about a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as far as logistics, intelligence, and 

training of an air force, or a navy? None of that is of concern? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. As of my most recent visit there, Senator, 

where I focused primarily on the navy, I see very good progress. 

In addition to that, because that navy will operate offshore, our 

Fifth Fleet that operates in the Arabian Gulf, and I believe it will 

be a very supportive relationship, addressing the needs of Iraq 

from the naval perspective. 

Senator MCCAIN. So they need no other assistance? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I believe that assistance will continue 

through the way that we interact with all navies in the region with 

our Fifth Fleet headquarters and the ships that deploy there, the 

exercise programs that we have. That will continue on with the 

Iraqi navy, and not have to have people ashore. 

Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, have you been requested to 

identify any drawdown from Afghanistan, to begin the middle of 

July of this year? 

319 

General AMOS. Senator, no, we have not been asked to identify 

any forces. 

Senator MCCAIN. So we really have no plans yet that you have 

been made aware of of the beginning of our drawdown in Afghanistan? 

General AMOS. Senator, all I’m aware of is that there will be a 

drawdown. The President has announced it, beginning in July of 

some forces. The Secretary of Defense spoke about that yesterday 

in Afghanistan. I can’t tell you whether it’ll be marine forces. I 

would have to defer to General Mattis and General Petraeus. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the three of you for your service and for your testimony today. Before I get to my questions, I just want to begin by 

thanking the three of you for the leadership role that you’re playing in the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

Admiral Roughead and General Amos, I recently watched the opening portions of training videos that you have filmed for sailors and 

marines, and I just want to express my gratitude for the leadership 

that you display there. 

As you indicate in those videos, this is all about values, values 

that are deep and inherent in your Services, values of leadership, 

discipline, professionalism, and respect. I think—and I really thank 

you, based on looking at these videos, for leading your Services, as 

the two of you have throughout your career, by example. I appreciate that very much. 

I want to get to a couple of questions about Libya. I just want 

to pick up from something Senator McCain asked and the inference 

from it, which is, no one’s saying that a no-fly zone is uncomplicated, but the fact is that we have some experience doing this and, 

though people have said Libya is a large country, it is of course a 

large country, but the activity here is mostly along a strip of land 

along the coast. So if there’s a decision to do this—and I appreciate 

what Secretary Gates said in his testimony, though it’s the part 

that’s less quoted, which was that, if asked to implement, hopefully 

with our allies and others, a no-fly zone, we’re perfectly capable of 

doing it. 

But the point I want to make from what Senator McCain asked 

is that the air defense systems of the Libyans are modest and air 

capabilities are modest, and the activity, though the country is 

large, is happening mostly along the strip along the north of the 

country, along the coast. 

The question I wanted to ask is this. The chairman and Senator 

McCain have asked about our resources in the region. We’re all following this very closely. I was interested that our Ambassador to 

NATO, Ivo Daalder, said—has been quoted as saying that ‘‘The 

United States has been conducting round-the-clock air and ground 

surveillance in Libya.’’ 

I wanted to ask you, Admiral, and you, General, whether you 

have any knowledge about that, and toward what end are we conducting that surveillance? Admiral? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, the ability to monitor the level of 

activity, the disposition of the forces, is something that is within 

320 

our capabilities to do and we have been following the fighting that’s 

been taking place through a variety of means that we have. So we 

have some insight into what’s going on there. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. General, do you have anything to add to 

that? 

General AMOS. Sir, I don’t. I know that, just as we do in many 

other places around the world where there’s hostile action taking 

place, we pay very close attention through a variety of means and 

capabilities. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General AMOS. Some national and some organic. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Admiral, based on what we know or what 

you know, do you think this is now settling into a kind of stalemate 

situation? I know it’s always hard to predict—where we may end 

up but, unless something surprising happens, we may end up with 

a long-term civil war type conflict in Libya. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Having spent some time in the Middle East, 

to include actually living in Libya, I am always hesitant to predict 

what the future may be there. I think it’s still a very uncertain period that bears watching. Then as some of the thoughts are discussed and debated, I believe, at least from a military perspective, 

that looking at what some of those details may be ahead of time 

is very important, issues such as a no-fly zone, restrictions on use 

of force, and what basing and access that might be required. 

I think all of those need to be sorted through. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Understood. 

I understand that, and it’s, I believe, been publicly acknowledged, that the State Department at least has opened up channels 

of communications with the Temporary National Council or provisional anti-Gaddafi Government, which is headquartered in 

Benghazi. As far as you know, is there any military-to-military contact going on through DOD with the military leadership of the antiGaddafi forces? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I’m not aware of any, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. General, do you know? 

General AMOS. No. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good enough. 

Let me go to something—Secretary Mabus, I noted in the statement you made in your prepared testimony that the F–35C variant 

of the JSF will be procured for both the Navy and the Marine 

Corps. I think it’s been the general understanding that the Marine 

Corps would want to see produced and would procure a pure F–35B 

STOVL fleet variant of the F–35, and that in fact is the plan that’s 

reflected in the current FYDP. 

Did I read this correctly in your prepared statement, and could 

you speak therefore to the future mix, if that is the correct interpretation, of the F–35B and the F–35C in the Marine Corps inventory? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, sir. It has always been true that the F–35B was 

solely a Marine aircraft. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. MABUS. But it’s also been true that the C version, the carrier 

version, the naval version, was going to have marines flying those 

as well. Today we have three Marine squadrons aboard carriers 

321 

and we are currently undergoing a tactical air integration look 

across the Navy and the Marine Corps to see what the proper mix 

is of Cs for the Navy and Marine Corps, to make sure that we continue that integration and make sure that marines continue to fly 

off carriers in strike fighters, as well as in vertical takeoff and 

landing aircraft. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. General, could you give me your reaction to 

this? Is that mix at this point acceptable to the Marine Corps? Am 

I wrong that you had originally hoped for a pure STOVL variant 

fleet? 

General AMOS. Senator, you are correct that that was the initial 

plan. Let me back up just a little bit. We have always been fans 

of tactical air (TACAIR) integration. As the Secretary said, we have 

Marine squadrons right now on Navy carriers. On the USS Enterprise right now, we have Marine F–18s. So we do that. We like 

that. It’s good for both our Services and the naval force. 

But when we set the requirement in for STOVL aircraft, our 

hope was we would be able to some day fly those versions off of 

CVNs, naval aircraft carriers. That’s yet to be seen, whether that 

will be possible. So in the meantime, it would seem prudent that 

we would buy some number of C variants, even early on, so that 

we can begin to transition our force there. But it will be a proportional number in the overall buy of the STOVL. The STOVL is still 

our primary focus. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Okay, good enough. 

My time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Admiral Roughead, let me follow up on Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. Given the testimony that we’ve received today that 

Libya’s air capabilities are relatively modest, that their air defenses are concentrated in a relatively small area, what would General Gaddafi’s options be if the United States imposed a no-fly 

zone? Why would we not expect it to be completely successful? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think the first question, Senator, is, as a 

precursor, you would be entering into combat operations there. 

Senator WICKER. We would be entering into air combat operations? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think that in addressing a no-fly zone you 

want to suppress or destroy any of the air defense systems that 

could put friendly forces at risk. So that’s the first element, I believe, of entering into a no-fly zone, is likely combat operations on 

Libya. 

So I think in talking about a no-fly zone there are some precursor steps that have to be taken. 

Senator WICKER. What would General Gaddafi’s options be? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. To try to defend against that would be the 

primary options. But the fact is that that would be the first step 

that would have to be taken. 

Then it’s also the issue of, what forces would be used, where are 

they postured, what are the basing and the overflight issues. I 

think all of those have to be sorted through. We’ve done no-fly 

322 

zones before and there is a significant infrastructure that backs 

them up, whether it’s naval or land-based. 

Senator WICKER. That infrastructure is available to us and to our 

allies, is that not correct? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think that’s a function of the countries 

that would be involved, to make that decision. 

Senator WICKER. Are you involved in the discussions with the 

Secretary of Defense as to whether we proceed with a no-fly zone? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. We have had discussions on Libya in the 

tank among the Joint Chiefs, and we are involved in positioning 

our forces to support the efforts that are currently being undertaken in Libya. We’re looking at the situation there on a daily 

basis. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much for getting further into 

the details about that. 

Let me shift gears to Navy Week and mention to both Admiral 

Roughead and to Secretary Mabus how much we appreciate being 

able to host Navy Week in the State of Mississippi during the week 

of March 19 through 27. 

As both of you know, 2012 will mark the 60th anniversary of the 

founding of the Seabees and their presence in Gulfport, MS, with 

our four naval construction battalions based in Gulfport. Let me 

start with Admiral Roughead. What is the past, current, and future 

contribution of the Seabees? What role do you see the Seabees playing in your vision of the future of the Navy? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sir, as a matter of fact, I was in Gulfport 

last Friday meeting with about 3,000 Seabees. If that doesn’t energize you, nothing does. 

But the Seabees I think in the Navy are legendary, and I would 

even say, beyond that within the military, for their combat engineering skills, their ability to go into unimproved areas and provide 

the facilities that forces need to operate. I know they’re linked very 

closely to the Marine Corps in that regard. They’ve been very busy 

over the past few years, particularly in Iraq and in Afghanistan. 

In fact, we currently have as many Seabees deployed now as we 

did during the Vietnam War. So they are extraordinarily busy. 

But they also function in a humanitarian role, where they will 

go into countries and develop infrastructure, train some of the indigenous forces that are there. So that’s what they have been 

doing, and I see Seabees doing that well into the future. 

Senator WICKER. Do you see their role diminishing in the future 

or increasing in the future? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think the skills and the talent and the 

competence of the Seabees will prevail. It will be a question of how 

much usage the combatant commanders demand with regard to 

Seabees, combat engineers. Clearly, I would predict that as we 

eventually bring the level of forces down in Afghanistan, of course, 

Seabees are part of that, so they’ll be coming out. So they’re probably at a fairly high level right now. But I think the future is yet 

to be borne out. 

Senator WICKER. Secretary Mabus? 

Mr. MABUS. I concur with everything the CNO said. I visited 

with Seabees in Afghanistan and I’ve joked with them that if you 

323 

give them a piece of plywood and a Skilsaw they can build anything, maybe even our fleet. 

But I do think that the skills that they have for the missions 

that are coming in the future, whether it’s combat missions or 

whether, as the CNO pointed out, humanitarian assistance mission, partnership-building sorts of things, that those skills will be 

in demand and will be needed. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

In the few seconds I have remaining, Secretary Mabus, in your 

verbal testimony and also in prepared testimony, I wanted to make 

sure that we understand precisely what you’re saying about the effect of a year-long CR. You say it will prevent procurement of two 

nuclear reactor cores. Will it delay it or will it prevent it? And prevent completion of one Arleigh Burke-class modernization. Are you 

being precise that it will block these two advances? 

Mr. MABUS. If a year-long CR occurs, we cannot spend any 

money on either those nuclear reactors or either of the new start 

Arleigh Burke destroyers. 

Senator WICKER. It will in effect be a delay, would it not? 

Mr. MABUS. That assumes that at some point we are allowed to 

begin spending that money. Under a year-long CR for the remainder of the fiscal year, we would not be able to do that. 

Senator WICKER. I understand. I would simply observe there are 

concerns about spending, but I don’t see why on a bipartisan basis 

and a bicameral basis we can’t decide as a Congress to fund the 

military capabilities of this Nation on a permanent basis and then 

deal with the rest of the discretionary budget at a later time. I 

don’t see a reason why we shouldn’t go forward this week or next 

week with a full defense appropriation aspect of our funding and 

deal with the other aspects of it later on. 

So thank you very much, and thank you all for your service. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I can’t help but follow up my colleague from Mississippi and the 

ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee by commending 

the Seabees. They were organized in Rhode Island in 1942 and one 

of their signature contributions to construction was the Quonset 

hut, named after Quonset, RI. So thank you, Senator. I’m glad we 

could help out the Gulf Coast. 

First, Admiral Roughead and Secretary Mabus, one of the critical 

issues, but it doesn’t get a lot of attention, is maintenance of the 

fleet. Could you comment upon the stress that you’re under now in 

terms of maintenance? We have seen reports that there’s an increasing number of failures in the Bureau of Inspection Survey, up 

dramatically from about 3 percent in the mid-1990s to now 13 percent in terms of ships that are coming in and being inspected, and 

that the life of the ships, the DDGs especially, is now 25 to 27 

years, not 30 or perhaps even 40. 

Admiral Roughead, you might start and then, Mr. Secretary, 

your comments. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. Looking at that when I came into 

this position, I looked at the whole approach to maintenance, how 

are we maintaining our ships. We did several things. We reintroVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
324 

duced the engineered based maintenance cycle for our ships, put 

resources to the teams that do that work. We’re beginning to see 

the benefit of that now. 

We also are putting more sailors back on the ships. We had 

taken them off. With the generosity of Congress, we were able to 

increase our operation and maintenance funding, so we were able 

to build that up to the point where we’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars now more on maintenance than we were just a couple of years ago. We’ve taken sailors and put them back into our 

intermediate maintenance activities, so that more maintenance can 

be done proximate to the ships in the piers. 

So I think all of that adds into improving the maintenance of the 

ships. We’ve seen some positive trends in our inspection and survey 

reports and results. So I think we’re doing substantive things. 

We’re investing the money in the right place to improve that ship 

maintenance. 

Senator REED. Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, everything, the details that the CNO just 

said, have been put in place and, as he said, we’re beginning to see 

some improvements. The Navy, unlike other Services, maintenance 

is our reset. We reset in stride. So if we’re going to get to the fleet 

that we need to get to, if we’re going to get the numbers of ships 

that we need to get to, we simply have to make them get to the 

end of their normal or extended service lives. 

It’s one of the things that the CNO has focused on the most 

closely. It’s one of the things that I watch most closely. I do believe 

that with some of these efforts, putting more intermediate maintenance on the pier, putting more sailors on ships, 2,200 more on our 

ships, with the specific goal of doing preventative maintenance, so 

that when a ship comes in for a maintenance period it is more 

ready and the maintenance will mean more. 

Finally, I do want to reiterate one thing that I said about the CR. 

The chairman pointed out that we’ve already cancelled five availabilities. We face having to cancel up to 29 ship availabilities, and 

these, to go to what Senator Wicker said, are not postponements. 

These are cancellations, because we have other ships in queue 

waiting behind them. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Again let me address a question first to General Amos and if the 

Secretary would like to comment. That’s on the F–35B. It’s slipped 

in terms of its timeframe. There are some technical challenges. I 

had the chance to go down to Pax River and talk to your very impressive group of test pilots and program managers. 

What is the probability that this is the last major schedule 

change and that we’re finally on track? I know that’s a judgment 

call, but any advice, since you’re an aviator and you have great expertise, Commandant? Please comment. 

General AMOS. Thank you, sir. Obviously, with that introduction, 

you know I pay very close attention to it. This, as I said in my 

opening statement, is critical to our expeditionary capability, and 

we’ve talked about that before. My sense right now is that the program management has absolutely the right guy in there with Admiral Venlet running it. I think the oversight at OSD is appropriate. Certainly the oversight in the Department of the Navy is 

325 

appropriate. I will promise you, as you and I have talked before, 

the oversight at the headquarters Marine Corps level and at my 

desk is very appropriate. 

So my sense where we are now is that, with the generosity of 

both Congress and the wisdom of Secretary Gates, putting more 

money back into this, trading some tails so that we could get this 

program back on track, things are lined up now for success. I’ll give 

you an example of what I’m talking about. Right now the STOVL 

variant, which is the one that everybody refers to, has flown 140 

percent of its scheduled test flights since January 1. So in the last 

70 days, the airplane has flown 40 percent more of its scheduled 

test flights. It’s flown about another 200 percent of its scheduled 

test points. Within each flight it’s designed to get five or six specific 

points of flight test. 

So it’s performing better there. It’s already flown I think something like four or five times the number of vertical landings just 

this year than it did all last year. I took a brief yesterday on the 

structural issues, the bulkheads, the weight gain. These things are 

progressing well. 

So from my perspective as I look at it, I’m going to pay attention 

to the aircraft performance, how it’s doing in flight, both in vertical 

and horizontal flight, the weight growth in the airplane, which in 

a vertical landing airplane is very critical. Right now we’re on a 

good glide slope in the weight growth, and we’re not going to add 

a pound that I’m not aware of to that airplane. We have to talk 

about it. 

Then, finally, the engineering challenges and the test performance. So my sense is I’m optimistic. We are on a 2-year watch. It’s 

my hope that we can get off that well before 2 years, and it’s my 

intent to some time this spring offer to the Secretary of Defense a 

set of metrics that he might consider as the threshold for getting 

the airplane off of probation and getting it back into the regular 

mindset of production. 

Senator REED. Any comments, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. MABUS. I can’t improve on that answer, Senator. 

Senator REED. That’s why you’re such a good Secretary and a 

good lawyer. 

A final question to Admiral Roughead and the Secretary, the 

Ohio replacement program. I know this is a major issue. It not only 

touches the fleet, but also our strategic posture, particularly after 

the recent START Treaty. It’s the future of deterrence, nuclear deterrence for the Nation. It’s the most survivable aspect of nuclear 

deterrence. 

I think you have made significant progress in ensuring that we 

design a ship that is not only capable, but affordable. But there’s 

still this issue of sharing the costs, because this program is a Navy 

program, but it has huge, huge implications for the overall strategic posture of the United States, particularly the deterrence posture with nuclear weapons. So why don’t you comment on any efforts to provide support, as we’ve done on other programs like the 

missile defense program from DOD, not just from the Navy. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir, and I appreciate the question. 

Clearly the Ohio replacement is, as you said, the most survivable. 

What we’re doing is we’re building a submarine that will be on paVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
326 

trol for this Nation in 2080. So that’s where the research and development is going, and our focus on stealth and mission capability 

is where we have to go. 

We also know we’ll be introducing that submarine at a time 

when there are other significant costs being imposed on the shipbuilding budget. While we’re early on in the program, I do believe 

that there has to be a discussion about how the submarine is 

resourced in the context of everything else. I think we’re at the 

front end of having some of those discussions. 

Mr. MABUS. In the research and development that’s going on now 

to begin to build the first of the Ohio-class replacements in 2019 

to go on its first patrol about 10 years later, we’ve already taken 

a billion dollars a boat out of the cost to build this submarine. 

We’re looking to take more money out. Right now we’re at about $5.4 billion per boat. The number needs to start with a four in some way for these boats. But even at $4.9 

billion per boat, to build 12 of these beginning in 2019 and continuing throughout the decade of the 20s will require substantial 

resources that, if they all come from the Navy, would put a dent 

in the rest of our shipbuilding programs. 

That’s one of the reasons we have put it in and tried to be exactly honest and exactly precise about how much this ship will cost 

and what it will do to the rest of the fleet, so that these discussions, these debates, and these decisions can be made with the 

facts of what will happen clearly in mind. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, General, Admiral. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, first let me join everyone in thanking you for your extraordinary service. It’s very difficult for those of us who have 

worked with you for a number of years to recognize that this is 

most likely your last Navy posture hearing. I want to thank you 

for your decades of service. 

I want to pick up on the issue that Senator Reed just raised. Secretary Gates recently testified that a number of our surface ships 

that were built during the Reagan years will basically reach the 

end of their planned life in the 2020s, and that coincides with the 

time that we will be bringing on the new ballistic missile submarine. Obviously, we need both, but that new submarine is going 

to swallow up a great deal of the shipbuilding budget. 

I understand that there are several precedents for national strategic programs that are funded through defense-wide budget lines. 

For example, ships supporting sealift for all of the military Services 

are funded through the National Sealift Defense Fund. As has been 

mentioned, the MDA budget funds for activities related to ballistic 

missile defense irrespective of the military Service involved. 

So if we’re going to proceed, as we must, with the new submarine, but not harm the shipbuilding budget, which is already 

below the optimum number that you have said repeatedly is the 

floor of 313—I believe we’re at only 286 or 287 right now—would 

an alternative worth pursuing be looking at a defense-wide budget 

line, rather than trying to fund this submarine out of shipbuilding? 

327 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 

very kind comments. It’s been my pleasure to work with you over 

these years, not just as CNO, but even before, and thank you for 

your great support of the Navy. 

But I do believe that, in addition to the points that you mentioned, in the 20s we’re also going to still be refueling our aircraft 

carriers. To make all of us feel a little bit older, we will also in that 

decade be taking out of service some of the Nimitz-class aircraft 

carriers as they reach the end of their 50-year life. 

So there are those two costs that have to get put in there as well. 

So there’s a significant pressure on shipbuilding. Yet the Nation I 

believe will still need the global Navy that it has today. Whether 

it’s a defense-wide fund or whether there is consideration for those 

expenses that are being taken into account, I do believe that that 

has to be addressed, because if it’s not taken on and if it’s not 

thought through with a solution that’s different than what we have 

today, we as a Nation are going to find ourselves shorted in a 

Navy. 

Senator COLLINS. I agree with you and I look forward to working 

with you and the Secretary and my colleagues trying to come up 

with a solution. 

Secretary Mabus, it was so appropriate that you began your testimony today reminding us of the dire impact on the Navy, indeed 

on all of DOD, of continuing to operate under a CR, particularly 

one that is extended 2 weeks at a time. That really is an impossible 

situation. 

Just last week I filed the defense appropriations bill, the entire 

bill, as a modification to an unrelated piece of legislation, to try to 

emphasize to the Senate leaders that this should be our priority, 

completing work which should have been done prior to October 1 

of last year. 

You mentioned the dire impact on readiness, the effect on our 

sailors and marines, the fact that we are putting in jeopardy as 

many as 10,000 private sector jobs at a time when our economy is 

very, very weak. But isn’t there also another adverse impact, and 

that is that these delays cause disruptions in the supply chain that 

are costly? They’re not only depriving our soldiers, sailors, marines, 

and airmen of needed technology and equipment, but they’re increasing the ultimate costs that we’re going to pay. 

You’re going to have to renegotiate contracts. There are disruptions in the supply chain that are costly. Isn’t this the case where 

the longer that we operate under a CR, the more you’re likely to 

have to pay for needed equipment? 

Mr. MABUS. I think that’s absolutely correct, Senator. The ripple 

effects of this, we’re beginning to feel some now. The longer it goes 

on, the more those effects take place. Senator Wicker pointed out 

that we’re delaying ship starts, perhaps not cancelling them. But 

if you delay ship starts this year, we have other ship starts due 

next year and the year after that, and, as I said in my testimony, 

it will take us years to recover from this, from the second and third 

order effects of this and the ripples that go out from it. The supply 

chain is certainly one of them. Breaking multi-year procurements 

is another that we are saving money on today. If we are unable to 

328 

fulfill our part of the multi-year, we’ll have to go in and renegotiate 

that, for example on shipbuilding. 

Senator COLLINS. I think that’s a very important point. Some of 

my colleagues who are supporting a CR are arguing that it saves 

money. I think it not only is disruptive, but it’s going to end up 

costing us more money in the long run. 

Admiral Roughead, just a very quick final question for you. As 

you may know, Senator Webb and I along with some of our colleagues commissioned a recent Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report that found that the Navy’s modernization program for 

our public shipyards, which includes the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, have been underfunded. Indeed, the Navy’s own estimate of the backlog at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard alone exceeds $500 million. 

Are you looking at whether you could use some reprogramming 

or shifting of funds to try to meet some of the more urgent needs, 

which also would translate directly into increased efficiency and 

productivity? So again, it’s an investment that saves you money in 

the long run. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, Senator. We’re always looking at our 

MILCON and where do we get the most bang for the buck, and it 

goes beyond the shipyards. But we do look at the shipyards and in 

fact, even though there is what is considered a backlog of maintenance, we are investing above the percentage that’s required by 

Congress to a certain degree. 

But I’m always looking at projects, individual ones, to your point, 

that if we pay a little bit today maybe we can gain in productivity 

later on, and we’re always looking at that. 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, if I might add that one of the exemptions 

to the civilian hiring freeze that DOD announced was for shipyards, to meet exactly what you were talking about. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

Senator Webb. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, let me add my own congratulations and appreciation to 

you for all the service that you have given our country. It’s been 

my pleasure to have known you and worked with you in a number 

of different capacities for a good 15 years or more. I appreciate the 

stewardship that you’ve shown, even in your testimony today, for 

the people who come after us and what we leave behind. 

There’s been a number of comments today about the situation in 

Libya. I think it’s important for me to at least express my support 

for the position that Secretary Gates has taken on this issue, and 

others in DOD. We all know that military commitments, however 

small, are easily begun and in this region particularly very difficult 

to end. History shows that. This is a region full of surprises. 

I, for one, am of the opinion it’s not a good idea to give weapons 

and military support to people who you don’t know. When it comes 

to the opposition in Libya, we don’t know them. Secretary Clinton 

was very clear on that last week in her testimony before the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee. So it’s very important, I think, to 

329 

proceed responsibly and very carefully as we approach that particular issue. 

Admiral, I, as you would expect, strongly agree with your position about the number of ships that we should be providing in the 

Navy, that 313 should be a floor. I’ve been very concerned and 

vocal about my worry that we’ve taken our eye off of our strategic 

forces in general as we have spent so much of our money, energy, 

and people in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 8 or 9 years. 

This is particularly true in East Asia, which I view to be the central focus of our long-term strategic goals. We can’t ignore what the 

Chinese military has been doing, not only in this area but in other 

areas. They’ve been very active over the last year particularly. But 

we have an obligation to position ourselves properly in terms of our 

military forces and our basing systems. 

In that regard, I’d like to mention my hope that we can do a better job on this situation with Okinawa and Guam. As you may 

know, Secretary Mabus, I worked as a military planner on this 

issue many years ago. The attempt at a solution of the Okinawan 

situation as it moves into the Guamanian situation has now been 

on the table for 15 years. 

I was recently last month the keynote speaker at Shimoda conference in Tokyo, which was a gathering of the minds in terms of 

how we are going to reshape and strengthen the United States’ relations with Japan. I can tell you that this issue is one of the most 

serious problems in our relationships with the Japanese, but also 

in Japanese domestic priorities. You can see the turbulence that it 

has put at the very top of the Japanese Government because we 

have not yet resolved this issue. 

It also is one of our principal challenges in terms of the structuring of our presence in East Asia. I was out there last year on 

Okinawa and Guam. I think I’m going with the chairman next 

month also on a visit there. 

I just really strongly believe we have to put this on the front 

burner. It’s one of these types of issues that, since it’s not hitting 

us in the face every day, we tend to push it away. But it’s now been 

15 years. We need answers. Whatever the answers are, we need 

answers for the stability of our relationships with Japan and for 

our future in the Pacific. 

I’m not sure actually who’s carrying the ball on this in DOD. I 

think the Marine Corps—at least they’re heavily present when we 

go out there and talk to people. But, Secretary Mabus, I’m not 

sure. Who’s the executive agent here, and how do we get this thing 

resolved? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, we’re the executive agent for Guam. You’re 

right that the Marine Corps is heavily involved. But it is not simply a Navy issue. It rises to the top leadership of DOD. 

I can assure you from the Marine Corps, from the Navy, and 

from DOD, it’s on the front burner. It takes up a large part of our 

focus, for exactly the reasons you talked about. It affects our 

laydown in the entire Pacific. It affects our presence in the western 

Pacific for the next decades. We had an agreement with the Government of Japan on a way forward. That agreement is several 

years old now. One of the key components before we begin to move 

is Government of Japan and the Government of Okinawa moveVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
330 

ment on replacing our airfield at Futenma. The Marines have to 

have that air capability on Okinawa regardless of what happens 

going forward. 

So we are focused on it. I will quote Secretary Gates in his hearing when he said that he was ‘‘hopeful that progress would be 

made soon on this issue,’’ as we all are. 

Senator WEBB. This is an enormously complex issue in terms of 

all the moving parts, and I know that there’s been some good adjustments already in terms of the Marine Corps footprint on Okinawa, moving it further away from the industrial areas, and also 

the environmental aspects, particularly on Guam. 

But I can’t say strongly enough how important it is we put good 

minds and good leaders on this, for all the reasons that I said: the 

future of our relationships with Japan. I hear it all the time when 

I’m with the foreign ministry, the defense ministry in Japan, and 

with their political leaders, and for our future. So I hope we can 

have some good discussions before the chairman and I go to Japan 

and Guam next month, and maybe we can come up with a better 

way to approach this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Webb. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I was bouncing 

back and forth. I had a Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee hearing as well. 

Mr. Secretary, first of all, and Admiral, thank you also, just to 

reiterate. I appreciate your service and family sacrifice. 

Mr. Secretary, just to touch on what Senator Collins was saying, 

the CR, the 2 weeks, do you think that jeopardizes the safety and 

security of our country in any way, that continuing on in sporadic 

means and measures? 

Mr. MABUS. I think that it, as I tried to lay out in my opening 

statement, it has some profound implications for the Navy and the 

Marine Corps. If the CR continues for the whole year, as we said, 

flying hours will go down, ship steaming days will go down, the 

availabilities that we have for maintenance for naval ships. The 

procurement account for the Marine Corps could go down by as 

much as a third. 

We will not be able to meet payroll by the end of the fiscal year 

without moving monies from other accounts, and procurement is 

one of the few places we can get that. In terms of shipbuilding, we 

will not be able to start the second Virginia-class submarine, which 

will break the multi-year on that, which will make those submarines more expensive. We will not be able to start the two Aegis- class destroyers. 

Senator BROWN. In plain English, do you think our safety and security is in jeopardy as a result of the delay? 

Mr. MABUS. I think that today the Navy and Marine Corps will 

meet whatever safety and security needs America has. The danger 

is what happens in the future, what happens to us because of these 

shortfalls now. 

Senator BROWN. To take it a little step further, do you think the 

lives of our soldiers are in jeopardy as a result of the delay. If it 

continues? 

331 

Mr. MABUS. No, I don’t think it risks lives of our marines and 

our soldiers, because the OCOs are being funded. But I do think— 

and I know I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, but it’s 

the effects on the future. 

Senator BROWN. I understand. I appreciate your honesty. 

One of the best ways, I’ve always felt, and I’ve heard through 

testimony from many of you and others, is the open and honest 

competition. With regard to the LCS, the dual procurement strategy is a perfect example of that type of savings if we strictly enforce competition. Mr. Secretary, can you comment on the importance of implementing competition in our Nation’s acquisition 

strategy, where appropriate, especially when we’re deciding to buy 

massive amounts of equipment costing taxpayers billions of dollars 

over the course of several years? 

Mr. MABUS. Competition certainly worked in terms of the LCS. 

When we competed two manufacturers against each other with two 

different variants, the price came down pretty dramatically. Now, 

I will say that the LCS program was unique in the sense that we 

had always planned on having two suppliers. We had never looked 

at this program, regardless of how many variants we had, as coming from one shipyard, because we wanted to keep competition in 

the program. 

Senator BROWN. You’re ultimately going to award a contract to 

one of them, though, based on the specifications, the capabilities, 

and the like, correct? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, sir. But whoever—if we had down-selected to 

one variant, whichever shipyard won had to give us the technical 

data package, all the drawings, all the engineering, so that we 

would then the next year bid it out to a second shipyard. We were 

always going to have two shipyards competing on the LCS. 

Senator BROWN. So competition saved $2.9 billion and a 27 percent reduction on the original cost of that savings estimate. The 

third and fourth ships are scheduled to be delivered in 2012 on cost 

and on schedule. I guess I’m trying to wrestle the fact that we have 

that fair and open competition with a relatively small quantity purchase like the LCS and yet we’re dealing with a $100 billion purchase of over 4,000 JSF engines for the U.S. and international 

partners spanning a period of 20 years, which the GAO has twice 

concluded will save the taxpayers $20 billion. 

So I’m wondering if you could explain. Am I missing something 

in terms of having a sole producer of the engine? For example, 

what happens if they decide to raise the price? Why is it good for 

one and not the other? I really haven’t gotten a good answer. 

Mr. MABUS. Two things set those two programs apart. One is 

what I talked about, about the fact that we always anticipated having two different suppliers for the LCS, regardless of how many 

variants we had. 

Second, we have paid for most of the engineering, the research 

and development, the up-front cost of both variants of this ship, unlike the alternate engine, which has only paid for the research and 

development upfront costs for one of them. So I think there are two 

major differences between those. 

The last thing I would say is, from the Navy vantage point we 

have rarely had two engines for any of our aircraft, simply because 

332 

of space concerns. We can’t carry two engines on our carriers. We 

can’t carry two engines on our big-deck amphibs. We simply don’t 

have the space for it. We will only be able to buy one engine for 

these aircraft, as we do today for our F–18s. 

Senator BROWN. One of the things I’m always concerned is about 

cost overruns and delivering weaponry on time. My concern is, obviously, about doing that with that particular program. 

I’d like to just shift gears for a minute. I’m thankful, I think it’s 

about time, that Harvard and the Navy once again are having Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) on their campus. I think it’s 

long overdue. I’m wondering if you could just comment on what 

your feelings are about the importance of ROTC on our Nation’s 

campuses? 

Mr. MABUS. I was very happy to sign the agreement with Harvard last Friday to bring ROTC back there. As I pointed out there, 

Harvard trails only West Point and Annapolis in Medal of Honor 

recipients. I agree with you, it had been gone for too long. 

I believe that ROTC and the ability to have different viewpoints 

coming into our military officer corps, different geography, different 

viewpoints, different backgrounds, is absolutely crucial. We’re continuing to reach out to schools that have, for whatever reason, 

ended ROTC, to bring it back. The military that protects the Nation ought to be reflective of the entire Nation. 

Senator BROWN. So noted. I’m anxious to see whether and how 

the military science classes will be taking place on or off campus, 

and hoping that they will be fully implemented in the ordinary 

course like every other organization has that opportunity. 

But I want to thank you for wrapping that up. I saw you smiling 

a lot in the pictures. 

Admiral and General, I’m okay with you. I know we’ve spoken 

off-line many times about issues, so thank you for your continued 

service and the good information. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Just on two of the statements that you made in response to Senator Brown, if you for the record would confirm or not confirm the 

following: First, that more than half the development costs on the 

second engine have already been sunk; second, that the original acquisition strategy did assume two engines for the F–35. Can you 

confirm or not, for the record, not now? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Yes, more than one-half of the F136 development costs are sunk-costs ($2.9 billion 

through fiscal year 2010 of an estimated $4.2 billion development program). The estimate includes only those costs required to complete development of the F136 engine and does not include all TBD costs necessary to get the F136 to a competitive 

procurement posture. With regard to the acquisition strategy, yes, the Department 

of Defense assumed two engines as part of the original acquisition strategy if funding was available for the F136 program. 

Chairman LEVIN. It’s not my turn yet. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to state how pleased I am to see all three of you gentlemen here today and once again thank you for your service. My late 

father-in-law, who passed away a little over a year ago at the wonVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
333 

derful age of 96, was a major general in the Marine Corps Reserve, 

and he was always very interested in everything that you had to 

say and your actions, especially during these committee hearings. 

But, speaking about the ROTC, my husband participated in the 

ROTC at Chapel Hill, and I think too that it’s a wonderful movement forward that Harvard has reinitiated their program. So I 

think that’s great. 

I did want to ask about the amphibious assault ships. I’m a big 

supporter of the Marine Corps amphibious capabilities. It’s the 

bread and butter of the Marine Corps to have the ability to conduct 

forcible entry operations from the sea. I think it’s important that 

the Navy not decommission amphibious assault ships earlier than 

their expected service lifespans without replacements. 

I’m concerned that the Marine Corps will not have the sufficient 

amphibious capabilities to fully support the combatant commanders’ requirements within an acceptable level of risk. I’m concerned that the Marine Corps will not have the sufficient amphibious capabilities to meet the demands for all the operational deployments that we’re seeing. 

General Amos, can you discuss how the amphibious forces have 

been employed during this past year and talk about how this has 

helped to inform the recently completed force structure review? 

General AMOS. Senator, I’ll be happy to. I’m pretty proud of the 

Navy-Marine Corps team. Just in the last 12 months, you remember, just about a month or 2 from now we had 7 amphibious ships 

full of 5,000 marines and sailors off the coast of Haiti. When you 

could only put one airplane or two airplanes on the ground in the 

airport, everything else was clogged, it was the naval amphibious 

force that was providing the relief—water, food, medical supplies, 

evacuation—for 45 days. 

So that’s where the last year began. The 15th MEU sailed off the 

coast of Pakistan and supported the Pakistan relief operation, flying their CH–53 Echo heavy lift helicopters 400 miles deep into 

Pakistan, up to the very northern part of Pakistan, to move folks 

around, provide relief efforts. 

While that was going on, the Harriers off the amphibious ships 

were flying combat sorties into Afghanistan in support of the joint 

force. Interestingly, one of the ships departed, went 1,000 miles due 

west, captured the Somalia pirates off the Magellan Star. 

About the same time, the 26th MEU, from your great State, 

sailed 30 days early. They hadn’t even finished their certification 

yet, and they were able to certify en route. They joined the 15th 

MEU with their three ships to help support the Pakistani operations. 

1,400 marines off of the 26th MEU are now ashore in the 

Helmand Province, reinforcing success for our forces on the ground 

there. 

As you’ve just seen, the 26th MEU sailed two ships up through 

the Suez and into the Mediterranean, now joined by marines from 

your great State as well, the First Battalion, Second Marines, 

poised off of the Mediterranean. 

I haven’t counted the 31st MEU in the western Pacific, that 

came on the back side of that super typhoon in the Philippines. 

334 

So lots—there is no shortage of work for the marine expeditionary amphibious units. They are very successful. 

Senator HAGAN. Certainly. 

Secretary Mabus, in light of those comments, is the Navy reviewing and reconciling the amphibious requirements, ship retirement 

schedules, and the 30-year shipbuilding plans? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, we keep a close eye on that. We have extended the USS Peleliu for a year, its retirement date. But the 

amount of effort, the amount of money, and the amount of people 

it would take to continue some of these very old amphibious ships 

now—the people are needed for other ships coming on line. The 

amount of money would take away from the newer ships we’re 

building. 

We’re building toward, and we’re in sight of getting there, to having the 33 amphibious ship capacity, 11 big deck amphibs, LHAs, 

LHA(R)s, 11 LPDs, 11 LSDs. If Congress approves our shipbuilding 

plan, we will have 11, 11, 11 by 2017. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Secretary Mabus. 

I also understand that the Department’s restructuring of the JSF 

program, including the recent 2-year probation of the Marine 

Corps’ STOVL, the F–35B. The F–35B is fundamental to the expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps and this aircraft is also essential to how the Marine Corps deploys and utilizes its aviation 

assets in theater. 

This aircraft also provides the Marine Corps with the capability 

to land on the improvised airstrips and launch from the large-deck 

amphibious assault ships. It also provides the Marine Corps with 

the ability to rearm and refuel in the forward operating bases 

(FOB). 

Currently the AV–8B Harriers are approaching the end of their 

service life and the aircraft and its parts are no longer being produced. I know that the Fleet Readiness Center in Cherry Point in 

North Carolina, the engineers there, they actually engineer the replacement parts. 

Secretary Mabus and General Amos, what would be the impact 

of terminating the F–35B on the Marine Corps’ ability to actually 

project the power that is necessary in some of these remote expeditionary environments? What effect will that have on the joint force 

capabilities in theater, as well as the Marine Corps’ force structure? What would be some of the near-term milestones that you 

would expect for the Marine Corps to achieve to get the F–35B 

back on track? 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, I will give a very brief overview and then 

turn it over to the Commandant, who is far more eloquent than I 

am about the F–35B. 

The Commandant earlier today pointed out that the F–35B is a 

critical capability for the Marine Corps, the vertical takeoff and 

landing, for all the reasons that you have laid out. The 2-year intense look at it, or the probationary period, I think is going to give 

us an opportunity to focus on it and to make sure that the issues 

associated with it can be fixed within weight limits and cost limits. 

The Commandant has stated that he is now a program officer on 

this, and he gets updates on a very frequent and very routine 

basis. Some of the milestones that we’re looking at: the number of 

335 

test flights this year, this calendar year, is at about 140 percent of 

where we expected to be, so we’re ahead of schedule there. The 

number of test points on those test flights, we’re almost 200 percent there. 

They have achieved vertical takeoff and landings, more vertical 

takeoffs and landings so far in the first a little over 2 months of 

this year than they did all of last year. It’s at least my understanding, and then I’m going to turn it over to the Commandant, 

that the issues associated with the B version are engineering in nature, and the question is whether those engineering issues can be 

solved inside weight limits and inside financial boundaries, and 

that that is what we’re concentrating on. 

General AMOS. Thank you, Secretary. 

Secretary, as I said in my opening statement, the way we employ 

our airplanes in the Marine Corps, we’re the blue collar aviation 

for the United States of America. We get out, we get dirty. We fly 

in places where there are unimproved strips. We did it all the way 

to Tikrit when we crossed the border in March 2003. We had Harriers landing on highways. We flew off of narrow roads. We flew 

off of bombed-out runways and taxiways, all the way past Baghdad 

into Tikrit. 

So that’s the way we operate. There are roughly 10 times the 

number of small airports around the world than there are larger 

ones. That fits us. We build our own runways when we have to. We 

have two of them in southern Afghanistan right now. One of them 

was Poys. We built it in about 30 days out of aluminum matting, 

so we could fight the fight for Marja a year ago at this time. 

So that’s the way we employ it. We also fly them off the largedeck amphibious ships. So today, with 11 carriers and 11 largedeck amphibious ships, our Nation—this is a national capability— 

has 22 capital ships flying TACAIR aviation off of them. Now, 

imagine a couple of years from now being able to have F–35Cs on 

board those 11 aircraft carriers and F–35Bs flying off of those 11 

large-deck amphibs. So our Nation would have for the very first 

time 22 capital ships with fifth generation capability flying off of 

them. 

So this is more than just the Marine Corps. If we lose the F–35B, 

there is no plan B for fixed wing airplanes on the large-deck 

amphibs. Our Nation’s capability to project power and influence situations will be cut immeasurably, not in half. Certainly there are 

more airplanes on an aircraft carrier than there are—or fixed 

wings, than there are on an amphib. But it would be significant, 

and there is no plan B for that, ma’am. 

So the F–35B is a requirement. I’m optimistic. What I’m seeing 

now is very encouraging. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to begin by again thanking all of the three witnesses for 

your very distinguished service to our Nation. Admiral, I’m new to 

the committee, but I’m sorry that I’m here for the last of your testiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
336 

mony on this issue, and simply say thank you and congratulate you 

on your extraordinary service to our Nation. 

I’d like to pick up, General Amos, if I may, on the last answer 

that you gave. I assume from your testimony that you would prefer 

to see the resources that might be devoted to an alternative engine 

for the JSF devoted instead to the F–35B alternative? 

General AMOS. Sir, we made a decision, the Marine Corps made 

a decision, in the late 1990s to skip a generation of airplanes, to 

skip a fourth generation of airplanes, going from our F–18s, which 

is what we would call a third generation capability, and go on a 

procurement kind of diet for about 10 or 12 years to buy the F– 

35B. So that position has not changed, Senator, and that’s where 

we are today. 

We need the airplane. We’re confident in it and it fits the way 

we operate our airplanes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You would forego that alternative engine, 

the second engine, as it’s been called, and instead devote those resources to that plane that you need so much? 

General AMOS. Senator, I would, because we are a Navy-Marine 

Corps team and we operate off of naval vessels, and for the very 

same reason that the CNO and the Secretary of the Navy articulated earlier, there’s just simply not enough room to have different 

types of engines, different types of test equipment, tool sets, procedures, and that kind of thing on naval vessels. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

I apologize if I may seem to be repeating one or more of the questions that have already been asked, but I want to return to the Virginia-class submarine procurement program, if I may, Secretary 

Mabus and Admiral Roughead. Could you outline for us what the 

impact would be on the procurement program for the Virginia-class 

submarine if there is no budget for the fiscal years 2011 and 2012 

and we continue with a CR? I have in mind particularly the Admiral’s testimony that so far the submarines have been delivered 

under budget and ahead of schedule. So I’m wondering if there 

could be continuing negotiations, as you’ve outlined, to continue the 

two-sub procurement program even with a CR. 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, under the rules of a CR as they are in place 

today we could only begin to build one Virginia-class submarine 

this year. We are scheduled to build two, two each year for the next 

5 years. We have entered into a multi-year procurement on the Virginia-class submarine, which has driven the price down even further, giving the contractor some stability in terms of their base, 

their training, their infrastructure. 

So if we are unable to begin the second Virginia-class submarine, 

which would be the case under the current CR, not only would we 

jeopardize the total number of ships that we have; we would also 

break the multi-year agreement, which would cause the cost of 

those ships to rise. We would have to re-enter negotiations because 

we would not have ordered the number of ships we committed to 

under the multi-year. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So even with the best of intentions, very 

likely the cost of that Virginia-class submarine program would rise 

as a result of continuing with the CR, as opposed to having a budget in place? 

337 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, sir. If we are not given relief on new starts, we 

will not be able to build the second one and the cost would almost 

certainly rise. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. General Amos, in the time that I have left 

I’d like to focus on an area that hasn’t been covered so far, and that 

is the very impressive part of the report that you’ve given us today 

on some of the work that’s ongoing with respect to the diagnosis 

and treatment of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. 

I am tremendously impressed by the general description that 

you’ve given in this report on the focus, the increased priority given 

to this very troubling area, and in particular the in-theater restoration center that provides comprehensive diagnosis and the 

proactive outreach that the Marine Corps has undertaken whenever any member of the Marine Corps is involved in a concussive 

event. 

I would appreciate further details, perhaps in a later session or 

in written form, whichever you find best to do, and invite you now 

just to provide some additional details if you wish. But I would 

very much appreciate a more detailed briefing, because I think that 

for all the Services this is a major challenge going forward in this 

conflict and setting an example for future conflicts. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The Marine Corps is undertaking a proactive, comprehensive approach to address 

the challenge of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)/Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) including prevention, education, early identification, treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration. We are working closely with the Defense Center of Excellence, which 

is the Department of Defense lead agency on efforts to improve the prevention, identification, and treatment of TBI/PTS. We are actively implementing the requirements of Directive Type Memorandum 09–033 regarding mild TBI/concussion and 

have launched a mandatory screening protocol for marines exposed to blast events 

in theater. 

Our Navy medical personnel and leaders are receiving training on new eventbased protocols and Marine personnel receive TBI/concussion training prior to deployment. Marines exposed to a potentially concussive event receive a mandatory 

medical evaluation and requirements are in place for Marine leaders to report on 

personnel who are exposed to potentially concussive events. Medical evaluation results are documented in medical records, and extra precautions and evaluations are 

in place for marines with repeat/multiple concussions. 

The Marine Corps, with Navy support, has established a Concussion and Musculoskeletal Restoration Care Center (CRCC) in theater. This center provides frontline care to patients with mild TBI/concussion and has dramatically improved identification, diagnosis, treatment, outcomes, and return to duty rates. CRCC provides 

comprehensive interdisciplinary care for concussion, psychological health, and musculoskeletal injuries. Interdisciplinary services include Family Medicine, Sports 

Medicine, Mental Health, Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Acupuncture, 

and Spiritual therapy. 

Since its inception in August 2010, the CRCC has logged over 8,000 patient encounters, including evaluation and treatment of over 560 patients with concussion. 

Over 96 percent of patients treated for concussion at the CRCC have had favorable 

outcomes with return to full duty. In the past, these patients would have required 

evacuation to Kandahar or Bagram hospitals and/or evacuation out of theater. 

Processes are in place to screen all marines for TBI/PTS upon returning from deployment. Every marine evacuated from theater for injuries receives a TBI screen. 

This is primarily done via the Post-Deployment Health Assessment/Post-Deployment Health Reassessment. 

We are exploring new measures to measure blast exposure and improve detection 

of TBI, including biomarkers, imaging tools, and neuro-cognitive testing. The Marine Corps continues to pursue advances in personal protective equipment, including 

next-generation helmet technology to mitigate blast effects. Education about TBI 

has been shown to reduce morbidity following injury, and we are making efforts to 

ensure education is provided during predeployment briefs and at all levels of leadership training, from small unit leaders up to senior leaders. 

338 

General AMOS. Senator, I’ll be happy to provide you the details, 

in fact, all the members of the committee, because I think it’s encouraging. It hasn’t solved it. The whole recognition of what happens to the brain is certainly not a mystery, but it is not clear because it doesn’t happen in the same way to every single person. 

But there was recognition over 2 years ago, and it was really a 

collaborative effort by myself, or by the U.S. Army and the U.S. 

Marine Corps—so I want to give credit to General Chiarelli and the 

Army—to try to figure out what happens to the brain when it’s rattled as a result of an IED or some type of concussive event, and 

then what are the net effects. 

The net effects are not necessarily long-range PTS, but it could 

be. But clearly there was a correlation between getting your brain 

hit hard with a concussive event and the requirement to let the 

brain rest. In some cases it’s 48 hours, in some cases it’s a week, 

maybe 2 weeks. But the very best thing you can do to prevent further damage is to put that brain in some semblance of rest. 

So that’s what we did. We built a concussive protocol, the one 

you’re referring to in Afghanistan. Marines, soldiers, sailors, when 

that event happens, they come right back into what we call the 

wire. They’re looked at by a corpsman if that’s all we have there. 

We have cyber technology that allows the doctor at Camp Leatherneck to look in the eye of the wounded marine or soldier or sailor. 

Then we eventually will move them to that restoration care center 

at Camp Leatherneck, if required. 

The whole idea now is to just provide them the ability to step 

back, let their brain heal, to prevent further damage. Marines are 

tough. We lie. When a young lance corporal is asked by his company gunnie, how do you feel, he says: I’m good to go; when in fact, 

the very best thing the leadership can do is say: We’re going to stop 

right here, young devil dog, and we’re going to let you sit inside 

the wire for a day or so. 

We believe—it’s too soon to tell; we don’t have the empirical 

data. But we know in our hearts that this is the right thing to do. 

We’ll be happy to provide you more information. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

My time is up, but I would like to thank you for returning ROTC 

to Harvard as you’ve done and simply offer to be helpful anywhere 

on any campus, certainly in Connecticut, where I can be helpful if 

there’s any way that we can restore ROTC anyplace where it’s 

lacking now. 

Thank you. Thank you all. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to say to you that I am excited about Marine Week 

in St. Louis in June, and I want to thank, commander, your decision to come to St. Louis. We will welcome the marines with open 

arms and, since our State has proudly contributed so many brave 

marines over the history of our military, we are thrilled to host you 

for that important event. 

Secretary Mabus, I know that our military is the best in the 

world at combat readiness, but we are really bad at audit readiness. I am continuing to be very frustrated with the business sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
339 

tems within DOD and the ability for us to get a handle on tracking 

our money and the various services being able to be transparent 

and viewable across systems. 

It is a continuing level of frustration. I do want to applaud the 

Navy and Marine Corps for making some important progress on 

service-level auditability. I know you have been working on it, and 

I know you’ve identified some net savings by improving your financial management processes. 

The program I want to focus in on today is the enterprise resource planning. You are slated to spend about a billion dollars on 

that in a supply system called the Global Command Support System. The Army is currently fielding a similar system called Global 

Combat Support System-Army. Theirs will cost nearly $4 billion. 

Now, I know you share equipment in theater. That is a reality 

of the fight, is the sharing of equipment. But these two systems 

have the same goal, that is tracking supply and equipment, but 

they’re not even going to run on the same software. The Marines 

are using Oracle and the Army is running on SAP. There’s a $3 

billion cost differential. 

My understanding is that the two systems as designed are not 

even naturally compatible and that DOD will have to continue to 

pay just to develop interfaces between these two systems. 

I get a headache when I think about all the money that we have 

thrown away in the Federal Government on data systems and information technology. Now, part of this is unavoidable because the 

technology has developed so quickly that when we’ve tried to develop great big systems, by the time it gets ready to be deployed 

it’s already out of date and antiquated. 

Some of it is the nature of the rapid transition we’ve had in this 

country with technology. But I think particularly within the military there is a problem in acknowledging when we’re throwing bad 

money after good or when we’re setting up systems that frankly 

make no sense in terms of what the ultimate goals are. 

Tell me your position on what could be done to make the effort 

at tracking our equipment, at least the ability to track it between 

the two branches of our Services that are sharing the same equipment? This is just hard for me to imagine, that we’re going to continue down this multi-billion dollar road. 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, you and I share a lot of things. One of them 

is I know my first elected jobs and one of yours was as State auditor of our respective States. I understand the importance not only 

of auditability, but of these enterprise resource systems to track 

the things we do. 

If you’ll also allow me one more moment of personal thing, a 

friend of mine once described my father as someone who threw 

nickels around like they were manhole covers, and I am my father’s son. I think that we have to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. 

In terms of auditability, what you said, we are making some 

progress on that and we are focused on that. In terms of the overall 

resource, the enterprise resource, that system began several years 

ago to try to get real-time information on things like inventory on 

things like equipment, on things, as it moved through the system. 

340 

I’ll be very frank. I don’t know what the interface issues are with 

the Army. But I will find out, as a result of this. We are spending 

a lot of money to ensure that we can track on a real-time basis, 

not a week later or a month later, what’s happening to all the assets that the Navy and the Marine Corps have. 

We should always look for opportunities, though, to be joint, to 

do things defense-wide. 

Senator MCCASKILL. As we are making really difficult decisions 

in this government over the next decade and we think the hard 

ones are today and tomorrow and next week, we’re going to have 

hard decisions to make for a long time. What would be an amazing 

moment would be for the Army and the Marine Corps to sit down, 

decide whose system is further along, whose system is the easiest 

to be trained on, whose system is going to have the least amount 

of support costs ongoing, and to make a decision to use one for 

both. 

I don’t know that it matters whether it’s the Marine Corps system or the Army system. But it just seems unbelievable to me that 

we are paying for the development of two separate systems that 

don’t speak to each other. This would be a moment that we could 

save. Since the Army’s is more expensive, I’m hoping that yours is 

the one that could be utilized. This could be a $3 billion moment, 

and we’re looking for $3 billion moments right now. 

This is the kind of thing that I think, until we can demonstrate 

to the American people that we can at least do these kinds of savings, I don’t think they’re going to take us seriously on our ability 

to deal with our long-term debt. So I would love to see—and I will 

be following up with Secretary Gates and with Admiral Mullen in 

terms of seeing how many places are there that we could do something like this. 

Now, I know this is hard to do, because you’ve been working on 

this for a long time, and so has the Army, and there’s some separateness been going on for several years, and sometimes it’s not 

wanting to step in and say, okay, all the money we’ve spent, we’re 

going to abandon that and go forward in a different way. But sometimes that’s the smartest thing to do. 

General Amos? 

General AMOS. Senator, I’m familiar with the GCCS Marine 

Corps software by Oracle. That effort began—let me back up, just 

maybe give you a ray of hope. There is a what we call an ArmyMarine Corps Board. It’s chaired by the three-stars, the head of requirements and the comptroller. So it’s the budget and requirements folks. They meet as required, typically about twice a month, 

and they resolve an awful lot of these issues where both Services 

come up. It can be a helmet, it can be something like a service 

weapon, it can be a piece of equipment. 

Now, we all have different—not all our equipment is the same, 

and you know that. But a lot of that compatibility and who’s going 

to buy what, what’s going to jump on whose program, is solved 

right there at the three-star level. So there is an effort that is 

under way. 

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), chaired by 

all the Service Vices and the Vice Chairman, also looks at compatibility across the joint force. 

341 

But back to this GCCS, we got halfway through Iraq. We’re talking about 2006, and the truth of the matter is we had a lot of 

equipment on the ground to satisfy those 35,000 marines and sailors. We thought we knew how much we had and we had a variety 

of systems, about 15, that were tracking. We said we have to come 

up with something different. Ergo the birth of the requirement 

from Oracle. 

The system right now, I can’t speak to the Army’s system, but 

our system is fielding right now in Okinawa and it is probably, of 

all the software efforts we’ve ever done in the Marine Corps and 

spent a lot of money and been disappointed often, this one probably 

has the greatest hope of all the ones we have. 

So let us check with the Army. Let us come back to you with a 

‘‘here’s where we are as two Services.’’ We owe you that, ma’am. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The Army and the Marines Corps both used the competitive contracting process 

to select their respective software applications based on their specific Service requirements. Although the Army and the Marines Corps may share similar logistics 

requirements, at the highest level they differ in terms of: people; process/mission 

execution; technology-interfaces; and data. 

Although at first glance it seems logical and compelling to have different Services 

use the same solution, as the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System 

taught the Department of Defense, it is enormously difficult, expensive, and very 

high risk. In 2005, the IT consulting firm Gartner analyzed this question and concluded it was appropriate, cost effective, and logical for the Services to have chosen 

two different solutions. Also, there was never a requirement for Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps and Global Combat Support System-Army to be interoperable and pass information, so consequently, at the present time they don’t. 

However, if such a requirement arose, the two systems could be made interoperable 

through the use of an interface. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I understand that JROC was designed to do 

this, but in other hearings we have had some admissions that the 

culture of JROC had unfortunately too often been, we’ll give you 

what you want if you’ll give us what I want; that there had been 

some of that, as opposed to, okay, we’re going to give up what we 

want and you’re going to give up what you want and see if we can’t 

do it together. 

I know, because I worked on this in a previous National Defense 

Authorization bill trying to provide maybe some input from somewhere other than the branches, because it did appear too often that 

everybody was going along to get along. 

General AMOS. Ma’am, having been the Assistant Commandant 

for 27 months and been a member of the JROC, I found it almost 

painful sometimes, how we worked our way through situations. But 

I will also tell you it’s more than culture; it’s also the way we deploy, in other words, the kind of systems we need. The software 

has to support the ability to go aboard ship, to deploy expeditionary 

in places in North Africa, if required. So there are some differences. 

But we owe you an answer, ma’am. I understand. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize, Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, and General 

Amos—— 

342 

Chairman LEVIN. Your mike. 

Senator SHAHEEN. It’s on. Is that better? 

Chairman LEVIN. No. Maybe you better change your seat. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Change that name tag from Senator 

Manchin. 

Chairman LEVIN. For your sake, not for his. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I was assuming it was for my sake, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

—I apologize for missing your testimony. I had to preside over 

the Senate. But I am pleased that you’re still here and hopefully 

I won’t take too much time. 

I know that Senator Collins earlier today raised the question 

about the backlog of restoration and modernization projects at the 

four public shipyards. It’s a major concern to Senator Collins, being 

from Maine, and to me, being from New Hampshire, because of the 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. I know that a recent GAO report that 

was requested by Senators Collins and Webb made four recommendations to improve the visibility of the Navy shipyards restoration and modernization needs and quality of life issues. 

I would just hope, Secretary Mabus and all of you, that you will 

take those recommendations very seriously, and look forward to 

working with you to implement those. Specifically, as I said, I’m 

concerned about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the fact that no 

MILCON funds have been allocated to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard by the executive branch in the last 5 years. So that that 

means in previous years the shipyard has had to rely on congressionally-directed spending, which included $39.2 million in fiscal 

year 2008 and $17.2 million in previous proposed fiscal year 2011 

spending. 

So given the current spending environment and the moratorium 

that currently exists on congressionally-directed spending, or earmarks, how does the Navy intend to support critical MILCON investments at Portsmouth and at the other public shipyards? Perhaps as part of your answer you could talk a little about how you 

might prioritize those investments and support modernization. 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, if it’s acceptable to you, I’ll let the CNO answer this, since he answered Senator Collins, so that we can have 

an absolute continuity of answers. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Shoot, I was going to see if you could answer 

it the same way. [Laughter.] 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I’m sure he could, Senator. 

The shipyards, particularly our four public shipyards, are going 

to be very critical for us in the future, simply because of the 

amount of nuclear work that we have coming into the window. Accordingly, we are looking at what must be done, primarily for the 

safety and security issues, particularly as it applies to our nuclear 

enterprise, and then productivity and quality of life. 

Even though we do have the backlog, in point of fact we are investing above what has been the congressional level of sustainment 

for the shipyards. But we’re always looking at what needs to be 

done for those four areas that I mentioned. 

I would also, being perfectly honest, that as we have looked at 

the level of funding going into the shipyards and as circumstances 

have changed, we’re going to have to take a look at what the future 

343 

looks like and how we apportion the MILCON money, not just 

across shipyards, but really across all of the facilities that we have. 

But I think the public shipyards are going to be in a very good 

position in the coming years from a workforce standpoint, as the 

Secretary mentioned, being exempt from the hiring limitations, but 

also they’re going to be very busy and very critical to our future. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I certainly agree with that and am pleased to 

hear that you’re thinking about that. Can I just press you a little 

more on, as you point out, you’re going to have to prioritize those 

investments. So have you thought about the factors that you’ll take 

into consideration in doing that? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, ma’am. Clearly, nuclear safety and nuclear security are foremost, and that applies to the four public 

yards that we have, and then also the safety of our workforce is 

paramount. So those are the opening arguments for me. 

Mr. MABUS. Senator, in terms of setting priorities, the CNO mentioned this, there is a civilian hiring freeze at DOD right now. Because of the importance of shipyards, we asked for and received an 

exemption for shipyard hiring, so that we can continue to maintain 

our industrial base and the work that the shipyards are doing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I do appreciate that and think 

that was very important. I know that at Portsmouth we’ve had a 

very competent, productive workforce and we’re going to be losing 

many of those folks because many of them are close to retirement 

age. So being able to bring on younger people who can start training for those jobs is going to be very important to productivity. 

On another issue, Secretary Mabus, I certainly applaud your 

focus on trying to be more energy independent within the jurisdiction that you control. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more 

about the kinds of steps that you’re taking in the Navy to be more 

energy efficient. It is a critical security issue, as you’ve pointed out, 

and I think it’s important for us in Congress and for the public to 

know that we’re moving in a direction to make us more energy 

independent, especially these days as we’re watching what’s happening in the Middle East. 

Mr. MABUS. Thank you, Senator. As you pointed out, you don’t 

have to look any further than the headlines to know why we need 

to do this. We’ve made a lot of progress toward our goal, which 

we’re going to reach, of by no later than 2020 at least half our energy usage will come from non-fossil fuel sources. We’ve flown the 

F–18 on biofuels. We’ve certified our helicopters also on biofuels, as 

well as our Swift boats. We are currently working on our large surface combatants in that regard. 

We are doing a lot of work on efficiencies. We’ve launched the 

first hybrid ship. We’re looking at putting the electric drive that is 

on that ship on our new builds as well as retrofitting some of our 

DDG–51s. 

On shore, we have vastly expanded our solar capacity. We’ve 

done stuff like smart meters so that we know where our energy’s 

going. 

Finally, I want to particularly brag on the Marine Corps, because, like they normally do, they’re leaders in this. They have established two expeditionary FOBs, experimental FOBs, one at 

344 

Quantico, one at Twentynine Palms, to develop the alternative energy that our warfighters need. 

What we import the most into Afghanistan is gasoline. The Army 

did a study that showed that for every 24 convoys of gasoline, we 

lose a soldier or a marine killed or wounded guarding that convoy. 

It also takes marines away from doing what they were sent there 

to do, which is to fight, to engage, to rebuild. 

The first unit that took some of these things that experimental 

FOBs designed was 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, which I got to visit 

right before Christmas in Sangin. Now, they’re in some of the 

toughest fighting in Afghanistan right now, but even in that fight 

they have taken solar panels and are using them for their command headquarters. They’ve taken these rollable solar panels and 

stuck them in their packs. 

I was talking to a lieutenant there. A foot patrol now saves 700 

pounds of batteries that they don’t have to take because of this. 

They are reducing dramatically their usage of fossil fuels. 

The Commandant has just signed out a requirement, an order, 

that is going to integrate the training on alternative energy as part 

of the routine training that marines get before they deploy, so that 

they’ll better be able to use these. But we are seeing real advances. 

We’re saving lives, we’re using less fuel, and we’re making marines 

better fighters just because they don’t have to lug around so much 

stuff. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That’s very impressive. Thank you. Perhaps 

you can share some of those technologies with the rest of us in government, so that we can be more efficient and more energy independent. 

My time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. 

I think the figure you used on that point was that that unit was 

saving 90 percent? Is that the right number, of its fossil fuel? The 

fuel used decreased 90 percent with that company, I believe. 

Mr. MABUS. That company is saving a lot. It’s probably not 90 

percent. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. 

Mr. MABUS. But I can get you a very specific number, but its energy usage, in some of its combat outposts, it’s 100 percent; they’re 

using nothing but alternative fuels. Overall for the unit, it’s significant, but I don’t think it reaches 90 percent. 

Chairman LEVIN. What we will do, following Senator Shaheen’s 

suggestion, is to get that experience, if it’s not already there, to the 

other, to the Army as well, because we have the same issue, goal, 

with the Army, as Senator Shaheen mentioned. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

While deployed to the Sangin Province Afghanistan, India Company Third Battalion, Fifth Marines (3/5) operated two patrol bases completely on renewable energy, offsetting 100 percent of their potential fuel use. Based on reports from Marines in the field it is estimated that each patrol base saved 12 gallons per day per 

location. This means that each month these two patrol bases would have offset approximately 744 gallons per month (31 days × 24 gals) or 8,928 gallons per year. 

It is evident that a small savings at a remote patrol base has significant impacts 

over the long term, not to mention immediate reduction in risk to our marines moving fuel in a very dangerous area. 

In addition to the patrol bases operated by India 3/5, they also employed renewable and energy efficient technologies at a company location too. At the company 

345 

location, fuel use was reduced from 25 gallons per day to 2.5 gallons per day or an 

initial savings of 90 percent. Targeting renewable and energy efficient technologies 

at remote outpost immediately reduces the risks to our forces and increases our 

combat effectiveness. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses here today, Admiral Roughead, 

Secretary Mabus, and General Amos, for your distinguished service 

to our country. We’re deeply grateful for what you’re doing. I also 

want to thank you for all of those that serve underneath you, for 

the sacrifices that they and their families are making for our country at a time of conflict. 

I wanted to follow up on, Admiral, on the questions that were 

asked by Senator Shaheen. I wanted to join in her comments about 

the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the importance of that shipyard. I wanted to ask you specifically about the project to consolidate structural workshops at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. This 

project is a very important one because it would ultimately save 

taxpayers’ dollars through efficiency measures at the shipyard and 

it would certainly improve efficiency of shipyard operations, reduce 

cost, and duration of submarine maintenance. 

Currently, this project is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 

2015. But, given the importance of the project to naval readiness 

and taxpayers’ savings that I believe that we could accomplish with 

this, given added efficiencies, I think this project should be moved 

up to fiscal year 2012. Admiral, does the Navy’s fiscal year 2012 

budget proposal include this project to consolidate structural workshops at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, right now it is in the program for 

2015. But it has several segments to it. To your point, if we do it 

by segment it will actually cost us more money. So we can consolidate two of the phases and actually save money, and we’re looking 

at the ability to do that because we see some potential changes taking place in some other MILCON, and my staff knows to look at 

that, to see if there is the potential to pull it up into 2012. 

Senator AYOTTE. So if we were to consolidate and pull it up into 

2012, it actually would result in cost savings, rather than segmenting the project, as it is right now? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The way that I see the project, it would cost 

us about another $8 million if we don’t do the consolidation. 

Senator AYOTTE. So I appreciate that you and your staff are looking at this. It also seems to me not only important in terms of the 

shipyard, but a way to save taxpayers’ dollars to achieve efficiencies at the shipyard with the important work that they’re doing 

there. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, ma’am. I’m always looking for efficiencies. 

Senator AYOTTE. We deeply appreciate that. Obviously, the shipyard is very important in the Navy’s mission and we appreciate 

your bringing that forward. I’d be happy to work with you on that 

if you need any assistance. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, ma’am. 

Senator AYOTTE. Secretary Mabus, in your written statement you 

had noted that rising health care costs within the military health 

346 

system continue to present a fiscal challenge to DOD, and you’ve 

written that DOD’s resources devoted to health care costs cannot 

be sustained. According to a recent March GAO report, there are 

tremendous opportunities to reduce potential duplication in government programs among the Services in terms of looking at military 

health care costs. I want you to tell me what steps you thought 

were appropriate to take in addressing the findings of the GAO report on duplication. 

Mr. MABUS. I think it’s important to separate a couple of things 

here. One is Active Duty health care. There have been no changes 

in terms of amounts of money spent or things like that recommended for Active Duty servicemembers. There have been recommendations in terms of more service-wide efficiencies that the 

GAO report did on that. 

In terms of my comments that the health care costs were going 

up, were aimed mainly at health care costs for retirees under the 

Medicare age, that the Secretary of Defense has made some recommendations on. We fully concur in that. That’s where our costs 

are going up. That, I think, will become unsustainable in the future. 

The Secretary of Defense on a defense-wide basis has rec- ommended that the costs for a single person go up $2.50 per 

month, for a family, $5 per month. We’re talking about going for 

a family, from $460 a year to $520 a year in terms of premiums— 

a very modest increase. It’s still far, far below what a Federal employee who is not a military retiree would have to pay. 

There are also overhead reductions in this. We do think that 

there can be some savings in overhead in terms of the way we deliver our health care costs. But those two major things, we think, 

are necessary to keep us sustainable just in terms of how much 

money we’re spending on health care. 

Senator AYOTTE. Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to follow up, because obviously with respect to our retirees and our veterans we 

also have a solemn duty to make sure that we follow through on 

the promises that we’ve made to them with respect to health care 

and other promises, given their service to our country. So this committee certainly will be looking at those proposals. 

I also wanted to just follow up on the idea of greater coordination 

to eliminate duplication within the system, to try to save administrative costs, and what your thoughts are, and what some of the 

issues that were identified in the GAO report were, and what 

measure you thought that we could take among the branches and 

even within the Navy to try to save some administrative costs in 

that area? 

Mr. MABUS. There are clearly some areas that you can save some 

administrative costs. We’re looking not only between Services, but 

also between the Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) system, for example. We’re going to an integrated disability 

evaluation system so that a servicemember who is disabled doesn’t 

have to go through that twice, once for the Service, once for the VA. 

That saves one step. That obviously saves some overhead costs. 

Because of the previous Base Realignment and Closure Commission, Walter Reed, and Bethesda are being merged into one health 

care center, and we are actively promoting some savings in overVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
347 

head there. We think that, very frankly, there’s too much overhead 

in the joining of those two very critical military facilities. 

So you and the GAO are correct that there are efficiencies that 

we can find just in terms of administrative overhead. We have 

found some of them based on the efficiencies that Secretary Gates 

asked us to find. But we are continuing that look, not only in 

health care, but across DOD, but specifically in health care. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much for your answer. 

My time is up. I wanted to thank all of you for the work that 

you’re doing on behalf of our country. I just offer that I certainly 

am willing to work with you on making sure that we achieve these 

efficiencies so that we continue to support our soldiers and those 

who have sacrificed so much for us. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

In your answer to Senator Ayotte, Mr. Secretary, you made reference to the budget’s proposed increase in the enrollment fees for 

retirees under 65. When was the last time those fees were increased, do you know offhand? 

Mr. MABUS. I believe it was 1995, Senator. 

Chairman LEVIN. I’m wondering if I could ask you, Admiral, and 

you, General, do you support the budget proposal that those fees 

be increased? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I do, sir. I think it’s appropriate. I do not 

believe it is an onerous cost and I’m fully supportive of those 

changes. 

Chairman LEVIN. General? 

General AMOS. Chairman, I absolutely support them. 

Chairman LEVIN. Let me ask you about the no-fly zone issue. 

Our NATO allies, including U.K., France, and Italy, are looking at 

U.N. resolutions and what the role of NATO might be in any nofly zone. So that my question is the following: Even without direct 

U.S. involvement, do our NATO allies have the capability of implementing a no-fly zone over Libya, presumably with the support of 

members of the international community? Do they have the capability of dealing with any threat by the Libyan air force, such as 

it is, and by Libyan air defenses, such as they are? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, I think that whatever group comes 

together if, in fact, this were to proceed would have to look at the 

individual capabilities of that country or those countries and see 

what it was. But the NATO air capability is significant, sophisticated. I think you have to see what the final outcome is. 

Chairman LEVIN. So that in terms of the specific capabilities of 

those air forces even without our involvement, you’re not able to 

say now whether or not they could successfully carry out that mission? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, I think the capabilities reside within the NATO air forces. It’s who comes together and contributes 

what that would determine the effectiveness of that package. 

Chairman LEVIN. On the question of Guam and Okinawa, you 

mentioned, Mr. Secretary, that there need to be some Japanese 

Government decisions. Do you know whether there are any discussions or negotiations scheduled with the Japanese Government relative to that issue? 

348 

Mr. MABUS. I know that Secretary Gates in his previous discussions earlier this year was very frank with the Japanese Government on what those decisions need to be, and I think that the Japanese Government understands exactly what actions need to be 

taken before we can begin to take some substantive steps. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you know whether there are any scheduled 

negotiations or discussions? 

Mr. MABUS. No, sir, I don’t. 

Chairman LEVIN. That’s fair. If there are, would you let us 

know? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Webb mentioned that the two of us 

will be heading out that way in about a month and that we should 

know the status. We’ll be briefed, obviously, by you and your folks 

before we go, but on that issue particularly, if there’s anything 

scheduled, if you’ll let us know. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

In response to the request for notification of negotiations scheduled between the 

United States and Government of Japan, although a 2+2 (Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign Affairs) had been tentatively scheduled for April 29 in Washington, due to the senior level focus of the 

Government of Japan and especially the Ministry of Defense, on managing the response to the natural disaster and nuclear crisis, this meeting has been postponed. 

We are seeking acceptable dates for all parties in the near future. We do not yet 

have a firm timetable from the Japanese for the landfill permit process, but in our 

judgment they remain committed to the Roadmap, both for the Guam move as well 

as the Futenma Replacement Facility and Okinawa. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, you’ve testified on a number of occasions about your support of the United States signing 

onto the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). You 

reiterate that support in your written statement this morning. I 

think, Mr. Secretary, you’ve also testified before this committee in 

support of our supporting that treaty and acceding to it. 

Is there anything that’s happened in the last year that has either 

changed or strengthened either of your positions on that? Mr. Secretary, let me start with you. 

Mr. MABUS. It has strengthened my idea that we should accede 

to this treaty, for a couple of reasons. One is, as other nations who 

are signatories try to restrict our freedom of navigation, we are less 

able to push back with as much force as we should be able to were 

we a signatory to this. I think that you’re only going to see that 

increase, as it has over the past year. 

Second, I’ve seen firsthand some of the implications of the Arctic 

and the perhaps ice-free Arctic in the next couple of decades. The 

only way we can have a claim to an outer continental shelf area 

that we can explore for minerals, that we can use as part of our 

exclusive economic zone, is if we are signatories to the UNCLOS. 

Those two things have strengthened my stand that we very much 

need to be signatories. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I would echo those statements, Senator. I 

think we are letting an opportunity and time pass us by. On top 

of those two, where the claims in the Pacific in particular have the 

potential to become more contentious. The opening of the Arctic, 

349 

where resolution of claims and disagreements will be done through 

UNCLOS, we will not be there. 

On top of that, I would submit that our international leadership 

to those countries that view the seas the same way that we do, that 

as they come together to address these issues we are not there, and 

they look to us for that leadership and we are abrogating that leadership. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I indicated to you that there was a couple of questions on that second engine that I asked you to respond to for the 

record. In addition to those two questions, let me add a third and 

a fourth just for the record, if you would. One would be how much 

development money has gone into the first engine and what is the 

$400 million, I believe, additional request for the Pratt engine development due to the business case, and how much total has gone 

into that engine in terms of development costs. 

Finally, I have a long question which I’ll get to you both, both 

you, Mr. Secretary, and you, Admiral, about this issue of special 

support requirements if there is a second engine. It’s a lengthy 

question raising issues with your responses. I think also you, General, responded on that as well. So I would ask all three of you to 

take a look at that question that I will get to you, and then you 

can submit your answer for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Mr. MABUS, Admiral ROUGHEAD, and General AMOS. The F135 and F136 engines 

constitute two different designs by two different manufacturers. The large size of 

the F135 and F136 (approximately 18.7 feet and weighs ∼9,300 lbs in its container) 

necessitates greater sparing aboard ships as neither the assembled engine nor the 

power section module can currently be replenished underway. Similarly, due to the 

weight and height of critical engine spares, it is not feasible to store all Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) engine spares in legacy store rooms or stack them aboard ships as 

is done for the legacy system. This would necessitate work-around in hangar deck 

spaces normally reserved to store and maintain tactical aircraft. Adding an alternate engine makes the shipboard logistics even more challenging as it is not a onefor-one exchange. 

While the F136 engine would be interchangeable, there are several engine components that are not interchangeable. The fan, gear box, and power section modules 

are unique by F135 and F136 propulsion systems. Only the augmenter and exhaust 

nozzle modules are common by F–35 variant. Supporting two engines would require 

unique spares, unique support equipment, and unique training. The JSF specification only requires engines to perform to specified criteria and physically fit into the 

F–35. Maintenance/repair technical requirements are different, requiring different 

instructions and training with differences in assembly hardware and special tools 

for off-aircraft repair. 

[Deleted.] 

Chairman LEVIN. I must leave. Senator Ayotte, you’re more than 

welcome to take the gavel and conclude if you have additional 

questions, if that’s all right. I’ll hand it to you on the way out. 

Thank you all. All three of you have performed extraordinary 

service for this country. Admiral, since this is probably your last 

appearance here, I just want to reinforce what my colleagues have 

said about you and that service. We just wish you well if we don’t 

see you again. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, Senator. It’s been my honor. 

Chairman LEVIN. Mr. Secretary, thank you, and General, thank 

you both. 

350 

Senator AYOTTE [presiding]. I just have a couple of brief questions and then I will wrap this up for sure. I appreciate your patience. 

Admiral Roughead, I wanted to ask you about the maintenance 

portion of the budget. Secretary Gates said on March 4 that a lot 

of our surface ships that were built in the Reagan era will be aging 

out in coming years pretty quickly. In your written testimony 

you’ve echoed this concern, saying: ‘‘Many of our existing cruisers, 

destroyers, and submarines will reach the end of their service life.’’ 

I notice in the budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 you’ve funded 

ship depot maintenance at 94 percent, and wanted to hear from 

you if you could provide some examples of what type of maintenance would not be accomplished at that level versus 100 percent 

maintenance level, understanding that in order for us to preserve 

our fleet we are probably going to have to be doing additional 

maintenance, given the aging of the fleet. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. We are spending 

much more on maintenance now than we did just a couple of years 

ago. So with the support of Congress, we’ve been able to boost that 

up. 

As we got into putting the final touches on the budget, because 

we have done that little bit of a boost-up and we looked at ship 

availabilities, maintenance periods, and the ones that are not included in there are not the complex types of work. They tend to be 

smaller availabilities. Clearly they don’t include any nuclear work, 

nor do they include any of the work that’s done in the public shipyards. These are all availabilities in the private sector, relatively 

small, and I believe that where we have been—some of the changes 

that we’re putting into place with regard to putting more sailors on 

ships and in maintenance centers, that I consider this a reasonable 

approach to take. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

General Amos, I had a question about our detention policy. I had 

the privilege of going over to visit some of your soldiers in January. 

I also want to say the work being done by the Marines is just tremendous and so wanted to commend you for your leadership and 

also just thank the soldiers that serve underneath you. 

If tomorrow we were able to capture the number two in al Qaeda 

in the Arabian Peninsula, that was actually formerly a detainee at 

Guantanamo—I believe his name is Saeed al-Shehri—where would 

we put him? 

General AMOS. Senator, that’s way above my pay grade. I 

wouldn’t know where we would put him. Truly, the truth of the 

matter is that that would be resolved at a level with much discussion. In fact, I doubt if the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

would even be part of that discussion. It would be at the very highest levels of our government. 

Senator AYOTTE. One of the concerns that I have is that I’ve 

heard testimony now from Secretary Gates as well as Secretary 

Vickers that because we’re in a position where the President wants 

to close Guantanamo, there is no detention facility to put that type 

of high-value target that we have under our control. Are you aware 

of a facility we would have under our control that would be appropriate and not located in the United States, to be able to not only 

351 

interrogate that individual, but make sure that he doesn’t again rejoin the battlefield? 

General AMOS. Ma’am, I am not aware of another facility. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of you 

being here and I’m sure you’re all anxious for lunch, so I will conclude this hearing. I thank you all for your service to our country. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REPEAL OF ‘‘DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL’’ 

1. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, last December, Admiral Roughead testified 

that, ‘‘with the exception of the moderate risk associated with projected retention 

in some Navy irregular warfare specialties, I assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion of the Navy to be low. Based on my professional judgment and 

informed by the inputs from our Navy, I recommend repeal of 10 U.S.C. section 

654.’’ General Amos testified: ‘‘based on what I know about the very tough fight in 

Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and 

deploy to theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that 

we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time.’’ Since 

that hearing, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Navy have been working 

on policy changes and developing training plans needed to implement the repeal. 

What are your observations of how Navy personnel are dealing with possible repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)? 

Mr. MABUS. Our Master Mobile Training Teams and command leadership teams 

continue to provide regular reports capturing the ‘‘tone of the force’’ during this 

training period. Feedback from our sailors indicates the training they are receiving 

is comprehensive, well-delivered, and effective. Additionally, we have not observed 

any impacts to readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting, or retention. 

2. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, what are your current 

assessments of the risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion in the Navy and 

Marine Corps if DADT is repealed? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion in 

the Navy to be low and acceptable. According to the results of the Comprehensive 

Review Working Group servicemember survey, approximately 76 percent of sailors 

believe the impacts on effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale will be 

neutral or positive. There is approximately 24 percent who believe the impact of repeal will be negative. I am mindful of the concerns expressed by these individuals. 

However, I believe their concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communications, training and education, and clear and concise 

standards of conduct. Since we have begun training, our commanders have reported 

no impacts to readiness, effectiveness, or cohesion. I have the utmost confidence in 

the ability of the men and women of the U.S. Navy to implement this change in 

the law while setting a positive tone, creating an inclusive and respectful work environment, and maintaining high standards of conduct, mutual respect, and military 

decorum. 

General AMOS. I currently believe the risk is low to moderate. However, we will 

not know the actual impact of repeal until it is effected. During the current training 

phase, we have not observed significant anxiety or push-back from our marines. I 

am confident that Marine leaders at all levels will ensure our Corps understands 

the impending change and will ensure that marines treat each other with dignity 

and respect, thereby mitigating any impact on readiness, effectiveness, and unit cohesion. 

3. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, please describe the status of training and education of sailors and marines regarding the repeal of DADT. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy is on track to meet our training completion goal of 1 

July 2011 for all naval personnel. Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces has been appointed the Executive Agent for delivery and tracking of DADT training. Master 

Mobile Training Teams have been deployed to our Fleet worldwide to deliver training to our command leadership teams (commanding officer, executive officer, command master chief). These individuals will be responsible in turn to conduct the 

352 

training for all personnel within their command. To date, more than 90 percent of 

our command leadership personnel (Tier 2) have been trained and are conducting 

training Navy-wide for all remaining personnel (Tier 3). Specific training for recruiters, military law enforcement, chaplains, legal, Fleet and Family Support Centers, 

personnel support professionals, housing, senior human resource personnel, equal 

opportunity, and Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) personnel (Tier 1) has 

been commenced and will be completed by the 1 July 2011 deadline. 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps is complete with Tier 1 (special staff) and Tier 

2 (leadership) training. As of 30 June 2011, Tier 3 (Marines) training is 95 percent 

complete. Our primary method of instruction is face-to-face where leaders are able 

to interact with their marines, provide information and then have a frank and open 

discussion about any questions or concerns they may have. 

4. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, have you discovered any 

unanticipated issues as you initiated the training? If so, how are you addressing 

these issues? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy has not experienced any unanticipated issues during 

the training process. Feedback from our sailors indicates the training they are receiving is comprehensive, well-delivered, and effective. Additionally, we have not observed any impacts to readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting, or retention during the training period. 

General AMOS. We have not observed any significant unanticipated issues during 

training. The framework for the training is very comprehensive and anticipates 

many common questions and concerns. 

SEXUAL ASSAULTS IN THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

5. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, 17 current and former service men and 

women recently filed a lawsuit in Federal Court alleging that DOD ‘‘failed to prevent plaintiffs and others from being raped and sexually assaulted.’’ Four of the 

plaintiffs were from the Navy and two from the Marine Corps. Among other things, 

the plaintiffs allege that DOD failed to investigate rapes and sexual assaults and 

failed to prosecute the perpetrators. Some reports suggest that up to one-third of 

the women serving in the military are victims of sexual assault. What is your assessment of the Navy’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program? 

Mr. MABUS. Nothing has a more corrosive effect on readiness, good order, and discipline than sexual assault. We seek nothing less than a culture of gender respect 

where sexual assault is completely eliminated and never tolerated. The ‘‘Navy Sexual Assault Prevention Summit’’ brought together senior military and civilian Navy 

leaders to interact with recognized experts in the field. I established a new Navy 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (DON–SAPRO), led by a Senior Executive Service civilian who reports directly to me. DON–SAPRO is my primary 

agent for developing Secretariat-level policy and for monitoring, coordinating, and 

assessing the Navy-wide efforts to prevent sexual assaults. 

The Department of the Navy and its two military Services—the U.S. Navy and 

the U.S. Marine Corps continue our commitment to reduce the incidence of sexual 

assault, provide compassionate support to sexual assault survivors, and focus on 

prevention. Senior department leadership provide a consistent top-down leadership 

message, underscored by their actions that sexual assault is incompatible with our 

core values. Examples of the many initiatives taken by the Navy in fiscal year 2010 

include: 

• ‘‘Bystander Intervention’’ pilot programs at four locations—educated sailors and marines on recognizing and interrupting risky situations. Further 

implementation is planned for fiscal year 2011. 

• Engaged a nationally-recognized civilian expert to advise departmental 

efforts on sexual assault prevention and to help update sexual assault 

training curricula. 

• Expanded training for military investigators and prosecutors and sponsored ‘‘Sexual Assault Investigation and Prosecution’’ mobile training 

teams. 

• The Marine Corps has revised its training curriculum for Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs), Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs), 

and Victim Advocates (UVAs/VAs). 

6. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, have you made any changes in the Navy to 

improve accountability for Navy personnel who commit sexual assaults? 

353 

Mr. MABUS. Sexual assaults are crimes that devastate victims, undermine teamwork, threaten unit cohesiveness, and ultimately reduce fleet readiness. Navy has 

a ‘‘zero tolerance’’ sexual assault policy. Expectations of senior leadership for SAPR 

are outlined in policy and in Naval and Marine administrative messages sent worldwide. 

Navy Judge Advocate General (JAG), Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division, and 

NCIS partnered to review cases, analyze characteristics of typical cases, and develop 

best practices for investigation, evaluation, and prosecution of sexual assault cases. 

Trends were evaluated to determine the type of training necessary to improve the 

quality of investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases. This training was 

then delivered using mobile training teams throughout the Navy and Marine Corps. 

Specific Department and Service-level initiatives: 

• Hired two Sexual Assault Litigation Specialists (nationally recognized experts) 

• Developed new courses: Prosecuting Alcohol-Facilitated Sexual Assault; 

Sexual Assault Litigation and Mentoring Skills; and Trial Advocacy taught 

by AEquitas 

• Navy JAG Corps implemented the Military Justice Litigation Career 

Track 

• Marine Corps Trial Counsel Assistance Program implemented 

• Judge Advocate Division conducted Marine Corps-wide Victim Witness 

Assistance Program (VWAP) training 

• Ensured sexual assault and VWAP were addressed in all leadership 

training venues 

• Developed joint-service DVD on sexual assault prosecution 

• Expanded NCIS training for Family and Sexual Violence Special Agents 

• DON Sexual Assault Advisory Council established in policy requiring senior leadership participation from all key SAPR stakeholders 

• Ongoing SAPRO team site visits and fleet-wide SAPR Workshops 

(CONUS and OCONUS) focus on leadership and command responsibility 

for SAPR 

• SAPR definitions and reporting requirements were added on Navy advancement exams 

• DON Sexual Assault Prevention Summit scheduled for May 2011 with 

DON senior leadership, Regional and Installation Commanders, and senior 

enlisted leadership will focus on prevention and management of sexual assault cases 

7. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, what measures have you 

taken as service chiefs to provide a safe environment for sailors and marines so that 

they do not have to fear being sexually assaulted by fellow servicemembers? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy continues to maintain a zero tolerance policy toward 

sexual assault. My goal is to eliminate sexual assault by fostering a culture of prevention which includes effective education and training, a 24/7 response capability 

to ensure victim support, reporting procedures available worldwide, and accountability that enhances the safety and well being of all. As CNO, I have implemented 

the following measures: 

• Increased oversight. In September 2009, I appointed Deputy Chief of 

Naval Operations, Manpower Personnel Training and Education (N1) as the 

Executive Agent (EA) for the Navy SAPR program to provide high level 

oversight and assessment through regularly scheduled program reviews in 

which key stakeholders provide inputs on critical SAPR measures of performance and are briefed on the program’s effectiveness. To ensure accountability down to the local level, Navy implemented Sexual Assault Coordinating Committees in fiscal year 2010. These organizations provide local 

oversight of the SAPR program at each installation. 

• Policy update. Navy’s SAPR policy has been revised and will be released 

in the near future. The revision has been issued to improve servicemember 

confidence in the Navy’s SAPR program and to improve the rate and level 

of victim participation in the legal process. The revision has two significant 

changes that enhance guidance and factors for commanders to consider 

about the collateral misconduct of victims of sexual assault and increases 

the required information dissemination throughout the chain of command 

following a sexual assault and through the legal resolution. 

• Raising Awareness and Enhanced Training. Navy has engaged with other 

governmental agencies and internal agencies to raise sexual assault awareness, increase victim and servicemember confidence, promote Bystander 

354 

Intervention (BI), and ultimately reduce the occurrence of sexual assaults. 

Navy has also incorporated SAPR into training curricula at all levels, beginning at the accession points for officers and enlisted. It then is reinforced 

through our specialty school curriculum and our leadership school curriculums. The Navy hired a highly-qualified expert who adds critical expertise 

to the development of the overall Navy Prevention strategy with the intent 

of identifying gaps across the continuum of training, prevention, and response initiatives. 

• Synchronized messages. Navy develops and delivers consistent and concise messages through social marketing media channels, Navy Administrative Messages and Sexual Assault Awareness Month events. Messaging is 

also coordinated with the Navy Safety Center to focus on the link between 

alcohol misuse and sexual assault. 

• Bystander Intervention. Navy is completing analysis of a 9-month bystander intervention pilot program which was focused on the elimination of 

sexual assault incidents. This program leveraged peer-to-peer training 

using real life scenarios. Evaluation of a fleet-wide roll out will be included 

in the analysis. 

• Victim Support. Navy provides 24/7 response for sexual assault victims 

through trained Victim Advocates (VA) and Sexual Assault Response Coordinators. Navy is also fully engaged in the roll out of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) sponsored Safe Helpline, a resource which provides 

expert support to military victims of sexual assault via telephone, text, or 

chat. 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps has taken aggressive actions to heighten awareness about sexual assault and make prevention a leadership issue. Commanders are 

responsible for creating a safe environment and a climate of respect for all marines. 

We have also taken measures to highlight the Sexual Assault Prevention Response 

Program by partnering with industry experts, promoting a strong prevention campaign, implementing a 24/7 Helpline to support victims of sexual assault, and increasing visibility of this issue in the field. We are also utilizing Bystander Intervention as a training tool to create an understanding that every marine has an inherent 

duty to be actively engaged in preventing sexual assaults. 

SUPPORT FOR WOUNDED WARRIORS

8. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, wounded sailors and marines deserve the 

highest priority for support services, healing and recuperation, rehabilitation, evaluation for return to duty, successful transition from Active Duty, if required, and 

continuing support beyond retirement or discharge. In your view, what are the most 

critical shortcomings in our providing care for our wounded warriors? 

Mr. MABUS. Recognizing and appreciating the sacrifices of wounded, ill, and injured (WII) servicemembers and their families remain a priority of the Navy. 

Through the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery’s WII Warrior Support, the Navy Safe 

Harbor Program, and the Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Regiment, we take care 

of our own by serving WII sailors and marines who are in Active Duty, Reserve, 

and veteran status. 

The past 2 years, I have designated November as our Warrior Care Month. Last 

year, our theme was ‘‘Focusing on Abilities—Supporting Wounded Warriors 

throughout Recovery, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration.’’ 

Since 2001, we have had over 12,000 marines and sailors wounded in action in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation 

New Dawn (OND). Historic advances in military medicine have resulted in personnel surviving injuries that would have been fatal in any previous conflict. That 

is good news. Our leading military treatment facilities (MTF) are helping them recover and rehabilitate. 

It is said that critical to reintegration is finding a fulfilling career. But for some 

of our returning brothers and sisters in arms, reintegration to the workforce in the 

face of the current economic downturn poses a significant challenge. In addition to 

weeks, months, or years of recovery, our wounded sailors and marines face the potential travesty of unemployment. Over 140,000 veterans of OIF and OEF are unemployed, or underemployed, with approximately 5,000 WII servicemembers joining 

the unemployment rolls every year—that is 4 new WII servicemembers every day. 

Building re ́sume ́s, getting the training and education required, and finding a civilian career remain a challenge for our wounded warriors, despite many initiatives 

across government and the service branches to support returning personnel. We 

need to better coordinate the employment effort. At the Navy, we are making 

355 

progress in this area. We are streamlining the Navy’s wounded warrior hiring process and expanding our Wounded Warrior Training and Education programs. We 

have established a Wounded Warrior Hiring and Support Initiative tasked to develop solutions to improve wounded warrior hiring and support within the Navy. 

The initiative aims to increase the number of wounded warriors hired into the 

Navy, the Federal Civil Service, and the private sector. But there is more to be 

done. We need to ensure that we are continually working with our sister Services, 

the OSD, the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Department of Labor, Office of 

Personnel Management, other Federal Government agencies, and non-federal entities in this effort. 

Our Wounded Warrior Training Programs have become a best practice across 

DOD. Our Veterans Individual Training Assistant Link is a special program to help 

wounded, severely ill, and injured marines and sailors, and other servicemembers 

while recovering in the MTFs to transition from a military career into the Federal 

Civil Service or other opportunities. While still receiving treatment in our MTFs, 

wounded, severely ill, and injured marines and sailors, and other servicemembers 

receive educational and employment counseling, are encouraged to enroll in schooling and, where practical, provided pre-employment job experience in a field that interests them. Our Career Learning and Employment Centers provide education and 

on-the-job training for disabled veterans. They also provide career assistance and 

other veteran support to assist the veteran to achieve their career goals. Through 

these effective training programs, Naval Sea Systems Command hired 282 wounded 

warriors and disabled veterans in fiscal year 2010 with a goal of 365 in fiscal year 

2011. the Navy hired 1,905 wounded warriors and disabled veterans (30 percent and 

above disability rating) in fiscal year 2010. 

While it is the WII marine or sailor who physically endures recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration, it is the family unit that serves as a critical support system 

for healing. To this end, families make many sacrifices. Oftentimes, it is the spouse 

of a recovering sailor or marine who is the breadwinner of the family. We have 

made progress in this area too. We are working with the Office of Personnel Management to remove the 2-year eligibility limitation for non-competitive appointment 

for spouses of certain deceased or 100 percent disabled veterans. This will help the 

wounded warrior families whose wounded family member is not able to return to 

full-time employment. Last year, President Obama signed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act that ensures that families of veterans severely 

wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan receive comprehensive, coordinated financial and 

other support that will enable them to provide these warriors with needed homecare. The Navy supports this and is standing by to ensure appropriate support for 

caregivers, to include special compensation for those caregivers who face financial 

hardships as a result of caring for their catastrophically injured sailor or marine, 

is received. 

By definition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) does not start until 30 days 

after the occurrence of the trauma and the onset may be delayed from weeks to 

years after the trauma. Many servicemembers may not experience the onset of 

PTSD symptoms until they have separated from the Service and are under the care 

of the VA. Because of this wide variability, calculation of an average time to onset 

is impractical. The Navy and the Marine Corps solution to this issue is a robust 

program for prevention, early detection, and treatment which makes every effort to 

remove the stigma and other barriers to servicemembers receiving care at the earliest possible time. The Navy and Marine Corps continue to search for ways to eliminate the stigma and help sailors and marines understand that asking for help is 

‘‘OK.’’ We also need to ensure that employers of wounded warriors and their staff 

are educated on PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury so they can better support our 

wounded warriors and succeed in the workplace. 

9. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, numerous studies document the need to reform DOD’s disability evaluation system. The recently adopted Integrated Disability 

Evaluation System (IDES) has improved the system by integrating DOD and VA 

systems, but it still takes nearly a year to process through the system. What is your 

assessment of IDES? 

Mr. MABUS. The IDES process is achieving the primary goals that were intended 

when this process was designed in 2007. Most notable of these goals is that our sailors and marines receive both their post-service military and VA benefits on the first 

day authorized by law. This eliminates the ‘‘benefits gap’’ experienced under the 

previous DES system. To achieve this significant benefit, the IDES process has the 

secondary impact of keeping our servicemembers in uniform for a longer period of 

time. This is a concern because the length of time needed to process cases has direct 

proportional adverse impact on the Services’ readiness for their military mission. 

356 

Those in the IDES remain in uniform longer which, for any given end-strength, reduces the number of Active Duty available for unrestricted assignment. Therefore, 

the principle focus must be on reducing the amount of time consumed by the process 

itself without debasing what we do for our WII servicemembers. 

The simplest and most direct means of monitoring the IDES process is through 

the observation of case flow—the time servicemembers’ cases spend transiting the 

IDES’ waypoints. Tracking and evaluating process time brings clarity for resourcing 

decisions and process improvements. To this end, based on a review of data from 

IDES operations over the past 6 months (period ending March 31, 2011), we would 

like to reduce the average time taken by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 

Phase of the IDES by approximately 100 days. However, since some of the processing events occurring within this phase are controlled by the MTFs and some are 

controlled by the VA, reducing the average MEB Phase time requires both departments to ensure resources and internal processes are aligned to support timeliness 

goal. 

10. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, how can we make this system better to support the needs of our wounded warriors? 

Mr. MABUS. As previously discussed in the response to question #9, the principle 

focus must be on reducing the amount of time consumed by the process itself without debasing what we do for our WII servicemembers. To significantly reduce the 

overall processing time, the Navy has recommended specific changes to ‘‘remodel’’ 

the IDES. This IDES remodel allows us to keep what is good about the current 

IDES process while making needed improvements and renovations. The recommended IDES remodel can be implemented under current laws, avoids any postservice benefit gap, maintains the servicemembers’ due process rights, and can be 

completed in less than half the time required by the current IDES process. This remodel is currently under review by both DOD and the VA for possible near-term 

implementation. By seizing process design change opportunities, properly resourcing 

the processes we decide to deploy, and better leveraging existing capabilities, both 

the WII servicemember and readiness for our military mission will benefit. 

FORCE SHAPING AUTHORITIES

11. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, in your prepared statement, you said that: 

‘‘We will be challenged to meet our Active and Reserve end strength targets in fiscal 

year 2012 using existing force shaping measures. As a result of continued high retention and low attrition across the force, we are facing increasing pressure to use 

involuntary force shaping measures to remain within our authorized end strength.’’ 

What additional force shaping authorities will you need to shape a Navy with the 

right sailors with the skills and experience the Navy needs? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. While the Navy will be challenged in meeting Active and Reserve congressional end strength limits for fiscal year 2012, existing voluntary and 

involuntary force-shaping authorities are sufficient for this fiscal year. Navy will 

continue to monitor those levers against end strength. Should additional authorities 

be required, we will consult with Congress and utilize the legislative process as we 

develop any necessary authority changes. 

12. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, do you plan to ask Congress for this authority? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. While the Navy will be challenged in meeting Active and Reserve congressional end strength limits for fiscal year 2012, existing voluntary and 

involuntary force-shaping authorities are sufficient for this fiscal year. Navy will 

continue to monitor those levers against end strength. Should additional authorities 

be required, we will consult with Congress and utilize the legislative process as we 

develop any necessary authority changes. 

13. Senator LEVIN. General Amos, you state that you are ‘‘determined to ‘keep 

faith’ with [your] marines and their families by designing and executing a responsible drawdown from [your] current 202,100 end strength such that [you] avoid reduction-in-force actions and early retirement boards.’’ How do you plan to reduce the 

Active Duty Marine Corps end strength from 202,100 to 186,800, a reduction of 

15,300 marines, without using involuntary measures? 

General AMOS. If the Marine Corps receives the authorities to draw-down over a 

4-year period, normal manpower force shaping levers of reduced accession and reduced first term retention will provide the primary reduction methods. Additional 

shaping measures, such as adjusting high tenure policies, may be required to 

357 

achieve proper grade and occupational specialty distribution as well as end strength 

targets. If used, these slight modifications to manpower policies will still provide 

every marine a competitive opportunity to continue serving. 

14. Senator LEVIN. General Amos, will you need additional legislative authority 

from Congress to do this? 

General AMOS. We believe that given the proper time (i.e. 4 years), the Marine 

Corps will not need any additional authorities. However, we may require an extension of current and expired authorities relative to end strength to cover the period 

of the planned draw-down (i.e. fiscal year 2015–fiscal year 2018). 

SERVICEMEMBER SUICIDE

15. Senator LEVIN. General Amos, Congress remains extremely concerned, as I 

know you do, about the rates of servicemember suicide. While the numbers of suicides in 2010 among Navy and Marine Corps members appear to have decreased 

compared to 2009, February saw a spike in Navy suicides, so we must continue to 

focus on suicide prevention and resiliency programs. To what do you attribute the 

decrease in marine suicides? 

General AMOS. Marine Corps leaders at all levels are fostering individual and unit 

resilience, and creating an environment that encourages marines to engage supporting resources before stress mounts to the risk of suicide. As they traditionally 

do, our NCOs have led the way by first undergoing our prevention and awareness 

training and then administering it to their junior marines. To assist them we included marines of every rank in the development and testing of our prevention 

courses. As a result, marines are better receiving the message that asking for help 

is a sign of strength and that getting help early can improve their careers and the 

readiness of the Corps overall. This effort also aims to reduce the traditional stigma 

to seeking mental health care. 

We continue to enhance our Operational Stress Control and Readiness Program, 

which embeds behavioral health providers in deployment and garrison unit settings, 

optimizing their proximity to and trust with marines. We train these providers and 

their support teams. Additionally, we recently began training 40–50 marines per deploying unit to recognize signs of stress and assist fellow marines in getting help 

when needed. The relationship between individual marines is a powerful tool in the 

effort to prevent suicide. 

Amidst these positive trends and developments, we are mindful that we have not 

ultimately solved the suicide problem. As such we will continue to learn, adapt and 

do whatever is necessary to combat this tragic and preventable loss of life. 

16. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, how is the Navy addressing the recent rise in suicides that you saw last month? 

Mr. MABUS and Admiral ROUGHEAD. Current Navy suicide prevention initiatives 

include training aimed at front line supervisors to boost understanding of sailors 

under their command, recognize changes in their behavior and signs of concern, and 

engaging early with appropriate support when necessary. Leadership seminars focus 

leader attention during times of transition and stress due to loss, including loss of 

status or career standing, and address the concept of continuously building and reinforcing connections with families to facilitate communication in times of need. Recognizing that people exposed to suicide are an at-risk group, expanded postvention 

training and guidance has recently been added to assist leaders, in the aftermath 

of a tragedy, in preventing future suicides. Other specific actions include: 

• Expanded surveillance and analysis of Navy Active Duty and selected Reserve suicide deaths and attempts. 

• Support of command prevention and stress management programs with 

printed resource and innovative interactive training materials. 

• Suicide prevention coordinator and first responder training worldwide 

and at Navy Reserve locations via Navy Reserve psychological health outreach teams. 

• Navy representation in support of DOD, VA, and other cooperative efforts. 

• Assistance with development of DOD response to recommendations from 

the DOD task force report on prevention of suicide among members of the 

Armed Forces. 

Additionally, due to the recent rise in suicides, we are intensifying suicide prevention communication efforts and assessing our current program to ensure we are executing it to the fullest, while incorporating recommendations and feedback from the 

358 

DOD suicide prevention task force report, the RAND report and the recent DOD/ 

VA suicide prevention conference. 

IMPACT OF DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSE SHIPS

17. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, in the last few days, 

the United States deployed the USS Monterey, an Aegis ballistic missile defense 

(BMD) cruiser to the Mediterranean Sea as part of Phase 1 of the Phased Adaptive 

Approach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe. There will be additional deployments 

of improved Aegis BMD capability with each successive phase of the European PAA. 

How does the Navy plan to manage these deployments so it is able to accomplish 

all its assigned missions, including—but not limited to—missile defense? 

Mr. MABUS. DOD employs a comprehensive Global Force Management (GFM) 

process to allocate available assets, including BMD-capable Aegis ships, to meet Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCC) requirements, such as the European PAA. 

This process considers the GCC surface combatant requirements for all mission 

areas not just BMD. 

A key attribute of all Aegis ships is their multi-mission capabilities within the 

maritime domain, which allows the Navy to employ Aegis ships in multi-mission 

roles rather than for exclusive missions. These ships can perform a variety of other 

non-BMD missions such as strike warfare, air warfare, submarine warfare, surface 

warfare, information warfare, high value asset protection, or maritime interdiction 

either concurrently or sequentially as the GCC requires. 

The Navy is not large enough to deploy ships for single mission purposes, and 

thus, with the exception of deterrent patrols by SSBNs, does not advocate deploying 

warships for single mission tasking. Single mission use of our Aegis ships for BMD 

will result in shortages in other mission areas and a loss of operational flexibility 

for the GCCs. 

The Navy’s operating concept for maritime BMD features a graduated readiness 

posture that allows BMD-capable Aegis ships to be on an operational tether and 

available for other tasking when not directly involved in active BMD operations. 

Aegis ships operating in support of a BMD mission do not lose the capability to conduct other missions; however, specific mission effectiveness may be affected by ships’ 

position and/or application of ship resources to those missions. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy currently has sufficient capacity to meet the most 

critical demands for multi-mission surface combatants; however, Navy does not have 

the capacity to meet all GCC demands, such as the European PAA, for BMD-capable 

ships without breaking currently established Chief of Naval Operations Personnel 

Tempo program limits. Based on threat analysis and current indications from GCCs, 

and assuming standard 6-month deployment lengths, Navy and MDA concluded 

that GCC demand for surface combatants with Aegis BMD capability will outpace 

capacity through approximately 2018. 

A key attribute of all Aegis ships is their multi-mission capabilities within the 

maritime domain, which allows the Navy to employ Aegis ships in multi-mission 

roles rather than for exclusive missions. These ships can perform a variety of other 

non-BMD missions such as strike warfare, air warfare, submarine warfare, surface 

warfare, information warfare, high value asset protection, or maritime interdiction 

either concurrently or sequentially as the GCC requires. The Navy is not large 

enough to deploy ships for single mission purposes, and thus, with the exception of 

deterrent patrols by SSBNs, does not advocate deploying warships for single mission 

tasking. The Navy’s operating concept for maritime BMD features a graduated readiness posture that allows BMD-capable Aegis ships to be on an operational tether 

and available for other tasking when not directly involved in active BMD operations. 

Aegis ships operating in support of a BMD mission do not lose the capability to conduct other missions; however, specific mission effectiveness may be affected by ships’ 

position and/or application of ship resources to those missions. 

CONTINUED PRODUCTION OF SM–3 BLOCK IA

18. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is not 

planning for additional production of the SM–3 Block IA interceptor for the Aegis 

BMD system, preferring instead to move to production of the next SM–3 variant 

that has increased capability, the Block IB. However, there have been technical 

delays with the Block IB which has resulted in production delays. Given that the 

regional combatant commanders are seeking increased inventories of SM–3 interceptors, do you believe that we should consider additional production of the SM–3 Block 

IA if there continues to be delays with the Block IB interceptor? 

359 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy has a sufficient inventory of SM–3 missiles to satisfy 

the present global missile defense requirement. An additional delay in the production of SM–3 Block IB missiles would be a cause for concern. However, Navy and 

MDA are committed to delivering and fielding the significantly more capable SM– 

3 Block IB on schedule. We will keep Congress fully informed as these important 

programs progress. 

ANTI-SHIP BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

19. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, there has been recent discussion of China’s development of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) capability that could pose a risk to our aircraft carriers in the western Pacific. I know 

the Navy takes a strong interest in this issue. Without going into any sensitive information, what steps are we taking to protect our aircraft carriers from such a system? 

Mr. MABUS and Admiral ROUGHEAD. Our Navy has made a significant investment 

in new ships, sensors, weapons, and systems to counter a wide array of evolving 

threats. Additionally, we have invested heavily in Aegis modernization, to upgrade 

existing Aegis technology already in the Fleet. These initiatives involving the current and future Fleet will continuously improve our Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability, allowing our forces to continue to operate forward around the 

world. 

STRIKE FIGHTER SHORTFALL

20. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, we have had continuing discussions over 

the past several years about a potential strike fighter shortfall, with the estimates 

of that shortfall ranging as high at times as 250 aircraft. This year, we have seen 

yet another restructuring of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, with a reduction of 65 F–35 aircraft over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for the Navy 

and Marine Corps, with an increase in the number of 41 F–18s, an increase that 

does not match the loss of F–35 aircraft. Considered alone, that would be going in 

the wrong direction to try to reduce the gap. However, in addition this year, you 

have established a service life extension program (SLEP) for existing F–18 aircraft 

that may help ameliorate the gap. What is the Navy’s current assessment of the 

maximum size of the strike fighter shortfall? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Based on the 2012 President’s budget, the Navy projects it 

will experience a peak inventory shortfall of 65 aircraft in 2018, should the following 

conditions exist: accelerated transition of 10 F/A–18 legacy Hornet squadrons into 

Super Hornets; the service life extension of approximately 150 legacy Hornets; and 

procurement of a total of 556 F/A–18E/F Super Hornets. As I testified, this aircraft 

shortfall is manageable. 

21. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, in the face of such potential shortfalls, why 

did the Navy not increase F/A–18E/F procurement to compensate for the reduction 

in JSF procurement so that you would at least remain even in your numbers of 

strike fighter production? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy’s procurement objectives presented in the fiscal 

year 2012 President’s budget include the procurement of 41 additional F/A–18E/F 

for a total of 556. With the addition of 41 Super Hornets, Service Life Extension 

of 150 F/A–18 A–D aircraft to 10,000 flight hours, and the accelerated transition of 

three additional legacy squadrons, the Navy was able to reduce the estimated strike 

fighter shortfall to the current value of 65 aircraft, occurring in 2018, without a onefor-one compensation for JSF reduction and F/A–18E/F procurement. This shortfall 

risk is manageable. 

NUNN-McCURDY RECERTIFICATION

22. Senator LEVIN. General Amos, in February 2007, the Secretary of the Navy 

notified Congress that the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program experienced what is known as a ‘‘critical Nunn-McCurdy breach,’’ meaning that unit costs 

grew at least 25 percent above the acquisition program baseline that was current 

at that time. When such a breach occurs, DOD is required to either cancel the program or to continue the program, to certify to Congress that: the program is essential to national security, there are no alternatives which will provide equal capability at less cost, the new cost estimates are reasonable, and the management 

structure is adequate to control costs. In June 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense 

360 

for Acquisition provided that certification to Congress. In testimony to the House 

of Representatives at the end of June 2007, DOD witnesses explained that the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, formally examined the requirements for the EFV as part of the 

Nunn-McCurdy process. The JROC concluded that the EFV requirements ‘‘are essential to national security.’’ A second DOD panel examined alternatives to the EFV 

and concluded that none existed that could meet the EFV requirements at equal or 

less cost. What has changed since the EFV went through the Nunn-McCurdy certification? 

General AMOS. The requirement to field an amphibious vehicle has not changed. 

Based on the assessment conducted in support of Nunn-McCurdy certification requirements, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff validated that ‘‘The Amphibious Joint Forcible Entry Operations capabilities defined by the EFV Capabilities Production Document remain essential to national security.’’ However, since 

then, the operating environment and the increased cost of developing a modern combat vehicle have changed. Throughout the period when the EFV was being developed, threats in the littorals and U.S. capabilities to counter and overcome these 

threats have evolved. We now believe that our naval capabilities will allow us to 

launch an amphibious vehicle at a minimum required distance of 12 nautical miles 

from the coastline—a distance less than that forecasted when the EFV was developed. This launch distance mitigates the need for a high-speed component to a future amphibious tractor, greatly reducing vehicle complexity and cost. 

Improvised explosive device (IED) threats and the changing operating environment drove increased investments in vehicles to increase protection and network capability. Moreover, lessons learned from the dispersed nature of current operations 

have led to increased requirements for protective armor kits and network 

connectivity for all tactical and combat vehicles, adding cost to our entire Ground 

Combat and Tactical Vehicle (GCTV) portfolio. Today’s fiscal environment and declining total obligation authority have pressurized all procurement investments, 

thus making affordability a driving requirement to balance programs and consider 

risk within the GCTV strategy. 

The Marine Corps is committed to the capability represented by the cancelled 

EFV program. As stated by the Secretary of Defense, we are firm in our requirement for an amphibious combat vehicle (ACV), which is essential to facilitating shipto-shore operations in permissive, uncertain, and hostile environments; assuring access where infrastructure is destroyed or nonexistent; and creating joint access in 

defended areas. 

BUDGETING FOR AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE PROCUREMENT

23. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, the last time the Marine Corps bought a 

new amphibious assault vehicle (AAV) was almost 40 years ago. Buying a new armored assault vehicle is a rare event and a major undertaking, since it is a unique 

and critical element in the Nation’s ability to project power ashore. Nonetheless, the 

Marine Corps and the Navy take the view that expenditures on a new vehicle, combined with expenditures on other needed ground vehicles, cannot exceed the historical average of what the Marine Corps spends year-to-year on ground vehicles. This 

seems strange and illogical. An important but rare investment would seem to demand an increase in average expenditures in a given budget account. This temporary increase in one area would be compensated for by temporary decreases in 

other areas where similar periodic investments have concluded. Why should the Marine Corps be forced—or be forcing itself—to make a major investment like the EFV 

fit within a set budget for a specific type of end article? 

Mr. MABUS. Marine Corps leadership made the recommendation to cancel EFV 

based upon recent program performance which included a Nunn-McCurdy breach 

and multiple schedule slips due to engineering issues with the pump-jet propulsion 

train. This termination was not necessitated by a need for the Marine Corps to fit 

programs within any pre-existing or historical level of funding. 

Since system development for EFV began in 2000, it has had severe cost growth 

and technological problems. The program experienced substantial cost overruns in 

2007 and was then restructured, and EFV costs were growing at a rate we simply 

could not afford. Its primary technical challenges at this stage pertain to propulsion 

train and armor reliability. As a result, it was decided that no further investment 

should be committed to EFV due to current program performance. 

361 

24. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, do other budget accounts, such as Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), vary from historical averages when the Navy 

makes large purchases, such as is the case with an aircraft carrier? 

Mr. MABUS. As described in the Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range 

Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 2011 submitted in February 

2010, DOD will average no more than $15.9 billion of annual funding (in fiscal year 

2010 dollars) across the 30 years reflected in the report, including those years in 

which aircraft carrier funding is included. DOD utilizes incremental funding, as approved by Congress, as a mechanism to mitigate the impact of the carrier on the 

overall SCN appropriation. However, in those years where the carrier funding accounts for a larger percentage of the total SCN budget, the procurement of other 

shipbuilding platforms is adjusted in order to stay within available SCN funding. 

25. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, does the Navy increase the Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) account in terms of its share of the investment budget during 

the period when it is investing heavily in new aircraft such as the F–35? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy’s overall investment in the APN appropriation as a percentage of the total investment request varies year to year from fiscal year 2012 to 

fiscal year 2016, but it is consistently between 28 percent and 30 percent. The 

changes in the percentage and overall APN funding level is not solely attributable 

to JSF but is a combination of a number of factors and programs. For example, the 

P–8A investment steadily increases from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016 as the 

program ramps up production. Others programs overall investment decline, such as 

the EA–18G program which will achieve its inventory objective in fiscal year 2014. 

The JSF APN request does steadily increase as a percentage of the APN request 

from 4.6 percent in fiscal year 2012 to 7.6 percent in fiscal year 2016 as the JSF 

program ramps up production. The table below shows the year-to-year percentages 

from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016 for the APN request as a percentage of the 

total Navy investment request and the JSF APN request as a percentage of the total 

APN request. 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION

26. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, we do not yet know whether the Marine 

Corps can build a new AAV that would meet reduced EFV requirements for an 

amount that is significantly less than what the EFV would cost to finish. Before we 

irrevocably terminate work on the EFV, why not finish the System Development 

and Demonstration (SDD) phase over the next year while DOD conducts its studies 

of alternative solutions? 

Mr. MABUS. The cost of completing the SDD phase would require $242 million in 

fiscal year 2011, $179 million in fiscal year 2012, and $37 million in fiscal year 2013 

for a total of $458 million. The program is not supportable within the context of 

likely Marine Corps procurement budgets. Even in the wake of the changes since 

2007, the simple fact is that the procurement and operations and maintenance costs 

of this vehicle are onerous. We have examined multiple options to preserve the program, either by reducing the number of EFVs, cutting capabilities, or stretching out 

the production run. Unfortunately, none of these options meets what we consider 

reasonable affordability criteria. The program office continues to refine a cancelation 

plan for USD AT&L approval. This plan identifies which efforts on the EFV contract 


308ful1.eps
362 

will be completed in order to better inform the requirements development team in 

support of the follow-on ACV. The remaining elements of the contract will be shut 

down using an orderly approach. In essence, we will simply complete those remaining tasks which provide best value to the government. The selected activities are 

designed to capture performance characterization and may include such things as 

water speed/power performance and tradeoffs; human factors considerations and 

performance; and subsystem designs (technologies) that address the AAV capability 

gaps (i.e., thermal imaging, inertial navigation, laser range finder, crew vision system). These technologies and performance characteristics will better inform requirements and allow us to identify tradeoffs as we develop a more affordable ACV solution. 

27. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, we understand that finishing the essential 

elements of the SDD phase will cost about the same as paying the termination liability. If that is true, we might get something more for the taxpayers’ investment 

and we could preserve the option of going forward with the EFV or a variant of it 

if nothing better turns up. Are you evaluating that strategy? 

Mr. MABUS. We have evaluated that strategy. However, finishing the essential 

elements of the SDD phase does not cost the same as paying the termination liability. The cost to complete the SDD phase requires $242 million in fiscal year 2011, 

$179 million in fiscal year 2012, and $37 million in fiscal year 2013 for a total of 

$458 million. The cost to cancel the EFV program is $216 million—all of which is 

in fiscal year 2011. Furthermore, we designed ongoing work to optimally inform the 

future ACV program. By selectively testing and developing only relevant capabilities 

for the future we provide best value to the government and maximize the return 

on our EFV investment. Our aim is to drive termination costs to effectively zero by 

leveraging those aspects of the EFV program of continuing value. 

28. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, can you identify the relative costs of termination and finishing the essential elements of the SDD program? 

Mr. MABUS. The cost of EFV termination is $216 million in fiscal year 2011. The 

total cost to complete SDD is $458 million. Within the SDD completion figure, the 

cost of finishing essential elements and shutdown of EFV is $242 million in fiscal 

year 2011; $179 million in fiscal year 2012; $37 million in fiscal year 2013. 

F136 SPECIAL SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

29. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, it has been stated by Navy and DOD officials over the past few budget cycles that by having two competing engines for the 

F–35, it would require having two sets of everything . . . things like two different 

sets of spare parts, two different sets of shipping containers, different tools, dual 

trained maintainers, et cetera. You have been quoted as saying that keeping two 

different engines for the F–35 on the decks of aircraft carriers would not be advisable as ‘‘space is at a premium . . . therefore you can put me solidly in the one-engine 

camp.’’ 

As recently as 2001, the Navy was responsible for maintaining nine different type/ 

model/series engines that could be utilized on a carrier. Each of these engines required its own set of unique support equipment, hand tools, intermediate level 

maintenance, training, et cetera. This situation was all very cumbersome and your 

argument would make sense from a legacy aircraft point of view. But the situation 

for the F–35 engine does not appear to present the same situation as that for the 

legacy aircraft systems to which you compare it. By 2020, and assuming the F136 

competitive engine is fielded, the Navy would have to maintain five different type/ 

model/series engines in a carrier strike group. The F/A–18 and the EA–18 will utilize the same engine. The F–35 would have the choice of two interchangeable engines that enjoy 100 percent commonality in hand tools, support equipment, and 

shipping containers. 

Of the four major modules that make up the F–35 propulsion system, two of them 

are 100 percent common between the F135 and F136. DOD had also planned that 

the same training courses would prepare maintenance personnel to support either 

or both engines in the fleet. By using this commonality approach, DOD had designed the program to require fewer uniquely qualified people and fewer unique 

tools, which would translate to fewer dollars necessary to support the engines. DOD 

also structured the program that way precisely to minimize the logistics footprint 

and the associated cost of maintaining a variety of engines on the carrier. Would 

you clarify why you conclude that you don’t have room on the carriers to operate 

an alternate engine for the JSF? 

363 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The F135 and F136 engines constitute two different designs 

by two different manufacturers. The large size of the F135 and F136 (approximately 

18.7 feet and weighs ∼9,300 lbs. in its container) necessitates greater sparing aboard 

ships as neither the assembled engine nor the power section module can currently 

be replenished underway. Similarly, due to the weight and height of critical engine 

spares, it is not feasible to store all JSF engine spares in legacy store rooms or stack 

them aboard ships as is done for legacy system. This would necessitate work-around 

in hangar deck spaces normally reserved to store and maintain tactical aircraft. 

Adding an alternate engine makes the shipboard logistics even more challenging as 

it is not a one-for-one exchange. 

While the F136 engine would be interchangeable, there are several engine components that are not interchangeable. The fan, gear box, and power section modules 

are unique by F135 and F136 propulsion systems. Only the augmenter and exhaust 

nozzle modules are common by F–35 variant. Supporting two engines would require 

unique spares, unique support equipment, and unique training. The JSF specification only requires engines to perform to specified criteria and physically fit into the 

F–35. Maintenance/repair technical requirements are different, requiring different 

instructions and training with differences in assembly hardware and special tools 

for off-aircraft repair. 

LPD–17 SHIPBUILDING PROBLEMS

30. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Mabus, we have been experiencing significant problems with production of the LPD–17 amphibious transport dock program. There 

have been problems with manufacturing, design, and quality control, to the extent 

that upon delivery of one ship to the Navy, the Navy had to immediately place the 

ship in a separate shipyard availability period before the Navy could operate the 

vessel. What has gone so wrong with the construction management and oversight 

of the LPD–17 program that we have had such continuing problems with this acquisition? 

Mr. MABUS. Thorough reviews of LPD–17 class ships revealed issues in the areas 

of construction oversight, manning, and training, but corrective actions are now 

being implemented. Assessments of LPD–17 ship class are now complete and necessary corrections are being implemented. The lessons learned with earlier ships in 

the class have been incorporated in later new-construction ships. 

Quality assurance (QA) and production oversight during ship construction were 

not sufficient by both the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair 

(SUPSHIP) and the shipbuilder impacting main propulsion diesel engines, lube oil 

systems, piping welds, and foundation bolts and power train alignment. However, 

the shipbuilder has now developed new procedures and training for its personnel 

and additional process QA checkpoints have been added to the shipbuilding inspection process. Additional staffing has been added to the SUPSHIP Gulf Coast staff 

with a focus on compliance and the Navy has instituted Comprehensive Quality audits of both SUPSHIP and the shipbuilder. 

The Navy is also strengthening LPD–17 class crew training by establishing more 

traditional shore-based schoolhouses that will result in a blended philosophy of 

classroom, on-ship and computer based training, rather than relying on the previous 

emphasis on computer-based shipboard training. 

Initial system reliability issues with the engine controls, ship controls, and interior communications systems have been addressed through major software upgrades 

to each system as well as the replacement of critical obsolete parts with more rugged current technology hardware. The ships’ 1990s technology asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) shipboard wide area network (SWAN) is being replaced with a current Gigabit Ethernet technology network hardware and software. 

A LPD–17 Class Wholeness Task Force was formed by the Fleet to undertake a 

comprehensive assessment of the overall state of readiness for the entire LPD–17 

class of ships. The task force is addressing shipboard manning, adequacy of shorebased infrastructure support, performance of critical mission and propulsion systems, spare parts support, and adequacy of maintenance resources. 

The combination of the above improvements are resulting in better reliability and 

operational availability of the currently commissioned ships of the class, while improving the projected operational availability of the ships currently under construction. Recent examples are LPD 21 (USS New York) completing in February a highly 

successful Bureau of Inspection and Survey final contract trials and LPD 19 (USS 

Mesa Verde) in March departing early for an overseas deployment in response to 

real world events. 

364 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

LANDING CRAFT AIR CUSHION

31. Senator REED. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, the Landing Craft Air 

Cushion (LCAC) has been a workhorse of the amphibious force for moving vehicles 

and cargo from our amphibious ships to shore. They have been and continue to be 

heavily employed in missions from combat to humanitarian relief worldwide. Despite a Navy SLEP to extend their lives, the LCAC force is wearing out. The Navy 

budget request for fiscal year 2011 included buying the lead vessel of a new shipto-shore connector (SSC) class in the Navy’s research and development budget. Last 

year, the Navy planned to purchase the second SSC vessel of this class in 2013. This 

year, the budget request indicates that the Navy plans to delay building the second 

SSC vessel until 2014. This development is troubling, given the wearing out of the 

exiting LCAC fleet and the cancellation of the EFV, both of which would appear to 

increase the importance of fielding the new SSC program and argue to maintain the 

previous schedule, not delay it. Why has the Navy delayed the second SSC vessel 

a year? 

Mr. MABUS. The second SSC (LCAC 101) was delayed by 1 year to ensure that 

lessons learned during the construction of LCAC 100 were able to be applied to the 

follow-on vessels. Although a delay in the start of the second craft shifts IOC by 

1 year, a SLEP is underway to extend the service life of a total of 72 LCAC from 

the original 20-year service life to 30 years. 

Additionally, a sustaining maintenance program is under development for implementation in the 2014–2015 timeframe to ensure that previously SLEPed LCACs 

remain serviceable until the SSC reaches full operational capability (FOC) in the 

2027–2032 timeframe. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy remains committed to our the ability to embark, 

transport, control, insert, sustain, and extract combat marines and sailors on missions that range from forcible entry to forward deployed crisis response. The second 

SSC (LCAC 101) was delayed by 1 year to ensure that lessons learned during the 

construction of LCAC 100 were able to be applied to the follow-on vessels. 

Although a delay in the start of the second craft shifts IOC by 1 year, a SLEP 

is underway to extend the service life of a total of 72 LCAC from the original 20 

year service life to 30 years. 

After 30 years of service a craft is considered to be beyond designed service life 

and additional maintenance actions will be required to continue these craft in operation. Beginning in 2014 and each year thereafter, the active LCAC fleet will be 

populated with a growing percentage of craft that are expected to serve beyond the 

30-year service life. A sustaining maintenance program is under development for 

implementation in the 2014–2015 timeframe to ensure the LCAC fleet remains serviceable until the SSC reaches FOC in the 2027–2032 timeframe. 

32. Senator REED. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, will this delay lead 

to any gap in capability? 

Mr. MABUS. There will be no capability gap in the Navy’s ship-to-shore portfolio 

and the 1 year delay in the SSC/LCAC 100 acquisition will have only a minor impact in the transition from LCAC to SSC/LCAC 100. The Navy’s transition plan 

combines SLEP for the current LCAC fleet, a post-SLEP LCAC maintenance and 

sustainment program, and a procurement profile for new connectors which replaces 

all legacy LCACs with new SSC/LCAC 100s by 2027. The SLEP and post-SLEP 

maintenance and sustainment program, currently under development, will ensure 

that legacy LCACs will remain operational until replaced by SSC/LCAC 100s sometime between now and 2027. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy remains committed to our the ability to embark, 

transport, control, insert, sustain, and extract combat marines and sailors on missions that range from forcible entry to forward deployed crisis response. The 1 year 

of delay in the SSC acquisition will have an affect on the established mitigation 

plan to address the LCAC capability gap. However, this LCAC capability gap reflects continuation of the current capability with a number of older and potentially 

more maintenance intensive craft remaining in service while developing and fielding 

the successor platform. 

In 2014, the 72 LCAC fleet will begin to exceed its designed service life of 30 

years. A number of LCAC will be required to remain in service in excess of the 

SLEP 30-year designed service life until the SSC reaches FOC in the 2027–2032 

timeframe. A maintenance and sustainment program is being developed to retain 

these craft in service beginning in 2014–2015 timeframe until SSC attains FOC. 

365 

Craft that operate beyond the design service life will require the additional maintenance prescribed and the overall availability of the LCAC fleet will be impacted. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK UDALL

RAND REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS

33. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus, recently, RAND published a study on alternative fuels that was intended to fulfill the requirement of section 334 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009 for such a report. I 

am under the impression that there are aspects of the methodology, findings, and 

conclusions of the RAND report with which you disagree. Is my impression correct? 

If so, with what specifically do you disagree, and why do you disagree? 

Mr. MABUS. In the RAND report, some of the conclusions suggested that the alternative fuel industry is immature, could not scale up to make an appreciable difference as a domestic alternative, and recommended that DOD not invest in this 

market. We have found that the biofuel industry appears to be well-poised to be of 

commercial size and ready to meet Navy demands by 2016 for the Secretary of the 

Navy Great Green Fleet goal. According to Biofuels Digest, there are 110 companies 

that are currently working on various biofuel products including mixed alcohols, biocrude oils, and drop-in fuels. 

The RAND study accurately states that the Navy’s switch to biofuels, in and of 

itself, will not reduce the Nation’s total energy consumption by a significant margin. 

However, the RAND report was not well researched and did not take into account 

the recent research and development advances in the biofuels technologies. RAND 

stated in their report that the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid/biomass-to-liquid fuels 

are the most promising near-term options for meeting DOD’s needs cleanly and 

affordably. Currently, there are no Fischer-Tropsch plants here in the United 

States. Additionally, under the guidelines of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act (EISA) of 2007, Section 526, any replacement fuel has to have a greenhouse gas 

emission profile less than petroleum. In order to meet this guideline, any FischerTropsch coal-to-liquid plant would have to have carbon capture and sequestration 

incorporated into this overall process. While there is important carbon capture and 

sequestration research and development ongoing at DOE, there has not been any 

carbon capture and sequestration process built to commercial scale in the United 

States. In summary, due to the EISA 2007, Section 526 guidelines and the cost prohibitive carbon capture and storage process, we feel that the Fischer-Tropsch coalto-liquid/biomass-to-liquid fuels are not the most promising near-term option for 

meeting DOD’s needs cleanly and affordably. 

While the use of alternative fuels can contribute toward guaranteeing our energy 

supplies, reducing our operational risks, and during volatile upward price swings in 

petroleum, could represent additional cost savings, the Navy’s energy strategy has 

not been limited to alternative fuels. We have aggressively adopted proven energy 

efficient applications and practices commonly found in the commercial sector. We 

have funded both science and technology/research and development projects in pursuit of increased energy efficiency since these project can potentially and directly 

contribute to the combat capability of our operating forces by reducing our energy 

consumption both afloat and ashore, and by achieving significant cost savings. 

The Navy prefers to see itself as an ‘‘early adopter’’ of available biofuels. The military has often led in the development of new technologies where there was a compelling military use, even if the civilian use was ultimately greater (ex. GPS, the 

Internet). The operational use of alternative fuels by the Navy will be hastened by 

collaborating with Federal agencies and private industry at every step of the research, development, and certification process. The alternative fuel program establishes the Navy as an early adopter for investors in a nascent industry that could 

significantly enhance energy security, and thereby national security, in the mid- to 

long-term. By positioning itself as an early adopter by testing available biofuels and 

certifying them ‘‘fit for use across our major platforms and leveraging test and certifications accomplished by the other services that meets our specifications,’’ the 

Navy is better poised to reap the following benefits: 

• Cost Savings. Increasing our use of alternative energy sources helps us 

achieve a level of protection from energy price volatility. For every $10 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil, the Navy spends an additional $300 million a year. Operating more efficiently saves money by reducing the amount 

we spend for fuel. Savings can be reinvested to strengthen combat capability. The cheapest barrel of fuel afloat or kilowatt-hour ashore is the one 

we will never use. 

366 

• Guaranteed Supply. Our reliance on energy can be exploited by potential 

adversaries. Efficiency and alternatives may be our best countermeasure. 

Energy efficiency increases our mission effectiveness by expanding our 

range and endurance, and reducing our need for logistics support. Efficiency 

improvements minimize operational risks of that logistics tether, saving 

time, money, and lives. Alternative fuels provide the Navy an ‘off-ramp 

from petroleum,’ mitigating the risk to a volatile and ever more expensive 

petroleum market. 

• Fossil Fuel Independence. The Navy recognizes that our dependence on 

fossil fuels and foreign sources of oil makes us more susceptible to price 

shocks, supply shocks, natural and man-made disasters, and political unrest in countries far from our shores. 

• Combat Capability. Making our ships and aircraft more efficient improves their fuel economy. We can increase the days between refueling for 

our ships, improving their security and combat capability. We can also extend the range of our aircraft strike missions, allowing us to launch our aircraft farther away from combat areas. Increasing our efficiency and the diversity in our sources of fuel improves our combat capability strategically 

and tactically. 

34. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus, section 334 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 

2010 required a related report. Are you aware of the status of that report? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy is aware of this report being prepared by LMI. Our understanding is that this report is still undergoing review with all pertinent energy offices, and is expected to be out by the end of May. 

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

35. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus, you have set as an ambitious goal: committing the Navy and Marine Corps to generate at least 50 percent of all the energy 

you use to come from alternative sources no later than 2020. Can you speak to what 

qualifies as alternative sources, where you have had the most success and where 

you believe you will attain the remaining percentage under this goal? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy has set two priorities that illustrate the Navy’s role in investing in alternative sources of energy which are energy security and energy independence. The Navy will achieve energy security by utilizing sustainable sources 

that meet tactical, expeditionary, and shore operational requirements and force 

sustainment functions. This allows the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs. Second, energy independence is achieved when 

naval forces rely only on energy resources that are not subject to intentional or accidental supply disruptions. As a priority, energy independence increases operational 

effectiveness by making naval forces more energy self-sufficient and less dependent 

on vulnerable energy production and supply lines. 

The Navy uses many different types of alternative energy on our naval installations such as solar, wind, and waste to energy. We have over 100 MW of solar 

planned to be installed in the next few years, and we have 22 anemometer (wind) 

studies ongoing. On the operational energy front, we have flown an F/A–18 Hornet 

on blended fuel, operated a 50/50 blend of biofuels on the Riverine Command Boat 

(RCB–X), and test flown a Seahawk helicopter on a 50/50 blend of biofuels. The 

Navy has also commissioned the USS Makin Island, which is designed with a gas 

turbine engine and electric auxiliary propulsion system. We also consider our nuclear fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines as part of our alternative energy program. In our expeditionary forward operating bases, we are using flexible solar panels to recharge batteries and light the inside of the tents with LED lighting. These 

are just a few examples of the different types of alternative energy sources that the 

Navy is currently using. 

Much of our success is in the technologies that are tried and true—solar, wind, 

and geothermal. We are continuing to explore geothermal resources on our installations in the southwest. We are making great strides in helping stand up a biofuels 

industry that will supply biofuels to the fleet. This effort will be a key factor in our 

overall success of the 50 percent goal. We have to continue to institute energy efficiency into our processes and programs. We are designing and constructing all of 

our new buildings to LEED Silver criteria. The bottom line is that the most efficient 

BTU or KW-hr is the one that is not used. 

36. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus, in your testimony you said that you are actively exploring for new geothermal resources to augment our existing 270 MW geoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
367 

thermal power plant at China Lake. What technologies are you seeking to employ 

to expand geothermal energy use? 

Mr. MABUS. Currently our geothermal development program is seeking areas on 

our installations with medium to high temperature hydrothermal resources where 

there is adequate faulting or permeability of the rock to allow movement of the 

steam and available ground water. This ‘hot’ geothermal is a large scale power 

source but the effectiveness of the use of geothermal heat depends on site specific 

characteristics. These locations are primarily in the western United States, although 

we have received requests to study geothermal potential in Guam and Japan. These 

requirements are necessary for conventional geothermal power plants, like the 

Navy’s NAWS China Lake facility. Additionally, in locations with permeability with 

lower temperature hot water, we would use a binary system, but these systems have 

reduced power output. 

We are also concurrently monitoring the maturity of the Enhanced Geothermal 

System (EGS) which could have a much broader applicability throughout the United 

States. EGS would be used where we have heat but no faults or water, but this is 

a relatively new technology and issues pertaining to earthquakes and possible contamination of water supplies need to be resolved. 

Additionally, Navy is actively constructing numerous ‘‘shallow-drill,’’ lower temperature gradient geothermal systems to use renewable resources to partially replace fossil fuel consumption in our individual building heating and cooling systems. 

We are also installing innovative ‘‘no-drill’’ solutions wherever viable. Navy’s Dam 

Neck ‘‘no-drill’’ system won a 2009 Presidential Award for Leadership in Federal 

Energy Management. Dozens of these active systems are employed by the Navy 

today utilizing simple ground-loop or shallow-vertical indirect (closed loop) heat exchange systems. These systems save over 500 billion BTU annually, are a considerably lower risk to install, have minimal environmental impact, and have favorable 

ROI in most locations. 

37. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus, are you considering shallow-drilling geothermal heat pump systems to power small-scale residential facilities and the like 

at domestic installations or are you exploring areas where you could tap hyper-deep 

geothermal energy resources and supply power to an entire installation? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy has been installing geothermal systems of all types at our 

installations since the early 1980s. We have installed them for family housing and 

small office buildings, as well as whole-base solutions. Both hyper-deep and shallowdrill systems are a major part of the Navy’s plans for future Renewable Energy development. 

The Navy is the lead service for hyper-deep geothermal energy production. Additional resource exploration is underway at NAS Fallon’s Dixie Valley Bombing 

Ranges, NAF El Centro, and NAWS China Lake South Range. Our 270MW geothermal plant at NAWS China Lake is the third largest plant of its type in the 

United States. 

Additionally, Navy is utilizing ‘‘shallow-drill’’ geothermal systems, both large and 

small scale, to replace fossil fuel consumption with renewable energy. We are also 

installing innovative ‘‘no-drill’’ solutions wherever viable. Some examples: 

• Oceana shallow-drill geothermal systems save over 210,000 MBTU and 

nearly 20 million gallons of water annually, by placing 470,000 square feet 

of Navy Facilities onto Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) systems. The 

second phase of this project recently became operational in January 2011, 

6 months early. These systems enabled closure of the large, aging, and inefficient central steam system. 

• Dam Neck Annex’s ‘‘no-drill’’ system utilizes seasonal heating and cooling 

from the Hampton Roads Sanitation Division (HRSD) Atlantic Treatment 

Plant effluent to save 244,000 MBTU annually, as well as enabling demolition of the central heating system. 

Our most recent Annual Energy Management Report specifically identified approximately 12 other small-scale GSHP systems saving approximately 14,000 MBTU 

annually. Additional systems exist, but are often difficult to identify since they are 

often considered part of the building heating and cooling systems and not identified 

separately. 

38. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus, are you aware of work within DARPA and/ 

or collaborations with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) ARPA–E program to advance the deployment of such technology? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy does not use the term ‘‘hyper-deep geothermal energy resources.’’ The Navy was funded by Congress in 2001 to drill two 15,000–20,000 foot 

368 

wells. The drilling failed due to instability and fractures in the holes. The Navy geothermal project at China Lake does have a 13,500 ft. deep well which is deeper than 

most commercial wells. 

Navy geothermal staff attended a DARPA geothermal meeting last year. The 

DARPA agenda was focused on EGSs, geothermal systems for forward operating 

bases, and geothermal systems for Guam. There was no discussion of hyper-deep 

wells. 

Our Navy geothermal office does share technical information with DOE and has 

offered to partner with them in proving new technical concepts for geothermal. We 

are not aware of any on-going work at DARPA or DOE on hyper-deep resources. 

EXPERIMENTAL FORWARD OPERATING BASE TECHNOLOGIES

39. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus and General Amos, the Experimental Forward Operating Base (exFOB) was cited by Secretary Mabus as a model for energy 

security in the theater. It is remarkable that such technologies allowed a foot patrol 

to operate for 3 weeks without battery resupply, reducing their burden by 700 

pounds and saving more than $40,000. Is such a project scaleable to other FOBs 

as well? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, the capability referenced—the backpack-portable solar powered 

battery recharger called Solar Portable Alternative Communications Energy System 

(SPACES)—is scalable and it makes sense to deploy it broadly to our FOBs and Marine units. We introduced SPACES to the Fleet via ExFOB in summer 2010, and 

India Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines successfully used it in Afghanistan beginning in December 2010. As a result, and in response to the clear value demonstrated to the mission, we now have 1442 units in the operating forces, with 446 

units in Afghanistan. We are accelerating deployment of this capability to our 

forces. 

General AMOS. The capability referenced—the backpack-portable solar powered 

battery recharger called SPACES—is scalable, and it makes sense to deploy it 

broadly to our forward operating bases and units. We introduced SPACES to the 

Operating Forces via our ExFOB in the summer 2010, and an infantry company 

from 3rd Battalion 5th Marines successfully used it in Afghanistan in late 2010. As 

a result, and in response to the clear value demonstrated to the mission, we now 

have over 1,500 units in our Operating Forces for use in our Afghanistan force rotation and our training allowances. 

40. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus and General Amos, what challenges do you 

foresee in expanding exFOB technologies? 

Mr. MABUS and General AMOS. One challenge we face is how to rapidly transition 

new capabilities to our Operating Forces, and ultimately into fully supported programs of record. Our ExFOB is an effective process that brings together the key 

players from our combat development, acquisition, and science and technology communities to identify and evaluate new capabilities. It informs our requirements, 

mitigates investment risks, and builds marines’ confidence with innovative capabilities. Consequently, ExFOB helps to bridge the so-called ‘valley of death’ as it relates 

to technology transition. However, this process takes time, and these long lead times 

make it difficult for small companies seeking to do business with the Marine Corps, 

to engage in the process. 

41. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus and General Amos, what are the benefits? 

Mr. MABUS and General AMOS. The ExFOB capabilities we have evaluated in Afghanistan have helped our marines operate lighter, with less reliance on resupply. 

Our forces today are widely dispersed across the battle space: a company today may 

cover an area of 50 square miles or more, manning multiple outposts, and executing 

extensive dismounted operations. Our marines depend on communications gear and 

equipment, and rely on frequent resupply to support fuel, battery, water, and food 

needs. By providing a new source of power-solar and hybrid solar energy—and reducing the power demand of equipment, we have reduced mission risk, and increased our commanders’ options. Ultimately, our goal is fewer marines at risk on 

the road hauling fuel and protecting fuel convoys. 

In less than a year, through our ExFOB process, we evaluated capabilities at 

Twentynine Palms and on the battlefield in Afghanistan with India Co. 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. While engaged in nearly constant combat, these marines used small scale solar solutions, man portable solar battery rechargers, hybrid-solar generators, plus energy efficient lighting and shelters, with positive results: 

369 

• Two patrol bases operated completely on expeditionary solar power generators. They have done this even while engaged in near constant combat. 

• Another patrol base reduced its fossil fuel need by approximately 90 percent—from 20 gallons of fuel a day to 2.5 gallons a day. 

• Using the SPACES back portable solar power system to recharge their 

radio batteries they were able to patrol for 3 weeks with no battery resupply. Typical battery resupply is every 2–3 days. 

Because of the mission benefits we have seen, the Marine Corps is now looking 

at deploying these solutions broadly to our forward operating units in the coming 

months. 

42. Senator UDALL. Secretary Mabus and General Amos, are you aware of any 

compromises to warfighting capability or strategic flexibility that were incurred as 

a result of utilizing the unique technologies at exFOB? 

Mr. MABUS. Prior to battlefield evaluation of new capabilities, we conduct detailed 

evaluations in the lab with actual users who employ the equipment in similar operating environments and under similar stresses. Mission effectiveness is a top priority; solutions that cannot perform required mission tasks do not progress beyond 

the lab. The exFOB capabilities meet our requirements and have benefited our 

warfighting capability. 

General AMOS. ExFOB capabilities have benefited our warfighting capability. 

Prior to battlefield evaluation of new capabilities, we place them through detailed 

evaluations in our laboratory, with actual users who would employ the equipment 

in operating environments similar to that in Afghanistan, under similar stresses. 

Mission effectiveness is a top priority; solutions that fall short do not progress to 

the next level of our process. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOE MANCHIN

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

43. Senator MANCHIN. Admiral Roughead, we’ve seen price fluctuations right now 

in foreign oil based on political instability in the Middle East and North Africa— 

I’d like to talk about using alternative energy sources from home. Will you speak 

about the costs of aviation fuel and alternative jet fuels—are you considering coalto-liquid fuels? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy fully supports the use of using alternative source 

aviation fuels that meet all military performance requirements and technical specifications and would prefer, wherever possible, that the United States be the source 

of these fuels. Testing and certification of coal-to-liquid fuels are not in the Navy 

Program of Record because of congressional restrictions prohibiting procurement of 

alternative source fuels that may have greenhouse gas emissions or a carbon footprint greater than the petroleum based fuels which they would replace. Capital 

costs associated with commercial coal-to-liquid plants are expected to be in the billions of dollars and the technological hurdles associated with carbon sequestration 

present enough unknowns that there is little commercial transportation industry interest in this approach. As the commercial transportation industry and the Navy 

have focused on the use of next generation biofuels engineered to mix seamlessly 

with existing fuel supplies. As with any commodity, the costs of any alternative 

fuels will be a function of supply and demand. Industry and academia forecast the 

future costs of these fuels will be competitive with petroleum based fuels. 

44. Senator MANCHIN. Admiral Roughead, what are the challenges using such 

fuels in the war zone? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Once the alternative fuels are certified in 2012, there will be 

no restrictions on using these fuels in combat. We will deliver the quantity and 

quality of fuels required to our forces when and where they are needed, and the 

source of these fuels will be transparent to the end users, the fuels will mix 

seamlessly with our existing fuel supplies, and the technical parameters of the fuels 

will deliver similar combat capability. 

The purpose of the Navy alternative fuels test and certification program is to certify that these alternative source fuels meet the specifications that our petroleumbased fuels must meet. The test and certification process of the fuels necessary for 

the Great Green Fleet is currently underway. Current funding puts the Navy on 

track to complete the fuel certification required for ship and aircraft systems to conduct the demonstration of the Green Strike Group in 2012. They will be functionally 

370 

identical and ‘drop in’ replacements to the current fuels that we use and will have 

no impact to the engines that use them. 

45. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Mabus, you have pledged your commitment to 

have the Navy and Marine Corps accelerate the exploration and exploitation of new 

ways to ‘‘procure, produce, and use energy.’’ You have also stated that your goals 

for energy security include a commitment to generate at least 50 percent of all the 

energy the Navy and Marine Corps use from alternative sources no later than 2020. 

What progress have you made in achieving this goal and what is the makeup of alternative energy sources? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy has set two priorities that illustrate the Navy’s role in investing in alternative sources of energy which are energy security and energy independence. The Navy will achieve energy security by utilizing sustainable sources 

that meet tactical, expeditionary, and shore operational requirements and force 

sustainment functions. This allows the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs. Second energy independence is achieved when naval 

forces rely only on energy resources that are not subject to intentional or accidental 

supply disruptions. As a priority, energy independence increases operational effectiveness by making naval forces more energy self-sufficient and less dependent on 

vulnerable energy production and supply lines. 

The Navy uses many different types of alternative energy on our naval installations such as solar, wind, and waste to energy. We have over 100 MW of solar PV 

projects planned to be installed in the next few years, and we have 22 anemometer 

(wind) studies ongoing. On the operational energy front, we have flown an F/A–18 

Hornet on blended fuel, operated a 50/50 blend of biofuels on the Riverine Command 

Boat (RCB–X), and test flown a Seahawk helicopter on a 50/50 blend of biofuels. 

The Navy has also commissioned the USS Makin Island, which is designed with a 

gas turbine engine and electric auxiliary propulsion system. We also consider our 

nuclear fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines as part of our alternative energy 

program. In our expeditionary forward operating bases, we are using flexible solar 

panels to recharge batteries and light the inside of the tents with LED lighting. 

These are just a few examples of the different types of alternative energy sources 

that the Navy is currently using. 

Much of our success is in the technologies that are tried and true—solar, wind, 

and geothermal. We are continuing to explore geothermal resources on our installations in the southwest. We are making great strides in helping stand up a biofuels 

industry that will supply biofuels to the fleet. This effort will be a key factor in our 

overall success of the 50 percent goal. We have to continue to institute energy efficiency into our processes and programs. We are designing and constructing all of 

our new buildings to LEED Silver criteria. The bottom line is that the most efficient 

BTU or KW-hr is the one that is not used. 

46. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Mabus, are each of these sustainable, especially 

in the war theater, and if not, why not? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, they are all very sustainable in a war theater as well as elsewhere. A good example is that while deployed to the Sangin Province Afghanistan, 

India Company, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines (3/5) operated two patrol bases completely on renewable energy, offsetting 100 percent of their potential fuel use. Based 

on reports from marines in the field it is estimated that each patrol base saved 12 

gallons per day per location. This means that each month these two patrol bases 

would have offset approximately 744 gallons per month (31 days × 24 gals) or 8,928 

gallons per year. It is evident that a small savings at a remote patrol base has significant impacts over the long term, not to mention immediate reduction in risk to 

our marines moving fuel in a very dangerous area. 

An example of the technology that they used is the SPACES, which is is an innovative family of mobile solar power and power distribution products. SPACES delivers portable power to charge batteries, operate communications equipment, and run 

small electronic accessories in tactical and remote environments. 

In addition to the patrol bases operated by India 3/5, they also employed renewable and energy efficient technologies at a company location, too. At the company 

location report fuel use was reduced from 25 gallons per day to 2.5 gallons per day 

or an initial savings of 90 percent. Targeting renewable and energy efficient technologies at remote outpost immediately reduce the risks to our forces and increases 

our combat effectiveness. 

Outside of those pursuits, we are making our Navy and Marine Corps more energy efficient. Making our ships and aircraft more efficient improves their fuel economy. We can increase the days between refueling for our ships, improving their security and combat capability. We can also extend the range of our aircraft strike 

371 

missions, allowing us to launch our aircraft farther away from combat areas. Increasing our efficiency and the diversity in our sources of fuel improves our combat 

capability strategically and tactically. 

CHINA

47. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, China has continued its military modernization effort, including its naval modernization. How should 

the U.S. military planners respond to China’s improved military forces and how 

would this affect the Navy’s budget? 

Mr. MABUS and Admiral ROUGHEAD. Our Navy has made significant investment 

in new technology to defeat the most likely evolving threats, including those of 

China. Also, the Navy has invested heavily into Aegis modernization which will upgrade existing Aegis technology to continually improve our integrated air and missile defense capability. 

48. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, how could the 

U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific influence day-to-day choices made by 

other Pacific countries, especially our allies? 

Mr. MABUS. Sovereign nations throughout the Asia-Pacific region indicate they 

are reevaluating their political, economic, and military alignments as globalization 

continues, a multi-polar geo-political landscape emerges, and the world encounters 

an increasing number of diverse, concurrent crises. Considering this dynamic environment, the Navy is confident that its current force structure and forward posture 

serve to reinforce our longstanding commitment to the security and stability of the 

Asia-Pacific region as a whole, and our allies in particular. 

The Navy is mindful, however, of the need to respond to emerging challenges in 

this rapidly evolving security environment by strengthening our alliances and partnerships, modernizing our forces, fielding new capabilities and technologies, and developing new operational concepts. 

One specific initiative that will help preserve a favorable military balance in the 

Pacific, and assure our allies, is implementation of the Air-Sea Battle Concept—a 

limited operational concept that focuses the development of integrated air and naval 

forces on addressing the evolving anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment. The 

Air-Sea Battle Concept encompasses three key elements: 

• Institutional cooperation will be enhanced by establishing an enduring organizational construct that will continue formal collaboration to address the 

A2/AD environment as it evolves over time. 

• Conceptual alignment will be perpetuated through the operational design 

which describes how capabilities and forces are integrated to accomplish 

operational objectives in an A2/AD environment. 

• Materiel solutions and innovations will be collaboratively vetted to ensure 

they are complementary where appropriate; redundant when mandated by 

capacity requirements; fully interoperable; and fielded with integrated acquisition strategies seeking efficiencies where they can be achieved. 

Air-Sea Battle implementation will ensure continued U.S. advantage against 

emerging threats that include long-range, precise, anti-ship and land attack ballistic 

and cruise missile systems; advanced combat aircraft and electronic warfare technologies; advanced Integrated Air Defense systems; submarines and subsurface warfare capabilities; surface warfare capabilities; C4ISR capabilities; and cyber warfare 

technologies. This advantage, coupled with enduring forward presence that supports 

robust training, exercises and military-to-military engagement, will promote choices 

among our allies and like-minded partners that advance our national interests in 

the Pacific. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sovereign nations throughout the Asia-Pacific region indicate 

they are reevaluating their political, economic, and military alignments as 

globalization continues, a multi-polar geo-political landscape emerges, and the world 

encounters an increasing number of diverse, concurrent crises. Considering this dynamic environment, the Navy is confident that its current force structure and forward posture serve to reinforce our longstanding commitment to the security and 

stability of the Asia-Pacific region as a whole, and our allies in particular. 

The Navy is mindful, however, of the need to respond to emerging challenges in 

this rapidly evolving security environment by strengthening our alliances and partnerships, modernizing our forces, fielding new capabilities and technologies, and developing new operational concepts. 

One specific initiative that will help preserve a favorable military balance in the 

Pacific, and assure our allies, is implementation of the Air-Sea Battle Concept—a 

372 

limited operational concept that focuses the development of integrated air and naval 

forces on addressing the evolving A2/AD environment. Air-Sea Battle implementation will ensure continued U.S. advantage against emerging threats that include 

long-range, precise, anti-ship and land attack ballistic and cruise missile systems; 

advanced combat aircraft and electronic warfare technologies; advanced Integrated 

Air Defense systems; submarines and subsurface warfare capabilities; surface warfare capabilities; C4ISR capabilities; and cyber warfare technologies. This advantage, coupled with enduring forward presence that supports robust training, exercises and military-to-military engagement, will promote choices among our allies 

and like-minded partners that advance our national interests in the Pacific. 

TRANSPORTATION OF FUEL AND SUPPLIES

49. Senator MANCHIN. General Amos, there are regular reports of fuel and supply 

chain interruptions over land routes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In some cases, 

U.S. taxpayers’ dollars are being siphoned off to insurgents to secure the safety of 

the fuel and food supplies. Please give me a detailed assessment of the risks marines are facing by hauling fuel and water to forward bases. 

General AMOS. Day-to-day marines courageously operate in a high-risk environment to ensure the timely delivery of logistics support to the many combat outposts, 

patrol bases, and forward operating bases throughout Regional Command-Southwest (RC–SW). Fuel, food, water, and ammunition continue to be the most critical 

items required for delivery. Harsh terrain and enemy activity, highlighted most by 

IEDs, take a significant toll on both marines and their equipment. However, we 

mitigate these risks by providing marines with the best possible equipment. Our 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, augmented with Counter RadioControlled Electronic Warfare systems, help to defeat radio-controlled IED threats. 

We also outfit our vehicles with Vehicle Optics Sensor Systems to scan for IED 

threats during day and night operations. We also maintain dedicated Route Clearance Teams comprised of engineers, explosive ordnance disposal personnel, mechanical devices, and specialized robotics to help thwart ambushes, clear natural or manmade obstacles, and detect IEDs. 

We reduce the exposure of our marines by using a wide range of delivery options. 

Air delivery using Air Force and Marine Corps fixed-wing aircraft are used to drop 

supplies to remote locations. We also employ contracted rotary wing assets to deliver 

cargo. Where the enemy threat is less severe, contracted trucks provide direct delivery of fuel and water to many of our bases allowing us to make the most effective 

use of our tactical distribution assets. Finally, we are continuously examining ways 

to reduce the amount of fuel and water delivered to our marines by providing capabilities such as the Tactical Water Purification System and Lightweight Water Purification System to produce water onsite. We are also fielding systems such as the 

Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy System and the SPACES to reduce the demand for fuel at our remote patrol bases. 

The siphoning of U.S. tax dollars to insurgents is a significant threat in a number 

of functional areas including logistics; however, this activity is not significant in 

RC–SW. There are isolated reports of extortion along heavily traveled routes, but 

this activity is assessed as low when compared to other regional commands. Pilferage is only a minor concern as vendors in RC–SW are paid for delivery vice transport. This policy creates an incentive for the shipping companies to ensure that 

loads arrive intact. Overall, we do not assess RC–SW to be experiencing significant 

supply chain interruptions due to enemy activity, corruption, or criminality. 

50. Senator MANCHIN. General Amos, can you tell me about the Marine Corps’ 

Bases to Battlefield Expeditionary Energy Strategy and how this strategy will affect 

the logistic concerns surrounding the transport of fuel and supplies? 

General AMOS. On March 21, I announced the Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan that specifically directs the Corps to increase energy efficiency on the battlefield by 50 percent, and to reduce the fuel used 

by each marine per day by 2025 by the same amount as well. My intent for this 

strategy is to increase combat effectiveness and reduce our need for logistics support 

ashore. The priority is to save lives by reducing the number of marines at risk on 

the road hauling fuel and water. Our objective is to allow marines to travel lighter— 

with less—and move faster through the reduction in size and amount of equipment 

and the dependence on bulk supplies. 

Based on a 2010 study that we conducted, we determined that marines in Afghanistan use about 200,000 gallons of fuel a day to power warfighting capabilities and 

sustain our forces. About 70 percent of our logistics requirements are fuel and 

373 

water. This demand for resources increases risk and constrains our operations. It 

also costs lives: 6 marines were wounded over a 3-month period in 2010 while supporting 299 fuel/water convoys. This roughly equates to 1 marine wounded per every 

50 fuel and water convoys. 

Demand for battlefield energy has increased exponentially in the last 10 years 

and is rising, driven by enhancements to communications, computers, command and 

control, and information capabilities (C4I), vehicles, and weapons systems. We recognize that these warfighting assets have made our combat forces more lethal, but 

they also have come with a grave unintended consequence—our logistics trains are 

at greater risk. 

Our strategy, therefore, concentrates on three major areas: 

(1) We will increase the energy efficiency of our equipment, platforms, and systems; 

(2) We will increase our use of renewable energy, and thereby increase self sufficiency in our battlefield sustainment; and 

(3) We will change the way we think about energy-equating efficient use of resources with increased combat effectiveness. 

The Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy calls on the Marine Corps to 

build Marine Expeditionary Forces capable of maneuvering from the sea and sustaining C4I and life support systems in place. The target date for this goal is 2025. 

In addition to the ‘‘Bases to Battlefield’’ strategy, we are now taking the critical 

step to institutionalize change in our energy usage by establishing formal requirements via the Expeditionary Energy, Water, and Waste Initial Capabilities Document to drive our investments in equipment, training, and manning. These requirements aim to reduce energy demand in our platforms and systems, increase the use 

of renewable energy, and build an ethos around energy efficiency in the Corps. 

BAHRAIN

51. Senator MANCHIN. Admiral Roughead, news sources continue to report on political problems in Bahrain, where the 5th Fleet is currently operating. I recently 

met with political leaders in the region who expressed their genuine concern for the 

political stability of the monarchy in Bahrain. What can you tell me about your security concerns for U.S. forces in Bahrain? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. To date, there are no known credible threats to U.S./coalition 

forces or bases. There has been no change in the status of the relationship between 

Commander, U.S. Naval Central Command (CENTCOM)/C5F and the Government 

of Bahrain. The Government of Bahrain continues to fully support hosting Naval 

Support Activity-Bahrain (NSA-Bahrain) and its tenant commands. We do not expect a change in the Bahraini Government’s attitude toward hosting NSA-Bahrain. 

The King and Crown Prince have stated their continuing support to the U.S. Navy 

presence in the Kingdom of Bahrain. 

LIBYA

52. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Mabus, taking into account the extent of the U.S. 

military commitment in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, do you believe it would 

be more difficult for the United States to operate a no-fly zone (NFZ) in Libya, and 

if so, why? 

Mr. MABUS. As was demonstrated by U.S. and coalition forces operating from European bases, establishing a NFZ in Libya was not difficult. The Navy/Marine Corps 

team readily executed the NFZ with the air combat element aboard our amphibious 

ships in conjunction with shore-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, 

missile attacks from surface combatants and submarines and electronic attack aircraft. Our sea-based forces again exploited their inherent flexibility to respond to 

crises and conduct operations largely independently from third-country basing requirements. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

GAO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC SHIPYARDS

53. Senator SHAHEEN. Secretary Mabus, the Navy’s four public shipyards—Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, 

and Norfolk Naval Shipyard—are critical to the readiness, sustainability, and continued endurance of America’s unparalleled naval power. I am very concerned about 

374 

the backlog of restoration and modernization projects at the four public shipyards. 

According to the Navy, as of October 2009, the backlog consisted of nearly $3.1 billion. In addition, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the 

Navy’s estimate of $3.1 billion actually underestimates the total shipyard backlog. 

The GAO report made a series of four recommendations ‘‘to improve the overall visibility of the Navy shipyards’ restoration and modernization needs and quality of life 

issues.’’ In written comments on this report, DOD concurred with all four recommendations. Please comment on each recommendation listed below and address 

how the Navy intends to implement each accepted recommendation: 

A. Develop guidance that lays out the requirement for the shipyard to develop 

strategic plans that address their future restoration and modernization needs 

and that reflect the seven essential elements of a comprehensive strategic 

planning framework; 

B. Develop and document a method for systematically collecting and updating the 

Navy’s configuration and condition information, including establishing measurable goals and timeframes for updating its processes so that the data are complete and accurate; 

C. Submit documentation to the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Installations and Environment to update the replacement unit cost factor 

for dry docks so that plant replacement value calculations for dry docks, and 

subsequent restoration and modernization cost calculations, more accurately 

reflect the shipyards’ unique infrastructure needs; and 

D. Develop guidance for the shipyards to systematically collect information on 

and document corrective actions to prioritize and address identified quality of 

life issues. 

Mr. MABUS. 

A. The Navy’s Ship and Submarine Global Shore Infrastructure Plan (GSIP), 

which serves as a higher order strategic document that provides the context 

for the individual shipyard plans, is being finalized. Once the GSIP is finalized, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) will develop guidance to align 

the individual shipyard plans and the Depot Maintenance Infrastructure Plan 

(DMIP) with the GSIP and the 2011 Naval Shipyard Business Plan. The guidance will reflect the seven essential elements of a comprehensive strategic 

planning framework. 

B. The Infrastructure Condition Assessment Program (ICAP) is in place to ensure 

assessment of the condition of all shipyard buildings and waterfront structures 

(piers, wharfs, et cetera). Additionally, waterfront structures receive a structural inspection on a 6-year cycle. The Navy will add conduct a pilot program 

assessment of dry docks to evaluate the associated costs for inclusion into the 

ICAP process. Finally, the shipyard utility infrastructure is being evaluated for 

potential assessment in the next few years. Updated condition ratings from 

these inspections will be uploaded into the internet Navy Facilities Asset Data 

Store (iNFADS) annually. The Navy currently plans to have all waterfront infrastructure (to include dry docks) evaluated and relevant data systems updated by fiscal year 2013. Additionally, a majority of configuration 

(functionality) ratings are currently available in iNFADS, which will be updated as necessary via the ongoing asset evaluation program. 

C. The Navy is committed to accurately reflecting the magnitude of the dry-dock 

backlog. Navy is pursuing a reassessment of the Replacement Unit Cost factors and plans to provide this information to DUSD(I&E) no later than 9 

months after receiving funds. 

D. With workforce safety, health, and quality of life as top priorities, the Navy 

develops comprehensive restoration and modernization (RM) projects, based 

primarily upon the ICAP and Asset Evaluation (AE) program data. These assessments and subsequent projects specifically address improvements for people and processes in support of the shipyard mission. 

The Navy cannot address every shortfall in the desired timeframe due to fiscal 

constraints, so shipyard projects are evaluated and prioritized with all Navy RM 

projects, in accordance with the Navy’s shore investment strategy. Our shore investment strategy provides shore infrastructure that is properly sized and aligned to enable warfighting and joint capabilities, minimizes the decline of critical mission-essential and quality of life infrastructure, and optimizes warfare enterprise outputs 

and quality of service. 

The Navy is exploring methods to collect additional information on shipyard quality-of-life and quality-of-service issues. 

375 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

ENERGY SECURITY

54. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, as you stated, you have set a goal of 

having at least half the Navy and Marine Corps total energy coming from non-fossil 

fuel sources by 2020. As the price of oil continues to rise due to conflicts in the Middle East, replacing costly fossil fuels with proven and effective renewable energy 

technologies is a necessary move, for the taxpayers’ pocketbook and our Nation’s energy security. I want to commend you on the extensive number of renewable energy 

projects you have implemented both on Navy and Marine Corps installations at 

home and at forward deployed locations. As the Navy and Marine Corps continue 

to procure renewable energy technology, what efforts, if any, is DOD taking to provide the proper guidance to the energy managers to emphasize American renewable 

technology in their procurement portfolios? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy is emphasizing American renewable technology in all its 

actions related to energy. We do not want to trade dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign technology. The Federal Acquisition Regulation clause requiring 

compliance with the Buy American Act (BAA) is placed in all applicable Navy contracts. Additionally, DOD and the Navy have issued separate internal guidance documents on their energy programs emphasizing both renewable energy technologies 

and energy efficiency. These vision and guidance documents provide direction and 

meet or exceed all of the energy mandates and legislation. 

The Navy has set two priorities that illustrate the Navy’s role in investing in alternative and renewable sources of energy which are energy security and energy 

independence. The Navy will achieve energy security by utilizing sustainable 

sources that meet tactical, expeditionary, and shore operational requirements and 

force sustainment functions. This allows the ability to protect and deliver sufficient 

energy to meet operational needs. Second energy independence is achieved when 

naval forces rely only on energy resources that are not subject to intentional or accidental supply disruptions. As a priority, energy independence increases operational 

effectiveness by making naval forces more energy self-sufficient and less dependent 

on vulnerable energy production and supply lines. 

The Navy uses many different types of alternative energy on our naval installations such as solar, wind, and waste to energy. We have over 100 MW of solar PV 

projects planned to be installed in the next few years, and we have 22 anemometer 

(wind) studies ongoing. We are working with American companies to develop ocean 

power systems (wave, tidal ocean thermal) that can be used in the future to power 

our island and coastal installations from ocean resources. On the operational energy 

front, we have flown an F/A–18 Hornet on blended fuel, operated a 50/50 blend of 

biofuels on the Riverine Command Boat (RCB–X), and test flown a Seahawk helicopter on a 50/50 blend of biofuels. The Navy has also commissioned the USS Makin 

Island which is designed with a gas turbine engine and electric auxiliary propulsion 

system. We also consider our nuclear fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines as 

part of our alternative energy program. In our expeditionary forward operating 

bases, we are using flexible solar panels to recharge batteries and light the inside 

of the tents with LED lighting. These are just a few examples of the different types 

of alternative energy sources that the Navy is currently using. 

Much of our success is in the technologies that are tried and true—solar, wind, 

and geothermal. We are continuing to explore geothermal resources on our installations in the southwest. We are making great strides in helping stand up a biofuels 

industry that will supply biofuels to the fleet. This effort will be a key factor in our 

overall success of the 50 percent goal. We have to continue to institute energy efficiency into our processes and programs. We are designing and constructing all of 

our new buildings to LEED Silver criteria. The bottom line is that the most efficient 

BTU or KW-hr is the one that is not used. 

55. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, what is DOD’s process to track the 

country of origin of technologies procured? Specifically, I’m not referring to where 

a renewable energy technology may have been substantially transformed but the 

origination—for instance, in the solar industry, what is the country of origin of the 

solar cells in solar panels that are eventually installed on Navy installation facilities? 

Mr. MABUS. The Federal Acquisition Regulation clause requiring compliance with 

the BAA is placed in all applicable Navy contacts. Contract awardees provide product submittals during the design and construction phase to certify compliance with 

the provisions of the act. The Navy does not apply any additional criteria such as 

country of origin, as long as BAA requirements are met. Neither does the Navy cenVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
376 

trally track the country of origin of any installed technologies, but manages these 

requirements at the contract level. 

56. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, as the world’s largest consumer of en- ergy, spending over $20 billion a year, DOD has a special responsibility to lead by 

example when greening the government. Its enormous purchasing power helps create new markets for renewable energy technology products, making them more affordable for everyone. However, when DOD makes its renewable energy procurement decisions, are the implications of those purchases on our Nation’s energy security considered? Specifically, some of the largest solar PV projects within the military rely heavily on foreign-manufactured renewable energy. I am interested to 

know if the Navy is purchasing foreign-manufactured solar panels. If yes, were 

American-manufactured options considered in such instances? If yes, why were they 

rejected? If such options were rejected on price or efficiency alone, could you please 

explain if that determination was made on a cost-per-panel basis or on a total-system-of-cost-per-watt basis? 

Mr. MABUS. When a procurement requires that the Navy own PV panels, the 

Navy includes the BAA requirement in its contract and requires that all contractors 

comply. When procuring services, which will include PV panels that the Navy will 

not own, the Navy will apply the test criteria and follow the requirements of the 

2011 NDAA, as amended to include Section 846. BAA requirements do allow the 

Navy to purchase foreign manufactured solar panels if the cost of a particular domestic construction material exceeds the cost of foreign material by more than 6 

percent. 

BUY AMERICAN ACT

57. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, DOD, along with all Federal agencies, 

must abide by the BAA when purchasing products for the agency. I am advised that 

DOD, instead of direct procurement, has increasingly begun to rely on financing vehicles such as Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) to fund renewable energy investments because of their attractive financing features. However, the BAA did not 

apply to this financing agreement until it was extended to do so by the NDAA for 

Fiscal Year 2011 for solar PV panels on DOD facilities. As DOD moves forward to 

implement the new contracting rule, what efforts and guidance will you be providing 

installation commanders, energy managers, and contracting officers within the Navy 

and Marine Corps to ensure they fully implement the BAA provisions? 

Mr. MABUS. As DOD moves forward to implement the new contracting rule, all 

contracting officers will continue to require BAA compliance when applicable in procuring PV panels. As with all NDAA sections impacting DOD procurement procedures, we are waiting for uniform DOD guidance prior to instructing the Navy procurement officials on any specific implementation requirements. Until then, we will 

advise contracting officers to apply the 2011 NDAA test criteria when contemplating 

the acquisition of PV panels. 

MILITARY BASE ENERGY SAVINGS

58. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary Mabus, the Defense Science Board Task Force 

has recognized the Navy’s Incentivized Energy Conservation (i-ENCON) program, a 

program that allows ship commanders to keep a portion of the money saved through 

operational efficiency measures and use it for morale, welfare, and recreation or investments in further efficiency measures, as one of the few successes in helping 

DOD meet its energy efficiency goals. Would you please comment on how the iENCON program came to fruition, how it has led the Navy to be the lead military 

department in energy efficiency, and make suggestions on how DOD can adopt this 

program agency-wide? 

Mr. MABUS. In 1975, the Navy developed the Steam System computer model to 

determine energy savings available by procedural and equipment modifications. In 

the 1980s, the Navy initiated the Ship Energy Conservation Assist Team (SECAT) 

program to demonstrate and introduce individual ship commands to known energy 

conserving techniques without adding equipment complexity or additional maintenance burden. The biggest lesson learned from SECAT was that ships were significantly more likely to emphasize energy savings, when it was incentivized (i.e., some 

portion of the savings went to ships’ Operating Target (OPTAR) accounts). 

In the early 1990s, as a result of the Gulf War’s impact on oil prices, NAVSEA 

piloted the i-ENCON program which was implemented Fleet-wide in 1999. Today, 

the i-ENCON program is a major initiative of the Navy’s Energy Conservation ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00382 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
377 

gram. During fiscal year 2010, Navy ships achieved a net fuel cost avoidance of $68 

million compared to the average burn rate from fiscal year 2007–fiscal year 2009. 

I–ENCON has helped the Fleet accomplish increased steaming hours at no extra 

cost by managing fuel consumption and transit speeds and eliminating unproductive 

energy expenditures. 

NAVAIR is currently working with the Fleet to develop a similar type ENCON 

program for naval aviation. The Air Force has also been briefed by NAVSEA’s iENCON Program Manager to assist them with establishing a program as well. 

Other DOD components will likely find that incentivized programs will yield similar 

results with getting their commands to adopt best practices in procedural and technical specifications that measurably result in energy cost avoidance. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

SSBN(X) OHIO-CLASS SUBMARINE REPLACEMENT

59. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, one area of the 

Navy’s budget that I am very concerned about is the amount of funding needed for 

ship construction going forward. With about half of the Navy’s construction and development dollars being needed to build extraordinarily expensive nuclear submarines, I am concerned that our commitment to building new submarines may be 

crowding out funding needed to modernize the surface fleet. Do you share that concern? If so, how do you intend to address it? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes, there is concern. The fiscal year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan included, and Navy planning will continue to include, the provision for funding SSBN 

recapitalization from the Navy’s expected shipbuilding funds. The need to fund 

SSBN recapitalization will result in some risk to the Navy’s shipbuilding plan in 

the years outside the FYDP. The Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan has balanced the anticipated risk in the period with the uncertainties of the future to achieve the best balance of missions, resources, and requirements possible. 

The strategic necessity of recapitalizing the SSBN force will impact the Navy’s 

ability to procure other ship classes as significant resources are allocated to the 

Ohio Replacement program. The lower build rates while the Ohio Replacement is 

being procured will result in reduced force structure in the far-term. While the 

threats, demands, and mission requirements for this far-term planning period are 

not well understood, the Navy will continue to consider mitigation strategies for 

these anticipated shortfalls in future plans. Additionally, the Navy must strike a 

balance between investing in new ships more capable for meeting current and future requirements and maintaining ships to their expected service life. The Navy 

has made a conscious decision to deactivate older, less capable ships that have become increasingly expensive to maintain and operate in order to support those investments in our future Fleet. 

The Navy is planning to manage the service lives and modernization of legacy 

ships during this period to prevent block obsolescence causing unacceptable gaps in 

capability and capacity. During the far-term period, we have assumed a procurement strategy based on sustaining procurement rates. As requirements, resources 

and the industrial landscape come into better focus for the post-2020 timeframe, the 

Navy will address these issues working with combatant commanders, Congress, and 

industry to fulfill the mission requirements on this distant horizon for these ships. 

Annual procurement and funding levels have been leveled to the greatest extent 

possible, and annual production rates are often at minimum sustaining rates. While 

this plan is fiscally prudent, it will likely cause some increases in ship unit costs 

due to production inefficiencies. 

Affordability is the key challenge. During the past year, the Ohio Replacement 

Program has been thoroughly reviewed. All aspects of the program (warfighting requirements, program execution, design and construction efforts) were aggressively 

challenged to drive down non-recurring engineering and construction costs while 

meeting the core military requirements for a survivable nuclear deterrent. The Navy 

continually strives to reduce the costs of all of its shipbuilding programs, specifically 

through design and development to reduce total ownership cost and acquisition cost, 

analysis of operational and maintenance requirements, and planning for future disposal requirements. 

If additional funding was provided to fund SSBN(X) procurement during this time 

period, the Navy would be able to apply its shipbuilding funds to raise other ship 

procurement rates to reduce the impact on the shipbuilding industry and to increase 

the overall battleforce inventory. Additional ships would include guided missile deVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00383 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
378 

stroyers and attack submarines. Additional funding would help reduce future ship 

inventory shortfalls and provide more stable production base. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I remain committed to ensuring we maintain undersea dominance. This is best done with our unequalled submarine fleet. However, starting in 

the 2020s, many of our existing cruisers, destroyers, and submarines will reach the 

end of their service lives. During this period, it will be particularly critical to procure sufficient numbers of new ships to offset these decommissionings to avoid a 

rapid decline in force structure. At the same time, we will begin to replace our Ohio- class ballistic missile submarine, the most survivable leg of our Nation’s nuclear deterrent triad. While we have reduced the cost of that submarine substantially, our 

total shipbuilding budget will be pressurized in that decade as we seek to recapitalize our surface and submarine forces while sustaining warfighting readiness and 

supporting our people. I am confident our near-term force structure plans provide 

the capability and capacity we need to meet demands today, but in this decade we 

must address how to best resource the shipbuilding programs required in the 2020s. 

The Navy will continue to consider mitigation strategies for these anticipated 

changes. Additionally, the Navy must strike a balance between investing in more 

capable new ships for meeting future requirements and maintaining ships to their 

expected service life. The Navy has made a conscious decision to deactivate older, 

less capable ships that have become increasingly expensive to maintain and operate 

in order to support those investments in our future Fleet. The Navy will manage 

the service lives and modernization of legacy surface ships during this period to prevent block obsolescence causing unacceptable gaps in capability and capacity. In the 

far-term, we have assumed a procurement strategy based on sustaining procurement rates. 

If additional funding were to be provided to fund SSBN(X) procurement during 

the 15-year construction phase of this national security asset, the Navy would be 

able to apply its shipbuilding funds to raise other ship procurement rates to reduce 

potential capacity gaps and minimize the impact on the shipbuilding industry and 

the overall battleforce. 

60. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, a couple of weeks ago in New York you said that the ballistic missile submarine replacement program—a 12-submarine $60 

billion acquisition program—‘‘is a strategic national asset that should not necessarily be funded in the shipbuilding account.’’ 

I too am troubled by the fact that Ohio-class replacement nuclear ballistic sub- marines are estimated to cost at least $7 billion each and the cost to operate them 

will cost $347 billion over the life of the submarines. Should the Ohio-class submarine replacement program be funded in the shipbuilding account or in a separate 

account where it does not compete with other critical shipbuilding modernization 

needs? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. During the development of the future budget submissions, 

Navy will continue to engage with OSD leadership to develop a well-informed and 

executable strategy for the procurement of Ohio Replacement SSBNs that includes 

some form of above top line relief for Navy shipbuilding. 

The Ohio Replacement Program has been thoroughly reviewed. All aspects of the 

program (warfighting requirements, program execution, design and construction efforts) were aggressively challenged to drive down nonrecurring engineering and construction costs. The Navy estimates that the average Ohio Replacement cost for 

hulls 2–12 will be $5.6 billion with a goal of reducing this to $4.9 billion. The Navy 

continually strives to reduce the costs of all of its shipbuilding programs, specifically 

through design and development to reduce total ownership cost and acquisition cost, 

analysis of operational and maintenance requirements, and planning for future disposal requirements. 

61. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, were Secretary Gates’ or Deputy Secretary Lynn’s views on funding the ballistic missile submarine replacement program 

outside the shipbuilding budget? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I believe that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary understands the Navy’s challenges to recapitalizing the Nation’s sea-based strategic deterrent force while maintaining investments in our future battle force. During the development of the future budget submissions, Navy will continue to engage with 

DOD leadership to develop a well-informed and executable strategy for the procurement of Ohio Replacement SSBNs that includes some form of above top line relief 

for Navy shipbuilding. 

62. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, you’ve made some comments lately 

about the option of funding the procurement of the Navy’s new ballistic missile subVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00384 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
379 

marines outside the Navy’s budget—so as to preserve Navy shipbuilding funding for 

other shipbuilding programs. Please expound on those comments. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Recapitalization of the Nation’s sea-based strategic deterrent 

within the Navy shipbuilding account over a 15-year period (fiscal year 2019–fiscal 

year 2033) creates significant challenges to conventional Navy shipbuilding goals. 

The fiscal year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan included funding for Ohio Replacement from 

within its anticipated Total Obligation Authority. During the years in which the 

new submarine is being procured, the procurement of other ship types will be reduced resulting in force level and industrial base impacts. This plan will achieve a 

peak battle force of 320 ships in fiscal year 2024, after which the force level drops 

as legacy cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and amphibious ships retire, falling to 

a low of 288 ships in fiscal year 2032 and then ramping back up to 301 ships by 

fiscal year 2040. 

If additional funding were to be provided for Ohio Replacement procurement during this time period, the Navy would be able to apply its shipbuilding funds to raise 

other ship procurement rates to include DDGs and submarines. This would also reduce the impact of this time period on our shipbuilding industry and raise our overall battle force inventory. 

During the development of the future budget submissions, Navy will continue to 

engage with OSD leadership to develop a well-informed and executable strategy for 

the procurement of Ohio Replacement SSBNs that includes some form of above top 

line relief for Navy shipbuilding. 

63. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, how likely do you think it is that the 

Navy will be able to win support from OSD for funding these submarines outside 

the Navy’s budget? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Because of the national strategic mission of the sea-based deterrence force, the Navy will work with OSD leadership to develop a well-informed 

and executable strategy for the procurement of Ohio Replacement SSBNs that includes some form of above top line relief for Navy shipbuilding. 

64. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, according to recent press reports, the 

Navy recently rejected the recommendation of U.S. Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM) to design the next generation ballistic missile submarines with 20 

missile tubes, instead opting for only 16 per boat. What is the basis for the Navy’s 

decision of 16 tubes? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy conducted an in-depth, extensive review of the capability 

requirements for the Ohio Replacement SSBN in parallel with development of the 

Service Cost Position required at Milestone A. This analysis concluded that a force 

of 12 Ohio Replacement SSBNs with 16 missile tubes can carry all the sea-based 

warheads and maintain excess capacity in the event of a fundamental deterioration 

of the security environment or as a hedge against technical challenges within one 

or more of the other legs of the triad. A force of 12 SSBNs with 20 missile tubes 

could carry the Nation’s entire operationally-deployed warheads with excess capacity remaining. These conclusions are based on the current requirements of the New 

START treaty. 

It is the Navy’s judgment that the Nation’s sea-based strategic requirements can 

be met with a force of 12 Ohio Replacement SSBNs with 16 tubes. Given the substantial budgetary pressures facing DOD and Navy Shipbuilding a 20 tube Ohio Replacement SSBN would inappropriately sacrifice other conventional shipbuilding requirements for unneeded excess capacity. OSD, Joint Staff, and STRATCOM have 

since concurred with the Navy’s position on this military requirement. 

65. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, aside from cost, which is reduced significantly at 16 tubes per submarine, in what ways will such a decision impact the 

overall nuclear force structure and the associated flexibility of the commander of 

STRATCOM? 

Mr. MABUS. The decision to develop the Ohio Replacement SSBN with 16 missile 

tubes is consistent with the guidance in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and current requirements of the New START treaty. A force of 12 Ohio Replacement SSBNs 

with 16 missile tubes can carry all the sea-based warheads and maintain excess capacity in the event of a fundamental deterioration of the security environment or 

as a hedge against technical challenges within one or more of the other legs of the 

triad. OSD, Joint Staff, and STRATCOM have concurred with the Navy’s position 

on this military requirement. 

380 

AEGIS BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

66. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, the 2012 budget request provides for an 

additional Aegis class destroyer, increasing the total number of ballistic missile capable ships to 41 by the end of the 5-year budget plan. However, significant concerns remain about the overall stresses on the Aegis fleet as the missile defense 

mission continues to grow. What is the current status of the Aegis destroyer and 

cruiser fleet? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The 2012 budget request represents the combined efforts of 

the Navy and the MDA to build the afloat BMD capacity needed to meet combatant 

commander demands and meet the President’s Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) on 

schedule. 

Of the 22 cruisers and 58 destroyers in service today, 5 cruisers and 16 destroyers 

have been modified to be BMD capable. This year, Navy will conduct three destroyer 

BMD installations (USS Barry, USS Laboon, and USS Cole) and one cruiser upgrade (USS Shiloh). The Aegis modernization program, which is planned to add 

BMD capability to all 62 original DDGs and 9 Baseline IV CGs, and new construction of Aegis ships, will add BMD capacity and capability to the Fleet. 

To improve the operational readiness of BMD ships, Navy is providing tailored 

pack-up kits of critical repair parts to deploying BMD ships, to ensure that mission 

performance remains at the optimal level. USS Monterey recently deployed to execute the Phase I of PAA for the defense of Europe mission with a pack-up kit onboard. 

67. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, how has the missile defense mission impacted overall availability? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy currently has sufficient capacity to meet the most 

critical demands for multi-mission surface combatants; however, Navy does not have 

the capacity to meet all GCC demands for BMD-capable ships without breaking currently established Chief of Naval Operations Personnel Tempo program limits. 

Based on threat analysis and current indications from GCCs, and assuming standard 6-month deployment lengths, Navy and MDA concluded that GCC demand for 

surface combatants with Aegis BMD capability will outpace capacity through approximately 2018. 

A key attribute of all Aegis ships is their multi-mission capabilities within the 

maritime domain, which allows the Navy to employ Aegis ships in multi-mission 

roles rather than for exclusive missions. These ships can perform a variety of other 

non-BMD missions such as strike warfare, air warfare, submarine warfare, surface 

warfare, information warfare, high value asset protection, or maritime interdiction 

either concurrently or sequentially as the GCC requires. 

The Navy is not large enough to deploy ships for single mission purposes, and 

thus with the exception of deterrent patrols by SSBNs, does not advocate deploying 

warships for single mission tasking. The Navy’s operating concept for maritime 

BMD features a graduated readiness posture that allows BMD-capable Aegis ships 

to be on an operational tether and available for other tasking when not directly involved in active BMD operations. Aegis ships operating in support of a BMD mission 

do not lose the capability to conduct other missions; however, specific mission effectiveness may be affected by ships’ position and/or application of ship resources to 

those missions. 

SM–3 MISSILES FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

68. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, the MDA recently 

identified technical issues that may result in a 12-month delay for the initial production decision of the SM–3 Blk IB missile. Despite the anticipated delay, I understand that MDA does not intend to procure any additional SM–3 Blk IA and instead 

intends to let elements of the production line close as they await certification of IB. 

Does the Navy support a production break in SM–3 missiles? 

Mr. MABUS and Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy supports the MDA decision to focus efforts on production of the SM–3 Blk IB. We need to move to the next generation 

of missile to ensure we are pacing growing ballistic missile threats. Navy and MDA 

are working closely together to develop and field this vital capability on schedule. 

We will keep Congress fully informed as these important programs progress. 

69. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, does the Navy have enough SM–3 missiles to satisfy global missile defense requirements? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy has a minimum sufficient inventory of SM–3 missiles 

to satisfy the present global missile defense requirement. To meet these requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00386 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
381 

ments, we are using the GFM system to provide an adequate inventory of SM–3s 

to deploying ships. In concert with the MDA, Navy is building additional SM–3 missiles which will permit increased loadouts aboard deploying ships. 

70. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, would an additional delay in SM–3 

IBs—without a plan to produce additional IAs—be a cause for concern? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. An additional delay in the production of SM–3 Blk IB missiles would be a cause for concern. However, Navy and MDA are committed to delivering and fielding the significantly more capable SM–3 Blk IB on schedule. We will 

keep Congress fully informed as these important programs progress. 

RAND REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS

71. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, the Navy has put a fair amount of effort 

recently into developing alternative fuels. A recent RAND report, however, raises 

specific questions about the Navy’s efforts to develop such fuels. The report would 

have the Navy spend its resources on using energy more efficiently in weapon systems and at military installations rather than developing new alternatives. According to press reports, the Navy has taken issue with some aspects of the RAND report. What is your perspective on the RAND report, particularly in terms of where 

you disagree with the report? 

Mr. MABUS. In the RAND report, some of the conclusions suggested that the alternative fuel industry is immature, could not scale up to make an appreciable difference as a domestic alternative, and recommended that DOD not invest in this 

market. We have found that the biofuel industry appears to be well-poised to be of 

commercial size and ready to meet the Navy demands by 2016 for the Secretary of 

the Navy Great Green Fleet goal. According to Biofuels Digest, there are 110 companies that are currently working on various biofuel products, including mixed alcohols, bio-crude oils, and drop-in fuels. 

The RAND study accurately states that the Navy’s switch to biofuels, in and of 

itself, will not reduce the Nation’s total energy consumption by a significant margin. 

However, the RAND report was not well-researched and did not take into account 

the recent research and development advances in the biofuels technologies. RAND 

stated in their report that the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid/biomass-to-liquid fuels 

are the most promising near-term options for meeting DOD’s needs cleanly and 

affordably. Currently, there are no Fischer-Tropsch plants here in the United 

States. Additionally, under the guidelines of the EISA of 2007, section 526, any replacement fuel has to have a greenhouse gas emission profile less than petroleum. 

In order to meet this guideline, any Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid plant would have 

to have carbon capture and sequestration incorporated into this overall process. 

While there is important carbon capture and sequestration research and development ongoing at DOE, there has not been any carbon capture and sequestration 

process built to commercial scale in the United States. In summary, due to the EISA 

2007, Section 526 guidelines and the cost prohibitive carbon capture and storage 

process, we feel that the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid/biomass-to-liquid fuels are 

not the most promising near-term option for meeting DOD’s needs cleanly and 

affordably. 

While the use of alternative fuels can contribute toward guaranteeing our energy 

supplies, reducing our operational risks, and during volatile upward price swings in 

petroleum, could represent additional cost savings, the Navy’s energy strategy has 

not been limited to alternative fuels. We have aggressively adopted proven energy 

efficient applications and practices commonly found in the commercial sector. We 

have funded both science and technology/research and development projects in pursuit of increased energy efficiency since these projects can potentially and directly 

contribute to the combat capability of our operating forces by reducing our energy 

consumption both afloat and ashore, and by achieving significant cost savings. 

The Navy prefers to see itself as an ‘‘early adopter’’ of available biofuels. The military has often led in the development of new technologies where there was a compelling military use, even if the civilian use was ultimately greater (ex. GPS, the 

Internet). The operational use of alternative fuels by the Navy will be hastened by 

collaborating with Federal agencies and private industry at every step of the research, development, and certification process. The alternative fuel program establishes the Navy as an early adopter for investors in a nascent industry that could 

significantly enhance energy security, and thereby national security, in the mid- to 

long-term. By positioning itself as an early adopter by testing available biofuels and 

certifying them ‘‘fit for use across our major platforms and leveraging test and cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00387 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
382 

tifications accomplished by the other Services that meets our specifications,’’ the 

Navy is better poised to reap the following benefits: 

• Cost Savings. Increasing our use of alternative energy sources helps us achieve a level of protection from energy price volatility. For every $10 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil, the Navy spends an additional $300 million a year. Operating more efficiently saves money by reducing the amount 

we spend for fuel. Savings can be reinvested to strengthen combat capability. The cheapest barrel of fuel afloat or kilowatt-hour ashore is the one 

we will never use. 

• Guaranteed Supply. Our reliance on energy can be exploited by potential 

adversaries. Efficiency and alternatives may be our best countermeasure. 

Energy efficiency increases our mission effectiveness by expanding our 

range and endurance, and reducing our need for logistics support. Efficiency 

improvements minimize operational risks of that logistics tether, saving 

time, money, and lives. Alternative fuels provide the Navy an ‘off-ramp 

from petroleum,’ mitigating the risk to a volatile and ever more expensive 

petroleum market. 

• Fossil Fuel Independence. The Navy recognizes that our dependence on 

fossil fuels and foreign sources of oil makes us more susceptible to price 

shocks, supply shocks, natural and man-made disasters, and political unrest in countries far from our shores. 

• Combat Capability. Making our ships and aircraft more efficient improves their fuel economy. We can increase the days between refueling for 

our ships, improving their security and combat capability. We can also extend the range of our aircraft strike missions, allowing us to launch our aircraft farther away from combat areas. Increasing our efficiency and the diversity in our sources of fuel improves our combat capability strategically 

and tactically. 

72. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, please describe the alternative you are pursuing to reduce our reliance on fuel on the battlefield, and which of those initiatives 

do you think hold the most promise? 

General AMOS. We are aggressively pursuing alternative energy capabilities, 

which will reduce the requirement for liquid fuel logistics. Our objective is to increase our self sufficiency in battlefield sustainment and to reduce our expeditionary 

footprint. 

Currently we are pursuing innovative renewable energy capabilities to support 

the small unit level operations at the forward edge in Afghanistan. Last year, 

through our ExFOB process, marines of India Company, 3rd Battalion 5th Marine 

Regiment (3/5) trained and deployed to Afghanistan with solar and hybrid solar 

power generation capabilities. As of January 2011, two patrol bases were operating 

entirely on renewable energy—while engaged in near constant combat. A third base 

reduced its fuel requirement by approximately 90 percent. This unit also used flexible solar/backpack portable battery rechargers, enabling a foot patrol to operate for 

3 weeks without battery resupply whereas typical resupply occurs once every 2 to 

3 days. This unit experienced a reduced burden by an estimated 700 pounds and 

saved an estimated $40,000. 

Our focus on renewable energy aims to increase combat effectiveness. India Company’s experience—and leadership—show us that increasing energy efficiency and 

using renewable energy sources extends a marine unit’s sustainability in an expeditionary environment, bringing about a leaner, lighter force. Most importantly, it 

may also save lives by getting marines off the road hauling fuel and water. 

In our experience, locally-sourced alternative fuel has the potential to offset demand for petroleum at the tactical level. Reduced demand for fuel that must be 

transported to the battlefield means fewer marines at risk on the road in convoys. 

In short, solar and hybrid solar capabilities for the small unit have proven valuable; we are planning to accelerate them into the force. This summer the ExFOB 

will focus on the activities of a battalion-level command operations center. Taking 

a systems approach, we will evaluate renewable and hybrid power solutions together 

with energy efficient shelters and equipment. Solutions that demonstrate promise 

will be carried through for further evaluation. In addition, we are focused on 

leveraging every opportunity to harvest energy from all available renewable sources. 

FUTURE NAVAL FORCES AND FUTURE SECURITY THREATS

73. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, you’ve given some speeches in recent 

months presenting your views on the value of naval forces in defending U.S. interVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00388 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
383 

ests in coming years, particularly in light of trends you are seeing in the international security environment. What are your views on that matter? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. America’s prosperity depends upon the seas: 90 percent of 

world trade moves on the world’s oceans and underwater telecommunications cables 

facilitate about $3.2 trillion of commerce each year. The modern world is a complex, 

open system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, 

law, people, and governance. The stability and security of that system depends upon 

U.S. leadership, U.S. cooperation with global partners, and America’s tireless service as a global security provider. 

Our prosperity and security are inextricably linked, and the maritime commons 

will continue to support the stability of the global system. The ocean will remain 

the primary domain from which naval and joint forces project and sustain military 

power. Seapower allows our Nation to maintain U.S. presence and influence globally 

and, when necessary, project power without a costly, sizeable, or permanent footprint ashore. Seapower strengthens international and regional security, and provides the United States, our allies, and partners the means to deter and defeat aggression globally. 

The future security environment will continue to be dynamic and characterized 

by disruption and disorder as state and non-state actors compete for resources and 

influence. Global trends in economics, demographics, resources, and climate change 

portend an increased demand for maritime power and influence. We will continue 

to maintain a forward-deployed presence around the world to prevent conflict, increase interoperability with our allies, enhance the maritime security and capacity 

of our traditional and emerging partners, confront irregular challenges, and respond 

to crises. As we plan for the Navy of the future, we must take a realistic view of 

that future and ensure a dominant Fleet continues to provide the six core capabilities we set forth in our Maritime Strategy. If history and our current operations are 

a guide, demand for what we provide the Nation will remain undiminished, and 

may very well increase in the years ahead. 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NAVY BUDGET

74. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, you’ve made some comments lately 

about the need for possibly having to reopen the 2012 budget, as you put it—by 

which I take it you mean the Navy later this year might have to submit an amended 2012 budget to Congress—depending on what happens regarding 2011 Navy 

funding. Could you expand on that? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The President’s budget for 2012 was built on the President’s 

budget for 2011 foundation. The CR drastically affects the Navy’s accounts and will 

continue to do so until an appropriation bill is enacted. For example, in shipbuilding, the Navy’s plan for fiscal year 2011 included the procurement of two 

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers. The second ship of the planned procurement is in jeopardy as there was only one ship budgeted in the 2010 cycle. Additionally, we planned to start the procurement of two Virginia-class submarines, but 

a CR permits us to procure only one. The lead Mobile Landing Platform would be 

delayed since the lead ship is planned for procurement in 2011. Lastly, there is significant increased risk to the Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78)-class aircraft carrier program, development for the Ohio Replacement Program, and procurement of the amphibious assault ship (LHA–7). 

75. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, what kinds of changes to the 2012 budget might we see? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Until the final budget for 2011 is determined, it is difficult 

to speculate on what the cascading changes might be. However, Navy will be able 

to recover, but there are some programs that may not be executable on the same 

schedule and may require modification. There may also be additional costs incurred 

due to delays in meeting contract requirements. Our Navy’s budget submitting offices are currently working to mitigate these issues. For these reasons, we may need 

to revisit some of our 2012 submissions to ensure that our vital programs, and their 

programmed funding levels, are appropriate with the realities of fiscal year 2011’s 

appropriation. 

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND OTHER SURFACE SHIPS FACE GROWING THREATS

76. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, there have been some press reports lately suggesting that China’s new ASBM (called the Dong Feng 21D) is going to compel 

384 

our surface Navy to withdraw from certain parts of the Western Pacific. Do you 

agree with this view? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No. The DF–21D ASBM is but one system in China’s arsenal 

that challenges naval operations in contested areas, and our Navy has made significant investment in kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities to counter ASBMs and advanced cruise missiles. We will sustain our forward presence in the Western Pacific 

and strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the region through robust training, exercises, and military-to-military engagement. Implementation of the Air-Sea 

Battle Concept, a limited operational concept that focuses the development of integrated air and naval forces on addressing the evolving anti-access/area denial environment, will help us preserve our access and advance our national interests in the 

Western Pacific while ensuring continued U.S. advantage against emerging anti-access threats. 

77. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, please tell me—in general terms, without getting into classified details—what the Navy is doing to counter the ASBM, 

and whether you are confident about the ability of our surface ships to continue operating in these parts of the Western Pacific. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Our Navy has made significant investments in new ships, 

sensors, weapons, and systems to counter a wide array of evolving threats. Additionally, Navy has invested heavily in Aegis modernization, to upgrade existing Aegis 

technology already in the Fleet. These initiatives involving the current and future 

Fleet will continuously improve our integrated air and missile defense capability, allowing our forces to continue to operate forward around the world. 

78. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, more broadly, please discuss in general 

terms what the Navy is doing to counter China’s various maritime anti-access systems, and to preserve a military balance in the Western Pacific that is favorable 

to the United States and its allies. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy has and will continue to develop programs and capabilities to address the anti-access/area denial challenges in the Western Pacific 

and other theaters of operation. Accordingly, we are mindful of the need to be prepared to respond to all challenges by strengthening our alliances and partnerships, 

modernizing our forces, fielding new capabilities and technologies, and developing 

new operational concepts. 

One specific initiative that will help preserve a favorable military balance in the 

Western Pacific and elsewhere is implementation of the Air-Sea Battle Concept— 

a limited operational concept that focuses the development of integrated air and 

naval forces on addressing the evolving anti-access/area denial environment. The 

Air-Sea Battle Concept encompasses three key elements: 

• Institutional cooperation will be enhanced by establishing an enduring organizational construct that will continue formal collaboration to address the 

A2/AD environment as it evolves over time; 

• Conceptual alignment will be perpetuated through the operational design 

which describes how capabilities and forces are integrated to accomplish 

operational objectives in an A2/AD environment; and 

• Materiel solutions and innovations will be collaboratively vetted to ensure 

they are complementary where appropriate; redundant when mandated by 

capacity requirements; fully interoperable; and fielded with integrated acquisition strategies seeking efficiencies where they can be achieved. 

Air-Sea Battle will ensure continued U.S. advantage against emerging threats 

that include long-range, precise, anti-ship and land attack ballistic and cruise missile systems; advanced combat aircraft and electronic warfare technologies; advanced Integrated Air Defense systems; submarines and subsurface warfare capabilities; surface warfare capabilities; C4ISR capabilities; and cyber warfare technologies. 

NAVY SURFACE SHIP READINESS

79. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, I understand that the Navy recognizes 

that it needs to improve maintenance on its surface ships to repair problems that 

have developed over the last several years in surface ship materiel readiness. However, the Navy’s budget request shows funding for ship maintenance declining from 

100 percent of projected requirements in 2010 to 97 percent in the 2011 request and 

94 percent in the 2012 budget request. The total amount of ship maintenance funding is going down, from $7.5 billion in 2010, to $7.3 billion in the 2011 request, and 

$7.2 billion in the 2012 request. Equally troubling is the amount of annual deferred 

385 

maintenance is increasing from zero in 2010 to $172 million in 2011, and $367 million in the 2012 budget request. Since funding for maintenance on submarines and 

aircraft carriers is traditionally protected, this downward trend in funding looks like 

it could fall more heavily on the Navy’s surface combatants. Why does the Navy’s 

budget not reverse the upward trend of deferred maintenance? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Both the fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 baseline ship 

maintenance budget submissions are significantly higher than the fiscal year 2010 

submission, reflecting our commitment to improving the baseline ship maintenance 

funding posture. Our combined fiscal year 2012 OMN baseline and OCO budget submission reflects the best balance of risk and available resources across the Navy 

portfolio. It funds 94 percent of the projected depot ship maintenance requirements 

necessary to sustain our Navy’s global presence. To enhance the materiel readiness 

of our Fleet, we are improving our ability to plan and execute maintenance by increasing manning at our Regional Maintenance Centers (RMC), and by institutionalizing our engineered approach to surface ship maintenance, converting the 

successes of our Surface Ship Lifecycle Maintenance (SSLCM) initiative I began 2 

years ago into the Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning Program Activity 

(SURFMEPP). These initiatives combined with our enhanced assessments of the 

materiel condition of our surface ships provides us with more insight on how to 

manage the risk and ensure the deferred work is properly documented and completed in future availabilities. Navy remains committed to sustaining the force 

structure required to implement the Maritime Strategy and will ensure we minimize 

the impacts and continue the gains we have made in surface ship readiness over 

the last several budget cycles. 

80. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, is the Navy’s 2012 budget request consistent with its goals of improving surface ship readiness? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Our combined fiscal year 2012 baseline and OCO budget submissions fund 94 percent of the projected depot ship maintenance requirements necessary to sustain our Navy’s global presence and continue to improve overall surface 

ship readiness. This represents the best balance of risk and available resources 

across the Navy portfolio. Additionally, the investments we have made in the past 

several budget cycles in SURFMEPP and enhanced assessments of our surface ships 

provide us with more insight on how to manage the risk and ensure the work is 

appropriately apportioned across maintenance availabilities. However, Navy remains committed to sustaining the force structure required to implement the maritime strategy and will ensure we minimize the impacts and continue the gains we 

have made in surface ship readiness over the last several budget cycles. 

81. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, how much risk is the Navy taking on 

in terms of surface ship readiness with its current year budget submission? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Our combined fiscal year 2012 baseline and OCO budget submissions fund 94 percent of the projected depot ship maintenance requirements necessary to sustain our Navy’s global presence. The resultant shortfall of $367 million 

equates to deferral of 44 surface ship availabilities (34 surface ship non-docking 

availabilities, 3 surface ship docking availabilities, and 7 CVN private sector carrier 

incremental availabilities). This represents the best balance of risk and available resources across the Navy portfolio. Additionally, the investments we have made in 

the past several budget cycles in SURFMEPP and enhanced assessments of our surface ships provides us with more insight on how to manage the risk and ensure the 

deferred work is properly documented and completed in future availabilities. Navy 

remains committed to sustaining the force structure required to implement the maritime strategy and will ensure we minimize the impacts and continue the gains we 

have made in surface ship readiness over the last several budget cycles. 

COMMANDING OFFICERS’ FIRINGS ON THE INCREASE

82. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, there have been a number of reported 

cases in recent months of Navy commanding officers being relieved of duty for various reasons relating to their personal behavior. The case of the commanding officer 

on the aircraft carrier was well publicized, but there have been a number of additional cases as well. Have these removals become more frequent? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. In 2010, we saw an increase in the number of commanding 

officers that have been detached for cause (DFC); however, since 2005, less than 1 

percent of all our commanding officers have been detached for cause, most for issues 

involving personal misconduct. After observing the increase in the number of comVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
386 

manding officers DFC cases in 2010, we conducted a review and have taken corrective actions. The number of commanding officers detached for cause are: 

Year Commanding Officers Detached for Cause 

2007 ......................................................................................................................... 13 

2008 ......................................................................................................................... 12 

2009 ......................................................................................................................... 14 

2010 ......................................................................................................................... 29 

2011 ......................................................................................................................... 1 

Total ................................................................................................................ 69 

83. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, how do you explain this trend? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. While 99 percent of our commanding officers continue to be 

successful, the increase of commanding officers relieved for misconduct in 2010 is 

a concern. In my review, the increase in DFC resulted from personal behavior and 

misconduct more than professional performance. The Navy continues to review and 

make changes to leadership training to improve the success rate of commanding officers. There is no simple explanation for this trend, and we have focused our efforts 

on the education, training, and selection of our commanding officers. The emphasis 

is on the personal character, integrity, and accountability we expect of our commanders. 

84. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, is there an actual increase in misconduct 

by the Navy’s commanding officers or is the media just paying more attention to 

them lately? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The number of commanding officers relieved for misconduct 

in 2010 is an increase. In my review, the increase in DFC resulted from personal 

behavior and misconduct more than professional performance. The Navy continues 

to review and make changes to leadership training in order to improve the success 

rate of commanding officers. There is no simple explanation for this trend, and we 

have focused our efforts on the education, training, and selection of our commanding 

officers. The emphasis is on the personal character, integrity, and accountability we 

expect of our commanders. 

There have been 69 commanding officers officially detached for cause for the 5- 

year period from January 2007 to present. Out of the 69 DFCs since 2007, 36 cases 

were related to personal misconduct. There are currently 5 cases that are pending 

a final decision, including the commanding officer of the aircraft carrier mentioned 

in your earlier question. Reasons for DFC included: (1) Abused position for personal 

gain; (2) Misconduct—fraternization/sexual misconduct; (3) Misconduct—otherwise; 

(4) Inability to provide effective leadership; (5) Collision/Grounding; and (6) Requested to be relieved. Personal misconduct incidents are reflected in the first three 

reasons. 

Year Total Detachments 

For Causes Personal Misconduct 

2007 ............................................................................................................................ 13 7 

2008 ............................................................................................................................ 12 9 

2009 ............................................................................................................................ 14 4 

2010 ............................................................................................................................ 29 15 

2011 ............................................................................................................................ 1 1 

Total ................................................................................................................... 69 36 

The public sensitivity to alleged misconduct by military and government officials 

may generate media attention. In fiscal year 2010, media reporting on these issues 

did increase. With the widespread use of electronic devices today, it is far easier to 

substantiate claims of misconduct through the use of email, photographic, and video 

evidence. 

85. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, are you concerned that these removals 

reflect problems in the way the Navy is selecting and training its commanding officers? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I’m confident that the Navy is choosing the best officers 

based on documented performance. The Navy’s process of selecting and training 

387 

commanding officers is rigorous and sound. Over the last 6 years, 99 percent of commanding officers have successfully completed their command tours. The recent DFC 

trend has largely been a result of personal misconduct issues rather than professional shortcomings. As a result of this trend, we have incorporated training that 

specifically addresses this matter into the training curriculum all prospective commanding officers must complete prior to assuming command. The Navy sets high 

standards of conduct for its commanding officers, and will continue to hold them 

fully accountable. 

MARINE CORPS ROLES AND MISSIONS

86. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, it appears that a number of investments associated with the Marine Corps’ ability to put troops ashore and then properly support them in combat operations have in recent years been reduced or put on hold. 

For example: The Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan does not include enough amphibious ships to maintain a force of 33 amphibious ships. The Navy’s planned force 

of 155mm Advanced Gun Systems, which were central at one point to DOD’s plans 

for providing the Marines Corps with adequate naval surface fire support, has been 

greatly reduced in number due to the truncation of the DDG–1000 program. The 

planned 12-ship MPF(F) squadron has been set aside in favor of a less ambitious 

plan to reinforce the three existing maritime prepositioning ship squadrons—and 

the 2012 budget request now plans to reduce that capability by putting one of those 

three squadrons into reduced operating status. The STOVL version of the JSF, for 

which the Marine Corps is to be the primary user—has been put on a 2-year probation. The 2012 budget request proposes to cancel the EFV in favor of a less-capable 

replacement system. In light of all these developments, do you believe that the Marine Corps’ program needs are being sufficiently supported by the Navy and the 

DOD? 

General AMOS. There is increasing awareness within the Navy and DOD regarding challenges to operational access and power projection. Amphibious ships are the 

cornerstone of our Nation’s ability to respond to crisis and protect our citizens and 

interests globally. Today we have agreement within the Navy on a requirement of 

38 amphibious ships and a minimum inventory of 33 ships. While we will not realize the floor of 33 immediately, we have committed to reverse this trend to increase 

our amphibious capabilities. 

Additionally, we are working to balance capabilities developed since September 11 

with the need to expand our engagement efforts, respond to crisis, and still be able 

to project power for the most dangerous but less likely threat scenarios. We have 

greatly improved and will continue to improve our maritime prepositioning ship 

squadrons. We have developed an ability to transfer equipment at sea and have ensured we can reinforce amphibious forces without a port. We continue to look for 

innovative solutions to meet our naval surface fire support requirements, and in 

that regard the DDG–1000 provides an enhancement, and we look to further development of the Long Range Land Attack Projectiles. We continue to work with the 

Navy to enhance our connectors and landing craft that form the backbone of our 

heavy-lift, surface, ship-to-shore movement capability from amphibious ships. The 

LHD Capstone Upgrade to Ship Self Defense System Mk 2 provides another example of forward momentum to enhance our amphibious capabilities. 

Establishing a period of scrutiny for the F–35B program was a prudent decision 

in light of the progress the JSF program had made to date. The identified technical 

challenges of a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft are typical 

of the developmental stage of a program of this complexity, yet none of the currently 

known issues are considered to be insurmountable. Corrective actions have either 

already been incorporated into production aircraft, or they are being proactively 

analyzed and will soon be resolved. 

We now have the time to focus resources, ensure solutions are effective, and incorporate them in the most efficient means possible with the least disruption to schedule, while avoiding the potential of costly improvements later in the service life of 

the aircraft. Implications of not having a STOVL tactical aviation capability reach 

far beyond the Marine Corps, and directly affect our ability to support national 

strategy. I am confident the F–35B will surpass expectations during this period of 

focused scrutiny and be a key resource in our arsenal of expeditionary capabilities. 

Once the F–35B platform is fully fielded aboard our LHD and LHA ships, the Nation will have 22 capital ships—11 amphibious assault and 11 carrier—with 5th 

generation assets aboard. 

I recommended cancellation of the EFV after careful evaluation of affordability, 

fiscal reality, and future operating challenges. Although the EFV program has been 

388 

cancelled, both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy have reaffirmed the necessity of the Marine Corps amphibious assault capabilities as a 

component of the larger amphibious operations mission set. As the Secretary of Defense stated, we are firm in our requirement for an ACV. It is the key to conducting 

ship-to-shore operations in permissive, uncertain, and hostile environments; assuring access where infrastructure is destroyed or nonexistent; and creating joint access in defended areas. Throughout the period when the EFV was being developed, 

threats in the littorals and U.S. capabilities to counter and overcome these threats 

evolved. We now believe that improvements in our capabilities fielded and in development mitigate the threat to amphibious forces from anti-access and area denial 

threats to an acceptable level of risk for a naval force operating at a 12 nautical 

mile stand-off range. 

87. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, and if this trend toward program reductions 

and deferrals continues, what is going to happen over the long run to the Marine 

Corps’ ability to put troops ashore and then properly support them there in combat 

operations? 

General AMOS. The contributions of amphibious forces to the strategic mission of 

the United States are possible only by the maintenance of robust amphibious capabilities—the ships, aircraft, connectors, ground vehicles, and forces that conduct seabased operations. In 2010, the Navy-Marine Corps team returned to conducting 

large-scale Marine Expeditionary Brigade/Expeditionary Strike Group exercises to 

hone these critical amphibious skills. While these exercises are critical to enhancing 

our proficiency in large-scale amphibious operations, they also serve as a valuable 

platform to test new concepts and potentially lead to the development of updated 

joint doctrine. 

Future amphibious operations will require improvements in mobility, command 

and control, intelligence, fires, sea-based logistics, organization, doctrine, training, 

and education. Amphibious landing forces require surface and vertical assault systems with the speed, range, precision location and navigational capabilities, protection, and firepower to launch from over-the-horizon positions, maneuver through 

tactical points of entry, and achieve the objective regardless of the threat. The technologies required to enhance these capabilities are under development, and the combat systems implementing these technologies are the highest priority in the Marine 

Corps. 

Our force structure review completed last fall proposed the reestablishment of 

standing Marine Expeditionary Brigade headquarters, each under the command of 

a brigadier general. These command elements will increase responsiveness to GCC 

needs and align with the Navy’s Expeditionary Strike Group headquarters. The goal 

of this alignment is to provide a more integrated naval approach for amphibious 

training and innovation, while also establishing headquarters capable of commanding and controlling larger amphibious operations. 

REDESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

AND MARINE CORPS

88. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, what is your view of the proposal to redesignate the Navy as the Navy and Marine Corps, and to redesignate the person in 

charge of that department from Secretary of the Navy to Secretary of the Navy and 

Marine Corps? 

Mr. MABUS. I oppose the redesignation of the Navy. Although the intent of the 

proposal is to provide for specific recognition of the Marine Corps, it may result in 

a less effective Navy and Marine Corps team. The Navy represents one unified 

team, with the Marine Corps as a fully integrated and equal part of that team. The 

name of the department has not underserved the Marine Corps as a Service, and 

suggestions to the contrary undermine the sense of unity and jointness that have 

been the hallmark of the Navy for over 200 years. Dictating such a name change 

creates the impression that a problem exists and could have the deleterious effect 

of suggesting a step away from the heritage and tradition of a strong Navy and Marine Corps team. Thus, I oppose the redesignation. 

REQUIREMENT FOR A 313-SHIP NAVY

89. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, for the past few years Navy has justified 

to Congress a need for 313 ships; does this budget support that requirement? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes. This budget supports and will allow the Navy to reach 

a battle force inventory of 313 ships. The President’s budget for 2012 achieves a balVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00394 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
389 

anced and executable shipbuilding program which provides additional capability 

while gaining efficiency in the shipbuilding industrial base. The requirement of 313 

ships remains the floor and the Navy is committed to building to that floor. 

The Navy was able to budget for a total of 55 ships in the President’s budget 2012 

FYDP. These ships include: a continuation of the fiscal year 2010 restart of the 

DDG–51 program; an additional LCS in fiscal year 2012 to support an acquisition 

strategy of dual contract awards totaling 10 ships of each design; continuation of 

the SSN–774 program at 2 ships per year through fiscal year 2016; acceleration of 

the new MLP program aimed at increasing the capacity and capability of the existing Maritime Prepositioning Ship fleet; continuation of the CVN–78 program; procurement of the 11th LPD–17 ship, addressing the Marine Corps lift requirements 

for this class of ship; and a substantive increase in the Navy’s ability to meet theater cooperation demands and intra-theater lift requirements through increased procurements of the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program. Overall, the fleet additions represented by the additions to the President’s budget 2012 FYDP will position 

the Navy to meet its obligations and mission requirements through the next decade. 

90. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, I’m concerned that cost overruns in shipbuilding programs will undermine future plans. What specific actions is the Navy 

taking to mitigate cost overruns in shipbuilding programs? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy recognizes that building the required force structure will largely depend on controlling shipbuilding costs (including combat systems). The Navy is addressing this in three ways. 

First, the Navy continues to look for further affordability and efficiency opportunities as we go forward with the shipbuilding plan, such as revising the acquisition 

strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to maximize the advantage of the competitive pricing we received and enable us to gain an additional DDG–51 ship within 

the FYDP. 

Second, the Navy is continuing to emphasize the use of fixed-price contracts as 

a cost control mechanism, when technical risk is low and when a ship’s design is 

mature prior to the start of fabrication. 

Third, prior to Milestone A approval for the Ohio Replacement submarine, the 

Navy evaluated numerous capability trades to reduce costs. As a result, the Navy 

made trades in the number of ballistic missile tubes, the diameter of those tubes, 

the number of torpedoes to be carried, acoustic sensors, and other defensive features 

throughout the design. These trades made the submarine more affordable while 

maintaining the necessary level of capability, resulting in a reduction of the projected cost to a target cost of $4.9 billion (fiscal year 2010 dollars) for the follow on 

hulls 2–12. 

SHIPYARD INDUSTRIAL BASE

91. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, for more than a decade, six major shipyards have met most of the shipbuilding needs of the Navy. In fact, some experts 

have said that our industrial base today has been established to support a 600-ship 

Navy, but those needs are declining, even as the Navy builds up to a 313-ship fleet. 

Is the planned number of ships enough to keep those six shipyards in business? 

Mr. MABUS. The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request balances capability, 

affordability, and industrial base considerations in determining the force structure 

necessary to meet maritime security requirements. Striking that balance requires 

the Nation to maintain adequate capacity and capability by the industrial base to 

produce the ship classes in the plan. It also requires that we preserve competition, 

where practical, and incentivize industry to invest in the tools and training required 

to achieve the affordability, performance, and innovation needed to maintain our 

naval superiority. 

Within this overarching framework, the Navy looks to the shipbuilding industry 

to adopt processes and optimize facilities to affordably build the future fleet. The 

private sector industrial base has done so since the Navy build up in the 1980s. 

Business decisions regarding capital investment, consolidation, overhead reductions, 

et cetera—particularly where industry has opportunity to compete for naval or commercial ship construction contracts—are largely left to industry to determine based 

on the individual shipbuilder assessment of its future business base, and the cost 

performance it needs to achieve to be affordable and competitive for ships in the 

Navy’s budget. 

A recent example of adjustments in the shipbuilding industrial base is the Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) decision to spinoff its shipbuilding sector. Navy 

evaluated this complex corporate transaction and negotiated with NGC to ensure 

390 

that the reorganized entity, Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), would start as a 

financially viable company capable of performing current and future Navy shipbuilding programs. This spin-off is now complete. 

92. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, in both the current budget request and in 

terms of a more general policy, what (if anything) is the Navy doing to support the 

shipbuilding industrial base? 

Mr. MABUS. DOD and Navy face the challenge of ensuring that the defense industrial base can meet the current and future requirements for systems and support 

while maintaining cost effectiveness, competition, and the necessary skills and technology base. To help meet this challenge, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) has engaged an outside entity to develop and 

provide a publicly available, comprehensive, and independent assessment of the 

Navy shipbuilding industrial base. 

The Navy seeks an industrial base analysis that focuses on the essential capabilities and capacities needed to support Navy ship construction. The objective of the 

study is to identify the challenges facing the Navy and the strategies for mitigating 

the effects of those challenges, across a variety of issue areas such as cost, schedule, 

technical, infrastructure, and workforce capability. This may include recommendations to change/improve policies, standards, contract elements, performance benchmarks, government and industry practices, and oversight that define the effective 

delivery of quality products, platforms, and systems (including combat systems). 

Recent examples of what the Navy has done to support the industrial base include: 

1. In Title II of Public Law 109–234, Section 2203, Congress directed that at least 

$140 million be made available for infrastructure improvements at Gulf Coast 

shipyards that have existing Navy shipbuilding contracts and that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina in calendar year 2005. In 2010, DOD awarded an 

additional $39.5 million in infrastructure improvement projects to Gulf Coast 

shipyards that support the Navy shipbuilding industrial base. These projects 

focus on expediting recovery of shipbuilding capability, increasing efficiency, 

and preventing further hurricane damage to Gulf Coast shipyards. 

2. The production of the double-hulled fleet oiler T–AO(X) was accelerated from 

2017 to 2014 in the fiscal year 2012 budget submission. This allows the Navy 

to acquire this important capability 3 years earlier while bringing greater stability and promoting competition in the shipbuilding industry. 

3. A recent adjustment in the shipbuilding industrial base is the NGC decision 

to spinoff/sell its shipbuilding sector. Navy evaluated this complex corporate 

transaction and negotiated with NGC to ensure that the reorganized entity, 

HII, would remain a financially viable company capable of performing current 

and future Navy shipbuilding programs. This reorganization is now complete, 

after Navy completed its evaluation and announced its position supporting this 

reorganization and finding HII a responsible contractor. The Navy is also prepared to provide an agreement, in accordance with the Shipbuilding Capabilities Preservation Act (SCPA), that would assist in making HII more competitive for commercial shipbuilding work. The purpose/benefits of an SCPA is to 

facilitate a shipbuilder’s entry into private sector work and reduce that shipbuilder’s reliance on the DOD industrial base. U.S. commercial shipbuilding accounts for approximately 1 percent of world commercial shipbuilding output; 80 

percent of this comes from the mid-tier sector. 

4. Of the Big Six shipyards, only General Dynamics NASSCO has recently competed in the commercial shipbuilding industry. However, NASSCO currently 

has only U.S. Navy shipbuilding and repair work at the shipyard. In 2010, the 

Navy signed an SCPA agreement with NASSCO and the company is pursuing 

commercial contracts. 

93. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, are there any plans, for example, such as 

helping to convert existing shipyards into ship repair yards? 

Mr. MABUS. There are existing construction shipyards that are capable of performing repair work also, and some currently are Navy prime contractors for repair, 

maintenance, and modernization of Navy surface ships, aircraft carriers, and submarines. 

Geographic restrictions. For long-term availabilities, 10 U.S.C. 7299a (section 

7299a) prohibits geographic restrictions when assigning ship conversion, alteration, 

or repair projects. For short-term availabilities (<6 months), however, section 7299a 

requires geographic restriction of performance to the ship’s homeport if there is adequate competition to perform the work in the homeport. If homeport competition exVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
391 

ists, then the Navy shall issue solicitations and award contracts only to firms that 

will perform the work at the vessel homeport. 

The Secretary of the Navy Homeport Policy provides additional definitions and 

guidance in applying section 7299a, as follows: 

• For long-term availabilities, the work will be competed ‘‘coast-wide,’’ unless the ASN(RDA) determines ‘‘that competition is infeasible or special 

conditions exist.’’ 

• For short-term availabilities: (i) ‘‘homeport area,’’ for solicitation purposes, is defined as a grouping of ports within a 75 mile radius of, and less 

than 1.5 hours one way travel from, the naval facility where the ship is 

homeported; (ii) ‘‘adequate competition’’ is defined as the presence of two or 

more qualified bidders that can perform in the homeport; and (iii) requires 

that, if adequate competition is not available in the homeport, the geographic area for solicitation will be expanded equally in all directions until 

adequate competition is achieved. 

• For short-term availabilities for submarines, the Secretary of the Navy 

waives the requirement for competition and allows performance to be performed sole source in the homeports of New London, CT, and Norfolk, VA. 

This waiver is necessary because General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries (Newport News) are the only private sources that 

can perform short-term, non-refueling availabilities for nuclear submarines. 

Multi-Ship/Multi-Option (MSMO) contracts. The Navy uses MSMO contracts to 

accomplish surface ship maintenance and modernization. These contracts are 

awarded for a specific ship class in a homeport in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Navy Homeport Policy. New construction shipyards that are located in a Navy 

homeport area have been awarded MSMO contracts. For example, NASSCO currently holds the MSMO contracts for LPD, LSD, LHA, LHD classes of ships in San 

Diego, CA, and Vigor Shipyards (formerly Todd Pacific Shipyards) holds the MSMO 

contracts for docking availabilities for FFG and DDG classes of ships in Puget 

Sound, WA. 

94. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, I understand that an outside study being 

done for the Navy on the health of the Navy shipbuilding industrial base is just 

about finished. Can you share any of the findings of that report? 

Mr. MABUS. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) has engaged an outside entity to develop and provide a publicly available, 

comprehensive, and independent assessment of the Navy shipbuilding industrial 

base. 

The Navy seeks an industrial base analysis that focuses on the essential capabilities and capacities needed to support Navy ship construction. The objective of the 

study is to identify the challenges facing the Navy and the strategies for mitigating 

the effects of those challenges, across a variety of issue areas such as cost, schedule, 

technical, infrastructure, and workforce capability. This may include recommendations to change/improve policies, standards, contract elements, performance benchmarks, government and industry practices, and oversight that define the effective 

delivery of quality products, platforms, and systems (including combat systems). The 

study is expected to be completed shortly. 

HOME-PORTING FOR THE NAVY’S VERSION OF THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

95. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, I understand that the Navy plans to 

begin replacing 109 F/A–18C Hornets on the West Coast with 100 F–35C JSF carrier variant aircraft over the next 10 years, beginning in 2015. Where are you now 

in determining where those JSF squadrons will be home-based and, as a general 

proposition, what criteria will determine the outcome of that decision? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is underway to 

assess the impact of homebasing seven F–35C squadrons and one Fleet Replacement 

Squadron (FRS) in a single West Coast location to replace the FA–18C. The EIS is 

evaluating two locations—Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, CA, and Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro, CA. The Navy will make a final homebasing decision after 

the EIS is complete and a Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. Homebasing decisions 

take into account a wide range of possible considerations and factors including combatant commander requirements, strategic guidance (QDR, Naval Operations Concept, et cetera), threat/risk of natural or manmade disaster, proximity to training 

and operating areas, maintenance schedules, existing infrastructure, quality of life 

for sailors and their families, cost, environmental impacts (per the National EnviVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
392 

ronmental Policy Act (NEPA)), joint efficiencies and synergies, and port/airfield 

loading. 

SUSTAINING LEVEL OF COMMITMENT

96. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, the Navy is now required to have aircraft carriers in Middle Eastern waters for 9 months out of every year, a heavier 

constant commitment beyond the temporary surging of carrier battle groups in the 

region over the past decade. Will the Navy be able to sustain that level of commitment in 5th Fleet with only 11 aircraft carriers? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy’s force generation model, the Fleet Response Plan 

(FRP), structures operational and maintenance cycles to provide full spectrum operational capability across all Navy deployable force structure. By leveraging the inherent flexibility of the FRP, the Navy can sustain current combatant command demand for carrier presence with 11 operational aircraft carriers for a relatively short 

and defined period of time. 

97. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, how difficult will it be to sustain that 

level of commitment when USS Enterprise retires in 2012 and the Navy has just 

10 aircraft carriers? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Despite being below our required 11 carrier force structure, 

the Navy will be able to meet operational commitments with the carriers that remain in service without undue burden on the sailors and families of the carrier fleet 

when the USS Enterprise decommissions in 2012. The Navy has put in place measures to minimize the impact of the 10-carrier window during the 33 months between 

the inactivation of USS Enterprise (CVN–65) and commissioning of CVN–78 in 2015. 

We are taking advantage of the flexibility of our FRP to ensure that the carriers 

are delivered to combatant commanders in a material condition to support all tasks 

and with a crew that is properly trained. After the delivery of CVN–78, we will 

maintain an 11-carrier force through the continued refueling program for Nimitzclass ships and the delivery of our Ford-class carriers at 5-year intervals starting 

in 2020. 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER EXTRA ENGINE

98. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, just a few weeks ago, the House of Representatives voted to end funding for the extra engine to the JSF. The extra engine 

has even less support here in the Senate and probably would not survive a vote 

here, if one should occur. What is your reaction to having a program that has siphoned hundreds of millions of scarce dollars away from other priority requirements 

finally terminated? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I concur with DOD’s belief that the JSF alternate engine program is unnecessary, too costly, and risks diverting needed resources from other 

programs. The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget does not request funding for the 

development and procurement of the F136 extra engine. DOD has concluded that 

maintaining a single engine supplier provides the best balance of cost and risk. Our 

assessment is that the benefits that might theoretically accrue with a second engine 

are more than offset by excess cost, complexity, and associated risks, and will divert 

precious modernization funds from other more pressing priorities. 

99. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, do you have a sense of when Secretary 

Gates and President Obama will officially announce the termination of this program? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. It is the view of DOD that the Alternate Engine Program is 

a waste of taxpayers’ money that can be used to fund higher departmental priorities, and should be ended now. The administration and the DOD strongly oppose 

the extra engine program, as reflected in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

proposal that was recently submitted to Congress, which does not include funding 

for the program. DOD issued a stop-work order 24 March 2011 in connection with 

the JSF extra engine program. 

The House of Representatives has recently expressed its own opposition to the 

extra engine in its passage of H.R. 1, including the adoption of the Rooney Amendment which removed all fiscal year 2011 funding for this program. In addition, funding for the extra engine was not authorized in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011, enacted in January. In light of these recent events, congressional prerogatives, and the 

administration’s view of the program, we have concluded that a stop-work order is 

now the correct course. The stop-work order will remain in place pending final resoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00398 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
393 

lution of the program’s future, for a period not to exceed 90 days, unless extended 

by agreement of the government and the contractor. 

100. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, to continue funding this wasteful program at $28 million per month—or $14 million per each 2-week CR—when it is now 

clear this program is effectively dead, makes little sense. Has a stop-work order 

been issued for this program yet? If not, do you have a sense of when that may be 

done? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. DOD issued a stop-work order 24 March 2011 in connection 

with the JSF extra engine program. The administration and the DOD strongly oppose the extra engine program, as reflected in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal that was recently submitted to Congress, which does not include funding 

for the program. It is the view of DOD that the Alternate Engine Program is a 

waste of taxpayers’ money that can be used to fund higher departmental priorities, 

and should be ended now. 

The House of Representatives has recently expressed its own opposition to the 

extra engine in its passage of H.R. 1, including the adoption of the Rooney Amendment which removed all fiscal year 2011 funding for this program. In addition, funding for the extra engine was not authorized in the NDAA for fiscal year 2011, enacted in January. In light of these recent events, congressional prerogatives, and the 

administration’s view of the program, we have concluded that a stop-work order is 

now the correct course. The stop-work order will remain in place pending final resolution of the program’s future, for a period not to exceed 90 days, unless extended 

by agreement of the government and the contractor. 

MARINES IN AFGHANISTAN

101. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, since this time last year, the number of marines in Afghanistan has nearly doubled from about 10,600 to nearly 20,000. During 

that period, marines have taken on the Taliban in their heartland in Helmand province. It appears we may have turned the tide against the Taliban in Helmand this 

winter, but we know there will be heavy fighting ahead in spring and summer. 

What has to happen to keep the momentum we have achieved from being reversed? 

General AMOS. U.S. Marines, along with our Afghan, NATO, and international 

partners, will maintain the momentum in the Helmand and Nimruz Provinces this 

spring and summer. We will do so by deepening our hold in critical districts, expanding governance and security presence into previously uncontested areas, and 

supporting the Afghan Government’s plans to transition identified municipalities, 

districts, and provinces to host nation lead throughout the summer and into the fall. 

Each of these three activities, supported in partnership by each member of the Regional Command Southwest Combined Team, will enable the Afghan Government 

to maintain its momentum throughout 2011. 

102. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, what do you think will happen as we approach the July 2011 timeframe when many Taliban thought we would be pulling 

out of Afghanistan? 

General AMOS. Taliban senior leaders have commented on the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan on several occasions referencing late 2014 

as stated in both U.S. and international press. Most Taliban are aware of the new 

timeline just as they were aware of the initial 2011 target date. With President 

Karzai’s announcement this past March of his intent to transition key districts within Afghanistan, most Taliban will expect to see the presence of coalition forces wane 

in those areas. 

A precondition for the Taliban to reconcile or negotiate with the Afghan Government is the exodus of all foreign entities within Afghanistan. As such, we anticipate 

there will be little reaction from low to mid-level Taliban fighters and operational 

leaders. We also expect to see increased rhetoric with regards to coalition partners 

withdrawing troops and subsequent praise of those countries. Additionally, once coalition countries have departed, the Taliban likely will demonize the remaining U.S. 

presence for any actions perceived as a sleight against Islam. 

103. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, how much of the load are Afghan troops carrying in Helmand and other places in Afghanistan where they are partnered with 

marines? 

General AMOS. The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are taking steps to 

develop the capability to lead their own operations. In some areas, the ANSF are 

able to plan and execute their own operations while in other places they are heavily 

394 

involved in planning, coordination, and execution. During March 2011, we saw an 

increase in the overall number of ANSF-led operations within Helmand Province. 

As the Afghan National Police (ANP) and Afghan National Army (ANA) continue 

to grow and mature as a force, we must continue to be mindful that the ANA 215th 

Corps, which is the primary ANA element in Helmand Province, was stood up just 

over 1 year ago and that we are still building both the ANP and ANA at the same 

time that they are fighting an active insurgency. As we continue to assist in the 

manning, training, and equipping of the ANSF, we anticipate that they will further 

improve their capability to take the lead in executing operations. This will lead to 

a more secure operating area, bringing us closer to a transition period where coalition forces can operate from an overwatch posture. 

104. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, are we being successful in training the ANA 

and ANP? 

General AMOS. Through the Regional Training Center and the Joint Security 

Academy Southwest (JSAS), Regional Command Southwest has established a benchmark in terms of training and building capability and proficiency within the ANSFs. 

We are seeing dividends in our investment as we have been able to build upon 

ANSF basic proficiency levels through our leadership and specialty courses to include the Afghan Uniform Police Basic Course that we developed. 

The limiting factor to our efforts has been the number of troops available to attend these courses. Namely, given the kinetic nature of operations in Helmand Province, it is difficult to remove ANSF troops from the battlefield for specialized training without simultaneously detracting from current operational capabilities or readiness. In this regard, our initiatives to hold sustainment and basic training packages 

onsite have enabled improvements and a more combat capable Afghan force. As we 

continue to assist in building ANSF capacity and capability, JSAS will continue to 

provide the key elements for continued development. Examples of this include JSAS 

led training programs that will continue to focus on NCO development as well as 

future training targeting junior officers. 

105. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, how do the local Afghans view the marines? 

Are they willing to throw in their lot with us or are they just waiting for us to 

leave? 

General AMOS. In general, reporting indicates increased Afghan support for U.S. 

Marine Corps and coalition forces in areas where we have a significant presence. 

Depending on the quality of local ANSF in an area, marines are somewhat more 

accepted than their ANA or ANP counterparts. In other areas, the ANSF are preferred. 

In general, local nationals appreciate the security provided by marines and coalition forces, allowing for development projects in the areas of education, health care, 

agriculture, infrastructure, and business development. Relations have improved significantly in some areas such that patrols are invited into local Afghan homes. Overall, the increase in cellular telephone service penetration throughout Helmand Province, coupled with a greater confidence in coalition forces, has increased the number 

of tips on insurgent movements and IED emplacements. 

In many cases we have seen that as coalition forces initially move into an area, 

the atmospherics are often quite hostile, with Afghan nationals often avoiding coalition force patrols. However, our experience has been that atmospherics improve as 

more Afghans interact with coalition forces. As security grows and the Afghans become more accustomed to coalition forces, they are more likely to greet coalition 

forces personnel, speaking freely with them in the open. 

WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

106. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos and Admiral Roughead, in your personal 

opinion, do you think that Iraq will be able to take over the logistics, intelligence, 

and air sovereignty missions that U.S. forces have been doing for Iraq by the December 31 deadline for all of our combat troops to leave Iraq? 

General AMOS. Given that the preponderance of Marine Corps forces exited Iraq 

by January 2010 and that there are only 18 marines left in Iraq at this time, U.S. 

Army units are conducting the preponderance of training missions with Iraqi Army 

at this time. As such, senior leadership from the U.S. Army and those from 

CENTCOM are in the best position to provide assessments of the current and future 

projected capabilities of Iraqi Security Forces. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Iraqi security forces appear to have sufficient capabilities to 

confront Sunni and Shia extremist groups and to provide for their internal security, 

395 

but gaps in their external defense capabilities will exist after U.S. combat forces depart. By the end of the year the Iraqi Navy will be manned, equipped, and trained 

to effectively patrol their internal waterways and to defend their critical infrastructure in the northern Arabian Gulf. Continued training to enhance the logistics, 

sustainment, and intelligence capabilities that support such riverine and maritime 

security operations would benefit the Iraqi Navy. Iraq will not be able to fully enforce its air sovereignty for some time. Scheduled, rotational deployments of our normal forces, to include carriers, to the Arabian Gulf in support of our national interests in the region could provide the means to help the Iraqi Air Force develop its 

own air defense capabilities. 

107. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos and Admiral Roughead, if it were your decision to make, what sort of troops or capabilities do you think would continue to be 

valuable in Iraq? 

General AMOS. [Deleted.] 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy training teams have been tasked as part of OND to 

train the Iraqi Navy in two general mission areas—riverine warfare and maritime 

security operations. The riverine training mission was declared complete in November 2010 by USF–I, but periodic training with the Iraqis could be beneficial. In maritime security, the Iraqi Navy has assumed force protection responsibilities for one 

of their two major oil platforms. Responsibility for the second platform will be transferred to the Iraqis in summer 2011, with U.S. Navy ships remaining within range 

to respond to a threat, if required. By the end of 2011, U.S. naval forces will remain 

on station in the North Arabian Gulf in international waters, with the Iraqi Navy 

fully responsible for maritime infrastructure protection within their territorial waters. The Navy currently has a robust exercise program with the Iraqi Navy and 

Coast Guard, and will continue these efforts as they stand up their capabilities at 

sea. The most significant challenge facing the Iraqi Navy is maintenance of their 

patrol boats. There will be a continued need for U.S. training in this regard and 

to work with the Iraqis in developing the requisite logistical expertise to sustain 

these craft which are used to protect the oil platforms. When Iraqi Navy capability 

and capacity permit, the focus of the Navy’s security assistance and security cooperation activities could expand to include maritime sovereignty enforcement, joint 

defense of Iraq from external aggressors, and advanced interoperability with coalition forces to enable the Iraqi Navy to contribute to regional maritime security initiatives such as counter-piracy operations. 

108. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos and Admiral Roughead, how do you see 

Iran’s influence in Iraq changing after December 31? 

General AMOS. [Deleted.] 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. From a maritime perspective, Iran is likely to continue its 

assertiveness in the maritime domain. Iran, however, will encounter a stronger and 

more capable Iraqi Navy with the capability to defend its critical maritime infrastructure and ultimately the full extent of its territorial waters in the Northern Arabian Gulf. By 31 December 2011, the Iraqi Navy will be capable of effectively patrolling the waters surrounding two of Iraq’s most important oil terminals, as well as 

the Shatt al-Arab waterway forming the border between Iraq and Iran. Complimenting Iraq’s recent patrol boat acquisitions, and improvements in coordination between the Iraqi Navy and other regional coalition forces, is the strategic partnership 

between Iraq and the United States, which is expected to extend well beyond 31 December 2011, and should counter continuing Iranian assertiveness in the maritime 

domain. 

109. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos and Admiral Roughead, what was the toll 

on Marine Corps equipment from duty in Iraq? 

General AMOS. Our equipment returned from Iraq required extensive depot level 

maintenance or replacement in order to meet future demands for use by our operational forces. Approximately half the items returned from Iraq to the United States 

required maintenance reset actions at the depot or field levels of repair. We replaced 

a significant portion of the remaining equipment due to obsolescence. A very small 

portion required no reset actions and was returned to our operating forces. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I defer to the Commandant for the current disposition and 

location of Marine Corps equipment returning from Iraq as the status of Marine 

Corps equipment falls within his man, train, and equip responsibilities. 

110. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos and Admiral Roughead, how much was sent 

to Afghanistan and how much was sent back to the United States? 

396 

General AMOS. Approximately 40 percent of the current equipment density list 

supporting the Marines in Afghanistan today is comprised of equipment shifted directly from Iraq to Afghanistan during the 2009 surge. The balance of equipment 

in Iraq was redeployed to the United States. 

The equipment redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan included most of our deployed 

medium tactical vehicle fleet, the majority of our MRAP vehicle fleet, light armored 

reconnaissance vehicles, other hard-to-move equipment items, and many theaterspecific items. This same equipment comprises a significant portion of our total 

service level reset liability. Thus, much of our reset requirement will remain deferred as long as this equipment continues to be used in Afghanistan. Moreover, our 

future reset costs will grow exponentially as long as the war continues. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I defer to the Commandant for the current disposition and 

location of Marine Corps equipment returning from Iraq as the status of Marine 

Corps equipment falls within his man, train, and equip responsibilities. 

LIBYA

111. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, I understand the USS Kearsarge and USS 

Ponce are now in the Eastern Mediterranean with about 1,400 marines standing by 

to assist should events in Egypt, Libya, or Tunisia take a turn for the worst. In your 

professional military opinion, would a no-fly zone over Libya be something that 

could be done from our ships and bases in the Mediterranean? 

General AMOS. Marine Corps forces, currently embarked aboard amphibious shipping, could contribute significantly to the establishment of a no-fly zone. However, 

they likely would require augmentation from other U.S. or coalition assets. The limited number of fixed-wing aviation assets embarked aboard the USS Kearsarge precludes the Marine Corps from providing 24/7 coverage of desired air spaces. In that 

regard, additional Navy or Air Force assets can also provide airborne or sea-based 

command, control, and communication coverage and surveillance beyond the organic 

capability of Marine assets. 

Marine aviation assets, operating from amphibious ships in close proximity to 

coastlines, provide an extremely rapid response to fleeting air threats, and can 

prove invaluable in the recovery of personnel that have been isolated as a result 

of an aircraft crash or pilot ejection. This was evidenced most recently in the successful recovery of a U.S. airman from Libyan soil after his aircraft experienced a 

mishap. Sea-based aviation assets also help to obviate complex basing, over-flight, 

and staging arrangements with adjacent nations. 

112. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, what do you think a no-fly zone would do 

to the combat effectiveness of Libya’s air force? 

General AMOS. Coalition air operations under UNSCR 1973 have rendered the 

Libyan Air Force incapable of sustained attacks on opposition forces, or disrupting 

coalition aviation operations. To date, coalition air power continues to operate with 

no aircraft or personnel losses resulting from hostile fire, attesting to the ineffectiveness of Libya’s air force due to the coalition’s establishment and enforcement of a 

no-fly zone. 

113. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, how could the marines now standing off 

shore in the Mediterranean be used to help out should events in North Africa deteriorate? 

General AMOS. In general, a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is able to provide 

an array of 12 missions across the range of military operations to include limited 

objective raids or stability operations such as humanitarian assistance, non-combatant evacuation, and security assistance. 

A MEU also can provide a fixed-wing strike capability, tactical recovery of aircraft 

and personnel support, such as the 26th MEU recently conducted in support of a 

downed U.S. Air Force F–15E in Libya. 

114. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, I understand that the marines on Kearsarge 

and Ponce were actually just recently flown over to meet the ships. Where are the 

marines who deployed on those ships? 

General AMOS. The USS Ponce and USS Kearsarge are two of the three vessels 

that comprised the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group (ARG). The Kearsarge 

(ARG) contained embarked marines from the 26th MEU, whose primary Ground 

Combat Element (GCE) was Battalion Landing Team 3d Battalion, Eighth Marine 

Regiment (BLT 3/8). Based on a request from the Commander, CENTCOM, in JanuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00402 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
397 

ary 2011, BLT 3/8 deployed temporarily from the Kearsarge ARG to southwestern 

Afghanistan in order to consolidate gains and success. 

When conditions began to deteriorate in the Middle East and North Africa in February and it became clear that Marine forces organic to the 26th MEU were needed 

for crisis response, we determined the need to backfill BLT 3/8. Within 20 hours of 

notice, elements of 1st Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment deployed from Camp Lejeune, 

NC, to Souda Bay, Crete where they linked up with the USS Kearsarge and the 

USS Ponce, thus reconstituting a portion of the MEU’s GCE at sea. Since that time, 

the 26th MEU redeployed to the United States and was relieved in place by the 

22nd MEU, whose GCE is 2d Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment, also from Camp 

Lejeune, NC. The 22nd MEU continues the same missions that the 26th MEU conducted in support of Operation Unified Protector. 

END STRENGTH

115. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, Secretary Gates’ efficiency plans call for reducing the size of the Marine Corps by about 15,000 from its current level of about 

202,000, beginning as we plan to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan in 

2014. What happens if something else we haven’t planned for comes up before 2014? 

General AMOS. Secretary Gates directed the Marine Corps to not begin reducing 

our overall end-strength until after the draw-down of the approximately 20,000 marines present today in Afghanistan. Therefore, we will remain prepared to respond 

to crises and maintain our commitment to Afghanistan between now and 2014. 

116. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, can you cut 15,000 troops without breaking 

faith with those who served so well? 

General AMOS. Yes. However, until we draw down from Afghanistan, we cannot 

significantly reduce our overall end strength. When we do reduce our end strength, 

we will need to do so in a measured way so as not to break faith with the marines 

who have done so much over the past 10 years. The number of marines that we 

can draw down in any given year is directly related to the number of marines we 

enlisted 4 years prior. This number is somewhere in the vicinity of 4,000 and represents the maximum number of marines that can be drawn down in a given year 

without breaking faith. 

STRESS ON THE FORCE

117. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, I understand your most stressed military 

occupational specialties continue to be intelligence analysts, imaging specialists, signals collection operators, UVA operators and mechanics, and linguists. What is 

being done to train more people in these fields or expand the number in inventory? 

General AMOS. We continue to use Enlistment and Selective Reenlistment Bonuses as the primary incentives to attract and retain the most qualified marines 

needed to meet this demand. Due to the time required to train these fields, our Operating Forces do not immediately see adjustments in the number of personnel in 

these fields following these adjustments. 

STATUS OF REALIGNMENTS OF FORCES ON OKINAWA AND GUAM

118. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, I have a question about the decision to 

relocate 8,000 marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam. Your Record of 

Decision last year related to the environmental impact on Guam did not consider 

two major issues—potential damage to coral reefs in the Apra Harbor and the impact to cultural resources from the acquisition of private land for Marine Corps 

training ranges. Both issues, as well as the adequacy of Guam’s civilian infrastructure, are of significant concern to Guam residents and should be of equal concern 

to DOD. Does DOD have a firm plan to ensure the marines have the training land 

they need to meet their needs on Guam? If so, what is that plan? 

Mr. MABUS. Over the past year, DOD has engaged the Government of Guam to 

better understand the community’s concerns, identify potential solutions, and develop a way forward. From these discussions we now better understand concerns regarding issues such as access to cultural sites and the expansion of DOD’s footprint. 

As training on Guam is essential for Marine Corps forces, DOD is working diligently 

to ensure their training requirements will be met. 

Senior DOD officials and Guam’s leaders are discussing ways to resolve issues related to the site proposed for a live-fire training range complex. Our preferred training site is located on the eastern shore of Guam near Andersen Air Force Base 

398 

South and adjacent to Route 15. DOD has committed to four principles for reaching 

a negotiated settlement for acquiring the Route 15 property: 

• One Guam: Address infrastructure improvements outside the fence that 

are directly related to the buildup, and work with other Federal agencies 

to identify solutions for addressing Guam’s needs indirectly or unrelated to 

the military realignment. 

• Green Guam: Develop the most energy efficient base possible and support 

Guam’s efforts to develop sustainable and renewable energy projects. 

• Unfettered Access to Pagat Village and Cave: Conduct training activities 

in a manner which will allow access to the Pagat Village and Pagat Cave 

historical sites 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, as it is today. 

• Net Negative: Following the completion of the realignment, DOD will 

have a smaller footprint than it has today. This commitment will directly 

address concerns regarding an expanding DOD footprint on Guam. This 

concept is currently in the early stage of development. Studies will be conducted to determine if missions can be relocated and assess any potentially 

underutilized properties. 

As a result of these discussions with Guam’s leaders, the Governor of Guam has 

stated publicly his willingness to discuss land use issues with DOD. We will continue to have discussions with the Governor and Guam Legislature with a goal of 

being ready to commence formal land negotiations once appropriate congressional 

approval for land acquisition has been received. DOD will continue to update Congress on land use matters and the status of informal discussions with the Government of Guam. 

119. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, will that plan meet the Marine Corps’ requirements? 

Mr. MABUS. Yes. Developing an achievable plan for delivering required training 

capabilities on Guam to support the realignment of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa is a priority. The Route 15 area remains the Navy’s preferred alternative for 

the location of a live-fire training range complex. As we negotiate with the Government of Guam over this site, DOD has committed to conduct training activities in 

a manner which will allow unfettered access to the Pagat Village and Pagat Cave 

historical sites. This commitment, which was made in the Programmatic Agreement, 

can be kept without compromising Individual Training Standards (ITS) for marines 

on Guam. Regarding the timing for land acquisition, our focus is on ensuring training ranges are in place by the time relocating units will need them. 

120. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, why were military construction funds 

originally planned for fiscal year 2012 to acquire training lands not included in the 

budget request for 2012? 

Mr. MABUS. Based on the lack of a Programmatic Agreement under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the lack of a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting 

the final site for the live fire training range complex, and other factors, the budget 

request for fiscal year 2012 was reevaluated and it was determined that budgeting 

for land acquisition to support a live fire training range complex would be premature. 

121. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, shouldn’t we ensure we have the training 

lands issues resolved before investing hundreds of millions of dollars to improve 

other areas on Guam for the marines? 

Mr. MABUS. The projects appropriated in fiscal year 2010, those authorized for appropriation in fiscal year 2011, and those requested in fiscal year 2012 are necessary to enable subsequent vertical construction and to support Marine Corps operations. Waiting to begin military construction projects until after training range 

land acquisition issues are resolved would create a significant bottleneck in Guam’s 

limited construction capacity by delaying a large volume of site preparation and 

other preliminary development necessary to support follow-on vertical construction 

of the new Marine Corps base. The force flow of Marines to Guam will be based 

upon the availability of requisite facilities and infrastructure. Therefore, a delay in 

the early horizontal construction stage of the program will potentially delay the Marines’ ability to relocate from Okinawa in fulfillment of our international agreement 

with Japan. 

399 

RELOCATION OF MARINE CORPS AIR STATION FUTENMA, JAPAN

122. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, part of our agreement with the Government of Japan to realign forces on the Island of Okinawa was to relocate the Marine 

Corps Air Station (MCAS) at Futenma up north to Camp Schwab. What is the status of this initiative? 

Mr. MABUS. Some construction on the ground at Camp Schwab, which will enable 

the airfield construction to move forward more rapidly, has been underway for the 

past few years. We expect agreement on a configuration for the runway at the ‘‘2+2’’ 

(Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign 

Affairs) meeting, which has been postponed due to the earthquake, tsunami, and 

nuclear events. The 2+2 meeting is now expected to be held in May or June. We 

do not yet have a firm timetable for the landfill permit process, but in our judgment 

the Japanese remain committed to the roadmap. 

123. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, how does the Navy define tangible 

progress by the Government of Japan to carry out this relocation? 

Mr. MABUS. We see tangible progress on the Futenma Replacement Facility 

(FRF), not as a single specific event, but rather as a series of steps taken roughly 

in parallel between Japan and the United States, as spelled out in our bilateral understandings on the realignment. As the Government of Japan makes progress on 

the FRF, the United States will take associated steps to move forward on Guam. 

There are a number of different indicators of this progress, starting with the decision on the runway configuration that we expect at the upcoming 2+2 meeting with 

Japan, the issuance of the landfill permit, the construction of the sea wall, and 

progress on the landfill itself. 

An essential point of our realignment understanding with Japan is that preparations for facilities on Guam need to begin well in advance of the actual construction 

of the replacement facility at Camp Schwab. It is necessary to ensure that when 

we are satisfied with the progress Japan has made on the FRF, suitable facilities 

will be available on Guam to allow the phased relocation of Marines from Okinawa, 

such that any relocation can be sequenced to maintain unit cohesion and operational 

readiness. 

EMINENT DOMAIN SEIZURE OF GOLIAD AIRPORT, TX

124. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, your staff recently notified this committee of DOD’s intent to use the Federal Government’s authority to seize a deed 

to private property through eminent domain in order to establish an outlying landing field at Goliad, TX, supporting T–6 operations at Naval Station Corpus Christi. 

The local community had rejected previous offers by the Navy to buy the airport, 

citing concerns with significant increase in noise and a loss of potential economic 

development. Statutes require you to certify to Congress that you have pursued, to 

the maximum extent practicable, all other available options for the acquisition or 

use of the land, such as the purchase of an easement or the execution of a land exchange. Can you describe how you complied with this provision of law the extent 

of all other available options you pursued for the acquisition of the land? 

Mr. MABUS. In September 2006, the Airspace/Air Field Usage Working Group 

(AFUWG) was established in response to selection of the T6-Texan as the new aviation training platform. The AFUWG looked at all region air space issues associated 

with this new platform and it was concluded in October 2007 that Outlying Landing 

Field (OLF) Goliad is the only option. The Navy reviewed other options, including 

Aransas County Airport, NALFs Waldron and Cabaniss, NAS Kingsville, Victoria 

Airfield, NOLF Orange Grove, and Beeville Airport, for an OLF, but none fully met 

the operational requirements of the T–6. 

Negotiations with Goliad County, the owner of the subject property, began in July 

2008 when the county made an unsolicited offer to sell the subject property to the 

Navy for $675,000, which was later rescinded. Since July 2008, all efforts to acquire 

fee simple title by means of a negotiated sale have been unsuccessful. During negotiations with Goliad County, the Navy tendered an offer in an amount equal to the 

appraised fair market value (FMV). The county did not accept the initial FMV offer 

and subsequently rejected a second offer to acquire the property by sale for FMV, 

which also included a commitment by the Navy to examine and consider the following additional items of importance as expressed by the county: (1) Specific county/private use of some land within the airfield footprint; (2) Water rights; (3) Future 

county use of the airfield for an annual revenue producing event; (4) Potential development of revenue stream for the county; (5) Joint use of the airfield; and (6) Development of WIFI for external use. 

400 

On 27 September 2010, in an extraordinary effort to avoid condemnation, Mr. 

Roger Natsuhara, PDASN (EI&E), attended the meeting of the Commissioners’ 

Court of Goliad County and provided a statement outlining the Navy’s requirement 

and expressing the Navy’s willingness to work with the local community, but the 

commissioners took no action and the Navy’s second offer letter expired on 28 September 2010. Condemnation of fee simple title of the 1,136+ acres of land and improvements is necessary. Execution of an easement, lease, land exchange, or other 

real estate instrument is not feasible in this instance as an exclusive use T–6 OLF 

with substantial military construction (MILCON) investment is required by September 2012. 

125. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, the long-term viability and safe operation 

of an outlying landing field requires the cooperation of the local community to protect approach zones and accident potential zones through compatible local zoning. 

How does the Navy plan to ensure the local development of land around Goliad is 

compatible with Navy T–6 operations? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy has completed a draft Air Installations Compatible Use 

Zone (AICUZ) Study for NOLF Goliad, which is under final review prior to release. 

The Goliad AICUZ study is based on statistical predictions of accident potential 

zones (APZ) and scientifically derived day-night average noise contours (using the 

DOD Noisemap Program). The AICUZ program is designed to help State and local 

governments promote compatible land use and development near military air installations. The goal of the program is to protect military operational capabilities as 

well as the health, safety, and welfare of the public by achieving compatible land 

use patterns and activities in the vicinity of military installations. The AICUZ program recommends community land uses that are compatible with noise levels, 

APZs, and flight clearance requirements associated with military airfield operations 

with the goal that the information will be incorporated into local community planning programs. With final review and release of the AICUZ study, Navy will work 

with the local community leadership and landowners to coordinate acceptable and 

compatible land use. 

126. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, given the current antagonism with the 

local community, how do you plan to work with the local community in the future 

to protect the Navy’s investment at Goliad? 

Mr. MABUS. Our policy is always to act as good neighbors with the local community, through frequent contact and working together on any issues of concern. In addition, the Navy will, to the fullest extent possible without interfering with the primary mission of training our pilots, look for opportunities to allow traditional community activities that occurred on the airfield to continue. Naval Air Station Corpus 

Christi will continue to engage with local leaders to foster mutual understanding 

and trust. Our civilian liaison planning officer for that area will develop relationships with Goliad County officials and leaders, and, with base leadership, look for 

ways to build relationships and reduce misunderstandings. The Navy and Goliad 

have a long history in the 20th century, and we trust that we will have a win-win 

relationship with the county in the 21st century. 

MOBILIZATION AUTHORITIES

127. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, reliance on the Navy Reserve has 

grown, and it now looks like key capabilities, such as naval construction battalions, 

riverine squadrons, and maritime expeditionary security forces will increasingly become part of the Reserve Forces. Do you see the need for statutory changes that 

would enhance the ability to mobilize and use Navy Reserve Forces? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, I do see a need for statutory changes that would enhance the ability to deploy Navy Reserve Forces. Demand for Navy capabilities will 

remain the same or increase in the future, and Navy Reserve will play a vital role 

in Navy’s Total Force that will deliver these capabilities. As stated in the 2010 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, ‘‘prevailing in today’s wars requires a 

Reserve component that can serve in an operational capacity—available, trained, 

and equipped for predictable routine deployment. Preventing and deterring conflict 

will likely necessitate the continued use of some elements of the Reserve component, 

especially those that possess high-demand skills, in an operational capacity well into 

the future.’’ Current statutes, however, do not allow for the involuntary activation 

of members of the Reserve component for routine deployments in times of non-emergency steady-state security environments. Addressing this gap would provide the 

following benefits: 

401 

• Enhances Total Force capacity by allowing Reserve component units and 

members to be included in long-range planning processes; 

• Allows Reserve component units with high-demand skill sets to maintain 

a higher overall readiness level, preventing those skills from atrophying 

and ensuring a more robust Total Force response capacity for future contingency operations; and 

• Provides predictability of future routine military obligations to the individual Reserve members, their families, and their employers. 

128. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, do you see a changing role for the Marine 

Corps Reserve? 

General AMOS. Sustained combat operations and worldwide theater security cooperation and training commitments over the last decade point towards an essential 

requirement for the Marine Corps Reserve to continue focusing at the operational, 

rather than strategic, level of warfare. 

The transition in use of the Marine Corps Reserve from a strategic to an operational perspective, as affirmed by our force structure review, expands our ability 

to perform as America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness. Sharing the culture of 

deployment and expeditionary mindset that has dominated Marine Corps culture, 

ethos and thinking since our beginning more than two centuries ago, the Marine 

Corps Reserve is optimally organized, equipped, and trained to perform as an operational Reserve. 

A future role of the Marine Corps Reserve should remain consistent with the Marine Corps Total Force construct, supported by current force planning goals of creating and maintaining capabilities within the Reserve component to support the 

augmentation, reinforcement, or reconstitution of the Active component. The Marine 

Corps aims to continue managing the use of the Reserve component through the 

Service’s existing force allocation processes, developing the best available sourcing 

solutions in support of validated combatant commander requirements. 

WALTER REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDICAL CENTER AT BETHESDA, MD

129. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, in August 2010, DOD submitted to Congress the second part of the Comprehensive Master Plan for the National Capital 

Region Medical which detailed the plan to ensure a world-class medical center is 

available for our wounded military personnel at the Walter Reed National Military 

Medical Center at Bethesda, MD. The plan identified construction and renovation 

projects totaling over $829 million to be completed by 2018 at Bethesda, MD, to 

achieve a world-class standard. Do you support the goal to establish world-class 

medical facilities at Bethesda? 

Mr. MABUS. I, along with the Chief of Naval Operation and Commandant of the 

Marine Corps, strongly believe we are currently delivering world-class healthcare to 

our sailors, marines, their families, and all our beneficiaries at the National Naval 

Medical Center, Bethesda. I am privileged to witness this exemplary level of care 

firsthand when I visit our wounded warriors and their families. This commitment 

will not waiver with the opening of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center later this year. 

130. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, understanding that cost estimates are 

still begin refined, what is the current cost estimate to carry out the projects required to achieve world-class facilities? 

Mr. MABUS. As described in the comprehensive Master Plan provided to Congress 

by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in 2010, the current estimate to complete the 

projects required to achieve world-class facilities at Walter Reed National Military 

Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, is $816 million from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017. The Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical reports that 

this amount is over and above anticipated routine restoration and modernization 

projects for the hospital, totaling roughly $300 million annually. 

131. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, is funding contained in the budget request for fiscal year 2012 that would be used to carry out projects to achieve that 

goal? If so how much? If not, why not? 

Mr. MABUS. The President’s 2012 budget requested the projects listed below to be 

included in the Defense Health Program for fiscal year 2012: 

• $66 million in MILCON funding to commence/continue the designs for the 

construction projects identified in the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Comprehensive Master Plan. These projects include a new clinVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
402 

ical building, child development center, traffic/parking improvements and 

parking expansion, utility upgrades, associated demolition, renovations, 

temporary facilities, and installation appearance. 

• $18 million in MILCON funding for the construction of the child development center. 

• $25 million in operation and maintenance funding to continue planning 

and execute projects addressing campus wayfinding, Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility, and other pedestrian improvements. 

132. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, is the Navy committed to meeting the 

goal of 2018 for completion of the projects? 

Mr. MABUS. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 

(ASD(HA)) is budgeting and managing these projects rather than Navy. That being 

said, ASD(HA), the Navy, and Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical are 

committed to the goal of 2018 to complete the Comprehensive Master Plan for the 

National Capital Region provided to Congress in 2010. 

133. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, can you explain why the Navy believes 

an EIS is required to carry out projects which will not change or add to the primary 

mission of the medical center at Bethesda? 

Mr MABUS. The Navy recommended an EIS be required for the Walter Reed National Naval Medical Center (WRNNMC) due to the potential for individual and cumulative impacts to historical features, traffic concerns, and the surrounding community. Environmental counsel has reviewed and concurs with this course. 

The communities surrounding the WRNNMC are very sensitive to the constant 

recent construction and its impact on their quality of life. Through an open and ongoing public engagement process, the Navy has maintained a positive and understanding relationship with the surrounding community. The EIS drafting process 

will provide opportunities for public review and input and facilitate dialogue regarding the need for, and impacts of, these projects among the WRNNMC, its neighbors, 

and other stakeholders. 

CAMP LEMONNIER, DJIBOUTI

134. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, the Ike Skelton NDAA for Fiscal Year 

2011 contained language expressing concerns with the safety and security of U.S. 

forces stationed at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, due to cramped conditions and the 

lack of deliberate planning to address vulnerabilities. Congress asked for a master 

plan that would include options for expanding the footprint of the base in order to 

allow for greater separation of functions and a better opportunity to meet anti-terrorism/force protection standards for almost $500 million worth of facilities planned 

for construction at the base over the next 5 years. Will you review the master plan 

to ensure adequate measures and planning have been incorporated to provide for 

the safety and security of U.S. forces deployed to Camp Lemonnier? 

Mr. MABUS. The Camp Lemonnier Master Plan will be reviewed and staffed to 

ensure that it provides the measures and planning details for modern, secure facilities that will protect U.S. military personnel and support enduring operations 

throughout the Horn of Africa. 

135. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, will the Navy proceed with construction 

activities without your approval of the master plan? 

Mr. MABUS. Previously authorized and appropriated construction activities can 

proceed at Camp Lemonnier without my approval of the master plan. 

TRAINING LANDS ON GUAM

136. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, on the issues of the relocation of 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam, in your opinion, are we on course on Guam to provide 

the Marine Corps with the ranges needed on the island for Marine Corps training 

requirements? 

General AMOS. The ranges on Guam are critical to the future training and readiness of marines scheduled to relocate there. The Marine Corps position is that the 

relocation cannot commence until the ranges are in place. The programmatic agreement signed in March was a step forward in meeting this requirement. Our understanding is that the Navy will release a Training Record of Decision this summer 

that will identify the location of the ranges. Once that occurs the Navy can request 

the funds to obtain the land needed to build the ranges. Assuming that funding ocVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00408 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
403 

curs during fiscal year 2013, I am satisfied the ranges can be constructed in time 

to support the relocation. 

137. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, where are you on the proposal to update 

the composition of Marine Corps forces moving from Okinawa to Guam in order to 

provide the Commander of Marine Corps Forces Pacific with a force posture meeting 

Marine Corps doctrine for command and control? 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps continues to analyze and refine alternative laydown concepts. Much of this effort remains conceptual and pre-decisional; however, 

we are working with U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and OSD on a lay-down that 

provides the combatant commander with maximum operational viability and command and control capability. Upon OSD approval, I expect DOD and the Department of State will then reach consensus with the Government of Japan. Once an 

agreement between the two governments is reached, Congress will be formally 

briefed on a decision that will maximize the strategic presence of U.S. forces in the 

region for the foreseeable future. 

RESET AND RECONSTITUTION OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE MARINE CORPS

138. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, your written statement describes very clearly your priority to ensure adequate funding in this budget and future budgets to 

reset Marine Corps equipment being used overseas and to reconstitute home-station 

equipment. You state that approximately 68 percent of non-deployed Marine Corps 

units report degraded levels of readiness. Given the fact that Marine Corps units 

are called upon to serve our country with very little notice, this high rate of degraded levels increases the risk that these units may be deployed in the future without the equipment they need. You state that the budget request for fiscal year 2012 

includes $2.5 billion for reset and $253 million for reconstitution against total bills 

of $7.5 billion for reset and $5 billion for reconstitution. Do you need more funding 

in fiscal year 2012 to address reconstitution requirements? If not, why not? 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps’ $2.5 billion request in fiscal year 2012 for reset 

is directly related to the repair and replacement costs of overseas contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In many ways our ability to conduct reset in fiscal 

year 2012 is constrained by the lack of equipment that has returned for reset actions. The equipment redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan in support of the 2009 

surge included most of our deployed medium tactical vehicle fleet, the majority of 

our MRAP vehicle fleet, light armored reconnaissance vehicles, other hard-to-move 

equipment items, and many theater-specific items. This same equipment comprises 

a significant portion of our total reset liability. Thus, much of our reset requirement 

will remain deferred as long as this equipment continues to be employed in Afghanistan. Moreover, our future costs for reset will grow exponentially as long as the war 

continues. 

The reconstitution requirement of $5 billion is an amount entirely separate from 

our reset costs. This requirement specifically relates to table of equipment shortfalls. 

Therefore, if this amount is funded, there will be concurrent increases in our nondeployed readiness levels. While we have begun to address our reconstitution shortfall by requesting $253 million in fiscal year 2012 for equipment procurement, the 

Marine Corps does have many more equipment deficiencies (as evidenced by the degraded state of non-deployed Marine Corps unit readiness) that additional funding 

could be applied against immediately. 

As a forward-deployed and expeditionary force, the Marine Corps must be able to 

meet and sustain known operations and respond to new requirements. Within the 

past year, the Marine Corps has successfully responded to multiple crises and new 

operational requirements (e.g. Haiti, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, Libya, and 

the introduction of a seventh Marine battalion task force into Afghanistan) despite 

the personnel and equipment shortfalls affecting the non-deployed force. The primary concern is our ability to respond to a second, major contingency (planned or 

unforecasted). Each new crisis diminishes the pool of ready, available forces to respond, which is reflected in the current degraded state of readiness of non-deployed 

units. This increases risk in the timely execution of large-scale contingencies. 

139. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, what rate of funding over the next 3 years 

for reconstitution will raise your nondeployed unit readiness levels to acceptable levels? 

General AMOS. Our estimate to reconstitute our tables of equipment is $5 billion, 

which is an amount entirely separate from our reset costs. This requirement specifically relates to table of equipment shortfalls. Therefore, if this amount is funded, 

404 

there will be concurrent increases in our non-deployed readiness levels. While we 

have begun to address our reconstitution shortfall by requesting $253 million in fiscal year 2012 for equipment procurement, the Marine Corps does have many more 

equipment deficiencies (as evidenced by the degraded state of non-deployed Marine 

Corps unit readiness) that additional funding could be applied against over the next 

3 years. 

140. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, are you concerned that your future reset 

and reconstitution requirements may be funded from Marine Corps accounts included in the base budget at the sacrifice of other Marine Corps priorities? 

General AMOS. Once drawdown from Afghanistan commences, the rapid reset of 

equipment and its swift reintegration into the inventory of our Operating Forces is 

the single-most critical factor in our ability to successfully reconstitute after the 

war. Thus, funding for repair or replacement of equipment returning from combat 

is not optional. If adequate supplemental funding for reset is not available in the 

future, we will be forced to fund reset within our baseline service budget. This will 

have three primary impacts: 

(1) It will increase the amount of time required to complete reset operations and 

as a result, prolong the already degraded readiness status of our Operating 

Forces. 

(2) It will force the Marine Corps to delay or defer critical modernization programs as a result of having to divert base budget funds for reset. 

(3) It will create a potential decision point on budgeting for these items at the 

expense of our manpower accounts. 

One final consideration is that the harsh environments and tempo of operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan through nearly 10 years of constant combat have accelerated wear and tear on our equipment. Our equipment returning from Iraq has required extensive depot level maintenance or replacement. Approximately half the 

items returned from Iraq to the United States required either depot level or field 

levels of maintenance as part of their reset actions. Our planning estimates for 

equipment returning from Afghanistan lead us to predict even greater depot level 

repair requirements and greater wash-out rates than was experienced from equipment returning from Iraq. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

141. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, the Marine Corps has requested over $440 

million in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 to construct or improve facilities at 

MCAS, Yuma, AZ, and at the Barry M. Goldwater Range in order to support the 

stationing of multiple F–35 B squadrons. Does the delay in the acquisition plan for 

the Marine Corps variant of the F–35 affect the need for the MILCON projects? 

General AMOS. Changes in the acquisition plan for the Marine Corps variant of 

the F–35 do not affect the need nor the programming schedule of the projects requested in fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012. MCAS Yuma will continue to serve 

as the primary location for aviation pre-deployment training and large-scale aviation exercises besides having dedicated operational squadrons. Dedicated aircraft 

hangars, apron, and training facilities are needed to support permanently based 

squadrons and transient aircraft that are deployed to MCAS Yuma on a regular 

basis. 

Since the JSF is not comparable to existing legacy aircraft and cannot operate in 

a legacy hangar due to different power requirements, maintenance and security requirements, and higher level of security, MILCON must be completed prior to F– 

35 aircraft arrival. The estimated timeframe to complete an F–35 hangar (construction, outfitting, and security certification) is 3 years as follows: (1) 3 months for design utilizing a design/build construction contract acquisition strategy; (2) 24 

months for construction; and (3) 6 to 9 months for outfitting and security certification. 

Between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2016, approximately 30 JSF aircraft will 

arrive at MCAS Yuma. These aircraft will fully resource two squadrons and partially resource a third squadron. Three hangar modules are required by fiscal year 

2015 to support these three permanently-based Yuma squadrons. One hangar module was requested in fiscal year 2011. However, due to the fiscal year 2011 CR, this 

project cannot be awarded for construction, thereby impacting our ability to support 

the initial operational capability (IOC) of the first squadron scheduled for fiscal year 

2012. Two hangar modules requested in fiscal year 2012 are required to support two 

squadrons, which will reach IOC in fiscal year 2015/2016. Appropriate utilities inVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00410 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
405 

frastructure and training facilities (e.g. simulator buildings, Field Carrier Landing 

Practice training facilities) also are needed to support the F–35. 

INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL TO STUDY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

142. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, on February 22, 2011, the members of 

the Independent Review Panel to Study the Judge Advocate Requirements of the 

Navy submitted to the Secretary of Defense the report required by section 506 of 

the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010. The panel was composed of experts in military law 

and took extensive testimony about the requirements for judge advocates in the 

Navy and Marine Corps. Among other witnesses, General David Petraeus, Commander, CENTCOM; VADM Harry Harris, USN, Commander, U.S. Sixth Fleet; 

VADM John Bird, USN, the Director of the Navy Staff; and Lt. Gen. John F. Kelly, 

USMC, Commander, Marine Forces Reserve and Commander, Marine Forces North, 

testified about the current and growing need for judge advocates in military operations. 

The panel concluded that there is a requirement in the Navy for approximately 

950 Active Duty judge advocates and a requirement in the Marine Corps for approximately 550 Active Duty judge advocates. The panel noted that the Marine 

Corps is on track to maintain a target inventory of 550 judge advocates over the 

next 5 years. Surprisingly, the panel also noted that the Navy, which has 811 judge 

advocates on Active Duty at the end of fiscal year 2010, is planning to reduce the 

inventory of its judge advocates over the next 5 years to 747 in fiscal year 2016. 

How would you evaluate the contribution by Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates to the mission of the Navy and Marine Corps in OEF, OIF, and OND, to individual sailors, marines, and their families, and to the ability the Navy overall in 

performing its mission? 

Mr. MABUS. Navy and Marine judge advocates are involved in every aspect of operations in support of OEF, OIF, OND, and dozens of other operations across the 

globe. 

In an operational environment that has become increasingly complex and legally 

intensive, the ability of judge advocates to identify legal and related policy issues 

in divergent areas (e.g., rules of engagement, international law, domestic law, and 

U.S. policy) and synthesize the issues rapidly in order to give timely and coherent 

legal advice to military commanders, staffs, seniors civilians, and tactical forces is 

paramount to mission success. These personnel understand, rely on, and demand 

the counsel they receive from their judge advocates. 

• Across the CENTCOM AOR and other parts of the globe, wherever U.S. 

forces are engaged in military activities and contingency operations, Navy 

and Marine Corps judge advocates are involved at every step of an operation—from tactical guidance to strategic level planning. 

• Through the administration of a fair and balanced military justice system, as well as through the provision of legal assistance to sailors, marines, 

and their families, judge advocates ensure command and individual readiness, which is essential to accomplishment of the overall Navy mission. 

• Not only are judge advocates meeting the day-to-day legal demand signal 

of individual sailors, marines, and their families, they also respond effectively and efficiently to the uptick in legal demand generated by natural 

disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina, flooding in Millington, TN, earthquakes 

and tsunamis in Indonesia (2006) and Japan (2011)) and global conflict 

(e.g., pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment of individual 

augmentees), allowing sailors, marines, and their families to receive the 

legal support they need in order to focus effectively on the Navy’s overall 

mission. 

143. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, in view of the conclusions of the panel 

regarding the requirements for Active Duty judge advocates in the Navy and Marine 

Corps, what measures are you taking with respect to the growth—or reduction—of 

judge advocates in the Navy JAG Corps? 

Mr. MABUS. Navy plans to fund, within our base program, 31 JAG Corps billets, 

currently detailed to the Office of Military Commissions until the end of fiscal year 

2015, and continue increasing the number of JAG Corps billets to 821 over the 

FYDP. This is consistent with the number of Active Duty JAG officer billets Vice 

Admiral Houck testified before the 506 Panel are needed to meet baseline mission 

requirements. We have also begun to train enlisted members of the Legalman rating 

to obtain certification through the American Bar Association as paralegals, which 

406 

will gradually ease much of the administrative burdens currently levied on JAG 

Corps officers. 

144. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Mabus, what other actions are you taking in response to the panel’s findings and recommendations? 

Mr. MABUS. In direct response to the recommendations made by the Independent 

Review Panel, I have approved revisions to Secretary of the Navy Instruction 

5430.27C ‘‘Responsibility of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy and the Staff 

Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps for Supervision and Provision of Certain Legal Services.’’ 

The revisions will: 

• institutionalize the Military Justice Oversight Council (MJOC) and the 

JAG’s Annual Report on the State of Military Justice within the Navy; 

• clarify and strengthen the role of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) to Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC); 

• establish a direct relationship between the Secretary of the Navy and the 

SJA to CMC; 

• provide the SJA to CMC with authority and responsibility to supervise 

the administration of military justice and legal assistance in the Marine 

Corps, including the authority to conduct frequent inspections in accordance 

with title 10, section 806 of the U.S. Code; and 

• make the SJA to CMC responsible for the professional and technical supervision of Marine judge advocates. 

The panel recommended that implementation of a single court-martial case tracking system could improve the Navy’s military justice practice. I am committed to 

pursuing an integrated Navy and Marine Corps case management system. An ongoing Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) study is assisting in identifying potential options for an integrated Navy and Marine Corps system. Once CNA provides final 

recommendations, the Navy will make an overall assessment of the IT system(s) to 

pursue. 

145. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, what is your view of the validity of the 

panel’s conclusion that the Navy should have approximately 950 Active Duty judge 

advocates to meet its requirements for legal services? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. We have experienced increased demand for JAG Corps officers in areas such as operational law and support for sailors and their families. 

Based on Navy’s internal assessment that was provided to the Independent Review 

Panel by Vice Admiral Houck, I intend to increase the number of JAG Corps billets 

to 821 across the FYDP. 

146. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Roughead, do you support current Navy personnel 

planning that will reduce the number of Active Duty judge advocates from 811 to 

747 over the next 5 years? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. In fiscal year 2011, Navy’s program of record was to decrease 

our Judge Advocate General Corps (JAGC) officers from 801 to 747 by fiscal year 

2016. I plan to fund, within Navy’s baseline budget, an additional 31 JAG Corps 

billets which are currently detailed to the Office of Military Commissions until the 

end of fiscal year 2015 to meet the 821 JAGC officers required to meet baseline requirements over the FYDP. 

147. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, what is your view of the validity of the panel’s conclusion that the Marine Corps should have approximately 550 Active Duty 

judge advocates to meet its requirements for legal services? 

General AMOS. I am confident in the validity of the Panel’s conclusion that the 

Marine Corps requires approximately 550 Active Duty judge advocates. My confidence results from the Panel’s conclusion based on determinations made by the 

Marine Corps’ force structure and manpower management systems, with the considered input of the SJA to the CMC. 

As noted by the Panel, Marine Corps judge advocate requirements are driven by 

the Marine Corps organizational force structure, the requirement to fill a proportionate share of non-legal assignments (‘‘B-billets’’), and the need to maintain a sufficient inventory to sustain the force (e.g. at any given time there are a required 

number of student judge advocates in the accessions pipeline, and a required number of career judge advocates attending in-service, resident training and education). 

The force structure requirement is determined by the Total Force Structure Division 

(TFSD), under the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, 

in concert with subject matter experts and functional advocates. The requirement 

407 

for B-billets and sustainment are determined by Manpower Management (MM) Division, under the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. These requirements are continuously reviewed to ensure structured requirements meet mission requirements. 

The SJA to the CMC, as the Occupational Field Manager and Functional Advocate for the Marine legal community, is formally integrated into this process, working with TFSD and MM to ensure we get it right. This process determined that an 

inventory of approximately 550 judge advocates would be needed to meet Service, 

Department, and Joint legal billet requirements, as well as requirements for nonlegal assignments and sustainment overhead for the next 5 years. Recent studies 

and reviews by both the Judge Advocate Division as well as successive Uncompensated Review Boards, which the Panel found ‘‘realistic and useful,’’ served to buttress this determination. 

148. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, how will the recently completed Force 

Structure Review, and projected reductions in end strength, affect the Marine Corps 

ability to increase substantially the number of Active Duty judge advocates? 

General AMOS. It should be noted that judge advocate structure, which largely determines required inventories, has had modest, yet steady, increases over the past 

5 years (i.e. average 2 percent annually), and is projected to have continued, yet 

modest, increases in fiscal year 2012 (2 percent) and fiscal year 2015 (8 percent). 

This has led to corresponding increases in accessions, which in turn have led to increases in the inventory of Active Duty judge advocates. As such, current, as well 

as projected, inventories are already meeting these requirements. 

That being said, the Panel noted several factors, which if they occur, could affect 

projected requirements for judge advocates including: (1) a significant increase in 

the military justice mission once marines redeploy from Afghanistan; (2) structured 

operational law requirements continuing to increase at or near the same rate as has 

been experienced since September 11, 2001; (3) the SJA to CMC being provided additional authority to supervise Marine judge advocates and the delivery of legal 

services; or (4) a significant reduction in Marine Corps total officer and enlisted end 

strength. I concur that these factors could, if and when they occur, affect the Marine 

Corps’ requirements for judge advocates. 

The Report of the 2010 Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group (FSRG), published in March 2011, depicts a reduced end strength in the Marine Corps Active 

component from 202,000 to approximately 186,800 personnel following the completion of operations in Afghanistan. 

This reduced end strength will not necessarily result in a reduction of the judge 

advocate inventory. On this point, I note the Panel’s observation that ‘‘overall legal 

requirements do not necessarily or directly correlate to force structure or total endstrength.’’ For example, as the Panel observed ‘‘[t]here are certain inviolate costs associated with operating a comprehensive military justice system worthy of our men 

and women in uniform, such as maintaining independent trial and appellate judiciaries;.maintaining a cadre of qualified military counsel capable for trying complex 

cases; and maintaining SJA offices that have the capability to effectively discharge 

military justice responsibilities despite competing wartime demands.’’ 

As the FSRG recommendations are implemented, we will continuously manage 

the number of Active Duty judge advocates to ensure a total inventory sufficient to 

fulfill the manpower requirements for the overall legal mission and requirements of 

the Marine Corps. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

MARINE CORPS END STRENGTH

149. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, what effect will a reduction of 15,300 have 

on dwell time ratios? 

General AMOS. Assuming operational demands do not increase but the Marine 

Corps is allowed to reduce the force at a measured and responsible pace, dwell time 

ratios should not be significantly affected. A 4-year timeline would allow for reductions in end strength and force structure to be executed in conjunction with reducing operational requirements. 

150. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, what was the driver behind the decision to 

increase the Marine Corps 4 years ago? 

General AMOS. In January 2007, the Secretary of Defense authorized both the 

Army and Marine Corps to increase their respective Active components to sustain 

408 

combat operations in Iraq. Warfighting units within both Services had been on a 

1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio which placed serious stress on the force and families. 

The Marine Corps’ growth to 202,100 personnel was designed not only to reduce 

stress on the force by achieving a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio, but also to allow 

the Marine Corps to continue training to other missions across the Range of Military Operations rather than those solely focused on counterinsurgency and irregular 

warfare. This end strength growth also helped to create three balanced Marine AirGround Task Forces to better support Overseas Contingency Operations. 

151. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, what conditions have changed? 

General AMOS. Looking ahead to the end of combat operations in Afghanistan, the 

Marine Corps has determined that a smaller force makes more sense from an operational perspective. A future end strength of 186,800 marines provides the country 

a ‘‘middleweight’’ force that is forward deployed and forward engaged, and ready to 

conduct complex expeditionary operations across the range of military operations in 

accordance with National Strategy. A reduction in end strength also frees resources 

for much-needed modernization, reset, and reconstitution efforts. 

152. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, what types of challenges will the Marine 

Corps face if required to reduce the strength by 15,300 in a 2-year time span? 

General AMOS. Significant involuntary separations would be required to reduce 

the force in a 2-year timeframe. A rapid draw-down throughout the Active component could decrease dwell time among our most heavily deployed and stressed occupational fields. 

153. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, will this have an impact on future retention? 

General AMOS. The actions necessary to achieve a 2-year draw-down may have 

a negative impact on future retention, primarily due to the perception that the Marine Corps is willing to break faith with its career force. Additionally, excessively 

small accession cohorts, needed to facilitate a rapid drawdown, would result in insufficient retention populations at the 4-year reenlistment point. 

154. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, what risks are associated with reducing the 

Corps’ size? 

General AMOS. The planned reduction of Marine Corps personnel in the Active 

component from 202,000 to 186,800 personnel is based on mission requirements beyond OEF. The imperative for the Marine Corps is to preserve capabilities developed since September 11, expand our engagement efforts, respond to crisis, and still 

be able to project power for the most dangerous threat scenarios. To that end we 

will accept a degree of risk by reducing our Active component capacity for conducting multiple, sustained operations ashore, relying on an operationalized Reserve 

component to mitigate that risk. Of necessity, our force structure represents many 

judiciously considered factors and makes pragmatic trade-offs in capabilities and capacities to achieve a posture that creates opportunity and provides an operational 

stance that enables flexibility and rapid response. The Marine Corps does not plan 

on reducing end strength until it has withdrawn combat units from OEF. A 186,800 

force will provide the United States a middleweight force capable of operating across 

the range of military operations. 

155. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, how will a reduction in the size of the Marine Corps affect the Corps’ ability to sustain combat operations in the future? 

General AMOS. The 2010 Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group developed 

the organization, posture, and capabilities to reshape and enhance America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness in a fiscally-constrained, post-OEF environment. 

Reshaping the Marine Corps from a wartime footing of 202,000 marines to a force 

of approximately 186,800 imposes some risk. We wargamed all proposed force structure changes against approved DOD scenarios and select operation plans. We determined that the resulting force would be capable of operating across the range of 

military operations. However, we assumed some risk in our capacity to conduct sustained or simultaneous major operations and campaigns. 

156. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, what assurances do we have that we will not 

need a larger Marine Corps in the future? 

General AMOS. There is no assurance. However, the 2010 Marine Corps Force 

Structure Review Group developed the organization, posture, and capabilities to reshape and enhance America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness in a fiscally-constrained, post-OEF environment. We wargamed all proposed force structure changes 

against approved DOD scenarios and select operation plans. We determined that the 

409 

1Data as of 2 August 2011. 

2Data as of 2 August 2011. 

3Data as of 2 August 2011. 

4 Ibid. 

resulting force would be capable of operating across the range of military operations. 

However, we assumed some risk in our capacity to conduct sustained or simultaneous major operations and campaigns. 

MARINE CORPS PREPOSITIONING PROGRAM

157. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, it is my understanding that to support recent Marine Corps combat operations, the Marine Corps has drawn from its propositioned stock sets, and reset of these stocks is underway and will be done in conjunction with the Marine Corps procurement programs. Last year, this committee 

was briefed that in Norway, the current percentage of on-hand major end-item 

equipment was 47 percent of authorized allowances and the percentage of on-hand 

supplies was 78 percent. What is the current status of the Marine Corps 

prepositioned stocks? 

General AMOS. When measured against authorized allowances, the percentage of 

major end item equipment (Class VII) currently present in the Maritime 

Prepositioning Force program is 97 percent, and the percentage of all starter stocks 

currently present is in excess of 95 percent.1 Starter stocks represent the initial supplies (e.g. food stores, ammunition, medical supplies) needed in the first 30 days to 

supply a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB). 

In Norway, the current percentage of on-hand major end-item equipment (Class 

VII) measured against authorized allowances is 51 percent; the percentage of onhand sustainment is 85 percent.2

158. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, is there adequate funding in the near- or farterm to fully restock propositioned equipment and supplies? 

General AMOS. Yes. The Marine Corps has adequate operations and maintenance 

funding to support the annual maintenance of existing equipment and the rotation/ 

replenishment of supplies and materials. 

Our prepositioning programs have been used to source equipment for forward-deployed and deploying units. As a result, the Marine Corps has assumed risk within 

its Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) program and Marine Corps Prepositioning 

Program in Norway while supporting ongoing Overseas Contingency Operations. 

When measured against authorized allowances, the percentage of major end-item 

equipment (i.e. Class VII) currently present in the MPF program is 97 percent; the 

percentage of all starter stocks (e.g. initial sustainment) currently present is in excess of 95 percent.3 Starter stocks represent the initial supplies (e.g. food rations, 

medical supplies, ammunition) needed in the first 30 days to supply a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB). In Norway, the current percentage of Class VII equipment 

measured against authorized allowances is 51 percent while the percentage of onhand sustainment is 85 percent.4

We anticipate restoring our prepositioned stocks to 100 percent at the end of our 

Afghanistan force drawdown once remaining equipment, currently in combat, undergoes reset. 

AFRICA

159. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, I understand the 

Navy is expanding its survey of ports in Africa in order to initiate more contact with 

African countries through port visits, continuing to build relationships with our African partners. How do you view the importance of continued Navy operations in and 

around the African continent? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy’s presence and maritime security force assistance initiatives within U.S. Africa Command’s area of responsibility continue to grow in strategic importance. A number of African partners have measurably improved their 

maritime security capacity as a result of training provided through Africa Partnership Station and other Navy efforts conducted throughout the continent. 

The practical value of such initiatives is exemplified by the Africa Maritime Law 

Enforcement Partnership (AMLEP), a joint Navy and Coast Guard initiative that 

began in 2008. To date, five separate AMLEP training events have been conducted. 

Participating African partners have disrupted illegal fishing within their Economic 

Exclusion Zones and seized a total of five vessels that were violating national fishVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00415 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
410 

ing laws. These successes reinforce the rule of law; reduce lost revenue and food 

supplies by states that were incapable of enforcing their maritime rights; and generate revenue from fines that can be used to sustain and enhance the maritime security capacity of their Navy and Coast Guard forces. Importantly, the basic capabilities and proficiency that enable offshore fisheries enforcement also underpin 

counter-piracy, counter-trafficking, and critical infrastructure protection operations, 

leading to enhanced national and regional maritime security that benefits not only 

the African states, but also the global economy. 

Africa Partnership Station missions, as well as focused, shorter duration maritime 

security force assistance events, are designed to incorporate subject matter experts 

from other U.S. agencies (e.g. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Departments of 

State, Energy, Homeland Security, and Transportation), who work alongside the 

Navy in a comprehensive U.S. Government approach to building partner capacity. 

The Navy provides expeditionary capability that efficiently extends the reach of U.S. 

agencies as well as that of numerous nongovernmental organizations, international 

organizations, and other nations’ naval personnel. In this way, Africa Partnership 

Station deployments foster and sustain cooperative relationships that enhance national and international effectiveness during crisis response operations. 

The Navy appreciates the importance of sustained, predictable engagement in Africa and will work to increase the maritime security capacity of the African littoral 

states for the foreseeable future. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy’s presence and maritime security force assistance 

initiatives within U.S. Africa Command’s area of responsibility continue to grow in 

strategic importance. A number of African partners have measurably improved their 

maritime security capacity as a result of training provided through the Africa Partnership Station and other Navy efforts conducted throughout the continent. 

The practical value of such initiatives is exemplified by the AMLEP, a joint Navy 

and Coast Guard initiative that began in 2008. To date, five separate AMLEP training events have been conducted. Participating African partners have disrupted illegal fishing within their Economic Exclusion Zones and seized a total of five vessels 

that were violating national fishing laws. These successes reinforce the rule of law; 

reduce lost revenue and food supplies by states that were incapable of enforcing 

their maritime rights; and generate revenue from fines that can be used to sustain 

and enhance the maritime security capacity of their Navy and Coast Guard forces. 

Importantly, the basic capabilities and proficiency that enable offshore fisheries enforcement also underpin counter-piracy, counter-trafficking, and critical infrastructure protection operations, leading to enhanced national and regional maritime security that benefits not only the African states, but also the global economy. 

Africa Partnership Station missions and focused, shorter duration maritime security force assistance events, are designed to incorporate subject matter experts from 

other U.S. agencies (e.g. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Departments of State, 

Energy, Homeland Security, and Transportation), who work alongside the Navy in 

a comprehensive U.S. Government approach to building partner capacity. The Navy 

provides expeditionary capability that efficiently extends the reach of U.S. agencies 

as well as that of numerous nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, and other nations’ naval personnel. In this way, Africa Partnership Station 

deployments foster and sustain cooperative relationships that enhance national and 

international effectiveness during crisis response operations. 

160. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, the commander of 

U.S. Naval Forces Africa is also the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and 

has an area of responsibility that covers all of Russia, Europe, and nearly the entire 

continent of Africa—105 countries, more than one billion people, 20 million square 

miles of ocean, and a landmass of over 14 million square miles. Given current and 

forecasted defense budgets coupled with increase demand for Navy assets, is the 

Navy adequately resourced to increase the activity and operations around the continent of Africa? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy’s force structure supports a forward naval posture to meet 

warfighting and peacetime requirements across the entire spectrum of current and 

future conflicts. This force structure meets the minimum demands as generated 

through the Combatant Commander and Service capability identification process 

through the 2020 timeframe; however, simultaneously sourcing all of the COCOM 

demands, including those of AFRICOM, for warfighting, deterrence, security objectives, and prompt response to all possible crises would require a larger Navy than 

is currently resourced. The risk resides primarily in meeting portions of the security 

objectives and prompt response to a crisis with forces already in theater. As mitigaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00416 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
411 

tion, DOD will employ a comprehensive GFM process to most effectively allocate 

naval forces to the highest priority COCOM requirements. 

The Navy’s President’s budget for 2012 continues support for the Africa Partnership Station (APS), a collaborative strategy designed to help coastal nations in West 

and Central Africa achieve safety and security in the Gulf of Guinea as well as cooperative training for East Africa. APS missions include maritime training, collaboration, infrastructure-building, and cross-border cooperation to assist African nations 

in securing maritime regions and sovereign waters. These efforts address criminal 

activity, piracy, environmental and fisheries violations, resource theft, arms smuggling, and narcotics and human trafficking. APS is a direct response to the growing 

international interest in forming cooperative global maritime partnerships to ensure 

global maritime security. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy’s force structure meets the minimum demands currently identified by combatant commanders, including AFRICOM. DOD utilizes a 

comprehensive GFM process to most effectively allocate naval forces to the highest 

priority COCOM requirements as the security environment evolves. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

161. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, I continue to have 

concerns about our current missile defense plan. While the SM–3 Block IB will be 

tested this year and hopefully fielded in 2015, the SM–3 Block IIA is in design with 

a 2018 projected fielding date and the SM–3 Block IIB is still only a concept. However, intelligence estimates state that Iran may have a long-range ballistic capability by 2015. What is current level of confidence in being able to deploy the SM– 

3 Block IIA by 2018 and the SM–3 Block IIB by 2020? 

Mr. MABUS. The MDA, which is responsible for developing and procuring BMD 

missiles, is working closely with Navy to deliver the SM–3 Block IIA by 2018 and 

the SM–3 Block IIB by 2020. We will keep Congress fully informed as these important programs progress. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy and MDA are working closely to develop, procure, 

and deliver the SM–3 Block IIA by 2018 and the SM–3 Block IIB by 2020. We will 

keep Congress fully informed as these important programs progress. 

162. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, the 2010 Ballistic 

Missile Defense Review notes, ‘‘the demand for missile defense assets within each 

region over the next decade will exceed supply.’’ Do we have enough Aegis ships and 

missiles to not only protect Europe from an Iranian threat but also have Aegis ships 

deployed around the globe to conduct its missile defense mission as well as its maritime security, anti-submarine warfare, and surface warfare missions? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy currently has sufficient capacity to meet the most critical 

demands for its multi-mission Aegis ships; however, Navy does not have the capacity to meet all GCC demands for BMD-capable ships without breaking established 

Personnel Tempo program limits. 

The Navy has a sufficient inventory of SM–3 missiles to satisfy global missile defense requirements today. However, given the relatively small number of missiles 

in the current inventory (76), we are using the Global Force Management system 

to provide a ‘‘fair share’’ of SM–3s to deploying ships and then shifting those missiles to successive ships as deployment rotations occur. Ultimately, the MDA plans 

to procure a total of 523 SM–3 missiles, which will permit increased loadouts aboard 

deploying ships and obviate the requirement to transfer missiles in theater in the 

future. This increased inventory will also provide for contingency surge readiness 

and an adequate war reserve of SM–3 missiles. 

To meet the increasing demand for these ships and reduce the risk to our longterm force structure caused by the increased operational tempo from longer deployment lengths, the Navy, working in conjunction with MDA, has established a plan 

to increase the number of BMD-capable Aegis ships from 23 in fiscal year 2011 to 

41 in fiscal year 2016 (see Figure 1 below). This plan balances the need for meeting 

current operational requirements against the need to upgrade existing BMD-capable 

Aegis ships to pace the future threat. Included in this plan are increases in the 

Navy’s capacity and the capabilities of Aegis ships through the installation of an 

Aegis BMD 3.6.1/4.0.1 suite, the Aegis Modernization program, or new construction 

(commencing with DDG–113). 

A key attribute of all Aegis ships is their multi-mission capabilities within the 

maritime domain, which allows the Navy to employ Aegis ships in multi-mission 

roles rather than for exclusive missions. These ships can perform a variety of other 

non-BMD missions either concurrently or sequentially as the GCC requires. 

412 

The Navy’s operating concept for maritime BMD features a graduated readiness 

posture that allows BMD-capable Aegis ships to be on an operational tether and 

available for other tasking when not directly involved in active BMD operations. 

Aegis ships operating in support of a BMD mission do not lose the capability to conduct other missions; however, specific mission effectiveness may be affected by ships’ 

position and/or application of ship resources to those missions. 

The Navy is not large enough to deploy ships for single mission purposes, and 

thus with the exception of deterrent patrols by SSBNs, does not advocate deploying 

warships for single mission tasking. Single mission use of our Aegis ships for BMD 

will result in shortages in other mission areas and a loss of operational flexibility 

for the GCCs. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy currently has sufficient capacity to meet the most 

critical demands for its multi-mission Aegis ships; however, we do not have the capacity to meet all GCC demands for BMD without exceeding established Personnel 

Tempo program limits for deployment lengths, dwell tempo, or homeport tempo. 

Based on threat analysis, and current indications from GCCs, and assuming standard 6-month deployment lengths, the Navy and the MDA concluded that GCC demand for surface combatants with Aegis BMD capability will outpace capacity 

through approximately 2018. 

Single mission use of our Aegis ships for BMD will result in shortages in other 

mission areas and a loss of operational flexibility for the GCCs. To ensure GCCs 

demands are met, the Navy employs Aegis ships in multi-mission roles rather than 

for exclusive missions on an enduring basis. These ships can perform a variety of 

other non-BMD missions such as strike warfare, air warfare, submarine warfare, 

surface warfare, information warfare, high value asset protection, or maritime interdiction either concurrently or sequentially as the GCC requires. The Navy has created a flexible operating concept for maritime BMD which features a graduated 

readiness posture that allows BMD-capable Aegis ships to be on an operational tether and available for other tasking when not directly involved in active BMD operations. Aegis ships operating in support of a BMD mission do not lose the capability 

to conduct other missions; however, specific mission effectiveness may be affected 

by ships’ position and/or application of ship resources to those missions. 

To meet the increasing demand for these ships and reduce the risk to our longterm force structure caused by the increased operational tempo from longer deployment lengths, the Navy, working in conjunction with MDA, has established a plan 

to increase the number of BMD-capable Aegis ships from 23 in fiscal year 2011 to 

41 in fiscal year 2016 (see Figure 1 above). This plan balances the need for meeting 

current operational requirements against the need to upgrade existing BMD-capable 

Aegis ships to pace the future threat. Included in this plan are increases in the 

Navy’s capacity and the capabilities of Aegis ships through the installation of an 

Aegis BMD 3.6.1/4.0.1 suite, the Aegis Modernization program, or new construction 


308ful2.eps
413 

(commencing with DDG–113). The current CR and the President’s budget for fiscal 

year 2012 may impact this plan. 

The Navy has a sufficient inventory of SM–3 missiles to satisfy global missile defense requirements today. However, given the relatively small number of missiles 

in the current inventory (76), we are using the Global Force Management system 

to provide a fair share of SM–3s to deploying ships and then shifting those missiles 

to successive ships as deployment rotations occur. Ultimately, the MDA plans to 

procure a total of 523 SM–3 missiles, which will permit increased loadouts aboard 

deploying ships and obviate the requirement to transfer missiles in theater in the 

future. This increased inventory will also provide for contingency surge readiness 

and an adequate war reserve of SM–3 missiles. 

163. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, how is the Navy 

managing the limited number of Aegis BMD ships when demand is greater than 

supply? 

Mr. MABUS. All Aegis ships are allocated to the GCCs through the DOD Global 

Force Management (GFM) process, which takes into consideration GCC surface combatant requirements in all mission areas. The Navy employs the FRP as the framework to provide a structured process to prepare and posture Navy forces to meet 

GFM requirements, including but not limited to BMD. The FRP balances the need 

to maintain and upgrade equipment, train for the full spectrum of operations, and 

deploy in support of GCC requirements. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy currently has sufficient capacity to meet the most 

critical demands for its multi-mission Aegis ships; however, we do not have the capacity to meet all GCC demands for BMD without exceeding established Personnel 

Tempo program limits for deployment lengths, dwell tempo, or homeport tempo. 

Based on threat analysis and current indications from GCCs, and assuming standard 6-month deployment lengths, the Navy and the MDA concluded that GCC demand for surface combatants with Aegis BMD capability will outpace capacity 

through approximately 2018. 

The Navy employs the FRP as the framework to provide a structured process to 

prepare and posture Navy forces to meet GFM requirements, including but not limited to BMD. The FRP balances the need to maintain and upgrade equipment, train 

for the full spectrum of operations, and deploy in support of GCC requirements. 

To meet the increasing demand for these ships and reduce the risk to our longterm force structure caused by the increased operational tempo from longer deployment lengths, the Navy, working in conjunction with MDA, has established a plan 

to increase the number of BMD-capable Aegis ships from 23 in fiscal year 2011 to 

41 in fiscal year 2016 (see Figure 1 above). This plan balances the need for meeting 

current operational requirements against the need to upgrade existing BMD-capable 

Aegis ships to pace the future threat. Included in this plan are increases in the 

Navy’s capacity and the capabilities of Aegis ships through the installation of an 

Aegis BMD 3.6.1/4.0.1 suite, the Aegis Modernization program, or new construction 

(commencing with DDG–113). 

164. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, why are Aegis 

ships which are configured to carry 20 missiles only carrying 10 to 11 missiles? 

Mr. MABUS and Admiral ROUGHEAD. Currently deployed Aegis ships are carrying 

a limited number of SM–3 missiles due to the still growing inventory of BMD weapons in our Navy. Given the combatant commander demand for Navy BMD ships on 

station, we are utilizing the Global Force Management process to provide a fair 

share of existing inventory to deploying BMD capable ships. Ship loadouts will be 

increased as additional SM–3 missiles are procured and the overall Navy BMD inventory increases. 

165. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, according to a 

June 2010 Defense News article, the Aegis radar systems are ‘‘in their worst shape 

ever, raising questions about the surface fleet’s ability to take on its high-profile 

new mission next year defending Europe from ballistic missiles.’’ The article describes a Fleet Review Panel assessment, started in September 2009 by the head 

of Fleet Forces Command, that Aegis ‘‘SPY manpower, parts, training, and performance are in decline,’’ and suggests that these deficiencies would affect the Navy’s 

ability to meet its missile defense mission requirements, including the European 

PAA. Are there Aegis readiness concerns? 

Mr. MABUS. Today’s Aegis Fleet is heavily stressed by the pace of operations 

around the globe. This has led to a decline in Aegis readiness that we are addressing by increasing our investment in Aegis-specific equipment, training, and spare 

parts in a coordinated effort to sustain this vital system at optimal readiness. 

414 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Today’s Aegis Fleet is heavily stressed by the pace of operations around the globe. This has led to a decline in Aegis readiness. We are addressing these issues through investment in Aegis-specific equipment, training, and 

spare parts in a coordinated effort to sustain this vital system at optimal readiness. 

We are moving approximately 1,900 sailors from shore billets onto our ships to meet 

operational demands while maintaining acceptable Fleet readiness levels and sailor 

dwell time. To enhance the material readiness of our Fleet, we are improving our 

ability to plan and execute maintenance by increasing manning at our RMCs, and 

by institutionalizing our engineered approach to surface ship maintenance, converting the successes of our SSLCM initiative I began 2 years ago into the 

SURFMEPP. I remain focused on ensuring our Navy has a force that is maintained 

and trained to provide the capability and forward presence required in the two 

areas of interest identified in our Maritime Strategy, the Western Pacific, and the 

Arabian Gulf, while preserving our ability to immediately swing from those regions 

and our Fleet concentration areas in the United States to respond to contingencies 

globally. 

F–35

166. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, and General Amos, 

what is your assessment of the F–35 restructure and what impact will it have on 

Navy and Marine Corps strike aircraft capabilities? 

Mr. MABUS. The F–35 restructure was based upon the most in-depth, bottoms-up 

Technical Baseline Review (TBR) of the F–35 program to date. The TBR involved 

more than 120 technical experts investigating all aspects of the program which enabled us to assess the overall progress and current status of the F–35 program. 

Based on this review, we support the Secretary of Defense assessment that the F– 

35 Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase should be restructured; 

variants of the F–35 aircraft decoupled; and the production ramp reduced to mitigate concurrency. Impacts of the F–35 program delays have been accounted for in 

the Navy’s Strike Fighter Inventory Management (SFIM) plan, which shows that 

the Navy is required to resource a SLEP for legacy Hornet aircraft and procure additional F/A–18E/F Super-Hornets. Additional SFIM plan details have been provided 

to Senior Professional Staff Members. While F–35 has been challenged this past 

year, and additional developmental challenges may arise, we remain strongly committed to the F–35 program as it is essential to our long-term national security as 

the future backbone of U.S. combat air-superiority and the core of Navy and Marine 

aviation. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Navy remains strongly committed to the F–35 program as an 

essential element to our long-term national security serving as the backbone of U.S. 

combat air-superiority and the core of Navy and Marine Corps aviation. The TBR 

conducted last year involved more than 120 technical experts investigating all aspects of the program which enabled us to assess the overall progress and current 

status of the F–35 program. Based on the recommendations from the TBR, Navy 

supports the Secretary of Defense assessment that the F–35 SDD phase should be 

restructured; variants of the F–35 aircraft decoupled; and the production ramp reduced to mitigate concurrency. Impacts of the F–35 program delays due to restructuring have been accounted for in the Navy’s SFIM plan, which shows that the 

Navy is required to resource a SLEP for legacy Hornet aircraft and procure additional F/A–18E/F Super-Hornets. 

General AMOS. There are three factors impacting the delivery of all JSF variants: 

(1) production delivery delays; (2) flight test progress; and (3) the rate of software 

development. The restructure of the F–35 program was designed to provide the time 

necessary to remedy these deficiencies while retaining capabilities the aircraft requires to perform in support of operational tasking. The slower production rate impacts our rate of transition from an aging legacy aircraft inventory. Currently, we 

are successfully managing our strike fighter aircraft inventory to meet our operational commitments. 

167. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, and General Amos, 

what risks do you see that could make the strike fighter shortfall rise even higher 

in the years ahead? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy’s plan to mitigate the strike fighter shortfall is to procure 

a total of 556 F/A–18E/Fs, which is 41 above the previous program of record and 

to extend the service life of 150 F/A–18A–D aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps. 

This will lower the projected peak shortfall from about 100 to 65 in 2018. The key 

risk to this plan is the ability to extend the service life of the F/A–18A–D aircraft 

415 

from 8,000 to 10,000 flight hours. The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has 

extensive expertise in the field of extending the service life of tactical aircraft and 

processes for managing the risk of these programs. 

The first step is to extend the aircraft service life from 8,000 to 8,600 flight hours 

with the High Flying Hour (HFH) inspection program and then induct the aircraft 

in the SLEP to achieve an additional 1,400 hours to 10,000 flight hours. The HFH 

Revision A inspection extending the aircraft 600 flight hours is now completing the 

Validation and Verification process. Until our technical knowledge increases with 

the completion of more HFH inspections, unknown schedule and cost risks will remain. To extend the service life from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours, select aircraft will 

be inducted into the SLEP for depot inspection and modification. The first SLEP 

candidate aircraft will be inducted in fiscal year 2012. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy’s plan to mitigate the strike fighter shortfall is to 

procure a total of 556 F/A–18E/Fs, which is 41 above the previous program of record 

and to extend the service life of 150 F/A–18A–D aircraft in the Navy and Marine 

Corps. This will lower the projected peak shortfall to 65 in 2018. 

The NAVAIR, my executive agent for the service life extensions, has extensive expertise in the field of extending the service life of tactical aircraft and the processes 

for managing risk related to SLEPs. 

General AMOS. The two most significant factors affecting the strike fighter shortfall are operational demand and the corresponding utilization of the remaining service life on our legacy F/A–18 Hornet aircraft. Our Hornets are reaching the end of 

their effective service life at the same time as we are procuring F–35B replacement 

aircraft. 

Delays in the JSF program have created a gap in available aircraft. The Marine 

Corps is addressing this issue by means of an aggressive service life management 

program for legacy F–18C/D aircraft. The current shortfall is manageable; however, 

risk will arise if further F–35B procurement delays occur, utilization rates on our 

legacy aircraft increase, and/or if there is a reduction of funding for necessary 

SLEPs. 

168. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Roughead, in light of the results of the F–35’s TBR, 

does the Navy still believe it can achieve F–35 IOC in 2016? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Due to the recent JSF TBR and program restructuring efforts, the F–35C IOC has not yet been determined. We are reviewing the results 

of the TBR and restructuring to determine when IOC will be achieved. The Navy’s 

IOC requirements will remain unchanged and will be based on the level of capability delivered at the completion of the initial operational test and evaluation of the 

F–35C equipped with Block 3 software. 

The Navy’s intent is to stand up squadrons as aircraft become available and declare IOC when sufficient capability is tested and delivered. IOC requires the following: 

• All key performance parameter thresholds must be met 

• Sufficient aircraft quantity (10 Primary Aircraft Authorized) 

• Mission planner; and adequate trainers, spares, support equipment, and 

publications 

• Fully functional Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) installed 

and available aboard a nuclear powered aircraft carrier (CVN) 

• Adequately trained aircrew, maintainers, and support personnel 

• Desired capability to conduct all Operational Requirements Document 

missions, to include air interdiction (AI); offensive counter-air (OCA); defensive counter-air (DCA); Close Air Support (CAS); suppression of enemy air 

defenses/destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD); and combat 

search and rescue (CSAR) in a denied, near-peer environment better than 

legacy aircraft 

• Completion of all ship qualifications and certification to deploy aboard 

CVN 

• Completion of operational test (all mission capabilities) 

169. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, how has the F–35B 2-year probationary period and decrease of F–35B procurement in the FYDP affected the Marine Corps’ 

strike fighter shortfall? 

General AMOS. Slowing the production rate of the F–35B to allow for the responsible design and incorporation of technical adjustments was a prudent decision in 

light of the progress the JSF program had made to date. However, this slower production rate concurrently slows down our rate of transition from legacy aircraft to 

ones with fifth generation capabilities. 

416 

Currently, we are successfully managing our legacy strike fighter aircraft inventory to meet operational commitments through a variety of service life management 

initiatives until the F–35B is fielded. Additionally, our procurement of some F–35Cs 

within the FYDP will ensure that we meet our enduring commitment to carrierbased Tactical Aircraft Integration, while partially off-setting the delay in F–35B 

procurement. 

170. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mabus, Admiral Roughead, and General Amos, 

when does the Marine Corps plan to achieve F–35B LOC? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy’s plan for Limited Operational Capability (LOC) is to maintain F–35B operational requirements and field F–35B when the inherent capabilities of the aircraft are cleared for operational use; pilots are trained; and a support 

infrastructure is in place. An LOC date is still to be determined as it will depend 

upon the outcome of Service and Program Office F–35B technical and sustainment 

reviews, to include the results of flight test, aircraft delivery schedules, and implementation of the F–35 sustainment strategy. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Marine Corps’ plan for the F–35B is to maintain its 

operational requirements, field the aircraft, train to the capabilities as they are 

cleared for operational use, and achieve IOC when they are delivered the aircraft 

without limitations. An IOC date is still to be determined as it will depend upon 

the outcome of Service and Program Office F–35B technical and sustainment reviews, to include the results of flight test, aircraft delivery schedules, and software 

development progress. 

General AMOS. An IOC date has not yet been determined and will depend upon 

the outcome of technical and sustainment reviews being conducted both at the Service and Program Office level. These reviews include the results of flight testing, aircraft delivery schedules, and software development progress and the like. Current 

projections from the Joint Program Office and from Lockheed Martin suggest that 

IOC can occur in 2014. As a result, the Marine Corps is targeting June 2014 as an 

objective IOC date with June 2015 as a threshold IOC date. Nonetheless, delivery 

of aircraft to the first training squadron will occur later this year with delivery of 

the first Marine Corps operational aircraft beginning in 2012. 

CANCELLATION OF THE EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE

171. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, the EFV fulfilled a new requirement to enable marines to be delivered from Navy ships that were 25 nautical miles from the 

shore. This was based on the threat of new enemy anti-ship missiles. The new requirement drops the 25-nautical-mile requirement in favor of the old 15-nauticalmile requirement. Does cancelling the EFV mean that the threat of anti-ship missiles was overstated? 

General AMOS. Cancelling the EFV does not mean the threat of anti-ship missiles 

was overstated. Rather, over the years subsequent to the establishing of EFV performance requirements, the threats in the littorals and U.S. capabilities to counter 

and overcome those threats have evolved. We now believe that improvements in the 

capabilities fielded or currently in development mitigate the threat to an acceptable 

level of risk for a naval force operating at a 12-nautical-mile stand-off range. 

172. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, does the Marine Corps still see amphibious 

warfare as its primary mission? 

General AMOS. With a naval tradition as the foundation of our existence, the Marine Corps remains firmly partnered with the Navy with the ability to come from 

the sea rapidly to project power across the global commons. As America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness, the Marine Corps is forward deployed and forward engaged: shaping, training, deterring, and responding to all manner of crisis and contingency operations. We stand ready to conduct complex expeditionary operations 

across the Range of Military Operations regardless of the threat envelope. 

173. Senator INHOFE. General Amos, what will replace the Amtrack? 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps will pursue an integrated new vehicle program, 

crafted from the beginning for affordability and taking advantage of the investment 

made in the EFV. The Marine Corps intends to mitigate risks associated with a new 

vehicle program and to maximize value by the use of an integrated acquisition portfolio approach. This approach is comprised of three efforts: (1) an acceleration of the 

planned procurement of Marine Personnel Carriers (MPC); (2) investment in a 

SLEP and upgrades for a portion of the existing AAVs; and (3) the development of 

a new ACV. This new amphibious vehicle, known currently as the ACV, and the 

417 

MPC represent the modern, enduring, and complementary capability solution that 

ultimately will replace the AAV. 

REPEAL OF DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL

174. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, there is legislation 

being considered that would add the requirement for the Service Chiefs to certify 

along with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 

the President that repeal of DADT will not degrade combat readiness or recruiting 

and retention. What are your personal thoughts regarding legislation requiring 

Service Chiefs’ certification that repeal of DADT will not degrade combat readiness 

or recruiting and retention? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I am confident my assessment of Navy’s readiness for repeal 

will be carefully considered by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman during 

the certification process, and I do not believe it is necessary to provide additional 

or separate input outside of this process. My recommendation to the Secretary of 

Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be based on my assessment of objective and subjective data, to include the number of individuals and 

units trained, policies ready for issue to the force, reports from commanders regarding observed impacts to effectiveness, readiness, recruiting, and retention, and repeal-related incidents, as well as a review of force-wide personnel readiness data, 

retention data, and our regular surveys of the force. I provide regular updates on 

Navy’s progress to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, and will remain personally engaged with them throughout this process. 

General AMOS. I believe requiring my certification is unnecessary. I have had sufficient opportunity to openly communicate with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff and with the Secretary of Defense on this issue. OSD and the Services meet 

regularly to have frank and honest discussions on this issue and will continue to 

do so between now and certification. 

175. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, how is the Navy and 

Marine Corps handling the more difficult aspects of the repeal of DADT: concerns 

about individual privacy, fairness in providing benefits to heterosexual and gay and 

lesbian families, the process for reentry of servicemembers separated under DADT, 

and fair treatment for individuals with strongly held religious beliefs concerning homosexuality, to include military chaplains? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sexual orientation remains a personal and private matter. 

Commanders may not establish practices that segregate servicemembers according 

to sexual orientation. Consistent with current policy, commanders will continue to 

maintain the discretion to alter berthing or billeting assignments in accordance with 

Navy policy in the interest of maintaining morale, good order and discipline, and 

consistent with performance of the mission. 

There will be no changes at this time to eligibility standards for military benefits. 

The Defense of Marriage Act currently prohibits extension of many military benefits 

to same-sex couples. All servicemembers will continue to have various benefits for 

which they may designate beneficiaries in accordance with the rules governing each 

program, to include Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance beneficiary, G.I. Bill 

death beneficiary, Thrift Savings Plan beneficiary, and Wounded Warrior Act Designated Caregiver. 

Upon repeal, former servicemembers who were discharged solely under 10 U.S.C. 

section 654 may apply to reenter the Armed Forces. They will be evaluated according to the same criteria and requirements applicable to all prior servicemembers 

seeking reentry into the military at that time. Sexual orientation will not be a factor. 

Sailors with different religious beliefs already work, live, and fight together. Existing policies regarding individual expression and free exercise of religion are adequate and will not change. The Chaplain Corps’ First Amendment freedoms and 

their duty to care for all will not change. Military personnel who do not uphold 

these standards are subject to discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps is addressing these concerns through leadership, training, and a rigorous service policy review and reconciliation. The law has 

not changed in regard to benefits, and we continue to follow guidance from OSD as 

we address such issues. The reentry of servicemembers, who have been discharged 

under the current law, has not begun because they are prohibited from reentry until 

repeal occurs. For all persons of faith, we continue to uphold the highest standards 

of fair treatment. We have confidence in our leaders at all levels that they will hanVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00423 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
418 

dle these issues with professionalism to ensure all marines are treated with dignity 

and respect. 

176. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, what aspects of the 

implementation of repeal of DADT have been sources of concern? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I am not concerned with any aspect of the implementation 

of the repeal of DADT. Feedback from our sailors indicates the training they are 

receiving is comprehensive, well-delivered, and effective. Additionally, we have not 

observed any impacts to readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting, or retention. 

We are on track to complete our training by July 1, 2011. 

General AMOS. Our main concern centered on impacts to the readiness and cohesion of our combat units. Other concerns centered on matters of billeting and benefits. I am confident that the detailed work of DOD’s Comprehensive Review Working 

Group, and the guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense have addressed these 

concerns. We also feel that the extensive DADT related training we have conducted 

to date has mitigated these concerns. (Note: The Marine Corps is complete with Tier 

1 (special staff) and Tier 2 (leadership) training. As of 30 June 2011, Tier 3 (Marines) training is 95 percent complete.) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS

OHIO REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

177. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, the Ohio Replacement Program will replace the 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with 

12 next generation SSBN(X)s. The Navy is estimating that each SSBN(X) will have 

16 tubes as opposed to the 24 currently on Ohio-class submarines. With implementation of New START, the Navy will inactivate 4 tubes per submarine so that only 

20 missiles are aboard each SSBN, bringing the fleet capacity down to 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. These steps will eventually take our sealaunched ballistic missile fleet from 336 missiles to 192 missiles. SSBNs represent 

the most survivable leg of the triad. The Navy has campaigned for 16 tubes per 

SSBN to lower procurement costs; however, I understand STRATCOM wants 20 

tubes per SSBN, an additional 48 missiles total, and STRATCOM campaigned for 

more tubes because it gives them more flexibility and resilience. 

Other than cost concerns, the Navy’s desire for fewer tubes is also based on the 

presumption that the world’s largest nuclear powers will continue the trend toward 

reducing their arsenals. Regarding procurement cost, arguments have surfaced that 

reducing the number of tubes will do relatively little to reduce procurement cost. 

With a growing threat of strategic nuclear advancement in countries such as Iran, 

and with SSBNs accounting for the most survivable leg of the triad, does this reduction in SLBMs make sense, and how will it affect our ability to provide strategic 

deterrence for the United States and our allies? 

Mr. MABUS. The Navy conducted an in-depth, extensive review of the capability 

requirements for the Ohio Replacement SSBN in parallel with development of the 

service cost position required at Milestone A. This analysis concluded that a force 

of 12 Ohio Replacement SSBNs with 16 missile tubes can carry all the sea-based 

warheads and maintain excess capacity in the event of a fundamental deterioration 

of the security environment or as a hedge against technical challenges within one 

or more of the other legs of the triad. A force of 12 SSBNs with 20 missile tubes 

could carry the Nation’s entire operationally deployed warheads with excess capacity remaining. These conclusions are based on the current requirements of the New 

START treaty. 

It is the Navy’s judgment that the Nation’s sea-based strategic requirements can 

be met with a force of 12 Ohio Replacement SSBNs with 16 tubes. Given the substantial budgetary pressures facing DOD and Navy shipbuilding, a 20-tube Ohio Replacement SSBN would inappropriately sacrifice other conventional shipbuilding requirements for unneeded excess capacity. OSD, Joint Staff, and STRATCOM have 

since concurred with the Navy’s position on this military requirement. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy conducted an in-depth review of the capability requirements for the Ohio Replacement SSBN in parallel with development of the 

Service Cost Position required at Milestone A. This analysis concluded that a force 

of 12 Ohio Replacement SSBNs with 16 missile tubes can carry the sea-based warheads required and maintain excess capacity in the event of a fundamental deterioration of the security environment or as a hedge against technical challenges within 

one or more of the other legs of the triad. A force of 12 SSBNs with 20 missile tubes 

could carry the Nation’s entire operationally deployed warheads with excess capacVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
419 

ity remaining. These conclusions are based on the current requirements of the New 

START treaty. To meet the operational requirement to deploy SSBNs to both the 

Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a force of at least 12 operational submarines is required. 

It is the Navy’s judgment that the Nation’s sea-based strategic requirements can 

be met with a force of 12 Ohio Replacement SSBNs with 16 tubes. Given the substantial budgetary pressures facing DOD and Navy shipbuilding, a 20-tube Ohio Replacement SSBN would inappropriately sacrifice other conventional shipbuilding requirements for unneeded excess capacity. OSD, Joint Staff, and STRATCOM have 

since concurred with the Navy’s position on this military requirement. 

RESET

178. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Amos, in your prepared statement you discuss 

the Marine Corps’ significant backlog in resetting your equipment based on nearly 

10 years of war and redeploying equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan which resulted 

in deferring previously-planned reset actions. I am extremely impressed with what 

the Marine Corps has been able to accomplish—with both your people and your 

equipment. It is a testimony to your leadership and can-do attitude. However, this 

bill is going to come due and—as you say in your statement—the bill for resetting 

your equipment is $10.6 billion, most of which is not yet funded. Looking forward, 

and assuming you get the money you need to perform this reset and regeneration 

work, do you have the people and other resources you need to perform this work? 

You only have two Marine Corps depots—one of which is in Georgia—and I’m curious if you’ve thought about whether you can accomplish all your reset and regeneration requirements with the people and resources you have, or might more be required? 

General AMOS. As long as sufficient funding resources are available, Marine Corps 

depot activities have the ability to expand and contract as necessary to meet workload requirements. There are multiple options to adjust capacity, including implementation of overtime and/or multiple shifts, hiring of contract and/or temporary 

labor, hiring full time additional labor or contracting with commercial vendors. 

We can also utilize capacity at other service depots. As an example, Marine Corps 

Logistics Command, Maintenance Centers in Albany, GA, and Barstow, CA, increased production in 2008 and executed 4.4 million direct labor hours. In 2009, the 

Marine Corps estimated a requirement for 5.45 million direct labor hours in preparation for the influx of equipment returning from Iraq. Both depots hired additional 

personnel for those years in accordance with section 2472 of title 10, U.S.C., with 

the expectation that the workload, and therefore the workforce, would remain 

throughout reset. However, the calendar year 2009 workload did not materialize due 

to harvesting of significant amounts of equipment in Iraq to support Afghanistan 

surge requirements. 

Once the timelines and rate of drawdown from Afghanistan are known, Marine 

Corps Logistics Command will conduct reset workload forecasts and develop plans 

to expand depot capacity using the options described above. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SCOTT BROWN

OPEN ARCHITECTURE SOLUTION

179. Senator BROWN. Secretary Mabus, the Navy has been providing quarterly reports to Congress regarding its progress in implementing an open architecture solution across the surface ship Navy. What are your views on the successes and status 

of this effort to date and the implementation plan for the next 3 years for large surface combatants, including DDG–51 Flight 3, amphibious ships, and any future new 

construction ships? 

Mr. MABUS. Naval programs have made progress in implementing OA practices 

and principles in recent years in the areas of policy and guidance creation and adoption, competitive contracting, component reuse, and open system development, testing, and fielding. Within the surface ship Navy, Advanced Capability Builds (ACB) 

deliver an integrated combat system capability to the Surface Navy in an effective, 

safe, reliable, and readily producible manner. 

The Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Combat System was designed from the beginning with its software decoupled from hardware, based on non-standard open architecture software and COTS hardware components. However, from its inception, 

SSDS has incorporated a common source library (CSL) approach where the software 

for all ship classes employing SSDS comes from a single source library (SSL). This 

permits new capability development investments to be applicable across all SSDSVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
420 

based combat system baselines. When a new SSDS software component is developed, it is placed in the SSDS SSL and is then available to other SSDS-based combat system configurations. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, SSDS was modified to become compliant with Open Architecture Computing Environment standards. SSDS 

combat systems software in the SSL has evolved to align to middleware standards 

and toward future commonality with Aegis combat system software. 

Eight different SSDS configurations are supported by the SSL: 

• SSDS MK 2 Mods 1, 1A, and 1B for CVN–68 Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carriers 

• SSDS MK 2 Mods 2, 2A, and 2B for LPD–17 San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Docks 

• SSDS MK 2 Mod 3A for LHD–1 Wasp-Class Amphibious Assault Ships 

• SSDS MK 2 Mod 4B for LHA–1 Tarawa-Class Amphibious Assault Ships 

The following configurations are under development as part of SSDS ACB 12 and 

will be added to the SSL upon completion: 

• SSDS MK 2 Mod 6C for CVN–78 Gerald R. Ford-Class Aircraft Carriers 

• SSDS MK 2 Mod 2C for LPD–17 San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Docks 

• SSDS MK 2 Mod 3C for LHD–1 Wasp-Class Amphibious Assault Ships 

• SSDS MK 2 Mod 5C for LSD–41 Whidby Island- and LSD 49 Harpers 

Ferry-Class Landing Ship Docks 

Over the next 3 years SSDS systems will be fielded on the following ships: 

• Fiscal year 2012—USS Harry S. Truman (CVN–75) and PCU Arlington 

(LPD–24) 

• Fiscal year 2013—USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN–71), USS Tortuga 

(LSD–46), USS New Orleans (LPD–18), USS Iwo Jima (LHD–7), PCU Arlington (LPD–24), PCU Somerset (LPD–25), and PCU America (LHA–6) 

• Fiscal year 2014—USS Wasp (LHD–1) and PCU John P. Murtha (LPD– 

26) 

The Aegis combat system was initially designed as an integrated and tightly coupled hardware and software combat system. As the Aegis combat system is modernized and transitions to a network-based commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) computing 

environment it will use a CSL to support an affordable and sustainable ACB process. The actual rate of modernization will be driven by fleet availability and future 

budgets. Over the next 3 years, ACB12 in conjunction with the CSL is being used 

across multiple programs (Aegis Modernization, DDG–113, and Aegis Ashore) and 

is planned for installation on the following Aegis ships: 

• Fiscal year 2012—USS Normandy (CG–60), USS Chancellorsville (CG– 

62), and USS John Paul Jones (DDG–53) 

• Fiscal year 2013—USS Princeton (CG–59), USS Cowpens (CG–63), USS 

Gettysburg (CG–64), USS Barry (DDG–52), and USS Benfold (DDG–65) 

• Fiscal year 2014—USS Chosin (CG–65), USS Hue City (CG–66), USS 

Cape Saint George (CG–71), and USS Arleigh Burke (DDG–51) 

Commencing in fiscal year 2012, five different Aegis combat system configurations 

will be supported from a CSL: 

• Baseline 9A—CG without the Multi-Mission Signal Processor (MMSP) 

and without BMD capability (CG–59–64) 

• Baseline 9B—CG with MMSP and integrated BMD capability (CG–65–73) 

• Baseline 9C—DDG with MMSP and integrated BMD capability (DDG– 

51–112) 

• Baseline 9D—DDG–113 + New Construction with MMSP and integrated 

BMD capability (DDG–113 and follow) 

• Baseline 9E—Aegis Ashore with MMSP and integrated BMD capability 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

CHINA’S NAVAL MODERNIZATION

180. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, reports indicate that over the past 2 

decades, the People’s Liberation Army’s Navy (PLAN) has added more submarines 

to its fleet than any other country in the world, in addition to 15 guided missile 

destroyers; a similar number of frigates; more than four dozen high-speed cruisemissile armed patrol craft; and scores of new amphibious ships. The PLAN is also 

reportedly moving forward with an aircraft carrier program. According to DOD’s 

2010 Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, the PLAN’s 

421 

investments ‘‘suggest that China is seeking to support additional missions beyond 

a Taiwan contingency.’’ Given China’s naval build-up, how much emphasis should 

be placed on U.S. Navy programs and spending for countering improved Chinese 

naval forces in the coming years? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. China’s naval procurements and military modernization are 

noteworthy and rapid. Absent greater transparency from China, China’s efforts have 

significant implications for regional stability and they challenge conducting naval 

operations in contested areas. Our Navy has made significant investments in kinetic 

and non-kinetic capabilities to address anti-access challenges (specific investments 

are best provided in a classified setting). Our President’s budget for 2012 submission achieves the optimal balance among building sufficient capability and capacity 

to meet the most likely threats, ensuring effective operations and maintenance of 

our forces, and taking care of our people. 

181. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, according to the 

DOD’s 2010 Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, the 

PLAN’s ‘‘primary focus will remain on preparing for operations within the ‘first and 

second island chains,’ with emphasis on a potential conflict with U.S. forces over 

Taiwan.’’ In 1996, China conducted a series of provocative missile tests for the purpose of influencing Taiwan’s first direct presidential election. In response, in March 

1996, President Clinton ordered two U.S. aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait to 

send the Chinese a message. Shortly thereafter, Taiwan conducted its first presidential election peacefully. Considering China’s dramatic enhancement of its naval 

and anti-access capabilities, coupled with its aggressive rhetoric on Taiwan, if a scenario similar to the one that occurred in 1996 arose again in the immediate future, 

would today’s U.S. Navy be able to react as it did in 1996, without exposing our 

forces to undue levels of risk? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Today’s Navy is a more formidable and capable force than 

it was in 1996. Inherent in today’s force structure is the ability to respond quickly 

with flexible and adaptive force packages that are tailored to deliver effects across 

the full range of military operations—from demonstrations as was done in 1996 to 

major combat operations in today’s evolving, sophisticated anti-access/area denial 

environments. 

There are an increasing number of foreign capabilities that have the potential to 

cause our forces to operate from distances further from a crisis than desired, or to 

slow or disrupt the deployment of friendly forces into the theater. Capabilities that 

impact our forces in this manner are termed anti-access capabilities and include 

long-range, precise, anti-ship and land attack ballistic and cruise missile systems; 

advanced combat aircraft and electronic warfare technologies; advanced Integrated 

Air Defense systems; submarines and subsurface warfare capabilities; surface warfare capabilities; C4ISR capabilities and cyber warfare technologies. 

The Navy has and will continue to develop programs and capabilities to address 

the anti-access environment emerging in the Western Pacific and other theaters of 

operation. Accordingly, we are strengthening our alliances and partnerships, modernizing our forces, fielding new capabilities and technologies, and developing new 

operational concepts. 

One specific initiative that will help preserve access in the Pacific is implementation of the Air-Sea Battle Concept. Air-Sea Battle implementation will ensure continued U.S. advantage against emerging anti-access threats. This does not mean the 

risks associated with conducting naval operations in an anti-access/area denial environment will be eliminated. Rather, comprehensive implementation of the joint Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and 

Facilities (DOTMLPF) actions that comprise the Air-Sea Battle Concept initiatives 

will enable enduring forward presence; robust training, exercises and military-tomilitary engagement with our allies and like-minded partners; and crisis response 

operations necessary to protect our national interests in the Pacific within tolerable 

risk levels. 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps maintains rotational MEU Amphibious Ready 

Group forces in the PACOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) consisting of marines embarked aboard naval amphibious shipping. There are Marine Corps forces also 

arrayed in Japan, Okinawa, and Hawaii. Collectively, these marines are able to respond to crises or operational missions throughout the AOR when directed. 

AIR-SEA BATTLE CONCEPT

182. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, the 2010 QDR directs the development of a joint Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept between the Navy and 

422 

the Air Force. In his speech last week at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Secretary 

Gates said this new doctrine recognizes ‘‘the enormous potential in developing new 

joint warfighting capabilities—think of naval forces in airfield defense, or stealth 

bombers augmented by Navy submarines—and the clear benefits from this more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.’’ What is the current status of the development and 

implementation of the ASB concept? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. ASB is a limited operational concept that focuses the development of integrated air and naval forces on addressing the evolving anti-access/ 

area denial (A2/AD) environment. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Service 

Chiefs recently signed the ASB Concept, and the Services are now refining and synchronizing the DOTMLPF, initiatives necessary to implement the concept. This effort will continue in a deliberate manner for a number of years. 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps has participated in the development of the ASB 

concept and is a full partner in the ASB office that will continue concept and capability development. We will integrate ASB tenets into our force development process 

after appropriate validation through experimentation and wargaming with our Navy 

and Air Force counterparts. Innovative, new, joint capabilities have been incorporated into the ASB concept. Some of these new capabilities are already showing 

potential, and recent operations in Libya have relied upon forward-leaning capabilities that are part of the Marine Corps Program of Record. The recent tactical rescue 

of an Air Force F–15E conducted from Navy amphibious ships by Marine Corps V– 

22 tilt-rotor and fixed wing platforms to affect the rescue of Air Force personnel 

deep in Libyan territory is an example of such innovative joint capability sets. 

With the introduction of the F–35B STOVL JSF, marines will be optimized for 

the type of engagements envisioned in ASB. The enhanced Anti-Access and Area Denial systems, platforms, and forces of potential adversaries, such as precision ballistic missiles, will make fixed bases and airfields problematic. The ability of STOVL 

aircraft to readily disperse, operate from short and degraded runways, and double 

the number of capital ships—11 aircraft carrier and 11 amphibious—capable of fixed 

wing provide a significant contribution to the force by preserving its ability to generate tactical air integration sorties in Anti-Access and Area Denial environments. 

Marine capabilities to rapidly build and operate expeditionary airfields in austere 

locations will provide the combatant commander with a force that can shape and 

improve his posture as he prosecutes the ASB, as will the traditional capability of 

marines to seize and hold critical terrain that enables sea-control. I have recently 

joined with the Chief of Naval Operations and Chief of Staff of the Air Force in signing the ASB concept, and we are now engaged together in the establishment of the 

ASB office which will oversee the continued development of the concept and related 

initiatives. 

183. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, to what extent has 

the ASB concept already influenced the investment decisions reflected in the Navy’s 

fiscal year 2012 budget request and the latest FYDP, and to what extent will it 

guide investment decisions in the future? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The ASB concept was still under joint development by the 

Navy and Air Force throughout the POM12 cycle. However, the discussions and preliminaries decisions indirectly informed the fiscal year 2012 budget. POM12 was primarily focused on implementing the 2010 QDR and the DOD-wide efficiency initiatives. Many of the ASB themes are consistent with established CNO/Fleet 

warfighting priorities for POM12; investments made across these areas in PB12 

have given the Navy a head-start on programmatic requirements that aid in implementing the ASB concept. 

The Navy continues to assess POM13 and make investment decisions to help support the ASB concept within the constraints of our current fiscal environment. 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps force development process is concept based. 

Ideally, we begin with a concept, such as ASB and then conduct a robust wargaming 

and experimentation effort to validate the concept and gain insights on the functional capabilities that are required to implement it. The concept experimentation 

phase affords a more refined understanding of operational and systems requirements and the necessary changes necessary to support them (i.e. DOTMLPF process). With the knowledge gleaned from experimentation and wargaming, we are better prepared to propose programs and acquisition initiatives. We believe this deliberate process affords the best use of the resources entrusted to Marine Corps. We 

are still early in the concept experimentation and validation phase regarding ASB. 

Once we have validated the triservice requirements for ASB, those shared requirements will influence our future investment decisions, the extent of which cannot be 

determined until that time. 

423 

INDEPENDENT PANEL ASSESSMENT

184. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, the Independent Panel Assessment of 

the 2010 QDR recommended a Navy fleet of 346 ships, yet the Navy’s current plans 

are for only a 313-ship fleet. In fact, in your testimony, you referred to 313 ships 

as the ‘‘minimum’’ our Navy needs. If Congress were to appropriate the funding necessary for the Navy to buy an additional 33 ships, beyond the planned 313 ships, 

what type and mix of ships would you recommend? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. To propose a force structure for a 346-ship Navy, further 

study and analysis must be conducted to determine: (1) the additional missions expected of a 346-ship battle force; (2) the actual break-down of ship types, quantities, 

and capabilities to be procured and; (3) the associated cost and effects on the shipbuilding industrial base in procuring a proposed 346-ship fleet. 

I have stated that the Navy requires a minimum of 313 ships to meet operational 

requirements globally. This minimum remains valid; however, we are continually 

evaluating this requirement to address increased operational demands and expanding requirements for BMD, intra-theater lift, and forces capable of confronting irregular challenges. 313 ships remain the floor. The Navy remains committed to building a 313-ship fleet by 2020, as detailed in our Long-Range Plan for Construction 

of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 2011. 

Beyond the FYDP, the need to fund SSBN recapitalization will result in some risk 

to the Navy’s fiscal year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan to maintain the 313-ship floor. 

While the SSBN(X) is being procured, the Navy will be limited in its ability to procure other ship classes. The lower build rates in the fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 

2031 timeframe will result in reduced force structure in the fiscal year 2032 to fiscal 

year 2040 timeframe. If additional funding were to be provided to fund SSBN(X) 

procurement during this time period, the Navy would be able to apply its shipbuilding funds to raise other ship procurement rates to reduce the impact on the 

shipbuilding industry and to increase the overall battleforce inventory. Additional 

ships would include guided missile destroyers and attack submarines. Additional 

funding would help reduce future ship inventory shortfalls and provide a more stable production base. 

WIND FARM IMPACT ON FLIGHT OPERATIONS

185. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, in a response to a recent request for 

information from my office, the Navy stated that ‘‘wind turbine operations may create harmful interference to National Airspace System Sensors, hindering safe airspace operation and aircraft separation and control.’’ It is apparent that the systems 

most adversely affected are air traffic control radars and approach systems (e.g., 

Precision Approach Radar). Due to the rotating windmill blades, these systems can 

be degraded by false targets, shadowing, and target loss. What steps is the Navy 

taking to ensure that wind farm encroachment around naval and MCASs does not 

hinder or completely degrade the ability of bases to complete their mission? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. There are several means by which Navy attempts to ensure 

that wind farm encroachment around Navy and MCASs does not hinder or completely degrade the ability of bases to complete their mission: 

• Navy implements an Encroachment Management Program focused on 

systematic identification, quantification, and mitigation of encroachment 

concerns. Navy partners with communities, State, and local governments, 

and conservation organizations to preserve training and operations by implementing land use controls. To this end, Navy has already acquired over 

9,000 acres of restrictive easements to reduce incompatible development 

near installations. 

• The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Program enables cooperative agreements between Navy and local governments. When the potential for incompatible development, such as wind farms, is identified, Navy may partner 

with the Office of Economic Adjustment to initiate a JLUS. JLUS implementation measures may involve land exchanges; transfer of development 

rights; and revisions to a community comprehensive plan and can take the 

form of traditional land use and development controls, such as zoning and 

structural height restrictions. 

• When appropriate, the Navy and the Marine Corps participate in the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Obstruction Evaluation/Airport 

Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) process to review proposed construction 

projects for navigational safety hazards. This process has provided DOD 

awareness and influence on potential wind farm encroachment. However, it 

424 

does not include all potential wind turbine hazards, nor does it provide FAA 

or DOD authority to prohibit construction. 

• Navy is participating in the processes of the recently established DOD 

Energy Siting Clearinghouse, which will monitor energy project compatibility and gather compatibility evaluations from the Navy and the other 

Services. Compatibility reviews will include consideration of all potential 

conflicts with military missions and activities from wind farm development. 

• Through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement’s (BOEMRE) Renewable Energy State Task Force process, the 

Navy and OSD evaluate areas of the outer continental shelf for renewable 

energy opportunities, while minimizing potential conflict with training and 

operational missions. For example, Navy and OSD successfully liaised with 

BOEMRE to prevent leasing operational range space in the VACAPES operating area, Atlantic Test Range, and Atlantic Coast Warning Areas, to 

preserve critical offshore training and testing operational areas. 

186. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, Section 358 of the NDAA for Fiscal 

Year 2011 gives DOD 30 days to assess renewable energy proposals that have unacceptable impacts on military operations. In response to a recent request for information from my office, the Air Force stated that, ‘‘proposals that are found to present 

significant operational impacts will be hard-pressed to meet the new requirements 

within 30 days.’’ Do the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 provisions provide the Navy 

with adequate time to conduct a thorough analysis and make informed objections 

to proposed wind farm developments, when necessary, because of impacts on military operations? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 provisions provide Navy 

with enough time to do a preliminary assessment of the impact. Thirty days is not 

enough time to conduct a thorough analysis of whether the proposal creates an ‘‘unacceptable risk to national security.’’ The NDAA does not require this latter finding 

within 30 days. 

Section 358(e)(1) of the 2011 NDAA gives DOD 30 days to conduct a ‘‘Preliminary 

Assessment.’’ This document would assess the level of risk of adverse impact on 

military operations and readiness that would arise from the project and discuss the 

extent of mitigation that may be needed to address such risk. I believe this can be 

done in the 30 days. 

Section 358(e)(2) sets forth procedures under which DOD could make a ‘‘Determination of Unacceptable Risk’’ regarding a proposed energy project. Such a determination can only be made upon a finding of ‘‘unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.’’ In contrast to a Preliminary Assessment, this section 

has no time limit. However, I recognize the national interests in developing renewable power and will strive to conduct a thorough and timely analysis when a complete assessment is required. 

In 2006, the ‘‘Report to the Congressional Defense Committees, The Effect of 

Windmill Farms on Military Readiness,’’ informed Congress that among other 

things, site and project specific studies are required for complete analysis of impacts 

and of potential mitigations. This is not possible in 30 days. The 2006 study is available online at www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/windfarmreport.pdf. 

187. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, do the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 provisions take into account the electromagnetic effects of wind turbines on radar systems and provide adequate protection for Navy-owned radars and other sensors? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The 2011 NDAA provisions account for the electromagnetic 

effects of wind turbines on radar systems by asking for an assessment of the risk 

associated with electromagnetic interference on military readiness, including the effects on testing and evaluation ranges. However, the provisions also establish a very 

high standard for DOD objection to a proposed renewable energy project, requiring 

a finding of ‘‘adverse effect on national security.’’ Once DOD makes such a determination, the provisions do not empower either the DOD or the FAA to prevent construction of wind turbines based on that finding. The current FAA process only provides for notice of hazard. 

188. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, when a wind farm is proposed, an application must be submitted to the FAA. In response, the FAA determines whether 

or not a hazard to aviation exists. However, in its review process, the FAA fails to 

take into account the electromagnetic effects of wind turbines on radar systems 

when the proposed wind farm would be within line of sight of a military radar 

tower. In your opinion, does the FAA’s ‘‘OE/AAA’’ process need to be revised to acVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00430 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
425 

count for the impact of electromagnetic (or any other) interference on airport surveillance and long-range radars? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I am interested in coordinating with the FAA to revise the 

OE/AAA process to improve electromagnetic effect screening tools for military airport surveillance radars and update military airport obstruction criteria to ensure 

Special Use Airspace and Military Training Routes are properly identified. The FAA 

OE/AAA process provides for a review of proposed construction projects and makes 

a hazard determination for projects evaluated as a navigational safety hazard. Although impacts of interference on airport surveillance and long-range radars are 

considered during the evaluation process, it is limited to navigational safety, rather 

than preserving military airspace needed for unique training requirements such as 

low-level training routes or student jet pilot training. This includes military and 

special use airspace, not associated with airports or runways, but is critical to Navy 

training and readiness. 

189. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, there is clear evidence that the electromagnetic effect of wind turbines can have a negative impact on the military’s ability 

to conduct air operations. Does the Navy believe that some form of Military Impact 

Statements (MIS) should be required for renewable energy projects? If so, what 

would be the most appropriate time in the certification process to require the MIS? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Several studies indicate that electromagnetic effects from 

wind turbines could adversely affect Navy’s ability to conduct air missions. Some 

form of MIS should be included as part of the siting process for renewable energy 

projects. Our experience with the BOEMRE process in assessing offshore mineral 

and wind energy development leasing blocks shows that many areas can be compatible for development if certain conditions can be met. In some instances, it can be 

as little as moving one or two wind turbines in a project, or as substantial as blocking off large areas. While there is not a single process for approving renewable energy projects, early notification is critical. Navy must be able to provide an initial 

assessment, and then be allowed additional time and resources to conduct compatibility analyses if the process is to maximize available wind resources without impacting military readiness. The Navy would like to work with DOD to develop a 

screening tool that would show which areas within which wind turbine development 

could be excluded. 

190. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, what type of mandatory information 

would be most appropriate for inclusion in the MIS? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. A MIS would be an entirely new process and set of requirements. A proper recommendation of what should be included requires significant coordination throughout Navy and the other Services. Fundamentally, the MIS should 

contain an assessment by all branches of the military of a proposed project’s impact 

on training, testing, and operations. The exact elements of a MIS must consider the 

level of effort and resourcing that will be required, and should provide a proportionate legal mechanism capable of preventing incompatible construction. I appreciate any opportunity to assist in developing or reviewing such a concept. 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

191. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, compared to the F–35A and F–35B, the 

aircraft carrier variant F–35C has received relatively little attention in the media 

as of late. It is my understanding that we will see the first F–35C operational 

squadron in 2015. This critical platform will replace aging F–18s and soon become 

the backbone of the Navy’s Tactical Aviation Enterprise. Please provide an update 

on this critical variant of the JSF and its importance to the future of our Navy. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The first F–35C SDD aircraft (CF–1) delivered to NAS, Patuxent River in November and has been actively clearing the flight envelope, demonstrating flight to just above supersonic and an altitude of 30,000 feet. As of early 

March, CF–1 has flown a total of 40 sorties for 59 hours. The next two F–35C aircraft are also expected to be delivered to NAS Patuxent River by the summer of 

2011. 

Testing and analysis model verification also continues with F–35C variant specific 

ground testing. Drop testing of the ground test article, CG–1, has demonstrated carrier landings up to 26.4 feet per second and has been reconfigured to conduct static 

testing of the F–35C aircraft. Static testing of the aircraft catapult and arrestment 

has been completed. These tests support our early efforts toward ship integration 

and lay the foundation for jet blast deflector and other ship suitability testing this 

summer at Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) Lakehurst. This series of tests 

426 

fully transitions our focus on F–35 air/ship integration as we strive to refine analysis and validate with formal test results. To date, there are no known air/ship integration issues which we cannot overcome. 

The Navy remains committed to the JSF program. The F–35C will provide the 

Carrier Strike Group commanders a survivable, ‘‘day-one’’ strike capability in a denied access environment with the tactical agility and strategic flexibility to counter 

a broad spectrum of threats and win in operational scenarios that cannot be addressed by current legacy aircraft. While the overall F–35 program has been challenged this past year, the Navy strongly supports the F–35 program as an essential 

element to our long-term national security and the future backbone of combat airsuperiority and the core of Navy and Marine Corps Aviation. 

192. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead, when do you expect to conduct carrier 

testing of the F–35C, and what obstacles might it encounter during this testing? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The F–35C carrier suitability testing will be conducted using 

multiple F–35C test assets aboard a CVN. Test planning continues to be refined 

based on the overall program restructure, but shipboard testing will be conducted 

in three phases. The first is expected to occur in May 2013 with test aircraft CF– 

3 and CF–5. Subsequent test periods will investigate ever increasing carrier-based 

operations and are scheduled approximately 1 year apart in order to more completely expand the F–35C operational envelope. 

One focus area will be to collect environmental data surrounding the jet blast deflectors (JBD). The thermal impacts of the JSF on the CVN are currently being 

studied by modeling exhaust impacts on the JBD and flight deck systems. Preliminary data is positive and indicates additional ship-based cooling infrastructure may 

not be necessary. The land-based testing at NAES Lakehurst is necessary to validate modeling and determine the scope of shipboard modifications. 

193. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, due to the limited 

space aboard Navy ships, it is vital to consider the size and weight of equipment 

that is brought on board. The fate of the F136, the extra engine for the JSF is still 

in question. However, if its development continues, it is possible that the Navy 

might eventually be forced to carry two different engines and the accompanying support equipment aboard its aircraft carriers, instead of just the one. What issues, if 

any, might an extra engine cause on an aircraft carrier, where space is limited? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The F135 and F136 engines constitute two different designs 

by two different manufacturers. While the F136 engine would be interchangeable, 

there are several engine components that are not interchangeable. The Fan, Gear 

Box, and Power Section modules are unique by F135 and F136 propulsion systems. 

Only the Augmenter and Exhaust Nozzle modules are common by F–35 variant. 

Supporting two engines would require unique spares, unique support equipment, 

and unique training. The JSF specification only requires engines to perform to specified criteria and physically fit into the F–35. Maintenance/repair technical requirements are different, requiring different instructions and training with differences in 

assembly hardware and special tools for off-aircraft repair. 

The large size of the F135 and F136 (approximately 18.7 feet and weighs ∼9,300 

lbs in its container) necessitates greater sparing aboard ships as neither the assembled engine nor the power section module can currently be replenished underway. 

Similarly, due to the weight and height of critical engine spares, it is not feasible 

to store all JSF engine spares in legacy store-rooms or stack them aboard ships as 

is done for legacy system. This would necessitate work-around in hangar deck 

spaces normally reserved to store and maintain tactical aircraft. Adding an alternate engine makes the shipboard logistics even more challenging as it is not a onefor-one exchange. 

General AMOS. The JSF engine is the largest tactical fighter engine in size and 

overall logistics footprint (LFP) in the history of DOD. In comparison to the Model 

F414 engine of the F/A–18E/F, the F135 engine of an F–35 is approximately twice 

its size. While the performance of the F135 engine brings significant performance 

gains and warfighting advantage for the JSF, it also presents a logistical challenge 

for all the Services, which perhaps is most pronounced in the Navy and Marine 

Corps, whose aircraft for expeditionary operations are housed in already constrained 

spaces aboard L-class amphibious shipping and CVN aircraft carriers. 

The Navy has indicated that the implementation of two JSF engines onboard aircraft carriers is suboptimal due to increased operational LFPs. Both JSF engines 

are currently too large to fit within the aviation bulk storage or jet shop, and so 

there is a resulting LFP challenge posed to existing hangar deck space. The LFP 

problem compounds in cases where both the F135 and F136 engines would be afloat 

on the same ship given that each engine has unique support equipment and tools, 

427 

increasing the required LFP. Storing and supporting two engines would negatively 

affect hangar bay aircraft spotting and maintenance operations. 

EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE

194. Senator CORNYN. General Amos, the fiscal year 2012 DOD budget request 

seeks to halt the EFV program. It is my understanding that, in its place, the Marine 

Corps would pursue three separate acquisition efforts: (1) the creation of a New Amphibious Vehicle; (2) the service life extension and improvement of the AAV; and 

(3) the acceleration of the MPC. Please list the order of priority on these three efforts? What is your general vision for these efforts and how they will complement 

each other? 

General AMOS. As we move forward, we intend to mitigate risks associated with 

a new vehicle program and to maximize value by using an integrated acquisition 

portfolio approach. This approach will have three efforts: (1) an acceleration of the 

planned procurement of MPC; (2) investment in a SLEP and upgrades for a portion 

of the existing AAVs; and (3) the development of a new ACV. 

From an investment perspective and understanding the imperative for a modern 

amphibious vehicle capability, the ACV emerges as our priority effort. From the perspective of current operations and near-term relevance, the AAV SLEP is a nearterm operational priority. We must upgrade a portion of the current inventory of 

AAVs now in order to provide a more survivable capability until the ACV is fielded. 

The complementary capability to achieve greater protection for our forces is the 

MPC. 

The ACV and the MPC represent the modern and enduring capability solution. 

The ACV will provide the surface amphibious assault capability and will be the 

heavy armored combat vehicle during sustained operations ashore. The MPC will 

provide armored mobility for the reinforcing element of the amphibious assault and 

also will provide armor protected mobility during sustained operations ashore. As 

the MPC is a wheeled vehicle, we envision it as a versatile platform capable of employment across the range of military operations and in urban settings. It will incorporate the high levels of underbody protection needed in an irregular warfare environment. Together, the ACV and MPC will satisfy our lift requirement to support 

12 Infantry Battalions—8 Battalions supported by ACV and 4 by MPC. 

SHIP RECYCLING

195. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, Navy ship recycling creates local jobs in places like South Texas, provides materials for construction, stimulates local economies, and provides the government with economic incentive and a best value solution. In the last year, the Navy has released seven ships 

for recycling. However, in the fiscal year 2012 budget request, only one Navy ship 

is slated for recycling. At a time when Congress is looking to maximize each and 

every taxpayers’ dollar, how much funding would go to maintain the Navy’s socalled ghost Fleet under the fiscal year 2012 budget request? 

Mr. MABUS. The fiscal year 2012 budget request for conventionally powered ship 

disposal focuses on the dismantling of the aircraft carrier ex-Forrestal (AVT–59). 

The Navy also plans to dismantle other ships under sales contracts solicited through 

the General Services Administration (GSA) for combatant ships and the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD) for merchant-type vessels. Using the budget for ship disposal, the Navy will continue to provide full-time, on-site surveillance of ship dismantling awarded under sales contracts. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for conventionally powered ship disposal focuses on the dismantling of the aircraft carrier ex-Forrestal (AVT–59). However, the 

Navy also plans to dismantle non-carriers under sales contracts solicited through 

GSA for combatant ships and the MARAD for merchant-type vessels. Using the 

budget for ship disposal, the Navy will continue to provide full-time, onsite surveillance of ship dismantling awarded under sales contracts. 

As of March 30, 2011, the Navy’s inventory of conventionally-powered inactive 

ships consists of 49 ships. Of this number, 14 are designated for dismantling, consisting of 4 aircraft carriers, 6 combatant ships, and 4 merchant-type ships. Of the 

remaining inventory, 10 are retention assets for possible future reactivation, 11 are 

designated for foreign military transfer, 3 are logistic support assets to support the 

Active Fleet, 7 are available for donation as a museum/memorial, and 4 are designated as targets for Fleet training exercises. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget is $10.6 million for operation of the governmentowned, contractor-operated inactive ship maintenance facilities at Philadelphia, PA, 

428 

Bremerton, WA, and Pearl Harbor, HI; the maintenance of those inactive ships in 

conformance with environmental laws and CNO policies; and the maintenance of 

eight Navy-owned vessels at MARAD’s Beaumont, TX, Reserve Fleet and two Navyowned vessels at MARAD’s Suisun Bay, CA, Reserve Fleet. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The fiscal year 2012 budget is $10.6 million for operation of 

the government-owned, contractor-operated inactive ship maintenance facilities at 

Philadelphia, PA, Bremerton, WA, and Pearl Harbor, HI, and the maintenance of 

eight Navy-owned ships at MARAD’s Beaumont, TX, Reserve Fleet and two Navyowned ships at MARAD’s Suisun Bay, CA, Reserve Fleet. The maintenance of those 

inactive ships is in conformance with environmental laws and CNO policies. 

As of March 30, 2011, the Navy’s inventory of conventionally-powered inactive 

ships consists of 49 ships. Of this number, 14 are designated for dismantling, consisting of 4 aircraft carriers, 6 combatant ships, and 4 merchant-type ships. Of the 

remaining inventory, 10 are retention assets for possible future reactivation, 11 are 

designated for foreign military transfer, 3 are logistic support assets to support the 

Active Fleet, 7 are available for donation as a museum/memorial, and 4 are designated as targets for Fleet training exercises. 

196. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, would it not be 

more cost-effective for the Navy to release more ships for recycling in the near future? 

Mr. MABUS and Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Navy must reduce the inactive ships inventory in a cost-effective manner while maintaining strict compliance with environmental and occupational safety regulations. Maintaining ships in the inactive inventory drains fiscal resources while not contributing to operational readiness. Of the 

14 conventionally-powered ships designated for dismantling 4 carriers and 2 noncarriers are ready for solicitation. The Navy is actively pursuing getting these six 

ships under contract for dismantlement. 

The Navy is currently soliciting the dismantling of ex-Saratoga (CV–60), the first 

Forrestal-class aircraft carrier to be dismantled. Forrestal-class aircraft carriers 

have classified side protection systems in the structure of the hulls, requiring a dismantling contractor to obtain a confidential facility security clearance, its employees 

must be U.S. citizens, and its employees having access to classified areas of the ship 

must obtain confidential security clearances. The Navy will incorporate lessons 

learned from the results of this solicitation into plans for the dismantling of three 

additional aircraft carriers currently designated for dismantling. The request for 

proposal for dismantling ex-Saratoga (CV–60) is anticipated to be a fiscal year 2011 

award utilizing fiscal year 2011 O&MN budgeted funding. 

Among the 10 non-carriers in the inventory that are designated for dismantling, 

2 ships recently completed disposal preparations (including equipment stripping) 

and are ready for solicitation. The remainder are not yet ready for solicitation; two 

were recently removed from active service and are completing inactivation work; 

four are undergoing equipment stripping to support Active Fleet requirements; one 

was recently redesignated from a logistic support asset and is undergoing disposal 

preparations; and one is subject to a recently executed Memorandum of Agreement 

with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation addressing stipulations to mitigate the adverse effects of the Navy’s plan to dismantle the ship. 

A 5-year Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract (non-carrier) expired in July 2010. The Navy is developing contracting strategies for dismantling 

of additional non-carrier inactive ships, utilizing GSA sales contracting officers for 

combatant ships and MARAD sales contracting for non-combatant ships. Agreements with GSA and MARAD are not yet finalized. 

As of March 30, 2011, the Navy’s inventory of conventionally-powered inactive 

ships consists of 49 ships. The inactive ships inventory at the end of fiscal year 2012 

is projected to be 42. This is a significant reduction from the peak of nearly 200 

inactive ships in 1997 and considering the additions to the inventory resulting from 

ship decommissionings since 1997. 

Of the current inventory of 49 ships, 14 are designated for dismantling, 10 are 

retention assets for possible future reactivation, 11 are designated for foreign military transfer, 3 are logistic support assets to support the Active Fleet, 7 are available for donation as a museum/memorial, and 4 are designated as targets for Fleet 

training exercises. 

[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(429) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in room 

SD–G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin 

(chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Akaka, 

Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, 

McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, and 

Collins. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 

Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Creighton Greene, professional staff 

member; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; and Jason W. 

Maroney, counsel. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Christian D. Brose, professional staff member; Pablo E. 

Carrillo, minority investigative counsel; Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member; and Christopher J. Paul, professional staff 

member. 

Staff assistants present: Christine G. Lang, Brian F. Sebold, and 

Breon N. Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator 

Akaka; Ann Premer, assistant to Senator Nelson; Patrick Day, assistant to Senator Webb; Casey Howard, assistant to Senator 

Udall; Michael Harney, assistant to Senator Hagan; Joanne 

McLaughlin, assistant to Senator Manchin; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator 

Sessions; Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Joseph 

Lai, assistant to Senator Wicker; Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; and Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

430 

I want to welcome our witnesses here today, Secretary Donley 

and General Schwartz. They are coming back to the committee this 

morning to testify on the plans and programs of the Air Force and 

our review of the fiscal year 2012 annual budget and Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCO) requests. 

Gentlemen, please extend, on behalf of the committee, our gratitude to the men and women of the Air Force and their families for 

the many sacrifices that they have made on behalf of our Nation. 

Thanks to both of you for your long careers of leadership and service. 

We are truly mindful this morning, as we meet here, of the terrible devastation that the Japanese people have experienced with 

the earthquake and the tsunami that struck that nation. Our 

thoughts and our prayers go out to them. Such incidents remind 

us just how indiscriminate natural disasters can be, and they provide us the opportunity to once again demonstrate America’s commitment to support our valued ally in the Pacific. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has already been providing 

support to the Japanese people, and that effort will increase over 

the coming weeks. We know that the Air Force has played a critical 

role in supporting previous relief efforts around the world, and that 

is the case again in Japan. 

We applaud those efforts. This committee stands ready to work 

with DOD to ensure that the Department, and the Air Force as 

part of that Department, is able to continue to provide support to 

this critical humanitarian disaster response effort in the weeks and 

the months ahead. 

We are also very mindful that DOD maintains a number of facilities in Japan, including Air Force bases in Yokota, Misawa, and 

Kadena. These bases provide opportunities for U.S. Forces to support the government and the people of Japan. But we are also concerned about the safety of our own service personnel and their families that are stationed there, and we hope that you will tell us 

more about the situation this morning from your perspective and 

based on what you know. 

There is a number of ongoing critical issues that confront the Air 

Force. We know that the Air Force is providing forces to the U.S. 

Central Command’s (CENTCOM) war efforts in a number of traditional roles but is also providing airmen in support of land component tasks. So, we expect this morning to hear about how the Air 

Force is supporting these current operations while preparing its 

forces to deal with other demands and with future demands. 

This committee has sought to ensure that our combatant commanders have what they need to succeed in those conflicts, including technologies to counter improvised explosive devices and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets. This committee will continue to support the needs of our warfighters in 

those conflicts. 

I would note that, in particular, the new budget will continue the 

expansion of ISR orbits within the theater, with the goal of achieving 65 orbits in fiscal year 2013. Each orbit consists of two to three 

air vehicles and the appropriate ground support equipment necessary to operate them. 

431 

The committee has been pressing DOD in general and the Air 

Force in particular to field more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 

for at least the last 15 years and has regularly provided additional 

funds for that purpose. I should note the fact that General 

Schwartz has been taking extra steps to accelerate that fielding by 

altering Air Force approaches to pilot training and accelerating 

production of Predator and Reaper UAVs. 

The Air Force has included funding in its fiscal year 2012 budget 

request to begin a new bomber program that will be both conventional and nuclear capable. The goal is to utilize mature technologies to increase the likelihood that the new bomber is fielded 

on time and on budget. 

In addition, the Air Force has proposed to reduce a small number 

of B–1 bombers, while modernizing and sustaining all three bomber 

aircraft, the B–1, B–2, and B–52. The committee needs a detailed 

explanation of this new proposal to develop a new long-range strike 

system. 

After a significant number of failures a few years ago, the Air 

Force has refocused on managing nuclear forces. The Global Strike 

Command is now in place to do that. There has been a lot of hard 

work on the part of dedicated professionals, but recent incidents 

have shown that the force structure itself needs attention. We are 

interested in the plans to improve the critical nuclear infrastructure. 

The Air Force has made some recent changes to deal with the 

management of space programs, including bringing acquisition of 

space programs under the regular Air Force acquisition process. In 

reviewing the cost of buying space programs, however, it has become clear that a different approach needs to be developed to prevent these programs from becoming unaffordable. 

The committee has encouraged the Air Force to look at ways to 

buy space systems that reduce cost and technical risks in these 

very complicated systems. To that end, the Air Force is evaluating 

a variety of approaches that might achieve the cost savings and 

program stability goals, and we look forward to receiving a proposal and any legislation needed to implement it. I expect that we 

will be hearing more about the Air Force’s current thinking on that 

issue as well this morning. 

Another acquisition challenge, which is facing the Air Force, is 

the stretching out of production lines which delay modernization 

programs. Foremost among these is the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 

program. 

Given recent identification of additional troubles and delays with 

the system design and demonstration phase of the JSF program by 

the new program manager, the Air Force is apparently responding 

by extending the service lives for existing fighters, including the F– 

16 and the F–15 fighter fleets, and we need to hear more about 

that. 

One acquisition program that appears to be moving forward as 

planned is the Strategic Tanker Modernization Program. The Air 

Force determined a winner of the tanker competition in late February, and apparently, the other bidder is not protesting the contract award. 

432 

We look forward to receiving more details from the Air Force this 

morning on its plans for executing that program. 

Underlying all of these major acquisition concerns is an acquisition management issue. Secretary Donley, we hope that you will 

tell us this morning about your efforts to bolster the numbers within and the quality of the Air Force Acquisition Corps. 

Part of improving the acquisition process is an extensive effort 

to hire additional acquisition personnel, including additional technically qualified personnel, so that the Air Force will be a smart 

buyer of weapon systems and provide better oversight of the contractors. We would also like to hear how that effort is progressing 

and whether or not it has been impacted by recent hiring and salary freezes. 

The Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 

has required DOD to make significant changes in its regulations 

and procedures governing the acquisition system. But this legislation will fully address past problems only if there are concerted efforts within the executive branch to implement that legislation and 

improve past behavior within DOD. 

We look forward to hearing how the Air Force is proceeding to 

implement the provisions of the WSARA. 

On the subject of current operations, a significant readiness concern continues to be the inadequate levels at which the Air Force 

funds their weapon system sustainment accounts. For several years 

now, the Air Force has funded these accounts at less than 100 percent of the stated requirement. It is my understanding that the fiscal year 2012 budget request only provides for meeting 84 percent 

of the sustainment requirement, even if we include the OCO funding in the base budget request. 

During last year’s budget review cycle, this committee authorized 

additional resources for sustainment that were identified as an unfunded requirement by General Schwartz. So we will be interested 

in hearing from our witnesses what maintenance and readiness 

shortfalls exist, if any, for the Air Force and what amount of funding would be needed to address any potential backlogs, along with 

any plans and cost to address readiness shortfalls during the budget year and the rest of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning and 

thank you for their outstanding service. 

I had planned this morning to ask questions concerning the tanker program and the recent decision there, our continued frustration 

concerning the F–35 JSF—I understand there is another setback 

because of an oil leak—the Advanced Extremely High Frequency 

Satellite program, and the Global Hawk program and others. 

But I am going to seize this opportunity this morning to try to 

find out what the capability of the U.S. Air Force is in order to impose a no-fly, no-drive program, course of action over Libya. 

We are seeing the momentum and the success of Muammar 

Gaddafi and his killers massacring people while we sit idly by. One 

of the arguments used is that we somehow can’t do it, despite the 

433 

fact that General Odierno just a few days ago said that it would 

take a very short period of time in order to impose a no-fly zone. 

I want to know about the assets we have in the region, our bases 

at Aviano and in Sicily, and our capabilities there. Let us have no 

illusion about what is happening in Libya. 

This morning’s L.A. Times carries a story concerning the government troops’ attack on Ajdabiya, one of the towns closer to 

Benghazi. A woman said, ‘‘The shelling went on until 3 a.m. When 

it stopped, we saw people dead in the streets and cars destroyed. 

There were snipers on rooftops with red lasers on their guns, and 

they shot teenage boys who raised their arms.’’ 

A massacre is about to take place if the Libyan forces take 

Benghazi. I think the American people deserve to know what 

course of action we are going to take. I understand the United 

States finally, following the leadership of France and Britain, is 

going to the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council today. 

I think the American people need to know what our capabilities 

are. Obviously, the imposition of such a restriction or attempt to 

stem the tide of Gaddafi and his murderers is dependent upon our 

air assets, as well as our naval assets. 

So when it comes time for my questioning, Mr. Chairman, I will 

want to know from the Chief of Staff and the Secretary what we 

can do and how quickly in order to try to prevent at the 11th hour 

the fall of Benghazi, which would effectively allow Gaddafi to obtain an overwhelming victory when the President of the United 

States’ stated policy is that Gaddafi must go. 

So I thank the witnesses. General, I hope you are prepared to 

give us a little straight talk on what we can do, if necessary, to prevent the massacre that is taking place as we speak. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

I understand we have a briefing also for all Senators this afternoon, which will involve DOD personnel, as well as State Department personnel. I don’t know that the location has been set, but 

I believe the time is 2 p.m. 

Secretary Donley? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, SECRETARY OF 

THE AIR FORCE 

Secretary DONLEY. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Senator 

McCain, members of the committee. 

It is a pleasure to be with you today, representing more than 

690,000 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen. I am 

also honored to be here with my teammate and a tireless public 

servant, General Norty Schwartz. 

We are pleased to report that America’s Air Force continues to 

provide the Nation’s unmatched global vigilance, reach, and power 

as part of the joint team, with an uncompromising commitment to 

our core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all 

we do. 

We are requesting $150 billion in our baseline budget for fiscal year 2012 and $16 billion in the OCO supplemental appropriation 

to support this work. This budget represents a careful balance of 

resources among Air Force core functions necessary to implement 

434 

the President’s national security strategy and between today’s operations and investment for the future. 

Before discussing our fiscal year 2012 budget request, I would 

like to address some unfinished business from fiscal year 2011 and 

also set in context the changes in your Air Force over the last several years. 

First, operating without a defense appropriation bill in fiscal 

year 2011 is having a significant impact on our Air Force. The decision to extend the continuing resolution at fiscal year 2010 levels 

through the remainder of this year will delay our ability to reach 

and sustain the Secretary of Defense’s directed goal of 65 MQ–1/ 

9 combat air patrols by 2013 in support of operations in Afghanistan. 

It will cause a production break and a likely increase in the unit 

cost of the Wideband Global Satellite Communications Satellite, 

the F–15 radar modernization, and other programs. Deeper reductions to our modernization programs would be required to fund 

over $4 billion in must-pay bills for urgent operational needs in Afghanistan and Iraq, for military healthcare, and the military pay 

raise of 1.4 percent, which Congress authorized but has not funded. 

Without fiscal year 2011 appropriations, we face delay or cancellation of some depot maintenance, weapon system sustainment, 

and other day-to-day activities in order to prioritize our most critical needs under the lower funding levels in a full-year continuing 

resolution. 

Finally, fiscal year 2011 appropriations are also required for 75 

military construction projects now on hold, which support ongoing 

operational needs and improve the quality of life for airmen and 

their families. Passing a fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations 

bill is essential to avoid these severe disruptions, and we appreciate the efforts currently underway by members of this committee 

and others to resolve this situation. 

Over the past decade, the Air Force has substantially reshaped 

itself to meet the immediate needs of today’s conflicts and position 

itself for the future. While we have grown in some critical areas, 

it has been at the expense of others. 

We have added ISR capacity with 328 remotely piloted aircraft 

(RPA) and over 6,000 airmen to collect, process, exploit, and disseminate intelligence. We have added over 17 aircraft and over 

2,400 airmen to bolster special operations capacity necessary in the 

counterinsurgency operations we now face. 

We have added over 160 F–22s now and 120 C–17s to our inventory. We have funded over 30 satellites and added 2,200 airmen for 

critical nuclear and cyber operations and acquisition support. 

In this same period, however, we have retired over 1,500 legacy 

aircraft. We have canceled or truncated procurement of major acquisition programs. We have shed manpower in career fields less 

critical for the fight and deferred much-needed military construction in order to balance these capabilities within the resources 

available. 

In all, during the last 7 years, the size of the Active Duty Air 

Force has been reduced from 359,000 in 2004 to about 333,000 

today. The Air Force’s baseline budget, when adjusted for inflation 

435 

and setting aside the annual wartime supplemental appropriations, 

has remained flat. 

Looking ahead, we face a multiyear effort to recapitalize our 

aging tanker, fighter, bomber, and missile forces; to continue modernizing critical satellite constellations and meet dynamic requirements in the cyber domain; and replace aging airframes for pilot 

training and presidential support. 

We continue to recognize the requirement for fiscal constraint 

and are committed to remaining good stewards of every taxpayer 

dollar, improving management and oversight at every opportunity. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request incorporates over $33 billion 

in efficiencies across the FYDP, which will be shifted to higher priority combat capability by reducing overhead costs, improving business practices, and eliminating excess troubled or lower priority 

programs. 

By consolidating selected organizational structures, improving 

our processes in acquisition, procurement, and logistics support, 

and streamlining operations, we have been able to increase investment in core functions, such as global precision attack, integrated 

ISR, and space and air superiority, reducing risk by adding tooth 

through savings in tail. 

We are fully committed to implementing these planned efficiencies, and I have already assigned responsibilities to senior officials and put in place the management structure to oversee this 

work and track progress on a regular basis. Having faced the need 

to reshape our force structure and capabilities within constrained 

manpower and resources over the past several years, we do not 

view the current need for efficiencies as a singular event, but as 

an essential and continuing element of prudent management in the 

Air Force. 

Our investment priorities remain consistent with minimizing risk 

and maximizing effectiveness and efficiency across the full spectrum of potential conflict. Proceeding with development and production of the KC–46 tanker aircraft, implementing the JSF restructuring, meeting the combatant commanders’ need for more 

ISR, investing in the long-range strike family of systems, including 

a new penetrating bomber, and enhancing space control and situational awareness all remain critical capabilities for both today’s 

and tomorrow’s Air Force. 

In addition to these investments, we will continue to address 

challenges in readiness—in particular the slow, but persistent decline in materiel readiness most notable in our nondeployed 

forces—and the personnel challenges across 28 stressed officer and 

enlisted career fields, both of which are the result of today’s high 

operational tempo. 

Of course, we will continue to support our Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen and their families with quality housing, 

healthcare, schools, and community support. 

With respect to healthcare, I would like to convey the Air Force’s 

support for DOD’s TRICARE reforms that will modestly increase 

premiums for working-age retirees, premiums that have not 

changed since they were initially set in 1995. Going forward, we 

must continue to seek and develop reforms in the benefits that our 

436 

men and women in uniform earn to make them economically sustainable over the long term. 

Mr. Chairman, good stewardship of the Air Force is a responsibility that General Schwartz and I take very seriously. We remain 

grateful for the continued support and service of each member of 

this committee, and we look forward to answering any questions 

you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Donley and General 

Schwartz follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. MICHAEL B. DONLEY AND GEN. NORTON A. 

SCHWARTZ, USAF 

INTRODUCTION

The United States faces diverse and complex security challenges that require a 

range of agile and flexible capabilities. From the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, to potential confrontation with aggressive state and non-state actors, to 

providing humanitarian assistance, the U.S. Air Force continues to provide capabilities across the full spectrum of potential military operations. The Air Force’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request aims for balance and versatility to meet the demands of 

this environment. We believe the request enables our efforts to prevail in today’s 

wars, prevent and deter conflict, and prepare to defeat adversaries across the range 

of military operations—all the while preserving and enhancing the All-Volunteer 

Force. 

We remain mindful of our Nation’s budgetary challenges and fiscal constraints, 

because fiscal responsibility is a national security imperative. This environment requires that we balance our capabilities between current combat operations and the 

need to address emerging threats and challenges. We continue to pursue cost-effective systems that leverage existing capabilities and maximize interoperability and 

integration of legacy and future systems. The commitment of the Air Force to collectively discern, access and provide tailored and scalable effects with Global Vigilance, 

Reach, and Power virtually anywhere in the world is reflected in our acquisition priorities. These priorities are: 

• Tanker Recapitalization (KC–X); 

• Joint Strike Fighter (F–35) Restructure and F–16 Service Life Extension 

Program (SLEP); 

• Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems; 

• Long-Range Strike Family of Systems; and 

• Space Systems and Launch Capability Acquisition Strategy. 

Global Vigilance is the ability to provide surveillance around the world. As the 

demand for ISR continues to grow, the Air Force is aggressively fielding enhanced 

ISR capability and capacity across the widest range of military operations to counter 

threats and defeat our adversaries. The Air Force will continue to enhance space 

control and situational awareness capabilities, as well as space management, to ensure we operate effectively in the increasingly competitive, congested and contested 

space domain. This includes implementing the Evolutionary Acquisition for Space 

Efficiency (EASE) concept to drive down costs, improve stability in the fragile space 

industrial base, invest in technology that will lower risk for future programs, and 

achieve efficiencies through block buys of satellites. There is also an ongoing collaboration between the Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to maintain a healthy industrial base to meet government launch and range requirements in an efficient 

manner. 

Global Reach is the ability to project capability responsively and advantageously 

without regard to distance. Air Force mobility assets are essential to Joint, Interagency and Coalition operations in peace and war as we provide critical supplies 

and personnel through strategic and tactical delivery—airlift and airdrop. Air refueling aircraft play an integral role by providing reach and persistence for aircraft 

to operate inter-theater and intra-theater, alike. As such, the procurement of the 

KC–X remains the top acquisition and recapitalization priority for the Air Force. 

Global Power is the ability to hold at risk any target in the world. The Air Force 

must continue to modernize and recapitalize our aircraft inventory to remain effective against global and regional competitors as they continue to modernize and imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00442 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
437 

prove their own air defense capabilities and harden valued targets. We will continue 

to work with Congress to enhance capabilities in our existing fighter and bomber 

fleets to mitigate delays in the F–35 development and procurement programs. One 

key to that mitigation effort is a focused F–16 SLEP. We must sustain our ability 

to consistently hold any target on the planet at risk with the development of a LongRange Strike Family of Systems capability—including a new penetrating bomber— 

to create desired effects across the full range of military operations in both permissive and contested environments. Lastly, a multi-faceted effort is underway to enhance our air superiority legacy fighters, maximize the capabilities of the F–22 fleet, 

invest in preferred air-to-air munitions, and optimize our electronic warfare systems. 

The Air Force must take the necessary steps today that will allow future generations to continue to provide consistent, credible, and effective air, space, and cyber 

capabilities on which our Nation depends. Our ability to do so is constrained by the 

increasing costs to design and build platforms and by the accelerating costs of personnel benefits and other must-pay operational bills in a particularly challenging 

budget environment. We will ensure we maximize combat capability out of each taxpayer dollar by identifying waste, implementing efficiencies, pursuing continuous 

process improvement initiatives and making smart investments. We will provide the 

necessary capability, capacity and versatility required to prevail today and in the 

future. 

Lastly, our fiscal year 2012 budget request recognizes the need to properly manage our force structure. We recognize that our most valuable assets—our people— 

are critical to achieving our broadest strategic goals, and our near- and far-term 

mission success is inextricably linked to the overall well-being of our airmen and 

their families. 

CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Operating without a defense appropriations bill in fiscal year 2011 is having a significant impact on the Air Force. Under a Continuing Resolution (CR), we are unable to raise procurement to requested levels in several critical areas. Constraining 

MQ–9 procurement to 24 aircraft versus the 48 requested will delay our ability to 

reach the Secretary of Defense’s directed goal of 65 MQ–1/9 Combat Air Patrols 

(CAPs) by 2013 in support of ongoing operations in Afghanistan. The inability to initiate a contract for the Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS)-7 satellite will cause a 

production break and a likely increase in unit cost. Production breaks and delayed 

procurements will also negatively affect the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile 

(JASSM), F–15 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, F–15 APG 63 

radar, and other programs. In addition to these impacts, deeper reductions to our 

modernization programs would be required to fund over $3 billion in must-pay bills 

for urgent operational needs in Afghanistan and Iraq, military healthcare, and the 

military pay raise of 1.4 percent, which was authorized by Congress and is being 

implemented, but was not funded. Fiscal year 2011 appropriations are also required 

for 75 military construction (MILCON) projects, now on hold, which support ongoing 

operational needs and improve the quality of life for Air Force personnel and their 

families. Lastly, the Air Force would have to delay or cancel some depot maintenance, weapon system sustainment and other day-to-day activities in order to 

prioritize our most critical needs under the lower funding levels in a full year CR. 

In summary, continuing the CR far beyond March 4 would severely impact program and budget execution in the Air Force, delaying modernization and causing 

significant restructuring and potential cost increases to many acquisition programs, 

and creating larger backlogs for maintenance and other operations. Passing a fiscal 

year 2011 defense appropriations bill is essential to avoid these severe disruptions. 

EFFICIENCIES AND ENHANCEMENTS

In June 2010, the Secretary of Defense challenged the Services to increase funding for mission activities by identifying efficiencies in overhead, support and other 

less mission-essential areas. The efficiency target for the Air Force was $28.3 billion 

across this Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The Air Force is committed to 

enhancing capabilities by reducing expenses allocated to overhead and support functions, while shifting resources to modernization and readiness programs. 

As part of the fiscal year 2012 budget, the Air Force exceeded our efficiency target 

by $5 billion and identified $33.3 billion in efficiencies in an effort to make resources 

available to better support warfighter and readiness programs across the FYDP. Examples of these efficiencies include: 

• Consolidating 3 Numbered Air Forces with colocated Major Command 

staff and consolidating the activities of 4 Air and Space Operations Centers 

438 

into 2, thereby achieving a redistribution of 347 military authorizations 

(228 in fiscal year 2012 and 119 in fiscal year 2013) across the FYDP and 

eliminating 212 civilian authorizations beginning in fiscal year 2013 which 

will save $100.1 million across the FYDP; 

• Consolidating installation support management to improve Air Forcewide standardization and prioritization; 

• Reallocating 5,600 active duty billets over the FYDP from lower priority 

support functions to higher priority, growth areas; 

• Saving more than $3 billion from anticipated growth in Weapon System 

Sustainment (WSS) portfolio efficiencies across the FYDP by reviewing 

operational requirements, depot processes and the sustainment of the supply chain without degrading operational capabilities or support to the 

warfighter; 

• Reducing fuel consumption within the Mobility Air Forces by leveraging 

proven commercial aviation practices for flight planning and weight reduction, and implementing other initiatives to save $715 million (net) across 

the FYDP; 

• Reducing acquisition costs by consolidating services, scrutinizing contracts, reducing contract support, and more efficiently using resources to 

deliver capabilities and support to the warfighter; 

• Reducing information technology costs by more than $1.2 billion over the 

FYDP by adopting DOD-level Enterprise Information Services including enterprise core services, consolidating and standardizing the network information technology infrastructure from nine Air Force and Air National Guard 

Regional Processing Centers to five centrally controlled centers, and migrating current and developmental applications, services and data to DOD-provided enterprise computing centers; and 

• Improving our procurement of satellites with a new acquisition strategy 

which, subject to congressional approval, will lower procurement costs and 

stabilize the defense industrial base. 

The realization of these efficiencies allowed the Air Force to reallocate funding to 

modernize and recapitalize weapons systems, improve capabilities and enhance 

warfighter operations. Examples of these enhancements include: 

• Investing in the Long-Range Strike Family of Systems, including a new 

penetrating bomber as a key component of the joint portfolio; 

• Investing an additional $3.5 billion to fund the Evolved Expendable 

Launch Vehicles (EELV) program to the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) Independent Cost Assessment, with the Department of Defense 

(DOD) committed to buying five boosters per year to meet national space 

launch requirements and stabilize the industrial base; 

• Repurposing 5,600 active duty billets over the FYDP to support ISR capability, U.S. Pacific Command force structure requirements, Total Force Integration, the U–2 continuation, building partnership capacity, increasing 

support to the Air Force District of Washington UH–1N mission, among 

other increases; 

• Procuring an additional 16 simulators for F–35 aircrew training bringing 

the total procurement to 30 simulators to ensure an effective training pipeline throughput and operational unit pilot proficiency and cost control; 

• Recapitalizing the aging Special Operations Forces MC–130H/W aircraft; 

• Improving the aircraft computer infrastructure of the B–52 to enable 

more rapid machine-to-machine retargeting; 

• Enhancing combat capability of the F–15C and F–15E with additional 

AESA radars and electronic protection software upgrades; 

• Continuing to fund the development of next-generation Global Positioning 

System (GPS) III Operational Control Segment; 

• Researching and developing electronic protection and suppression of 

enemy air defense (SEAD) capabilities for the F–22; 

• Transitioning MC–12W Liberty Project from Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding into the Air Force baseline budget beginning in fiscal 

year 2013; 

• Continuing maximized production of the MQ–9 Reaper to ensure delivery 

of 65 CAPs by the end of fiscal year 2013; 

• Extending U–2 operations through fiscal year 2015 to ensure a smooth 

high-altitude transition; and 

• Baselining the Air Sovereignty Alert program across the FYDP to solidify 

support to homeland security operations. 

439 

The Air Force leadership recognizes the importance of achieving planned efficiencies to avoid future bills and a negative impact to our mission and our airmen. 

We are taking a long-term view of this initiative and will address our efficiency targets annually to further refine and identify follow-on opportunities. We assigned responsibility for initiatives to individual senior leaders who are developing their detailed implementation plans to oversee our efforts. Quarterly executive-level reviews 

will monitor plans and progress, and ensure that efficiency initiatives do not inadvertently impact readiness, mission performance, or quality of life for our airmen. 

Our continuous process improvement program, Air Force Smart Operations for the 

21st Century (AFSO21), is well-established and provides our airmen with the tactics, techniques, and procedures to improve performance while achieving efficiencies. 

In order to ensure Air Force leadership has reliable and relevant financial information to monitor our efficiency goals, we are further emphasizing our work in Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness. In fiscal year 2012, the Air Force is 

dedicating $29 million to audit readiness and validation and $327 million to modernize our business systems. 

PERSONNEL AND READINESS

Mission effectiveness of the Air Force is linked to the overall well-being of our airmen and their families. The Air Force will continue to find innovative and efficient 

ways to provide and sustain programs that support our airmen and their families, 

including our critical civilian personnel. We must ensure programs and services foster a greater sense of community, strengthen a sense of belonging and value to the 

Air Force, and improve airman and family resiliency. 

As mission demands continue to evolve and budgets flatten, the Air Force is making key strategic choices to leverage the collective talent and experience of our Total 

Force. Through improved integration across the Total Force Enterprise of Active, 

Guard, and Reserve Forces, we are seeking greater Service-wide efficiencies and effectiveness to maximize combat capability for the joint warfighter. We are developing business case analyses to inform decisions on how best to structure Active and 

Reserve component relationships, especially in new areas. As missions such as cyber 

and dynamic battlefield ISR mature, so too will the Total Force investment in these 

areas. 

End Strength, Retention, and Recruiting 

The overall programmed Air Force end strength for fiscal year 2012 is more than 

690,000 personnel. This includes 332,800 active duty, 71,400 Reserve, 106,700 Air 

National Guard, and more than 182,000 civilian personnel. To support the efforts 

of our airmen and to recruit and retain the highest quality Air Force members, the 

fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $30.2 billion in military personnel funding 

and a military pay raise in fiscal year 2012 of 1.6 percent. 

The retention rates in the Air Force are the highest they have been in 16 years 

and recruiting has also been successful. Therefore, the $626.6 million requested in 

the fiscal year 2012 budget for recruiting and retention bonuses is highly targeted. 

Bonuses are proposed for specific career fields with critical wartime skills including 

pilots, control and recovery, intelligence, contracting, security forces, health professionals, civil engineering, special operations, and explosive ordnance disposal. 

In addition, the current economy has slowed attrition from the Air Force and had 

the effect of increasing active duty manning above planned levels. As a result, the 

Air Force is making difficult, but fiscally responsible decisions to implement force 

management programs that allow us to remain within authorized end strength ceilings. Specifically, we continue to progress toward an active duty end strength goal 

of 332,800 by the end of fiscal year 2012. To address excess end strength, particularly in the officer force, we will reduce accessions, continue to waive Active Duty 

Service Commitment and Time in Grade requirements for voluntary separations 

and retirements, continue to conduct enlisted Date of Separation rollbacks, and institute involuntary separation and retirement programs for officers through Selective Early Retirement, Reduction in Force and Force Shaping boards. We will also 

work with OSD to seek additional legislative authority to help the Air Force meet 

end strength ceilings by the end of fiscal year 2012 and maintain the appropriate 

level in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. 

Civilian Workforce 

The Secretary of Defense has limited our civilian workforce to fiscal year 2010 levels, with limited growth allowed for specific priorities like the acquisition workforce. 

This policy will require significant changes to previously planned civilian growth. 

The Air Force will also conduct an enterprise-wide review of civilian personnel end 

strength to facilitate DOD’s efforts for efficiencies and reinvestment possibilities. 

440 

Contractor Reductions 

The Air Force is looking at the way we utilize the contract workforce as we answer the Secretary of Defense’s challenge to find efficiencies and to reduce duplication, overhead, and excess, and reinforce our culture of efficiency and restraint 

across the Air Force. This will impact the service support contract workforce in the 

following areas: 

• Reduce our staff support contractor workforce by 10 percent per year, 

over the next 3 years in accordance with DOD’s guidance with an estimated 

fiscal year 2012 savings of $127 million; and 

• Reduce the funding for advisory studies by 25 percent from the fiscal year 

2010 levels over the FYDP with an estimated fiscal year 2012 savings of 

$41 million. 

The Air Force identified two other areas that will result in reductions to its headquarters contract workforce and release resources for warfighter use. These include: 

• Knowledge-based services estimated at $252 million in fiscal year 2012; 

and 

• Program Management Administration estimated at $191 million in fiscal 

year 2012. 

Man-Days 

Active Duty Operational Support days play a critical role in resourcing extended 

military operations. They allow for the active duty appropriation to pay for temporary use of National Guard and Reserve personnel to support military missions 

beyond the regular component’s capability. In support of the Secretary of Defense’s 

efficiency initiative, the Air Force reduces, by 1,250 work years, the Reserve component fiscal year 2012 man-day program that supports noncritical administrative and 

overhead activities. 

The demand for global mobility and related airlift support remains high in fiscal 

year 2012 as the Air Force will continue to support a large footprint in Afghanistan. 

The Air Force identified $1.4 billion to support fiscal year 2012 OCO requirements. 

Our reliance on the Total Force is by design, and we recognize and value the contributions of the members of the Reserve components who have performed tirelessly 

in support of our Nation. The Air Force will continue to prioritize Reserve component requirements prudently and in accordance with mission needs as we transition 

to a lower steady state tempo. 

Diversity 

The Air Force widened the aperture beyond traditional views of diversity, and defined it to include personal life experiences, geographic background, socioeconomic 

background, cultural knowledge, educational background, work background, language abilities, physical abilities, philosophical/spiritual perspectives, age, and more. 

We declared diversity a military necessity, as both a source of greater combat effectiveness and as means toward a force that more closely mirrors American society. 

Deliberate plans are being developed to attract, recruit, develop, and retain a more 

diverse force. 

Repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ 

The Air Force will execute the plan established by OSD for the effective implementation of the repeal of section 654 of title 10 of the U.S.C., known as ‘‘Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell.’’ We are also developing strategic communications, and we will provide 

initial and sustainment education and training at all levels. 

Readiness 

With Air Force personnel deployed to more than 135 locations worldwide on an 

average day, we rely heavily on the Total Force. Currently, more than 37,000 airmen are deployed and more than 57,000 are forward-stationed. In addition, approximately 134,000 airmen are directly supporting combatant commander requirements 

from their home stations daily. These airmen contribute in a variety of ways, to include operating the Nation’s space and missile forces, processing and exploiting remotely collected ISR data, providing national intelligence support, operating and defending our networks, and executing air sovereignty alert missions. 

The Air Force has flown more than 419,000 sorties in support of Operations Iraqi 

Freedom and New Dawn and more than 244,000 sorties in support of Operation Enduring Freedom since September 11, 2001. During this time, we delivered over 6.3 

million passengers and 3.3 million tons of cargo, employed almost 23,800 tons of 

munitions, flew more than 15,750 personnel recovery sorties recording over 2,900 

saves and 6,200 assists, and transported more than 85,000 patients and more than 

441 

15,400 casualties from the U.S. Central Command alone. In 2010, our airmen averaged approximately 400 sorties every day. 

This level of activity reflects our commitment to provide Global Vigilance, Reach, 

and Power in today’s joint fight. However, our high operations tempo (OPTEMPO) 

has also had some detrimental effects on our overall readiness. Readiness for full 

spectrum military operations is a challenge for our combat air forces and some other 

limited-supply/high-demand aviation units. Since 2003, we have seen a slow but 

steady decline in reported readiness indicators. Our OPTEMPO since 2001 has produced lower deploy-to-dwell ratios for high-demand skills. At present, 19 enlisted 

and 9 officer career fields are ‘‘stressed.’’ We have improved funding to WSS; however, sustainment challenges continue as we field new weapon systems and balance 

contract versus organic sources of repair. To address these readiness issues, we 

must keep aircraft recapitalization and procurement programs on track and continue managing our force to ensure the right numbers and mix of skills in our highly tasked and highest priority mission areas. 

AIR FORCE CORE FUNCTIONS

The Air Force Core Functions, assigned by the Secretary of Defense and recognized by the joint community, provide a framework for balancing investments across 

Air Force capabilities. While this document describes the Core Functions individually, we recognize the inherent interdependence of these capabilities within the Air 

Force, the Joint Force, and throughout the U.S. Government. When considered together, the Core Functions encompass the full range of Air Force capabilities. The 

budget request in this posture statement provides an appropriate balance of investment across our Core Functions. The table below depicts the fiscal year 2012 budget 

request and the projected allocation of resources across the FYDP, by Air Force Core 

Function. 

[In billions of dollars] 

Air Force Core Function Fiscal Year 2012 

PB Request FYDP 

Nuclear Deterrence Ops .............................................................................................................. $ 5.2 $ 28.0 

Global Precision Attack ............................................................................................................... $16.0 $ 93.7 

Air Superiority .............................................................................................................................. $ 9.2 $ 46.1 

Rapid Global Mobility ................................................................................................................. $15.9 $ 89.5 

Global Integrated ISR ................................................................................................................. $ 8.2 $ 41.4 

Space Superiority ........................................................................................................................ $11.6 $ 56.2 

Cyberspace Superiority ................................................................................................................ $ 4.6 $ 21.9 

Command and Control ................................................................................................................ $ 6.3 $ 33.5 

Special Operations ...................................................................................................................... $ 1.4 $ 6.5 

Personnel Recovery ..................................................................................................................... $ 1.6 $ 9.0 

Building Partnerships ................................................................................................................. $ 0.5 $ 1.9 

Agile Combat Support ................................................................................................................. $33.8 $175.0 

Note 1: This table does not include OCO, Non-Blue or classified programs. 

Note 2: The funding for Nuclear Deterrence Operations includes weapon systems, support systems, as well as nuclear command, control, 

and communications requirements. 

Nuclear Deterrence Operations 

Continuing to strengthen our nuclear enterprise remains the number one Air 

Force priority, and we have taken positive steps within the fiscal year 2012 budget 

request to continue to strengthen and improve this Core Function. 

Air Force Global Strike Command achieved full operational capability (FOC) on 

September 30, 2010, moving all Air Force nuclear-capable bombers and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) under one command. The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center continues to pursue vital and deliberate sustainment of the nuclear enterprise through efforts such as the Air Force Comprehensive Assessment of Nuclear 

Sustainment process. Bomber force modernization continued in an effort to maintain 

a viable force beyond 2030. We have completed the transition to four B–52 operational squadrons with the addition of the 69th Bomb Squadron at Minot Air Force 

Base, ND. ICBM modernization and sustainment also continued with investments 

in new test equipment and launch facility environmental control systems. Although 

an initial study for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to replace the Minuteman 

III will begin in fiscal year 2011, we must continue sustainment efforts to ensure 

Minuteman III viability through 2030. 

An important event for the ICBM force in 2010 was a temporary loss of the ability 

to monitor the status of 50 missiles at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY. At no time 

was there any danger to the public or to the safety and security of the weapon sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00447 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
442 

tem. The missiles are protected by multiple and redundant safety, security, and 

command and control features. The root cause of this communication interruption 

was identified, and the necessary technical and procedural changes to prevent future occurrences have ensued. In addition, the Air Force has completed a number 

of assessments including initiatives to address systemic issues with ICBM infrastructure and operating procedures as well as a report on the age and pedigree of 

the infrastructure and equipment associated with the ICBM system. Based on these 

assessments, it is clear that a significant portion of the existing infrastructure will 

eventually require modernization or complete replacement in the years ahead. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $5.2 billion continues to invest in the future of nuclear deterrence. The Air Force is committed to sustaining the ICBM force 

through 2030 with investment including command and control, cryptographic improvements and ballistic missile fuze sustainment. Bomber modernization and 

sustainment efforts include the B–52 Combat Network Communications Technology 

program, the B–2 Extremely High Frequency communications program and the Defensive Management Systems program. The Air Force removed early-to-need procurement funding in bomber extremely high frequency communications and the 

ground element of the Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network 

program due to program delays. The Air Force is committed to continuing to 

strengthen the nuclear enterprise through other programs such as the tail kit portion of the B61 nuclear weapon life extension program, the future long-range standoff weapon, and the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform. Beyond weapon system 

sustainment and modernization, the Air Force is focusing on human capital as we 

carefully balance requirements for our limited, intensively scrutinized, high-demand 

airmen in the nuclear enterprise. 

The Air Force is prepared for a new verification regime and is planning for the 

elimination and conversion of launchers under the New Strategic Arms Reduction 

Treaty. We will work with the OSD and U.S. Strategic Command to identify and 

assess options for future force structure adjustments consistent with the Treaty provisions. 

Global Precision Attack 

Many of our global precision attack forces are meeting the current requirements 

of ongoing contingency operations by performing precision strike and ISR support 

roles. However, the proliferation of anti-access and area-denial capabilities will challenge the ability of current fourth-generation fighters and legacy bombers to penetrate contested airspace in the longer term. 

The Air Force used a balanced approach across the global precision attack portfolio in fiscal year 2011, prioritizing investment in fifth-generation aircraft while 

sustaining legacy platforms as a bridge to the F–35, Joint Strike Fighter. We continue to modernize our bomber fleet to sustain our capability and capacity as we 

invest in a Long-Range Strike Family of Systems. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for this Core Function is $16 billion. Investments in global precision attack will fund modernization of legacy fighters and the 

B–1B, development and procurement of the F–35A, preferred munitions, and simulators for Tactical Air Control System training. The fiscal year 2012 budget request 

adds $15 million to begin design and development of structural and capability modifications for the F–16 Block 40/42/50/52 fleet. The SLEP initiatives for the F–16 airframe are scalable and responsive to the Air Force’s total fighter requirements. The 

Air Force is also studying F–16 modernization efforts, to include a new AESA radar, 

center displays, electronic warfare defensive suite, and an improved data-link in anticipation of F–35A delivery delays. 

The multi-role F–35A is the centerpiece of the Air Force’s future precision attack 

capability. In addition to complementing the F–22’s world class air superiority capabilities, the F–35A is designed to penetrate air defenses and deliver a wide range 

of precision munitions. This modern, fifth-generation aircraft brings the added benefit of increased allied interoperability and cost-sharing across Services and partner 

nations. It will also serve to fulfill our commitment to NATO’s dual-capable aircraft 

mission. The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $5.3 billion for continued development 

and procurement of 19 F–35A, Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL), production aircraft. 

The F–35A program team achieved a number of accomplishments over the past 

year, including the first flight of the first mission systems aircraft, arrival of the 

first four F–35A test aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, CA, completion of F–35A 

static structural testing 5 months ahead of schedule with no failures, roll out of the 

first Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) F–35A, completion of 410 total F–35 test 

flights in 2010 of which 171 were F–35A flights, negotiation of the first fixed price 

443 

type production contract (LRIP Lot 4 – 10 CTOL aircraft), and the signing of a Letter of Acceptance to procure the F–35A by Israel. 

Also in 2010, the Air Force announced the preferred alternatives for F–35A operational and training bases. Those bases are Hill Air Force Base, UT, and Burlington 

Air Guard Station, VT, for operational squadrons and Luke Air Force Base, AZ, for 

training. 

The program continues to experience challenges as it transitions from development to production despite the significant accomplishments. The Secretary of Defense announced a program restructure in February 2010. The restructure resulted 

in increased funding for development and production in accordance with Joint Estimate Team II estimates, reduced procurement by 122 aircraft over the FYDP in the 

fiscal year 2011 PB, upgraded the Program Executive Office position from a 2-star 

to 3-star flag rank, extended development by 13 months, added an additional LRIP 

lot prior to entering full rate production, and reduced the ramp rate to less than 

150 percent of the previous year’s production. Program cost growth, including 

growth from the restructure, resulted in a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach in March 

2010. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

subsequently certified the program in accordance with the Nunn-McCurdy statute, 

allowing the F–35 program to continue. 

The DOD tasked the program office to perform a bottom-up review of the remaining development effort after the program Nunn-McCurdy certification. This Technical Baseline Review (TBR), completed in November 2010, became the basis for additional program restructuring within the fiscal year 2012 PB. The TBR informed 

the need for an additional $4.6 billion to complete the joint development effort. To 

fund this new development effort, and recognizing a continued lagging performance 

in production, the DOD reduced procurement by 124 aircraft over the FYDP in the 

fiscal year 2012 PB, 57 of which were F–35As. 

The Air Force intends to accelerate the procurement of the F–15E AESA radar 

modernization program, funding 88 radars and electronic protect software upgrades 

across the FYDP to keep our legacy platforms viable well into the future. Other legacy fighter improvements in the fiscal year 2012 budget include the continuation of 

the A–10C wing replacement program. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funds to modernize the B–1B fleet, 

including the central integrated test system, fully integrated data link, and vertical 

situation display unit. To provide the funds to modernize the B–1B fleet, the fiscal 

year 2012 budget request also reduces B–1B force structure by 6 primary aircraft 

authorizations leaving 60 B–1Bs in our inventory. Investing in a new penetrating 

bomber is critical to maintaining our long-range strike capability in the face of increasing risk associated with anti-access and area-denied environments. 

To this end, the Secretary of Defense announced on January 6, 2011, that the Air 

Force will invest in a new long-range, penetrating, and nuclear-capable bomber capable of both manned and unmanned operations. A major focus of this program is 

to develop an affordable, long-range penetrating strike capability that delivers on 

schedule and in quantity. This aircraft will be designed and built using proven technologies, will leverage existing systems to provide sufficient capability, and allow 

growth to improve the system as technology matures and threats evolve. This program should start now to ensure that the new bomber can be ready before the current aging B–52 and B–1 bomber fleets go out of service. The follow-on bomber represents a key component of a Joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities, 

an area that must be a high priority for future defense investment given the antiaccess challenges our military faces. It is a central element in a Family of Systems 

that includes enabling electronic warfare, ISR, and communications capabilities, as 

well as new weapons. 

Anti-access and area-denial challenges have also caused us to pursue the Air-Sea 

Battle concept in partnership with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, so that together we can preserve and bolster our Nation’s freedom of action in the air, maritime, space, and cyberspace domains. Once implemented, Air-Sea Battle will guide 

us to develop a more permanent and better-institutionalized relationship between 

Departments that will ultimately shape our Service organizations, inform our operational concepts, and guide our materiel acquisitions. 

This budget request also includes Developmental Test (DT)/Operational Test (OT) 

and procurement of the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile baseline and Extended 

Range programs. As Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)-1 production concludes in fiscal 

year 2011, the Air Force plans to transition to development and production of the 

SDB–II in fiscal year 2012. Additionally, the fiscal year 2012 budget request continues funding for integration of the Hard Target Void-Sensing Fuze onto the BLU– 

113 and BLU–109 weapons, and funds weapon DT/OT for the Massive Ordnance 

Penetrator. 

444 

Fiscal year 2012 budget investments in global precision attack reflect the requirement to win today’s fight while recognizing that proliferation of anti-access and 

area-denial capabilities will increasingly challenge America’s ability to penetrate 

contested airspace. The Air Force continues to modernize the legacy fighter and 

bomber fleet to maintain sufficient capability and capacity as we transition to a 

fully operational F–35A fleet and field a modern Long-Range Strike Family of Systems. 

Air Superiority 

Air superiority is crucial in modern warfare. It enables air, land, and maritime 

operations in support of our joint, interagency, and coalition partners. For over 5 

decades, Air Force investments, expertise and sacrifice in achieving air superiority 

have ensured that friendly ground forces operate without threat of attack from 

enemy aircraft. Airspace control remains vitally important in all operating environments to ensure the advantages of rapid mobility, ISR and precision strike are 

broadly available to the combatant commander. Ongoing air defense modernization 

efforts by global and regional competitors will challenge the Air Force’s ability to 

attain the same degree of control in the future. The fiscal year 2012 budget request 

for air superiority is $9.2 billion. 

We plan to continue upgrading to a fifth-generation fleet with F–22 modifications 

to provide fleet commonality and ensure the viability of our legacy weapons systems. 

We will also continue the development of preferred air-to-air munitions and defenses 

such as the AIM–9X, AIM–120D and electronic warfare capabilities. 

We are currently modernizing our legacy fleet of F–15 fighter aircraft with AESA 

radars to ensure their viability well into the future. Other F–15C/D modernization 

programs underway include an advanced display core processor upgrade with 

vertical situation display, beyond line of sight radios, and Link-16 cryptographic upgrades. The fiscal year 2012 budget request continues funding for the F–15C/D 

AESA radar modernization program. The Air Force has recently restructured this 

program, procuring 90 radars across the FYDP and an additional 8 radars in fiscal 

year 2017. 

The Air Force is also incrementally modernizing the F–22 Block 30/35 aircraft and 

requests funding in the fiscal year 2012 budget for the F–22 Block 20/30/35 Common Configuration, Reliability and Maintainability Maturation Program and enhancement of the air-to-air and SEAD capabilities on F–22 Block 30/35 aircraft. 

Select electronic warfare enhancements continue in fiscal year 2011, including 

EC–130H Compass Call fleet upgrades, and a flight deck and mission crew simulator to increase training capacity. The fiscal year 2012 budget request begins funding 13 electronic attack pod sets for MQ–9s and the conversion of a C–130 to EC– 

130H Compass Call aircraft, adding two mission aircraft authorizations across the 

FYDP. The fiscal year 2012 budget also funds concurrent production of Miniature 

Air-Launched Decoy (MALD)/MALD-Jammer (MALD–J) and development of 

MALD–J Increment II to improve the system’s electronic warfare capabilities. 

The Air Force continues to enhance development, production, and integration of 

critical munitions for air superiority. The fiscal year 2012 budget requests funds for 

the development and full-rate production of the AIM–9X Block 2; development, integration, and production of the AIM–120D; and development and integration of the 

AGM–88 HARM control section modification. The fiscal year 2012 budget also requests research and development funding for the ‘‘Next Generation Missile,’’ an air 

launched missile to replace both the AIM–120D and the AGM–88. This funding will 

provide for a competitive prototype demonstration and technical development preceding entrance into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase of the 

program. 

Other key enhancements in the fiscal year 2012 budget request include the development and fielding of new training range equipment and updates to threat systems 

to provide realistic combat training. Among these are the P5 Combat Training System and Joint Threat Emitters. Also, the fiscal year 2012 budget request provides 

procurement of F–16 Block 40/50 Full-Mission Simulators, affording high-fidelity 

simulation for use in Distributed Mission Operations. Enhanced opportunities to migrate aircrew training into high fidelity simulators will help realize efficiencies in 

the peacetime flying hour program, as well as support energy efficiency. 

The proposed fiscal year 2012 investments will sustain America’s air superiority 

advantage and expand the multi-role capability of the Air Force’s most advanced 

aircraft. Additionally, these investments continue the development and procurement 

of electronic warfare capabilities and preferred air-to-air munitions. 

445 

Rapid Global Mobility 

The Air Force continues to provide unparalleled airlift and air refueling capability 

to support our national defense. Mobility forces provide a vital deployment and 

sustainment capability for joint and coalition forces, globally delivering equipment, 

personnel, and materiel essential for missions ranging from major combat to humanitarian relief operations worldwide. 

The Air Force is accelerating the retirement of our oldest legacy airlifters, the C– 

5A and C–130E, in fiscal year 2011. Airlift capacity and capability will be maintained through continued recapitalization and modernization. The Air Force will 

take delivery of seven C–130Js, and continue to ensure worldwide airspace access 

through avionics modernization of C–130H2/3, KC–10, and the C–5. In 2010, the C– 

27J completed transition from a joint to an Air Force-led program, and we continued 

C–27J procurement as an investment in overall fleet viability. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request balances tanker and airlift requirements to 

ensure that we sustain the critical needs of the warfighter. This is accomplished by 

prioritizing recapitalization of the tanker aircraft while ensuring the continued viability of the legacy fleet. Tanker capability investments of $877 million are heavily 

weighted toward our top acquisition priority, the KC–X program. The Air Force submitted a Request for Proposal for a KC–X replacement tanker in February 2010, 

and is anticipating contract award in early 2011. While moving aggressively to recapitalize the tanker fleet, we also continue maintaining the health of legacy aircraft. The budget includes $147.4 million in fiscal year 2012 for the airspace access 

requirement and sustainment of the KC–10 and KC–135 fleets. 

In conjunction with the continued procurement of C–130Js, the fiscal year 2012 

budget continues to modernize C–130Hs through the Avionics Modernization Program, ensuring continued global airspace access. Similar efforts to modernize C–5 

avionics remain on track and the C–5B/C Reliability Enhancement and Re-engine 

Program (RERP) has completed operational testing. In October 2010, OSD approved 

RERP for full rate production with the final C–5M ‘‘Super Galaxy’’ scheduled for delivery in the third quarter of fiscal year 2016. Additionally, in accordance with the 

results of the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016, and subject to 

authorization by Congress, we intend to retire some of the oldest, least capable C– 

5As and C–130H1s. The C–17 Globemaster III remains the backbone of our Nation’s 

strategic airlift fleet, and the Air Force takes delivery of 11 new C–17s in fiscal year 

2011 and 8 in fiscal year 2012. These additions bring the total C–17 fleet to 221 

aircraft. The Air Force will continue to modernize its mature C–17s to the production line standard by accelerating the Block 13–17 upgrade program, and retrofitting the aircraft with extended range fuel tanks and an improved on-board inert 

gas generating system. 

Efforts to increase direct support airlift continue, with plans to beddown 38 C– 

27Js in the Air National Guard. The Air Force continues Operational Support Aircraft/Very Important Person Special Airlift Mission modernization with the upgrade 

of VC–25 avionics, with completion in fiscal year 2018 enabling unrestricted global 

access for the Presidential aircraft. 

Global Integrated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

The Air Force continues to rapidly increase its ISR capability and capacity to support all military operations. Air Force ISR provides timely, fused, and actionable intelligence to the Joint force from forward-deployed locations and distributed processing centers around the globe. 

The exceptional operational value of Air Force ISR assets has led Joint Force 

Commanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa to continually increase 

their requests for support. To help meet this demand, the Air Force currently has 

more than 90 percent of all available ISR assets deployed. Over the last 2 years, 

the Air Force increased the number of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and completed deployment of 30 MC–12W Project Liberty aircraft to theater to complement 

remotely piloted capabilities. This is being accomplished as we transitioning MC– 

12W Liberty Project from OCO funding into the Air Force baseline budget beginning 

in fiscal year 2013. Additionally, the Air National Guard, already full partners in 

the RPA enterprise, has also deployed the RC–26B in support of operations in Iraq. 

Finally, both the Air Force and Air National Guard operate the RC–135 Rivet Joint 

and Senior Scout, respectively, in support of global signals intelligence taskings. 

In fiscal year 2011, we will increase the number of CAPs in theater to 50, maximize the MQ–9 production rate to 48 per year, complete the procurement of 11 RQ– 

4 Block 40, and will deliver 5 additional MC–12W aircraft. We also will maintain 

our current Joint Surveillance Target Attack and Radar System-based Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capability as we complete an Analysis of Alternatives 

to determine the future of GMTI. 

446 

Our fiscal year 2012 ISR budget request of $8.2 billion fully supports the Joint 

force emphasis on ISR capacity and allows the Air Force to sustain maximum MQ– 

9 production and achieve 65 RPA CAPs in theater by the end of fiscal year 2013. 

In intelligence production, we corrected an internal Operation and Maintenance 

shortfall within the Air Force Distributed Common Ground System to sustain intelligence analysis and dissemination. The budget request also continues support for 

the U–2 Dragon Lady manned aircraft through the end of fiscal year 2015 to ensure 

a smooth high-altitude transition to the unmanned RQ–4 Global Hawk. This extension enables a measured reduction of the U–2 program as RQ–4 Block 30 aircraft 

become operational and ensures continued support to national leadership, combatant commanders, and joint warfighters. 

The fiscal year 2012 ISR budget also realigns resources within the RQ–4 program to correct a $979 million diminishing manufacturing sources disconnect across the 

FYDP. To optimize our support of the overall RQ–4 program, the Air Force decided 

to curtail production of the RQ–4 Block 40 at eleven aircraft. This decision allows 

the Air Force to fully support and sustain the required RQ–4 Block 40 capability 

already procured and concentrate on fielding effective Block 30 multiple intelligence 

platforms on time. 

Space Superiority 

The DOD, civilian agencies, and our Nation rely on space capabilities developed 

and operated by the Air Force. The fiscal year 2012 space superiority budget request 

of $11.6 billion will enable the Air Force to field, upgrade, and sustain vital space 

systems for the joint warfighter. As part of the Joint Force, we integrate and operate these capabilities to execute the space support, force enhancement, space control, and force application missions; and, as launch agent for both the defense and 

intelligence sectors, provide reliable and timely space access for national security 

purposes. 

Space capabilities provide the United States and our allies’ unprecedented national security advantages in national decisionmaking, military operations, and 

homeland security. The Air Force’s budget priorities align closely with the goals and 

principles outlined in the National Space Policy (NSP) and support the DOD’s National Security Space Strategy (NSSS) and the National Military Strategy with specific emphasis on building international partnerships to establish mutually beneficial space capabilities and developing a better understanding of the space domain. 

International agreements are being pursued to expand space-based communication 

capability through the procurement of a ninth Wideband Global SATCOM satellite 

(WGS–9), and to meet National Search and Rescue requirements by working to integrate the Canadian-provided Distress Alerting Satellite Systems as a secondary payload on GPS Block III Increment B&C satellites. Additionally, realizing the space 

domain is becoming increasingly congested, contested and competitive, we will continue efforts to establish a Space Situational Awareness (SSA) partnership with 

Australia by jointly employing and operating a space object detect and track radar 

in Australia. This system will provide better understanding of the current and future strategic space environment and establish a foundation for continuing nationto-nation cooperation. 

In close cooperation with OSD and the Office of Management and Budget, the fiscal year 2012 Air Force budget request proposes a new acquisition strategy for buying military spacecraft, Evolutionary Acquisition for Space Efficiency (EASE). The 

current practice of procuring satellites one-at-a-time or on a just-in-time basis has 

inadvertently increased costs due to production line breaks, parts obsolescence, and 

inefficient use of labor. Numerous space experts and congressional committees have 

expressed concern with the inefficiency and disruption caused by the status quo approach to procuring satellites. EASE is an acquisition strategy that encompasses the 

following tenets: block buys of satellites, fixed price contracting, stable research and 

development investment, and a modified annual funding approach. We believe this 

approach will result in savings that can be reinvested in research and development 

that will further improve the performance and lower the cost of follow-on systems. 

Commitment to satellite production and reinvestment in technology development 

provides stability and predictability for a fragile space industrial base. 

The Air Force budget request reflects the use of EASE for acquisition of the next 

blocks of Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) protected communications 

satellites in fiscal year 2012 and Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)-Geosynchronous missile warning satellites in fiscal year 2013. Once the EASE approach is proven, we will examine the application of this acquisition strategy to a wider portfolio 

of space programs. Relying on a combination of regular appropriations, advance appropriations, and multi-year procurement authority, the EASE proposal is consistent with the full funding principle and is a critical part of the Air Force’s effiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00452 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
447 

ciency agenda. The Air Force recognizes the need to work with Congress to define 

and obtain the necessary legislative authorities to achieve our vision. 

Spacelift is a critical component of the national security space enterprise. Despite 

our having achieved a record 76 consecutive successful launches since 1999, spacelift 

is still a complex and costly undertaking. Three recent launch studies reached the 

same conclusion that immediate commitment to a fixed annual production rate for 

launch vehicles is imperative to sustain the industrial base and control costs. To ensure this commitment, the fiscal year 2012 budget submission requests an additional $3.5 billion across the FYDP to procure five DOD launches each year. In addition, the Air Force is working aggressively to reduce the cost of providing this critical launch capability. Additionally, the Air Force is collaborating with the NRO and 

NASA to explore synergistic solutions to maintain a healthy industrial base and 

meet government launch requirements. 

Our combatant commanders and national leadership rely on satellite communications for continuous secure communications around the world. In fiscal year 2010, 

we successfully launched the third Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite and 

first AEHF satellite. AEHF will provide ten times the throughput and greater than 

five times the data rate of the current MILSTAR II Satellite Communication System. To increase the effectiveness of our Joint warfighting operations, we are expanding communications capability with the launch of another WGS satellite in fiscal year 2012. Each WGS satellite delivers the equivalent capacity of the entire existing Defense Satellite Communications System constellation. WGS has become the 

keystone for international cooperation measures in space, with our Australian allies 

funding the sixth WGS satellite in return for a portion of the overall bandwidth. 

We requested $469 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget request to fully fund WGS 

to meet combatant commander’s bandwidth requirements. These essential systems 

provide our forces the vital communications needed to remain effectively coordinated, synchronized, and responsive in global operations. 

For over 20 years, GPS has been the global standard for positioning, navigation 

and timing (PNT) and is used in everything from consumer automobiles, precision 

farming and smart phones, to enabling the Nation’s most sophisticated weaponry 

and financial systems. In fiscal year 2011, we will continue to launch GPS Block 

IIF satellites to maintain the constellation as a global utility. The fiscal year 2012 

budget request includes $1.7 billion for PNT capability and incorporates initial funding of the next generation GPS III satellite production, development of the next-generation operational control segment and upgraded military user equipment. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request also includes $87 million for the Operationally Responsive Space program to pursue innovative capabilities that can be rapidly 

developed and fielded in months rather than years to respond to combatant commanders’ immediate space requirements. In the critical areas of missile warning 

and SSA, we requested $1.2 billion for the SBIRS program, which will launch the 

first geosynchronous satellite in fiscal year 2011 to begin our transition to a highly 

effective space-based missile warning system, and $122.1 million for the Joint Space 

Operation Center Mission System. We will continue to improve SSA ground-based 

systems and space-based capabilities to ensure continued freedom to operate in the 

space domain. The Air Force also recognizes that space capabilities are essential to 

the nuclear enterprise for its operational readiness, providing key decisionmaking 

information through missile warning and nuclear event detection, along with essential communications. Weather and forecasting data is another important source of 

information for our forces in peacetime and in conflict. We requested $444.9 million 

for the Defense Weather Satellite System in fiscal year 2012. This system will replace the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program in the early morning orbit slot, 

ensuring continuity of detailed overhead weather imagery and sensing information. 

All elements of space capability must operate through the full spectrum of potential 

contingencies. 

While participating, last year, in the DOD’s development of the national long-term 

space strategy as part of the Space Posture Review and Quadrennial Defense Review, the Air Force recognized a need to review our own internal space governance 

structure to better position us to properly execute the direction resulting from these 

reviews. During our review, the position of the Under Secretary of the Air Force was 

identified as the focal point for oversight of all Air Force space activities. In addition, space acquisition responsibilities were consolidated in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. At the DOD level, the Secretary of 

the Air Force was revalidated as the DOD Executive Agent (EA) for Space. The EA 

is charged with the integration and assessment of the DOD overall space program, 

the conduct and oversight of long-term space planning and architecture development, and the facilitation of increased cooperation with the intelligence community. 

The EA also chairs the newly established Defense Space Council with representaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00453 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
448 

tives from across the DOD, and was directed to establish a jointly manned space 

office to restructure and replace the current National Security Space Office. This organization will not only better position the DOD to coordinate implementation of 

space policy and strategy, it will also provide the framework for the DOD’s support 

for development of new national security space capabilities. Furthermore, the Secretary of the Air Force, in his role as the EA for Space is fully engaged with the 

DOD in the implementation of the recent NSP and NSSS. 

Cyberspace Superiority 

The Air Force fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $4.6 billion to sustain and 

maintain our critical cyberspace capabilities and to enable Air Force expeditionary 

and CONUS-based operations in support of Joint Force Commanders. The Air Force 

contributes to the Joint force by developing, integrating, and operating cyberspace 

capabilities in three mission areas: support, defense, and offense. 

Cyberspace superiority enables precise force application in all domains, generates 

effects across the full spectrum of operations, and preserves an agile and resilient 

cyberspace infrastructure for assured mission execution. 

Access to cyberspace is increasingly critical to meet joint and allied requirements 

for freedom of maneuver in all domains. Air Force networks face a continuous barrage of assaults from state-sponsored actors, terror networks, international criminal 

organizations, individual hackers, and all level of threats in between. We are expanding collaboration with Service, Joint, Interagency, academic, and international 

partners on several cyber initiatives to safeguard our access to the cyberspace domain. To this end, we are operationalizing our approach to cyberspace with emphasis in this budget request on protecting the Air Force infrastructure, developing expertise to meet mission needs, and accelerating our acquisition processes. 

The 24th Air Force, the Air Force component of U.S. Cyber Command, achieved 

FOC on October 1, 2010, and the Air Force will expand the cyber rapid acquisition 

process to cope with constantly evolving technologies. The Air Force is also aligning 

education and training programs with our operational approach to cyberspace to 

properly develop our cyberspace professionals. In December 2010, we graduated our 

first cadre of cyberspace operators. Additionally, efforts to enhance the cyber-related 

investigative and forensic capabilities resident in the Air Force are forging a solid 

foundation for Service and joint cooperation. For example, Air Force Space Command transitioned the Defense Cyber Crime Center back to the Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations to help strengthen the ties. 

The Air Force has strengthened its efforts in the support mission area by continuing work on the Single Air Force Network migration, which increases situational awareness of Air Force networks while securely improving information sharing and transport capabilities. Examples of this support are reflected in several investments in this budget. The Air Force continues to support its capability for live, 

virtual, and constructive simulation and training. Based on the Fort Hood followon review, enhancements were made to the Installation Emergency Management 

system to ensure a standardized, robust emergency notification system. 

For the defense mission area, the Air Force invested in additional network defenders to increase protection of information vital to Joint Force operations. The Air 

Force continues to invest in network defense tools and other advanced technologies 

to monitor and secure classified and unclassified networks. 

In the offensive mission area, the Air Force seeks to field appropriate and sanctioned capabilities supporting assigned missions. The Air Force established formal 

training programs for both initial and mission qualification to provide trained forces 

to U.S. Cyber Command when tasked. Additionally, as the lead support agency to 

U.S. Cyber Command, the Air Force is responsible for the construction and installed 

infrastructure for the new U.S. Cyber Command Integrated Cyber Center at Fort 

Meade, MD. 

Command and Control 

Command and Control (C2) of our forces has never been more vital or more difficult than in the 21st century. Supporting the National Security Strategy requires 

commanders to integrate operations in multiple theaters, at multiple levels, and 

across the full range of military activity. Secure strategic and nuclear C2 remains 

an Air Force priority. The Air Force must sustain, modify, and enhance current command and control systems, and develop deployable, scalable, and modular systems 

that are interoperable with joint, interagency, and coalition partners. 

In fiscal year 2011, we will improve assured communication links for U.S. Strategic Command’s Distributed Command and Control Node and U.S. Northern Command’s National Capital Region-Integrated Air Defense System. The Air Force has 

also done the following: expanded the training pipelines for Joint Terminal Attack 

449 

Controllers (JTACs); began fielding advanced video downlinks, and airborne radio 

and datalink gateways to improve the connectivity of air support operations centers 

and JTACs; and modernized the 1970s-era technology of the E–3 airborne C2 node 

with the Block 40/45 program. In addition, the Air Force created pipeline training 

in support of the warfighting elements of the Commander, Air Force Forces theater 

staff. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Air Force requests $6.3 billion for full spectrum C2 sustainment, replacement, and development efforts. Of note, $19.1 million is requested to bolster the Air and Space Operations Center’s (AOC) C2 capability and 

interoperability with programmed Joint systems to execute the Integrated Air and 

Missile Defense mission. Secure and reliable strategic level communications are improved with a $53.2 million request for modernization to Senior Leader Command 

and Control Communication Systems for senior leader support aircraft and the E– 

4 National Airborne Operations Center. Support to combatant commanders is also 

enhanced with almost $60 million in fiscal year 2012 for improved airborne and mobile C2 systems. The Air Force maintained our commitment to the Joint development of the Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar. Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar will be the future long-range, mobile 

ground-based sensor for detecting, identifying, tracking, and reporting aircraft and 

missiles in defended airspace. Additionally, the United States secured a cooperative 

development position in the NATO Airborne Warning and Control System avionics 

and navigation modernization program. 

Special Operations 

Geographic Combatant Commanders and U.S. Special Operations Command rely 

heavily on Air Force Special Operations (AFSOC) capabilities to support missions 

worldwide. As the DOD continues to develop capabilities effective against irregular 

and hybrid threats, increased Air Force Special Operations close air support, foreign 

internal defense, and ISR capabilities will be required. 

In fiscal year 2011, the Air Force will continue procurement of five CV–22s and 

MC–130Js for the recapitalization of AFSOC’s MC–130E/P and AC–130H aircraft. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes an investment of $503.7 million toward 

recapitalization of AFSOC’s MC–130H/W fleet, with an additional investment of $26 

million across the FYDP to align MC–130J program funding with OSD cost estimates. Additional investments were made to enhance CV–22 mission capability with 

upgraded cockpit data recording and Communication Navigation System/Air Traffic 

Management modifications. Finally, a low-cost engine wiring modification allowed 

the Air Force to realize a $9.6 million efficiency and reduce MC–130J spare engine 

inventories. 

Personnel Recovery 

Personnel recovery (PR) remains a vital core function in support of every contingency operation. The increased utilization of military and civilian personnel in support of OCO has significantly increased the demand for Air Force rescue forces beyond the conventional combat search and rescue mission. Air Force PR forces are 

fully engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa, accomplishing lifesaving 

medical and casualty evacuation missions, while also supporting domestic civil land 

and maritime search and rescue, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) 

and mass casualty evacuation missions. 

In fiscal year 2011, the Air Force will continue to recapitalize HC–130N/P aircraft 

and procure H–60 Blackhawk helicopters under the operations loss replacement 

(OLR) program to restore the fleet to 112 HH–60G aircraft. The fiscal year 2012 

request funds four HH–60G OLR aircraft, and provides a $2 billion investment for 

procurement of 54 HH–60 replacement aircraft across the FYDP. We will also accelerate the procurement of our HC–130J rescue/tanker aircraft by procuring 3 aircraft 

in fiscal year 2012 to replace the 1960s-era HC–130P fleet on a one-for-one basis, 

up to 37 aircraft. Finally, the fiscal year 2012 budget funds $73 million for the 

Guardian Angel program which will standardize and modernize mission essential 

equipment for an additional five pararescue teams. 

Building Partnerships 

Developing mutually beneficial partnerships with militaries around the world is 

vital for the Air Force. Successful partnerships ensure interoperability, integration 

and interdependence between coalition forces while providing our partner nations 

the capability and capacity to resolve their own national security challenges. Today’s 

engagements require airmen to perform their duties effectively and achieve influence in culturally-complex environments around the globe. 

The Air Force continues to emphasize extensive language skills and regional 

knowledge in its growing cadre of Regional Affairs Strategists. These personnel posVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00455 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
450 

sess a regionally-focused advanced academic degree and language proficiency. They 

work with partner nations as attache`s and Security Cooperation Officers. PoliticalMilitary Affairs Strategists and best-fit officers also fill positions requiring in-depth 

understanding of the interagency processes key to building partnerships. The Air 

Force has also increased the culture and language content of selected pre-deployment training courses and recently inaugurated a new language learning program— 

the Language Enabled Airman Program. This program provides an opportunity to 

create a cadre of language-capable airmen who are deliberately developed for requirements, leverages the capability attained in foreign language accession programs, and provides a systemic opportunity for these airmen to maintain these 

skills throughout their careers. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding 

to expand foreign language instruction for officer commissioning programs as well. 

The Air Force continues to engage our international partners across the spectrum 

of operations. The fielding of the F–35, Joint Strike Fighter, will further our partnerships with more established allies, while the 3 C–17s procured for the 12-nation 

Strategic Airlift Capability are fully operational and currently meeting the airlift requirements of our European allies. We are funding new initiatives which support 

longer term Building Partnerships Capacity (BPC) efforts. For instance, $65.7 million was budgeted toward the procurement of 15 Light Mobility Aircraft (LiMA) to 

assist partner nations in building their airlift capability in fiscal year 2011. These 

aircraft are scheduled to be fielded and achieve initial operating capability (IOC) in 

the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. We are also requesting $159 million in fiscal 

year 2012 to procure the first 9 of 15 Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) 

aircraft. These LAAR aircraft will be used to train a cadre of pilots who will subsequently export their BPC aviation skills to international partners who may operate 

the same or similar platforms. To ensure the proper capability is provided to build 

partner capacity by Contingency Response Forces, LiMA and LAAR personnel, we 

funded the formal establishment of an Air Advisor Academy in fiscal year 2011 to 

expand our current efforts that include training air advisors heading to Iraq and 

Afghanistan and training air advisors for engagements globally. English language 

proficiency is a prerequisite to nearly all of the education and training that the 

Services provide to our partner nations. To meet increasing partner demand for 

English language training, the fiscal year 2012 Air Force program expands the capacity at the Defense Language Institute English Language Center. 

Agile Combat Support 

Underpinning the work of all Air Force Core Functions are the capabilities included in agile combat support (ACS). ACS is the ability to create, protect, and sustain air and space forces across the full spectrum of military operations and spans 

a diverse set of Air Force functional capabilities. The fiscal year 2012 budget request 

of $33.8 billion for ACS accounts for efforts affecting our entire Air Force—from the 

development and training of our airmen to regaining acquisition excellence. 

Airmen and Families 

The Air Force is proud of its commitment to supporting its airmen and families. 

The nearly 2 decades of sustained combat operations has imposed extraordinary demands on them and underscores the need to remain focused on sustaining quality 

of life and supporting programs as a top priority. To help address the demands, in 

2010 the Air Force executed the Year of the Air Force Family and highlighted support programs focused on three outcomes: 

• Fostering a Strong Air Force Community; 

• Strengthening an Airman’s Sense of Belonging; and 

• Improving Airman and Family Resiliency. 

The Year of the Air Force family deepened leadership’s understanding of current 

support services and capabilities and what needs to be done in the future to maintain and improve outcomes in the three primary focus areas. 

First, the Air Force will maintain an enduring emphasis on airmen and families 

by actively engaging the entire Air Force Community: Total Force airmen, Department of the Air Force civilians, single and married personnel, primary and extended 

family members, retirees, and on- and off-base community partners. The Air Force 

will maintain an atmosphere that is supportive, team-oriented, and inclusive, but 

diverse enough to meet the current and emerging needs of the entire Air Force Community. Policy and process priorities have been translated into actions and tasks 

that will be accomplished over the next few years, perpetuating the Air Force’s commitment to strengthening our ties to one another, improving our operational abilities and ensuring our Air Force Community is best positioned to meet future commitments and requirements. 

451 

Second, we continue to strengthen our Air Force Community by expanding child 

care through different programs such as the Extended Duty Program, Home Community Care, Missile Care, and the new Supplemental Child Care initiative to provide flexibility in meeting child care needs. In fiscal year 2011, the Air Force will 

continue to demonstrate our commitment to military child education, funding full 

time School Liaison Officers (SLO) Air Force-wide. SLOs and our new Air Force Exceptional Family Member Program Coordinators will work in close collaboration to 

address educational and other assistance for families with special needs. The Air 

Force fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $4 million to assist with respite child 

care for military family members with special needs children. Third, the budget reflects a $4.4 million increase to our Air Force Mortuary Affairs program, supporting travel for family members from home of record to Dover 

Port Mortuary to receive and honor fallen loved ones. Increases also reflect our commitment to maintaining the Port Mortuary’s Center for the Families of the Fallen, 

used as the reception facility and host site for visiting family members at Dover Air 

Force Base, DE. 

Airman dining facilities remain an important commitment of the Air Force as we 

plan to increase funding for dining facilities at basic military training and technical 

training bases by $14.9 million in fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2011, we launched 

the Food Transformation Initiative (FTI) to address airmen’s concerns with dining 

facility closings, lack of healthy food options, and insufficient hours of operation. FTI 

is designed to enhance food quality, variety and availability while maintaining home 

base and warfighting capabilities. 

The Air Force continues to expand our efforts to improve resiliency of airmen and 

their families before, during, and after deployments and has significantly expanded 

capabilities to ensure support and reintegration of our Total Force. In continuing 

its efforts to improve the resiliency of airmen and their families, the Air Force 

moved forward with several initiatives in 2010. 

We established a new Resiliency Division at the Air Force level to take the lead 

and develop an overarching Air Force Resiliency Roadmap. The Deployment Transition Center (DTC) was established at Ramstein Air Base, Germany on July 1, 2010. 

The DTC and Chaplain Corps Care for the Caregiver programs provide valuable decompression, reintegration and resiliency training for those exposed to significant 

danger and stress in combat zones. To support these efforts, the Air Force fiscal 

year 2012 budget request includes $8 million for the Air Force Resiliency Program 

for research, curriculum development, materials and intervention training for the 

DTC. We will continue to develop our Airman Resiliency Program by identifying 

needs, researching best practices, partnering with internal and external organizations, and developing targeted and tiered training that is integrated into an airman’s career to allow a building block approach that leads to life-long resiliency that 

benefits both airmen and their families. We are also requesting an increase in the 

Chaplain Recruitment program by $1.5 million in fiscal year 2012 to better provide 

for religious accommodation and support of airmen. This includes chaplain-led 

MarriageCare Retreats, that help heal and save marriages, and deployment reintegration programs expanded to meet the needs of redeploying airmen. 

The Air Force is highly committed to the Wounded Warrior Program that ensures 

access to medical and rehabilitation treatments for the ill and wounded. The Air 

Force Warrior and Survivor Care Division is dedicated to building a culture of understanding and concern for wounded, ill, and injured airmen. The Air Force has 

hired 33 Recovery Care Coordinators and a Program Manager to support 31 locations across the Air Force. Recovery Care Coordinators serve as the focal point for 

non-clinical case management, development of comprehensive recovery plans and 

creation of timelines for personal and career accomplishments. Additionally, the Air 

Force has implemented new personnel policies regarding retention, retraining, promotions, assignments and evaluation of Wounded Warriors. In fiscal year 2012, the 

Air Force is requesting $2.8 million for additional case workers and program managers to provide non-clinical case management services to meet the growing demands of the Wounded Warrior population. 

Healthcare Initiatives and Costs 

As key team members of the Federal and Military Health System (MHS), the Air 

Force Medical Service (AFMS) is seeking innovative solutions to deliver world class 

care while slowing the rising costs of healthcare. For example, the AFMS is taking 

the lead in building the largest patient centered medical home capability in the 

DOD over the next 12 months. This includes the Family Health Initiative, designed 

to improve continuity of care and healthier outcomes. Additional emphasis is being 

placed on delivering better care by streamlining our hospital surgical operations and 

improving the experience of care. Current efforts have demonstrated recapture of 

452 

services in key market areas with the overall results of reduced cost, increased currency of our surgeons, and improved patient satisfaction. In addition, the AFMS is 

transitioning from healthcare delivery to delivering health. Through patient-centered care, improved teamwork with our patients, and leveraging partnerships with 

DOD, VA and civilian institutions, Air Force medicine is shaping the future of 

healthcare. 

Our strategy to control DOD healthcare costs is the right approach to manage the 

benefit while improving quality and satisfaction. Adjustments to the benefit such as 

raising TRICARE enrollment fees for working retirees, phasing out enrollment for 

some high-cost health plans, paying community hospital Medicare rates, and 

incentivizing the use of the most effective outlets for prescriptions is prudent. There 

will be limited impact (prescription only) on active duty family members. By implementing these important measures, we will be able to positively address the rising 

costs of healthcare and improve the health of our population. 

Suicides 

Air Force suicide rates have been on the rise since 2007, although primary risk 

factors for suicide among airmen remain the same. The most commonly identified 

stressors and risk factors have remained the same over the last 10 years: relationships, financial problems and legal problems. Although deployments can stress airmen and their families, deployment does not seem to be an individual risk factor 

for airmen—many airmen who have committed suicide have never deployed. The Air 

Force is providing additional support to our most at-risk airmen by providing additional frontline supervisor suicide prevention training to all supervisors in career 

fields with elevated suicide rates. In addition, mental health providers are based in 

primary care clinics across the Air Force to counsel patients who may not otherwise 

seek care in a mental health clinic because of the perceived stigma. The Air Force 

has significantly expanded counseling services in addition to those available through 

the chaplains or the mental health clinic. 

Other helpful programs that provide non-medical counseling include Military 

Family Life Consultants, which can see individuals or couples, and Military 

OneSource, which provides sessions for active duty for up to 12 off-base sessions. 

Fort Hood 

In the wake of the Fort Hood shooting, the Secretary of Defense directed the Air 

Force to conduct a follow-on review to identify ways to better protect airmen and 

families. Our review yielded 118 findings and 151 recommendations. The key revelation of the study is that we must do a better job of preventing and responding to 

violence. Specifically, we must improve our ability to identify indicators of potential 

violence and share that information with those who are best positioned to prevent 

a violent outcome. This will require improved understanding, education, processes 

and training, as well as more integrated processes at both the installation and interagency levels. To undertake these efforts, the fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $37 million across the FYDP. We anticipate that our resource requirements 

will increase as we refine the implementation of our recommendations. We are confident that the resources Congress provides, coupled with our sustained effort, will 

help the Air Force reduce the likelihood of tragedies like Fort Hood and position us 

to respond more effectively should prevention fail. 

Information Protection 

The Air Force will enhance its capabilities to assess and mitigate risks to national 

security information across the enterprise. It will advance efforts to identify risks 

that reduce the surety of research, development, and acquisition and operations or 

enable potential opponents to illicitly increase their technological capabilities. These 

efforts will enable commanders to effectively execute intelligence-led, risk based protection across the Air Force. 

Science and Technology 

Air Force warfighting capabilities have a proud heritage of being born from the 

very best science and technology (S&T) our Nation can produce. The creation of the 

Air Force is closely intertwined with the development of advances in S&T. In 2010, 

the Air Force presented the .Technology Horizons Study. to serve as a roadmap for 

guiding Air Force science and technology investments during the next 20 years. Despite current fiscal constraints, the Air Force is increasing its investment in basic 

research by $18 million and in Advanced Technology Development by $76 million, 

while continuing fiscal year 2011-level investment in Applied Research. 

453 

Acquisition Excellence 

The Air Force continues to strive for acquisition excellence by increasing the rigor 

and transparency of its processes and by stabilizing requirements and funding. As 

one of our top five Air Force priorities, we have taken a multi-faceted approach to 

recapturing acquisition excellence to include: 

• Rebuilding the acquisition workforce; • Delivering a fully implemented Acquisition Improvement Plan (AIP) to 

guide and shape current and future efforts; 

• Creating a foundation for a robust Continuous Process Improvement 

(CPI) function within acquisition; and 

• Implementing approximately 75 efficiency initiatives that range in scope 

and impact throughout the acquisition enterprise. 

Continued improvements support moving resources from ‘‘tail to tooth’’ to fully 

support the Air Force’s direct mission activities. Efficiency savings in overhead, support and other less mission-essential areas will increase funding available for our 

critical mission functions. The Air Force, as a good steward of taxpayer resources, 

is committed to delivering products and services that perform as promised—on time, 

within budget, and in compliance with all laws, policies, and regulations. 

An example of the successful implementation of recapturing acquisition excellence 

is the consolidation of fiscal year 2008 OCO, fiscal year 2009 OCO and base-year 

funding, fiscal year 2010 base-year funding, and Foreign Military Sales C–130J contracts into one negotiation. By taking advantage of economies of scale, the Air Force 

realized a savings and was able to procure two additional C–130Js. This effort reduced the number of aircraft the Air Force needs to buy in the out years to meet 

its requirement. 

Installations and Operational Energy 

The Air Force views energy efficiency as a mission enabler that can increase combat effectiveness, expand reach and minimize operational risks. The Air Force is integrating energy considerations across the Air Force enterprise with a three-pronged 

approach: reduce demand, increase supply, and culture change. We can identify efficiencies that increase our capabilities and reduce our costs, while also increasing 

and diversifying our energy supply to improve our energy security and our ability 

to meet our critical operational requirements. Finally, by creating a culture that 

makes energy a consideration in everything we do, and that values energy as a limited mission-critical resource, we ensure enduring and far-reaching utilization improvements and savings. 

As part of our institutional effort to utilize energy to maximize mission effective- ness, the Air Force is requesting over $550 million for energy initiatives in fiscal 

year 2012. Initiatives include investments in reliable alternative energy resources, 

enhancing energy efficiency, and reducing environmental impacts and life cycle 

costs. In addition, the Air Force is continuing to take steps to reduce mission risk 

by increasing critical infrastructure resiliency to ensure reliable energy availability 

at Air Force installations. 

We have reduced energy use at facilities by nearly 15 percent since 2003, and expect to achieve nearly a 30 percent reduction by 2015. In addition, we have instituted a number of fuel saving initiatives and reduced the amount of fuel our aircraft 

have consumed by over 46 million gallons since 2006, despite increased operational 

requirements associated with ongoing operations. The Air Force is continuing to explore opportunities to reduce demand for aviation fuel. For example, the 618th 

Tanker Airlift Control Center is optimizing flying routes by working clearances to 

allow flights to transit through previously denied airspace. We can save the Air 

Force an estimated 2.6 million gallons of fuel per year by optimizing our flight 

routes and clearances. Some of the initiatives we will pursue to achieve fuel efficiencies are: 

• Providing aircrews in-flight guidance on the optimum airspeed and altitude based on current flight conditions; 

• Expanding the use of simulators to conduct training; 

• Implementing a program, already an industry standard, that cleans components allowing the engine to run cooler saving fuel and prolonging engine 

life; and 

• Refining fuel and cargo policies to reduce carrying costs and potentially 

the number of missions required to support the combatant commanders. 

We are also increasing the energy supplies we can use to meet our mission. We 

have certified over 99 percent of our aircraft fleet for unrestricted operational use 

of a synthetic aviation fuel blend. This fuel can be produced domestically, and we 

are looking to industry to help us meet our needs. We are in the process of certifying 

454 

our fleet to use biofuel blends as well. These alternatives provide our fleet with additional flexibility and enable our freedom of action. The Air Force is also looking 

at alternative sources for energy at our facilities. In the upcoming years, we will 

quadruple on-base solar energy production and dramatically increase the amount of 

wind energy consumed. These clean sources of energy will serve to enhance our energy security. 

The Air Force is working cooperatively with the Army and the Marines to reduce 

fuel requirements at forward operating bases by decreasing energy demand, utilizing efficient power distribution and increasing alternative supplies. These bases 

require generators, typically running on diesel, that require fuel to be brought in 

by convoy. We are working to improve the energy efficiency of our Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources assets, commonly called BEAR, in the expeditionary environment. One of the Air Force’s efforts is focused on reducing the energy demand 

for expeditionary shelters by 50 percent, while using photovoltaic tent flys to generate a minimum of three kilowatts per shelter. We are also working with industry 

to design a portable, expandable microgrid for our remote airfields. The system will 

integrate solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy into the existing BEAR 

power grid, reducing the system’s reliance on traditional, carbon-based fuel by as 

much as 25 percent. It will be able to withstand the harsh conditions in which our 

military operates. More importantly, it will help reduce the inherent wartime dangers that come with delivering the fuel by convoy. 

We have made significant and positive progress in reducing our consumption, increasing the energy available to the operational Air Force and changing the culture 

within the Air Force to ensure energy is a consideration in everything we do. Energy 

availability and security impact all Air Force missions, operations and organizations. The Air Force will increase warfighting capabilities, and efficiency, and help 

the Nation reduce its dependence on imported oil by continuing to ensure energy 

availability and re-engineering our business processes to become more efficient. 

Reducing Excess Physical Plant and Infrastructure 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes a $300 million demolition and $100 

million consolidation investment to reduce long-term fixed costs through the consolidation and demolition of unneeded facilities and infrastructure. In line with the 

June 10, 2010 presidential memorandum, the Air Force intends to reduce energy 

use and curtail unnecessary sustainment activities by eliminating physical plant 

that is no longer needed. 

MILCON 

The Air Force’s fiscal year 2012 $1.4 billion MILCON request provides funding 

for our most critical requirements including new construction aligned with weapon 

system deliveries and the Combatant Command priorities. This includes projects 

supporting beddowns and upgrades for F–22, F–35, HC–130J, EC–130H, RPA and 

B–52, as well as projects supporting our mission support facilities most in need of 

recapitalization. The Air Force MILCON program supports the U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters replacement facility in three increments beginning in fiscal 

year 2012, the new U.S. Cyber Command Headquarters in fiscal year 2013, an additional phase of the Blatchford Preston Dormitory Complex at Al Udeid, Qatar, and 

an air freight terminal on Guam. 

Additionally, the budget request sustains our effort to provide quality housing for airmen and funds $254 million in improvements to meet DOD performance standards to provide 90 percent of our permanent party dorm rooms in good or fair (Q– 

1 or Q–2) condition. The Air Force investment strategy is to fund improvements in 

all Q–3 and Q–4 dorms, referred to as Tier 1 dorms in the 2008 Dorm Master Plan, 

by 2017. 

The Air Force recognizes the critical role MILCON holds in successful mission 

execution and is taking action to increase MILCON funding in the near years of the 

FYDP—the Air Force proposes to increase MILCON in fiscal year 2012, fiscal year 

2013, and fiscal year 2014 by a combined $1.8 billion over the fiscal year 2011 PB 

submission. 

Finally, in an effort to ensure the most critical mission and infrastructure projects 

are funded first, the Air Force used asset management and efficient facility operations processes to evaluate MILCON requirements. In essence, the Air Force is 

considering how these projects and programs help reduce our out-year investment 

needs as part of our overall cost control strategy. 

Logistics 

WSS is a vital element in sustaining Air Force readiness. The Air Force faced a 

$7 billion increase in WSS requirements across the FYDP at the beginning of the 

fiscal year 2012 budget cycle, largely due to increasing numbers of weapon systems, 

455 

such as C–17, F–22, and MQ–1/9 aircraft that use contractor logistics support. We 

recognized that we cannot sustain that kind of growth in requirements, so we implemented a WSS end-to-end assessment to identify efficiencies with respect to supply 

chain management, centralized asset management, and depot performance. 

We were able to reduce WSS investment from $7 billion to $4 billion through efficiencies in depot and supply chain processes identified in the assessment. While we 

will still experience growth, this $3 billion FYDP offset represents important savings that the Air Force applied elsewhere. Prior to the WSS end-to-end assessment, 

the sustainment funds requested in fiscal year 2012 would have supported 80 percent of the WSS requirement. Following the assessment, and the resulting reduction 

in growth, the same amount of funds requested will actually support 84 percent of 

the fiscal year 2012 WSS requirement. 

While the peacetime flying hour program is fully funded, reprogramming may be 

necessary to cover increased fuel costs due to the volatility of fuel prices. Over the 

longer term, enactment of the DOD’s legislative proposal for the Refined Petroleum 

Products Marginal Expense Transfer Account would reduce disruptions to operations and investment programs by providing the flexibility to meet fuel price fluctuations. 

The Air Force is successfully fielding a pilot of the first increment of the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS). We will conduct an independent cost estimate as part of, and in conjunction with, the ongoing Critical Change Review to assess the cost effectiveness of proceeding with additional ECSS releases that support 

retail and wholesale supply and depot maintenance activities. The Air Force will 

continue to maintain legacy logistics support systems while determining the best 

course of action for developing information technology tools to enhance the visibility 

and management of supplies and equipment. 

Financial Improvements 

The Chief Financial Officers’ Act provides direction for achieving a clean audit 

through leadership commitment, modernized government financial management systems, and strengthened financial reporting. Sound financial management helps to 

ensure the maximum combat capability for each taxpayer dollar. The Air Force is 

committed to achieving the legislative requirement for a clean audit by 2017. While 

2017 is a challenging deadline for a military organization as large and diverse as 

the Air Force, the strong engagement of Air Force leadership, additional financial 

resources provided in recent years, and focus on fielding effective financial systems 

will help achieve it. We are focusing our efforts on the information most relevant 

to decisionmakers, and the Air Force Financial Improvement Plan is closely aligned 

with the DOD strategy to achieve a clean audit. 

Strategic Basing 

In 2009, the Air Force established a standardized, repeatable, and transparent 

Strategic Basing Process. Guided by the Strategic Basing Executive Steering Group 

and coordinated through the lead major commands, over 115 basing actions have 

been accomplished ensuring that mission and combatant commander requirements 

are linked to installation attributes that identify those locations that are best suited 

to support any given mission. This process supports IOC, aircraft delivery, personnel 

movement, and other mission requirements. Recent improvements in the process 

have formalized actions to expedite simple, specialized or particularly time-sensitive 

basing initiatives, to support more timely decisions. 

During 2011, the Air Force will utilize the Strategic Basing Process to support 

basing decisions for the MQ–1/9, LiMA, LAAR, and KC–X. 

CONCLUSION

In developing our fiscal year 2012 budget request, we looked at ways to maximize 

combat capability out of each taxpayer dollar by identifying waste, implementing efficiencies, pursuing continuous process improvement initiatives and making smart 

investments. Recognizing the need to shift resources from ‘‘tail to tooth,’’ the Air 

Force identified efficiencies across the enterprise that will enable investments in enhancements to increase our warfighting capabilities. This includes the continued 

pursuit of cost-effective systems that leverage existing capabilities and maximize 

interoperability and integration of legacy and future systems. 

Our ability to project Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power is constrained by the 

increasing costs to design and build platforms in a particularly challenging budget 

environment. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects the difficult choices that 

will allow the Air Force to provide the necessary capability, capacity, and versatility 

required to prevail in today’s wars, prevent and deter conflict, prepare to defeat adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00461 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
456 

versaries and succeed across the range of potential military operations—all the 

while preserving and enhancing the All-Volunteer Force. 

We are confident in our airmen. They are the best in the world, and we rely on 

them to meet any challenge, overcome any obstacle and defeat any enemy as long 

as they are given adequate resources. We are committed to excellence and we will 

deliver with your help. We ask that you support the Air Force budget request of 

$119 billion for fiscal year 2012. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

General Schwartz? 

STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF 

STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of 

the committee, I am privileged to be here today with Secretary 

Donley representing the men and women of the U.S. Air Force. 

Our airmen continue to inspire us with their dedication and their 

service and define us with their many accomplishments. Quietly 

and proudly serving alongside their Army, Marine, Navy, and 

Coast Guard teammates, airmen every day act on behalf of the 

American people as stewards of the Nation’s trust and defenders of 

her security. 

This budget request, fully appreciating the Nation’s extraordinary fiscal condition, supports our airmen in their continuing efforts to structure the force for maximum versatility across the spectrum of operations for today’s requirements and for future challenges. 

Because of intense budgetary pressures, I echo Secretary 

Donley’s concern about operating under a continuing resolution. 

Without a 2011 appropriations bill, we will have to further reduce 

flying hours, cancel training and exercise opportunities, delay or 

cancel weapon system sustainment and depot maintenance activities, and disrupt a multitude of other day-to-day operations. 

Current reductions to the President’s budget request not only 

create inefficiencies that basically reverse the efficiency measures 

that the Secretary of Defense has directed, they adversely affect 

readiness as well. We appreciate your efforts to pass an appropriations bill to provide for these critical needs of our uniformed men 

and women. 

Consistent with the National Security Strategy and the Quadrennial Defense Review, our national military objectives are to counter 

violent extremism, deter and defeat aggression, strengthen international and regional security, and shape the future force. 

Airmen now are committed to the task of leveraging air and 

space power with all of its inherent versatility and presenting to 

the President and the national leadership a range of strategic options to meet these objectives, calibrated as our Nation continues 

to grapple with substantial deficits and related national debt. 

To counter violent extremism, airmen continue to make vital contributions to our Nation’s strategic objective of disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates in Afghanistan and 

elsewhere, thereby inhibiting their return to former sanctuaries. 

More than 37,000 airmen, about 6 percent of the force, are forward deployed worldwide. Of this group, nearly 30,000 are continually rotating to directly contribute to operations in the CENTCOM 

area of responsibility (AOR), including 10,000 airmen in AfghaniVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00462 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
457 

stan, providing close air support to U.S. and coalition ground 

forces, airlifting or refueling, personnel rescue, aero-medical evacuation from hostile battle space, leadership of provincial reconstruction teams, and training and exercise opportunities to develop partner air forces. 

An additional 57,000 total force airmen, or about 11 percent of 

the force, are forward stationed overseas, providing capabilities in 

direct support of combatant commander requirements. 

From their home stations in the United States, over 200,000 airmen, 43 percent of the force, provide daily support to worldwide operations, from standing nuclear alert to commanding and controlling our satellites, to analyzing ISR data, and much, much more. 

To deter and defeat aggression, we maintain vigilance across the 

entire spectrum of conflict and will employ multi-role systems with 

capabilities that can flex to fulfill different warfighting requirements. At the upper end of the spectrum, we continue to provide 

two of our Nation’s three arms of nuclear deterrence, with steadfast excellence, precision, and reliability. 

Across the remainder of the operational spectrum, we will continue to leverage air and space power that are vital to our Nation’s 

ability to sustain a robust conventional deterrent. This requires the 

ability to rapidly project power through the global commons and in 

the globally interconnected domains of air, space, and cyber space. 

Therefore, in addition to leveraging air power, we will also magnify our efforts to reinforce our cadre of space and cyber professionals. We will continue to ensure precision navigation and timing, secure satellite communications, timeliness of warning, and 

global environmental sensing for our joint teammates, while we enhance our space situational awareness that is vital to attributing 

space-borne threats and protecting our systems and capabilities. 

We will also continue to support the whole-of-Nation effort to 

team with international partners in strengthening space architecture resiliency, establishing and reinforcing norms for space and 

cyber activity, and ultimately developing a broader range of options 

to ensure our Nation’s access to and freedom of action in both domains. 

To strengthen international and regional security, the Air Force 

will translate air power’s inherent ability to traverse vast distances 

with unmatched speed, ensuring the U.S. Forces are globally available, yet through that inherent versatility can be tailored in scale 

to be regionally focused. 

Through a whole-of-Nation approach and with mutually supporting strategies toward this objective, the Air Force and the joint 

team will underwrite defense, diplomatic, and developmental efforts to help address the root causes of radicalism and aggression 

and not just the violent manifestations thereof. For instance, nearly 300 airmen are deployed as members of the Iraq Training and 

Advisory Mission-Air Force, supporting the development of counterpart capabilities in more than 425 specialties. 

Similarly, the airmen supporting the Combined Air Power Transition Force not only advise and train Afghanistan airmen, they 

help to set the conditions for a viable and self-sustaining Afghan 

army air force to meet a range of security requirements. Ultimately, these and coordinated efforts to build international partner 

458 

capabilities can help to prevent lower-intensity problems from escalating into full-scale crises. 

Finally, to shape the future force, we will work to ensure readiness, training, and equipage while contending with serious budgetary pressures. Our systems and capabilities must be ever more 

adaptable to be employed across the full range of operations, while 

agile command and control capabilities ensure interoperability with 

our joint and coalition partners. 

Flexible air, space, and cyber capabilities require resilient airmen. They are the lifeblood of our Air Force, to whom we owe our 

fullest commitment, and particularly our wounded warriors and 

their families. 

During this time of sustained and frequent deployments, we will 

bolster our capacity to provide assistance to our airmen in both 

managing the obvious and the less obvious challenges of returning 

home from war. Since July 1, 2010, we have made progress in this 

regard with the establishment of the Deployment Transition Center at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where nearly 1,200 personnel attended programs to decompress and begin a healthy reintegration into family and unit of assignment. 

We intend to continue this progress. As deployment tempos remain high, we will further strengthen our efforts to develop the 

core components of the Air Force resiliency program and its ongoing assessment of the fitness of the force. This will inform our efforts as we continue to improve the quality of our airmen and family services and support from child education to base fitness centers 

to transition assistance programs. 

In closing, sir, I would like to reaffirm my personal support for 

the efforts to better control the cost of DOD healthcare. I respect 

and I celebrate the service and sacrifice of our retirees. They are 

and always will be honored members of the Air Force family, but 

I do believe the current DOD proposals are both modest and responsible. 

The Secretary and I are watching the crisis in Japan very closely. The Department of State has authorized the voluntary departure of family members and dependents of U.S. officials who wish 

to leave northeast Japan. 

To date, airmen and their families are not at risk on our bases. 

We are working closely with the U.S. Pacific Command to ensure 

that they have the resources they need when they need them and 

will support the voluntary departure of U.S. family members to the 

fullest extent. 

Mr. Chairman, committee members, the Air Force remains steadfastly committed to global vigilance, reach, and power for America. 

Thank you for your continued support of the Air Force, for our airmen, and certainly for their families. 

I look forward to your questions, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Let us try a 7-minute round for the first round of questioning. 

Secretary or General, what is the support which we are providing 

to the Japanese now, and what are the plans for the next few 

weeks? 

Secretary DONLEY. Mr. Chairman, there are about 30,000 Air 

Force personnel and dependents in Japan. About half of those are 

459 

on the main island between the two locations you mentioned, 

Yokota and Misawa, in the far north. 

We are bringing to bear all the capabilities that we have in 

Japan. We have moved capability from Kadena up to Yokota and 

elsewhere to support ongoing humanitarian relief and disaster assistance. 

We are using C–17s and other assets to help move search and 

rescue capabilities from the United States to Japan. We have used 

both helicopter and fixed-wing airlift capabilities to move food and 

water, equipment, and key personnel around the main island, all 

in support of the local requirements as defined by the Japanese officials. 

We have also provided ISR coverage through Global Hawk missions, which have helped to define the scope of the problem for our 

Japanese allies. Of course, we are also taking the preparatory and 

prudent steps to make sure that we have in place all the capabilities and accoutrements that go with radiation-related defensive 

measures. 

The decontamination teams and capabilities are in place, if needed. The dosimeters are being distributed to forces when that is appropriate. Medical backup is being lifted into the island. So I think 

we are prepared for future contingencies as they might develop. 

There is a continuous reading of the health situation on an ongoing basis at both Misawa and Yokota. As General Schwartz indicated, there is no threat to our personnel there, although radiation 

readings across Japan are spiking temporarily, based on the local 

conditions at the nuclear reactors involved and also the prevailing 

weather. There are little spikes up and down, depending on where 

you are, but no immediate threats. 

Chairman LEVIN. Have any of those spikes been noticed at our 

three facilities? 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, no, sir, they have not. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. On the JSF delays, the testing program 

for the Air Force variant, the F–35A, has been proceeding ahead 

of schedule, and yet the 5-year defense plan cuts out 47 production 

aircraft compared to last year. 

The Marine Corps version has had problems. They were cut as 

well. The Navy version was reduced by only two aircraft. So why 

is the Air Force making such a large reduction in the plans to buy 

F–35As, given the fact that the testing program is proceeding even 

better than expected? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, there are a couple aspects to this. One 

is the way the program was sequenced. It happened that the C 

models, the Navy version of the aircraft, were toward the back end 

of the procurement cycle within the 5-year defense plan. So, there 

were fewer reductions simply because of the sequencing. 

As you suggested, the airplane is testing well, despite the fact 

that we did have a generator anomaly recently that caused a temporary grounding of the fleet. This is the kind of discovery that occurs in test. But the major cause for the reduction simply was a 

factor of producibility and the ability of the factory to put out aircraft and not to take too much risk on fulfilling the delivery requirements. 

460 

Chairman LEVIN. On the engine issue, press reports indicate that 

the development costs for the F–135 engine have increased by 

about $1 billion since last year. That is the so-called first engine. 

The Pratt & Whitney program manager has been quoted as saying that one-third of those costs are related to shortfalls in meeting 

specifications, two-thirds related to improvements beyond specification. So we have about a $300 million to $400 million cost overrun 

on that engine that is not related to improvements beyond the 

specifications. 

What is going on? Why are we accepting those kind of cost overruns in this engine? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, there are development issues that arise 

that one must deal with. I have to say that I wouldn’t expect the 

situation with the proposed second engine to be a lot different. 

The bottom line is that the F–135 engine is based on the F–119, 

which is currently in the F–22 aircraft. I have confidence that 

these developmental issues will be overcome. As I have indicated 

in the past, my personal conviction is that one engine is sufficient 

for the F–35 program. 

Chairman LEVIN. I understand that. But I am talking about the 

cost overrun in that one engine, and why is that acceptable? Why 

do we not have a fixed cost at this time on an engine where these 

problems, at least the $300 million to $400 million of this additional billion, are not a result of any new specifications but meeting 

the existing specification? Is that acceptable to you? 

General SCHWARTZ. It is not. I don’t offer an excuse for it, Mr. 

Chairman. 

We are moving into an era of more and more fixed-price contracts. The KC–46 is a case in point, and we understand your intent. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. Thank you. My time is up. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Schwartz, last week General Clapper and General Burgess testified before this committee, and when asked, they said 

that if events in Libya continued as the way they were, that 

Gaddafi would prevail. 

Given their view and the assessment of the situation on the 

ground today, do you agree with that? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, my own view is that he has certain advantages; interior lines and the capacity to bring forces to bear. 

That is a clear advantage of those resources in Libya, which are 

better supplied and better equipped. 

Senator MCCAIN. In recent days, they have achieved significant 

successes. I think that is fairly obvious, wouldn’t you say? 

General SCHWARTZ. They have reestablished control over larger 

areas in Libya. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. One of the ways of achieving this is through coordination of both air assets, land assets, and sea assets. Is that 

a correct assessment? 

General SCHWARTZ. I don’t have particular insight into the level 

of synchronization amongst their assets. 

Senator MCCAIN. But factors have been control of the sea and 

the air? 

461 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator McCain, they have been operating in 

the air. That is certainly the case. 

Senator MCCAIN. What is your assessment of the capability of 

their air assets? In other words, how many combat aircraft do they 

have, and how many combat helicopters do they have? 

General SCHWARTZ. They have multiple tens of combat aircraft 

and certainly I would say in the low hundreds of helicopter rotarywing aircraft. 

Senator MCCAIN. Of those that we have seen operational, there 

is a relatively small number. 

General SCHWARTZ. They have been flying in the neighborhood of 

tens of sorties a day. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you agree with General Odierno’s assessment and others that we could install a no-fly zone over Libya in 

a matter of a few days? 

General SCHWARTZ. I think that is overly optimistic, Senator 

McCain. But it is clear that we could establish a no-fly zone if that 

was the mission that was assigned. 

Senator MCCAIN. How long would that take, in your view? 

General SCHWARTZ. I think it would take upwards of a week to 

do that. 

Senator MCCAIN. We would be using assets that are now in the 

region? I am talking about Air Force assets. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, it would undoubtedly require resources 

in Europe, as well as those that are based in the United States. 

I would like to say, however, that, for me, the question is not can 

we do it, but should we? If so, how? 

Senator MCCAIN. If there was a declaration of a no-fly zone, it 

would be a motivating factor to the Libyan pilots not to fly. Would 

you agree with that? 

General SCHWARTZ. If the President assigns the mission to maintain a no-fly zone, clearly that would have an influence on the 

thinking of Libyan pilots. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is it your assessment that the situation has deteriorated to the point where it probably would require more than 

just a no-fly zone to reverse the momentum that the Gaddafi forces 

have obtained? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, that is exactly my point. The question is, 

is a no-fly zone the last step, or is it the first step? 

Senator MCCAIN. What is your assessment of the battlefield situation at this point to reverse the momentum? 

General SCHWARTZ. A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. As opposed to a couple of weeks 

ago, when probably it would have been. 

Also, isn’t it true that we do have significant capabilities to jam 

the communications that the Gaddafi forces have? 

General SCHWARTZ. We have some capability in that regard for 

military communications. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you. 

In order to impose a no-fly zone and perhaps other impositions 

on the enemy, it would require assets from the United States as 

well? 

General SCHWARTZ. It would, sir. 

462 

Senator MCCAIN. It would not require assets taken from Afghanistan or Iraq? 

General SCHWARTZ. I would not agree with that necessarily. 

Again, it depends on the mission that is assigned. But there are 

limited ISR assets, for example. As you are well aware, we have 

devoted virtually everything we have to the CENTCOM AOR. 

There might well be some implications there. 

With regard to lift, there is a limited amount of lift. There is 

some being allocated to the Japanese mission, some being allocated 

to CENTCOM, and in Libya, there would be some trade-offs involved, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. With regards to Iraq, the Iraqi Government has 

made it clear that they would like to develop an air force that 

would at least have the capability to defend the skies over Iraq. 

Isn’t that true? 

General SCHWARTZ. They have indicated as much, sir. However, 

they have made choices not to put the resources behind that aspiration. 

Senator MCCAIN. I see. If they put the resources behind it, could 

they do it by themselves? 

General SCHWARTZ. We believe that with appropriate training 

and so on, they could provide for their own air sovereignty. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Their own air sovereignty. But training, could 

they do that by themselves? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, we have a training mission in Iraq, and 

part of the effort would be to qualify the Iraqi pilots. 

Senator MCCAIN. I guess my point is if all of the U.S. Forces are 

withdrawn from Iraq, I think it would, at least in the words of 

General Austin before this committee, be very difficult for them to 

stand up an air capability. Do you agree with that? 

General SCHWARTZ. Presumably, there will be a training mission 

after combat forces exit Iraq, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. That would be necessary? 

General SCHWARTZ. I believe it would. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, Mr. Secretary and General. Good to see you again. 

I want to pick up at the outset of my time on some of the questions Senator McCain asked about Libya because it is a matter of 

such urgency. 

It was just a week ago that General Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, responded to a question I asked him, essentially 

saying that over time, assuming there were no new factors on the 

ground and no outside assistance, that Gaddafi’s forces would prevail over the opposition forces simply because they were so much 

better equipped, and have better logistics, command and control, 

and the like. 

I know he took some abuse for that statement, but it is clear now 

that in merely the passage of a week, which was quicker than I assumed General Clapper meant, and maybe quicker than he meant, 

463 

the Gaddafi forces now have moved very rapidly and are approaching Benghazi, which was the stronghold of the opposition. 

The New York Times reports today what it calls, ‘‘a striking shift 

in tone from the administration,’’ produced by the prospect of a 

deadly siege of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.’’ 

This is a newspaper report, but also a suggestion that the administration may now be negotiating around a resolution introduced by 

Lebanon, France, and the United Kingdom in the Security Council 

to not just give authority to impose a no-fly zone, but to authorize 

aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt 

the advance of Gaddafi’s forces. 

This is also from the newspaper this morning. It says that administration officials, after heated internal debate, have now decided that a no-fly zone would be, ‘‘too little, too late.’’ 

I wanted to ask you, from the Air Force point of view, if asked 

to participate—and I will get to whether we do it with some allies 

in a moment—in the aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of Gaddafi’s forces on Benghazi, 

how soon that could be carried out if authorized, and how it would 

compare as a mission to imposing a no-fly zone both in terms of 

its feasibility, the risk, et cetera. 

General SCHWARTZ. First of all, a mission as you describe it, 

were it to be assigned, would require preparation of the battle 

space. That is, sanitizing ground-to-air threats to the various aircraft. That clearly would require both electronic and kinetic action 

against air defense systems. 

With respect to interdicting ground targets, that is certainly 

within our capability to do so with precision. In non-urban areas, 

that certainly is a capability that we have. We can do it in urban 

areas, but clearly with the concerns about collateral damage and 

so on. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ. I think the key thing here is, we, as the uniformed military, are planning. We are working to provide the civilian leadership with options, and ultimately, the President will decide what he wants us to do. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Understood. 

General, Secretary Clinton said yesterday that a turning point of 

the administration’s consideration of what its options were and 

what it might do with regard to Gaddafi’s advancing forces was the 

Arab League resolution over the weekend calling for a no-fly zone. 

I know, and you know better than I, that some of our allies in 

the Arab world have impressive air assets and capabilities. Have 

we begun at all to discuss with our Arab allies the possibility of 

them working with us in either of these options—the no-fly zone 

or some other use of air power—against Gaddafi in Libya? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, I have not done that. That would be 

within the realm of CENTCOM and U.S. Africa Command. So I 

cannot give you a definitive indication whether that has occurred. 

But I agree with you that there are nations within the Arab 

League with capable air forces that, under the right circumstances, 

might be brought to bear. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate those answers very much. 

464 

I am going to go to a very different kind of question, which may 

be relevant to what we are talking about, and that is one that I 

have been interested in, which is the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) program. 

General, in earlier testimony before this committee, you stated 

that your Ground Moving Target Indicator analysis of alternatives 

(AOA) would be used beginning for fiscal year 2013 to guide Air 

Force investment in ISR weapon systems like JSTARS, which have 

this remarkable capability to chart what is happening on the 

ground and then advise our troops. 

You also stated that the report would be ready at least in interim 

form by this spring, and I wanted to get a progress report from you 

on how that is doing. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, the AOA is on track. Preliminary information is coming up from Air Combat Command, where the people 

are working on it. It will be in final form in the fall. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. So you would say it is pretty much on 

schedule? Okay. I appreciate it. 

I just would add by way of advocacy, from what we have heard, 

JSTARS continues to be doing well in supporting our troops in 

Southwest Asia and has been called into action in recent months 

in other trouble spots around the world. Does that sound right? 

General SCHWARTZ. Ground Target Moving Indicator capability is 

an important part of our surveillance repertoire. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General SCHWARTZ. The real question is how do we go forward? 

You can depend on us to maintain the current JSTARS capability 

until and if we decide to migrate to another capability. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you both 

very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

General Schwartz, you indicated that when the chairman was 

questioning the overruns, that there is no excuse for the overruns, 

the $300 million. But what are you doing about it? 

I mean it is great not to have an excuse, but what actually is 

happening? Is there any type of recourse? What is the conversation? Where do we go? 

Either one. 

Secretary DONLEY. I think Admiral Venlet has outlined this in 

his testimony a little bit. I would defer to that, if we can get you 

a more specific answer for the record? 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Yes. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

$893 million was added to the F135 program to complete System Development 

and Demonstration (SDD) as a result of the Technical Baseline Review (TBR). The 

TBR recommended adding $131 million for cost growth of previously planned content, $342 million for risk reduction measures, $341 million for the manpower and 

engines necessary to extend the flight test schedule by 2 years, and $79 million for 

management reserve. The TBR did not recommend changing the propulsion specification; therefore there is no funding for improvements beyond the specification. 

Cost growth refers to increases in the cost of work previously agreed to by the 

contractor, generally due to suboptimal performance. Risk reduction measures refer 

to items that were previously removed from the program but are now being put 

465 

back in to ensure the development program will complete on time with minimal 

risk. 

Secretary DONLEY. The Joint Program Office is managing this 

program. 

Senator BROWN. I am just reflecting on the comments that General Schwartz made that there has been no excuse. You were just 

talking about it and saying you didn’t ask the chairman to refer to 

another report. So I would like to kind of know what is being done 

about it. 

General SCHWARTZ. Clearly, the folks that are managing this 

program are focused on that to make sure that the contractor delivers what the contract requires. It is my understanding this is not 

a fixed-price contract. So there is some room there for developmental issues and a cost share between the Government and the 

contractor. 

The key point here is that we, as customers, need to be demanding. We need to write the right kind of contracts. We need to make 

sure that the terms are enforceable, and that certainly is our conviction as an Air Force. 

Senator BROWN. In light of the recent delays in the JSF program, 

not to mention the cost overruns in the F–135 engine program, we 

have seen positive results from competition in the Navy with some 

of the projects that they are working on, and it does work. I hear 

it regularly. I was just at the Army breakfast this morning, and 

they were talking about competition, and et cetera, et cetera. 

Do you have any comments on the competition when you have 

one engine that is being overrun with costs and delay, and you 

have another one that is ahead of schedule and under budget? Do 

you have any comments on that at all? 

General SCHWARTZ. I am not sure that I would agree that the 

other engine is under cost and so on. 

Senator BROWN. But what about the concept of competition? 

General SCHWARTZ. The concept of competition certainly is valid, 

as the KC–46 outcome demonstrates. But I think I would make the 

one case, sir, that the issue is current or near-term cost versus future soft savings. In the situation we find ourselves, while competition may, in fact, have benefits down the road, the question is what 

can we afford to do now? 

Senator BROWN. Okay. The Air National Guard (ANG) and Air 

Force Reserve have played an integral part of the war effort. The 

Air Force Reserve mans 14 percent of the total Air Force, but only 

constitutes 6 percent of the total Air Force personnel budget. Obviously, these figures represent significant cost savings and really a 

good bang for your buck. 

With the Reserve components being such an effective and costefficient component, can you comment on the types of roles and responsibilities that will be expected among the ANG and Reserve 

over the next 3 years? 

General SCHWARTZ. There is virtually no mission or very few 

missions where the Reserve component does not contribute in our 

Air Force. From kinetic missions, fighter, airlift, space, and cyber, 

there isn’t a mission where our Reserve components don’t contribute. We certainly value that contribution. 

466 

Senator BROWN. On the C–5Ms, I am just curious as to your 

thoughts on the performance thus far, in light of the ongoing Reliability Enhancement and Re-engine Program (RERP). Since the Air 

Force is likely to have a number of C–5As in service for the next 

30-plus years, does it make sense that that inventory in the ANG 

and Air Force Reserves should also be included in the modernization effort? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, I think the Guard and Reserve are included in the modernization of the C–5M. It has performed very 

well, and it is going to be part of our inventory going forward. It 

has provided a lot more operational flexibility and reliability to 

what is inherently an older airframe. So the C–5M has been a successful program for us. 

Senator BROWN. I am not sure if you are aware, I am going to 

be the ranking member of Airland Subcommittee with Senator 

Lieberman, and I am looking forward to working on a lot of these 

issues. I appreciate your time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary and General Schwartz, thank you so much for your 

service to our country. Under your leadership, the Air Force has secured the Nation’s nuclear arsenal and restored public confidence. 

I know the Air Force’s operational tempo has been high, and I 

want to thank the men and women of the Air Force, and their families as well, for their sacrifice. 

General Schwartz, deployed airmen performing the search and 

rescue mission play a critical role in saving lives. They completed 

over 9,700 personnel recovery sorties in 2010 alone, and their expertise makes the goal of the golden hour medical evacuation a reality. 

Can you talk about the casualty evacuation mission and how the 

rescue assets are holding up to the harsh environment we face? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, our combat rescue community is one 

of those communities in greatest demand that has essentially a 1- 

to-1 tempo, time at home to time deployed. They are, in fact, contributing to the Secretary of Defense’s mandate for recovery of our 

wounded within that golden hour. 

They are a very capable force, and clearly, this is a core mission 

for the Air Force. That is personnel recovery operations in denied 

areas. That is our special expertise. To have the right kind of medical capability onboard to stabilize patients and to get them back 

to higher-level care. 

We are in the midst of replacing combat losses. Of note, we had 

19 HH–60 aircraft in 2010 that sustained battle damage. We are 

replacing, through the operational loss replacement program, some 

aircraft which had been total losses. We are looking forward to the 

HH–60 recapitalization program to move to a successor platform 

for the rescue mission. 

Senator AKAKA. We thank you so much. Certainly, the program 

has saved many lives. 

General Schwartz, the Navy recently completed a critical design 

review for a maritime surveillance RPA and a realized cost and 

467 

schedule savings in research and development (R&D) by leveraging 

the thousands of hours flown by the Global Hawk. Do you foresee 

future opportunities for joint acquisitions, operations, maintenance, 

or training in the RPA arena to find efficiencies? 

General SCHWARTZ. We certainly do, sir. Global Hawk and the 

Navy equivalent program, Broad Area Maritime Surveillance 

(BAMS), is just a case in point, and not the only one, where the 

fundamental question is why should we have two different depots? 

Why should we have two different training pipelines or even, for 

that matter, based at different locations? 

In fact, we will probably base both BAMS and Global Hawk at 

Sigonella in the European theater, as an example of our putting 

these things together. Certainly, we shouldn’t have two different 

ground stations. 

Gary Roughead and I are committed in that area and others, in 

part as a result of our effort on air-sea battle, to make sure that 

where we have these synergies, we maximize them. BAMS and 

Global Hawk is just a very good example. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Secretary Donley, DOD spends about $16 billion a year for fuel, 

with the Air Force as the largest military consumer. The C–17 was 

recently certified to use biofuels. Can you discuss any preliminary 

results and any plans for biofuel usage in other aircraft? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force has had a comprehensive program for the last several years to make sure that we certify engines on all our Air Force platforms for alternative fuel blends, 

whether it be from Fischer-Tropsch processes or from biofuel processes. So, we have been stepping through that certification program. 

The issues in front of us, I think, now more relate to the national 

marketplace and who will be the producers and what will be the 

supply chain that feeds alternative fuels as a cost-effective alternative, which we can pursue in the mid-teens. So I think that is 

the primary challenge in front of us. 

We are, as you suggested, the largest consumer of fuel in DOD. 

From exceptional efforts in fuel management and in changes in operations, we have been able to reduce our demand over the last 

several years by about 2 percent. 

So the number of gallons used has gone down, but the cost has 

continued to go up. This is a continuing challenge. We also have 

a number of efforts underway at the installation level as well, in 

addition to aviation fuels, to get more renewable energy into our 

bases. 

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Donley, 35 percent of the fiscal year 

2012 budget request will be dedicated to quality of life projects, including dorms, training facilities, and child development centers. 

My question is what are the top three family issues that you are 

trying to resolve with the budget request? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, as you suggest, we have a number of programs underway. We have used the Year of the Air Force Family, 

which really is over the last 15 months or so, to help refine our programmatic focus going forward. 

We have started to not just support sustaining programs, such 

as you have mentioned—the dormitory modernization program, the 

468 

child development centers, manning the child development centers, 

and getting the hours of operations right—but we have started to 

fine-tune where we put the limited, marginal dollar to help with 

family issues. 

One example is our Exceptional Family Member Program, where 

we have airmen and families with exceptional needs and also focusing on school liaison support, which is so vital to airmen and their 

families, providing for education for their kids. Those are a couple 

of areas that we are focusing additional attention on. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Donley, General Schwartz, it is an honor to be here 

with you. I have a particular affinity for the Air Force, given that 

I am married to an A–10 pilot. So it is really an honor. Thank you 

both for your distinguished service to our country. 

I wanted to mention up front that I also had the privilege of attending the Army breakfast this morning and then hearing both of 

your comments about where we stand right now with the continuing resolution, that I would like to say that I hope that leadership within the Senate and also in the House brings forward funding for the rest of the year for a defense appropriations. 

We are at a time of war. I heard loud and clear what you had 

to say today. I know that members of this committee are very concerned about this as well. But please know that we want a full-year 

defense appropriation for the rest of fiscal year 2011 to come forward. 

Thank you for bringing those comments forward to let people 

know what the consequences are of having these short-term resolutions when we are at war. 

Understanding that it was a long and arduous process with lessons learned along the way, I would like to congratulate the Air 

Force on recently completing the tanker competition. The fact that 

the European Aeronautic Defence and Space (EADS) company has 

decided not to contest your decision I think is a testament to the 

quality of the process that you followed during this bidding round. 

So thank you, and that was a very good thing that they decided 

not to contest what had happened. 

In your posture statement, General, you rightly state that the 

new air refueling tanker remains the top acquisition and recapitalization priority for the Air Force. The current fleet of Eisenhowerera KC–135s are averaged over 48 years old, and they are long 

overdue for replacement. 

Without refuelers, you can’t run your fighters. You can’t run the 

rest of them. So it is so integral to the Air Force. 

General SCHWARTZ. Or a no-fly zone. 

Senator AYOTTE. Exactly. Some of the key missions that we need 

to accomplish. 

I am aware that you are now in the process of the early stages 

of the strategic basing process that will determine where the KC– 

46A will be stationed. I wanted to ask you about that. I am sure 

you are aware we have the Pease ANG that is a very vital part of 

469 

the KC–135 mission and has a very close proximity to air fueling 

tracks and also has run those missions very cost effectively. 

I wanted to ask you, I know that you haven’t announced the criteria yet, but will that criteria be merit based and on proximity to 

refueling air tracks? How do you anticipate that process coming 

forward and what will the timing be for announcing those criteria? 

Secretary DONLEY. We will start to look at those criteria later 

this year. I will say this is a multi-year process, and I think General Schwartz and I have been very clear from the beginning that 

we don’t want to get too far out in front. 

This is a 179-aircraft program. It will take over a decade to play 

out. We do not want to commit too far in advance to future basing 

and tie the hands of our successors or the operational commanders 

who will benefit from this capability later. 

Our plan is to look at the first bed-down issues later this year, 

and we will do those on a couple of year increments at a time, slowly building up the basing decisions. Obviously, we will want to take 

advantage of the capability of the aircraft and understand how it 

differs and will perform differently than the KC–135s. We will also 

look to Air Force operational needs and also the needs of the regional combatant commanders and how they define those requirements. 

So there are a number of tanker bases that are interested in 

being the first on the block, if I may put it that way. We understand that. We will work through this process very deliberately, as 

we have in previous bed-down decisions. 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate that, and you know we are very 

proud of the work that Pease is doing. I hope that you will consider, of course, that what we want is a transparent, merit-based 

process. I think that is what everyone would hope in how you make 

your decisions. 

I hope that you will consider, and I assume you would just based 

on cost effectiveness, the proximity to air refueling tracks. 

Thank you. 

Secretary DONLEY. Just to respond again, this is a multi-year 

process. There are 179 aircraft for this KC–46 program, plus we 

will probably have roughly 200 more tankers to be modernized in 

the mid- to late ’20s and beyond. So this is a long-term proposition. 

The point I would like to leave with you is that even as we make 

the first decisions about where the first airplanes will go, it is not 

a reflection on the value that we put on the refueling mission at 

the locations in which they are now serving. It is a little bit like 

the F–35 decisions we made last year, where we announced just 

the first few bases. But our intent is to buy over 1,700 JSFs. Eventually, we will get those fighters bedded down at fighter bases 

around the country. The same with the refueling capability, I 

think. 

So if you are not the very first, please don’t take that as some 

context of some negative ranking of some sort. This is going to take 

a while to field this capability across our Air Force. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. I do appreciate it. I know that the 

process will be open, and it will be merit based. I think that is all 

that we can hope for in how you make your decision. I appreciate 

that. 

470 

Senator Brown and I are sponsoring a bill. It involves giving the 

authorities in Afghanistan an opportunity to terminate contracting 

funds as soon as possible whenever we learn that the contractor is 

collaborating with the enemy or, in other words, working to undermine our mission there. 

One of the issues that came up is that CENTCOM has asked at 

least twice for additional contracting officers for Afghanistan to be 

able to perform oversight over those contracts, which is going to be 

key, with our legislation, to give you the tools you need to make 

sure the money gets in the right hands. I wondered what the status was of the Air Force officers because, as I understand it, those 

contracting officers are a very important piece of that oversight. 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, we are providing roughly 70 percent 

of the joint contracting capability. So we have a major piece of this. 

One of the two flag officers in CENTCOM is an Air Force brigadier. So we have a stake in this. Our people understand the mission, and we are truly all in at 70 percent of the workload. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, General. I appreciate that. 

If there is feedback that you have and tools that we could provide 

you to make sure that you have the ability to terminate funds to 

contractors where the money shouldn’t go, so it doesn’t get in the 

hands of our enemy, I know that I am very interested and Senator 

Brown is, as I am sure others are, in working with you to make 

sure that you have the tools that you need. 

Secretary DONLEY. We would be happy to provide comments on 

that legislation. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

We have reviewed the proposed legislation S.341.IS, titled ‘‘No Contracting with 

the Enemy Act of 2011.’’ The proposed legislation prohibits the awarding of Federal 

contracts to enemies of the United States and provides that any Federal contract 

with an enemy of the United States shall be null and void and may be immediately 

terminated or rescinded. The Air Force agrees that we should not award contracts 

to enemies of the United States. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides uniform policies and procedures for acquisitions by executive agencies of the Federal Government. FAR Part 

49 covers termination of contracts and provides the contracting officer policies and 

procedures relating to termination of contracts. 

Another safeguard was incorporated in the Department of Defense FAR Supplement in January 2009. DFARS 252.209–7001 states ‘‘In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 

2327, no contract may be awarded to a firm or a subsidiary of a firm if the government of a terrorist country has a significant interest in the firm or subsidiary or, 

in the case of a subsidiary, the firm that owns the subsidiary, unless a waiver is 

granted by the Secretary of Defense.’’ The Air Force will continue to award contracts 

in accordance with the FAR and its’ supplements. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. My time is up. I just wanted to 

thank you both for your distinguished service to our country. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me add my appreciation for your service, and all the men 

and women wearing the Air Force blue, supporting all the efforts 

around the world. 

This is to both of you, Secretary Donley and General Schwartz. 

For a number of years now, the need for a U.S. Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM) new headquarters has been understood and has become more apparent as time has gone by with the deterioration of 

471 

the building, I think, but also with the inadequacy of the building 

for the current mission of STRATCOM. 

The deterioration is well known, but what I would like to do 

today is focus on how a new headquarters will facilitate the changing nature of the mission of STRATCOM in today’s complex world, 

consisting not only of traditional military operations, but also with 

cyber, and with space. 

Secretary Donley, I know you were just there recently, as we got 

together, please consider this area and explain why you think it is 

necessary. Then, General Schwartz, maybe you could give us more 

of the detail on what the new command operation will be and why 

a new facility is necessary for that? 

Secretary Donley? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, the new STRATCOM headquarters is one 

of our largest and most important military construction (MILCON) 

projects. The committee has seen that material before, and we continue to stand behind the need to get on with that work. The recent 

flooding that we had at the STRATCOM headquarters has only reinforced that need. 

We have had the discussions, as you suggest, with both General 

Chilton and now General Kehler, about the changing nature of the 

requirements at that headquarters. One of the things that had 

evolved at Offutt Air Force Base (AFB) was that the headquarters 

was designed for a very different period, decades ago. 

We are focused on the nuclear mission, of course. But in the intervening years the capability to support the space mission and 

now to support the cyber mission assigned to STRATCOM has 

evolved ad hoc in various buildings and locations on site, and the 

new headquarters will give us the opportunity to build and integrate some new capabilities that we have not had there before. 

I know STRATCOM is looking forward to this opportunity. There 

are additional resources that will be required for the fitting out of 

the facility later. It is not inconsequential. It will require lots of information technology (IT), as you understand. 

Senator NELSON. General Schwartz? 

General SCHWARTZ. I would just reinforce that STRATCOM has 

become increasingly an IT, cyber-intensive mission, and the building simply was not designed for that. It was designed in an analog 

age. We, as an Air Force, certainly are committed over several 

years with substantial MILCON in the hundreds of millions of dollars in order to see that through. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

A major argument for the new tanker that has been described is 

the 1960s vintage KC–135 airframes are wearing out. A lot of our 

ISR capability is on that same airframe, including RC–135s, which 

are operated by the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB. 

Are the RC–135 airframes showing the same kinds of issues as 

the KC–135s? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, in general, no. They tend to operate 

in a somewhat more benign environment and with weight distribution that produces less fatigue on the airframe compared to the air 

refueling mission. 

But they are still older assets, and ultimately, we will have to 

recapitalize those machines. Although that is not in the near-term 

472 

horizon for us, we will have to look at that seriously. Perhaps the 

KC–46 airframe will be a candidate for that, as the 707 was. But 

that is a choice to be made somewhat down the road. 

Senator NELSON. While it is not a current issue that has to be 

decided at the moment, it is something that the Air Force is considering in the longer term, recognizing that we don’t want to get to 

that date without a plan in place. Is that accurate? 

General SCHWARTZ. That is certainly the case, sir. 

Senator NELSON. The next generation tanker contract has been 

awarded, and I congratulate you on that, do you have any estimated timeline, a strategic vision for how the ANG units that have 

KC–135s might be rolled into the fielding plan? 

I heard what you said to Senator Ayotte. But I am wondering, 

as it relates to National Guard units, is there a plan for fielding 

that you are considering? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, as we go through this process very deliberately, we will work the Guard and Reserve capabilities into this 

and the overseas capabilities required as well. As we have done 

and we will continue to do on the JSF, for example. Our initial decisions on the JSF included the Guard, and I would expect we 

would take a similar approach as we field the tanker. 

Senator NELSON. Changing direction just a bit here, I think everybody is familiar with the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report that was just issued earlier this month on March 1. 

It details the opportunities to reduce potential duplication in Government programs, and of course, GAO continues to look for those 

areas of duplication. 

It reported the findings it made to Congress ever since 2005, that 

there is negative duplication of efforts among the Services in the 

efficient use of ISR capabilities. In the fiscal year 2012 budget request, the Army has requested $1 billion to buy 36 MQ–1 RPAs, 

and they plan to operate 133 of these aircraft by 2015. The Air 

Force has requested $1.4 billion to purchase 48 MQ–9 RPAs as 

part of its program, that will spend $7.4 billion on 396 MQ–9s over 

that same period. 

They are very similar aircraft; they are medium altitude, long 

duration, and remotely piloted. Is the Air Force working jointly 

with the Army, trying to avoid unnecessary duplication and costs 

that come from unnecessary duplication, research, development, 

and in the planning stages? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, absolutely. I think the key point 

here is that this has been a growth industry. The Army and the 

Air Force apply these assets in somewhat different ways. Their 

Predator equivalents tend to be organic brigade combat teams. 

Ours, on the other hand, are more theater-level assets and are applied through the process in terms of tethered operations, that are 

line of sight. We clearly operate our birds from positions here in 

the continental United States. 

It is a different application and a different approach to processing the data stream and so on. The bottom line is there is plenty 

of work to do here, as is reflected by the demand on these assets, 

that we went from 32 to 48 and now to 65 Combat Air Patrols 

(CAP). I think DOD clearly has a focus on not allowing pockets of 

473 

capability to develop that are not accessible for combatant commander use. 

But, like with the Navy, we have a commitment with the Army 

to try to minimize the expense, standardize the ground stations, 

and so on and so forth. 

Senator NELSON. The standardization where standardization can 

work should be an economic efficiency as well. But, obviously, we 

want to have the diverse capabilities that are required by the aircraft, and we need to accomplish that as well. 

So I hope as these programs continue and the use of this airframe develops even greater that we will continue to work together 

to make sure that we don’t have unnecessary duplication and have 

coordination wherever it works. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We thank both of you for your service to your country. I have gotten to know both of you, respect you, and know how hard you work 

to try to do the right thing for our country. 

I would like to ask a few questions about the tanker competition, 

since the loser would have built that aircraft in my hometown of 

Mobile, AL. I don’t think that disqualifies us in this body to ask 

questions. In fact, I think other Senators expect those of us who 

have an interest in it to raise those questions and make sure that 

everything is handled in an up-and-up way. 

I would congratulate you on the fact that the bids came in low, 

that the Air Force got a lower cost. I won’t go into detail, but I remain convinced that the criteria that were changed when this administration took office too much reduced the advantage the more 

capable aircraft would have. 

In other words, you made it a price shootout, but if you buy an 

automobile, just because they have seats, tires, windshield wipers, 

and an accelerator doesn’t mean they are the same. It is the same 

with aircraft. I am confident the Alabama aircraft would have been 

more capable. Besides that, now that the bid has been awarded, 

some people are anxious as to how it may be supervised in the future, and they want to see integrity in it. 

Secretary Donley, isn’t it a fact, when you have essentially a 

commercial aircraft and people give a firm fixed-price bid, that the 

Air Force expects them to produce on that bid? Unlike in a development situation where maybe extra money has to be paid because 

difficulties occur in development, this bid put the burden on both 

bidders to honor their bid, and if they have difficulties, it is their 

own problem, and they have to pay for it out of their money. If that 

principle is violated, it actually violates the integrity of the bid 

process. 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, we have a much stronger contract structure for this program, and that was one of the changes we made 

in the request for proposal (RFP), to move from cost-plus to fixedprice incentives across the program. 

Senator SESSIONS. My question, though, was, isn’t it now incumbent on the Air Force that you require this winner to fulfill the 

474 

competition, and if they are given change orders or other kinds of 

advantages in the months and years to come, it would violate the 

integrity of the contract that has been awarded? 

Secretary DONLEY. We have had that discussion internally. The 

discussions with Boeing on the development program just started 

this week, but we have already discussed within the Air Force the 

need to not only execute the program as planned on a timely schedule and within the costs that have been allotted, but that we hold 

the contractor to the terms of the contract and the plan and the 

RFP as we have outlined it. 

Make sure that we have a very tight control over any changes 

that are made in the Air Force, that we elevate that absolutely to 

the highest level and make that very, very, very difficult to change 

our plan for the way forward on this program. 

Senator SESSIONS. General Schwartz, would you comment on 

that as to how you want to ensure that the winner complies with 

the terms of the bid? 

General SCHWARTZ. This is by watching microscopically what occurs to make sure that at every level there is interaction to make 

sure that the offerer delivers what he promised. 

As the Secretary suggested, the level of approval for engineering 

change orders is not going to be at the program office level. We 

haven’t decided where it will be yet. It might be at our level. But 

the bottom line is we intend to maintain discipline on this like you 

expect. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

General Schwartz as the representative of the warfighter, the 

airmen who fly these planes, isn’t there some tension between 

purely the lowest bid price and the quality and capability of the 

aircraft that the Air Force is looking for? 

Don’t we have to be sure in the future that when we bid these 

contracts that we also provide some mechanism that enhanced capabilities are given some credit so that you get the best buy, not 

just the lowest price? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator Sessions, I would argue that this 

was a best value approach. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, just talk about that general principle. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sure. I think what we want is value, absolutely. I think we got that, sir. What we ended up with, we looked 

at the capacity of the machines to carry fuel, to offload and so on. 

We looked at their cost effectiveness over a period of years. We obviously looked at price as well. 

But the bottom line was there was a synthesis of that, and in the 

end, there was a substantial difference, as you are aware. So, yes, 

value matters. But I think it is important that the Air Force have 

that opportunity to define how value is measured and to make sure 

that the offerers understand that explicitly so that we can avoid 

protests and so on. 

Senator SESSIONS. I appreciate that. 

I would just note, Mr. Chairman, that you and Senator McCain 

deserve credit after the ill-fated lease deal. I don’t know how many 

billion dollars the Air Force will save as a result of this competition, but it is billions, and it was a fierce competition. Both people 

went as low as they could go. 

475 

Does anybody have an estimate of how much the United States 

benefited by having this competition? 

Secretary DONLEY. No, sir, I don’t think we have an exact number here. But if you provide a specific question here, we would be 

happy to try to answer it. 

Senator SESSIONS. General Schwartz, you have any idea? 

General SCHWARTZ. It is in the billions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I remember the first GAO report showed $7 billion. I remember saying that you refer to the $6 million man, 

but I could describe Senator McCain as a $7 billion man. But actually, it has gone beyond that, and I think the leadership of the committee in a bipartisan way moved this forward. I just do believe 

that an Alabama EADS aircraft on every objective criteria was at 

least somewhat better, in some areas significantly more capable 

than the other. 

Can you tell us what the bid price was? We have heard general 

numbers, but I would like to know what you can tell us about that. 

Secretary DONLEY. I am not in a position to do that. I can tell 

you the value of the engineering, manufacturing, and development 

contract, which was the contract that was signed, was $4.4 billion. 

Senator SESSIONS. For how many aircraft? 

Secretary DONLEY. Those are for the first four airplanes. 

Senator SESSIONS. What do you expect per copy the aircraft will 

be, say, when the first tranche is completed? 

Secretary DONLEY. I think it still depends on some options that 

are to be exercised. Let me get you a number for the record on 

that. The requirement is the first 18 aircraft by 2017. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force representatives have met 

with congressional defense committee staff on several occasions to provide source selection and proprietary information since the contract award, and are willing to 

brief you on the bids at your convenience. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you for sharing these comments with 

us. I still want to know more about it and will be looking at it. 

We just feel like when I was a U.S. attorney and had to be involved with some city and government bid contracts, and favored 

people would bid low. They would get the contract, and they would 

get change orders and make a lot of money. A lot of good and decent contractors quit even bidding, they told me they were not 

going to fool with them. They would be mistreated. 

So, you have to maintain the integrity. You can’t just let the person get a low bid and then run up the price in the years to come. 

Otherwise, you will undermine any ability to get the kind of competition that you need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Thank you for 

pointing out the value here of competition, which has clearly produced some real gains, and also the importance that this not be a 

buy-in. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, let us just say one thing that 

is put on the table. EADS is a European ally of ours. Europe is an 

ally in so many ways. They buy more military equipment from us 

than we buy from them. They were the only possible competitor to 

the Boeing aircraft. So to have competition, we had to have that. 

476 

Then for people to come in and say, ‘‘Well, they can’t bid,’’ when 

they were going to build the aircraft in the United States using 

American workers, to me, didn’t reflect an understanding of the nature of this competition. So, I would just share that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for your service. 

I did want to point out that in Colorado, we are very fortunate 

to have so many outstanding Air Force units and personnel, including the Air Force Academy. 

General Schwartz, I know you are aware of some controversy 

about plans for a low-altitude navigation training corridor in southern Colorado. I just want to, for the record, say that I know we are 

going to be able to work through these issues together. To you, Mr. 

Secretary, as well. 

Let me turn to computer and cyber networks. I am concerned 

about vulnerabilities there. I would want to acknowledge that the 

24th Air Force was activated last October, and we have just graduated the first class of cyber space operators. I think in a few 

years, we will look back and say, ‘‘Boy, that was a historic event.’’ 

Like you, I want to make sure we have the right kind of recruiting pipeline that will bring young Americans into the military, and 

I understand some of those students aren’t traditional Air Force recruits. Could you talk about cyber recruiting programs and how 

you are bringing bright young computer scientists into the cyber 

security world? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, there are a couple of aspects to this. Certainly, as you indicated, we have 24th Air Force, which is our component of the U.S. Cyber Command, and they provide the expertise 

and the wherewithal to monitor our networks, to secure them, to 

maintain them as hard as we need to, and to respond to developments within the network, either manmade or otherwise. 

We have transformed the training for the folks that do this work. 

It is more technical. It certainly is more digital, and it is bringing 

folks on that certainly understand these things better than my generation did. The first class out of Keesler is a case in point, and 

certainly that will continue. 

I think the other aspect that is important here is that we need 

to provide venues how the most capable Americans can help us 

with this work. DOD does not lead in cyber. This is largely something where the commercial world is pushing the envelope. 

So, the Secretary has made it possible for our National Guard 

and Reserve to recruit folks who are current in the discipline, who 

do this work on a daily basis, but that are willing to serve and 

share their expertise with the Service. So that is the other aspect 

of this, which is to bring professionals who are current in the industry onboard through the Reserve and the National Guard to 

also support our mission. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Secretary, do you have anything to add? 

Secretary DONLEY. Specifically, we have been building Reserve 

component units in the Silicon Valley area and in the Northwest. 

477 

I would like to go back just to foot-stomp the very important 

point you made not only about the standup of 24th Air Force last 

year, but the creation of new career fields for these disciplines, 

which collapsed several functional specialties in a way that provides for the long-term continuity of this workforce into the future. 

I would say we are also working with outside groups like the Air 

Force Association, which has sponsored cyber patriot programs focused on youngsters in high schools. Certainly, it is that generation 

that is, in a sense, also leading the way in terms of cultural and 

technological changes, the abilities to multi-task, et cetera. But, we 

are seeding the pipeline with some very important capability for 

the country going forward. 

Senator UDALL. Somebody said recently, ‘‘digital, baby, digital,’’ 

and that is what I hear both of you saying. 

Let me turn to space situational awareness. We have 

vulnerabilities. We have significant new capacities, and these capacities have taken on real importance for our warfighters and our 

security. 

We are home in Colorado to Air Force Space Command, and I 

want to make sure we defend those assets. I understand that the 

funding for improved space situational awareness, space control, 

and counter-space is approximately 27 percent lower than last 

year. If I could, I would direct three succinct questions to you. 

Does that reduction reflect a decrease in focus on space situational awareness? How will the activities that you are funding in 

fiscal year 2012 affect the vulnerability of our space assets? Perhaps most importantly, I know, to you both and many of the rest 

of us, should we expect service disruptions to troops on the ground? 

Secretary DONLEY. A couple of points, sir. The funding change 

that you notice in the fiscal year 2012 budget is the result of one 

programmatic adjustment, a large programmatic change that we 

made. 

The Space-Based Surveillance System, which was launched just 

last year, had a second bird coming behind it. We decided to terminate that. We did not think the cost was worth the benefit in that 

case. But we have a requirement to come back and develop alternatives for a way forward with respect to that specific program. 

At the policy level, I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the importance of the space domain, both as reflected in the 

National Security Space Strategy, which has just come out recently, and in the Air Force’s response to that work. Space situational awareness and space protection work, which has been done 

by both Air Force Space Command and the National Reconnaissance Office, are really new missions for the space domain, areas 

of our work here that we did not have to worry about 10, 20, or 

30 years ago. 

We have always had communications, weather, ISR assets, and 

missile warning. These kinds of missions have always been part of 

the space domain. But space situational awareness and space protection are of growing importance and represent new work for us. 

So there is a lot of emphasis. There are resources going to this, 

and it is getting a lot of attention in the Air Force. 

Senator UDALL. The Air Force is clearly undergoing some significant changes. I want to salute you both for your leadership in 

478 

meeting those head on. Change can be both rewarding and challenging, and count on me to be there with you as we meet what 

I see are many, many opportunities to enhance our security and 

protect the warfighter. 

Thanks again for your service. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, let me echo the sentiments of my colleagues in 

thanking you for your leadership of the U.S. Air Force. 

General Schwartz, I think you pretty well responded in sufficient 

detail to Senator Lieberman on the JSTARS issue. But I take it 

from your comment, when you say that irrespective of what the 

AOA study comes out, that you are going to maintain the current 

JSTARS platform going forward. Which I am taking your comment 

to assume that on the reengining issue, which I have dialogued 

with both of you about over the last several years, is going to continue to be maintained as it is currently funded and will be funded 

in the future. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, as we made the commitment, we certainly will fulfill the guidance we have from DOD on the four ship 

sets. As you are well aware, there is an appropriations issue in this 

respect in 2011, and hopefully, that is addressed in the coming 

weeks. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Right. To both of you, Senator Levin mentioned this issue of weapon sustainment in his opening remarks, 

and I want to echo his concerns here. We are flying airplanes more 

than we ever anticipated. We fly them, whether it is a tactical aircraft, transport, or whatever, and we are fast wearing those airplanes out. 

We have three excellent depots in the Air Force that are providing the kind of maintenance we need to have done on those airplanes. But frankly, because of the workload demands coming from 

the customer, we have a backlog at every depot right now. 

I notice that you are only funded currently at 84 percent of your 

requirement. At first glance, this doesn’t seem to be a step in the 

direction of getting ourselves healthy in this arena. Because we 

have these backlogs, why are we not funded at 100 percent of the 

requirement? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, we cannot afford to put the resources 

against what would be 100 percent of the requirement. Just in the 

last budget cycle, for example, just to stay even with growing demand, the initial estimate was that it would cost us an extra $7 

billion across the FYDP to fund a continuation of capability at 80 

or 82 percent, roughly. 

It is not just the older aircraft that are challenging us in this respect. We are also taking ownership of new aircraft for which we 

are relying on lots of contractor support. So these will be new deliveries of C–17s, new deliveries of F–22s, the MQ–1s and 9s that are 

coming on board, and the MC–12, for example. But all of these are 

heavily reliant on contractor support, and the cost of supporting 

those incoming aircraft has gone north very quickly. 

We are very interested in restoring materiel readiness to the 

fleet. There is no question that we have challenges there, and we 

479 

are concerned about them. But we also need to push the logistics 

and support community to make sure we are getting the best value 

that we can. 

We need to work through the issues of overtime. We need to 

work through the issues of supply chain in the depots so that we 

get more efficient in this work and we drive harder bargains with 

our contractors as well. But there is no question that we need to 

get materiel sustainment north of where it is today. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. You mentioned that supply chain issue. Of 

course, we made a change in that chain and incorporated the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to provide the parts, which sounds 

like a good idea. But very honestly, we know we have had some 

significant problems there. 

If folks can’t have the part in hand when they are ready to put 

that part on the airplane, then our folks wind up sitting around, 

waiting on delivery of the parts. Where are we with respect to improving that transition to DLA? 

General SCHWARTZ. Admiral Thompson and I have had that conversation eyeball-to-eyeball. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Good. 

General SCHWARTZ. We are relying on him to allow us to do the 

organic work that needs to be done. Just as you suggest, Senator, 

if the part is not in the bin when it is needed, it results in change 

work, which is more expensive. So I have expressed my expectation 

to him on exactly what is required. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I hope you will stay in touch with us on 

that. From a policy standpoint, however we need to be engaged, we 

stand ready to do so. 

Secretary Donley, in a recent hearing, Lieutenant General 

Shackelford indicated that the Air Force is leaning toward a competition for the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform helicopter 

acquisition program. Can you confirm that there will be a competition and that any competition will be fair and allow commercial, 

off-the-shelf, nondevelopmental products to be considered? Will 

overall acquisition and life-cycle cost also factor prominently in the 

Air Force’s decision? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, the Chief and I are going to get the acquisition strategy on vertical lift later this month. I am absolutely 

sure that competition will be involved in that. 

As you are probably aware, we are working the recapitalization 

of the rescue fleet, the recapitalization of the helicopter fleet that 

supports the missile fields, and also handfuls of other vertical lift 

requirements in the Air Force that are now fulfilled by the very old 

and venerable UH–1 Huey. So we are trying to work those requirements in combination to get the most capability, the most value out 

of the mix, and the most efficiency that we can in this competition. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. We just talked about the competition in the 

tanker and the results that were achieved there. So I hope we will 

make sure that competition is exactly comparable to that. 

General Schwartz, you talked a little bit in response to Senator 

McCain about the no-fly zone issue in Libya. We know that they 

have a very capable surface-to-air missile (SAM) capability, probably about as good as anybody in that part of the region, maybe 

with the exception of Egypt. 

480 

If we did have to, if the President makes a decision, Secretary 

Gates says, ‘‘Guys, we are going to enforce a no-fly zone over 

Libya,’’ what kind of assets and what platforms would you put in 

there to enforce that no-fly zone? 

General SCHWARTZ. It would entail numerous assets, certainly 

fighter aircraft, F–16, and F–15, and both air-to-ground and antiradiation capabilities. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. How are you going to send an F–15 and an 

F–16 in there with the SAM capability they have and expect them 

to fly in a safe and secure manner? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I understand. Let me roll this out. Certainly, that is the fighter portion of the fleet. You are going to have 

RC–135s. You are going to have surveillance kinds of capabilities 

that would be used to surveil both the integrated air defense system and other areas as tasked. 

You will have tankers to support the short-legged platforms. You 

would have Compass Call and other capabilities that can jam communications and affect the effectiveness of the integrated air defense and so on. You would have, undoubtedly, some bomber aircraft that would give you long dwell over specified target areas. 

So this would be a total force application of our air and space capabilities. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. General, isn’t this exactly what the F–22 

was designed to do and has the capability of doing? 

General SCHWARTZ. No doubt that it would be useful, and I 

would have the expectation that at least in the early days, it certainly would be used. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to both of you for being here today and the great work 

that you are doing for our country. 

In your prepared statement, Secretary Donley and General 

Schwartz, you indicated that the Air Force’s high operations tempo 

has significantly impacted the overall readiness for the full spectrum of military operations, due to, among other things, the limited 

supply of combat air forces and the high-demand aviation units. 

This has caused lower deploy-to-dwell ratios for the high-demand 

skills. 

Can you provide some thoughts on how to rectify the steady decline in reported readiness indicators, particularly among career 

fields that are so stressed? 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, we have transitioned people from 

within our Air Force, from lower-stressed career fields to higherstressed career fields. ISR is the best example. 

Four thousand faces and spaces have migrated into that high-demand area from other parts of our Air Force. So, we have retooled 

and adjusted ourselves internally to try to size the talent pools for 

the demand signals that we face. That is the major strategy. 

The truth is that we cannot afford to grow as an Air Force. Our 

personnel ceiling is at about 332,000 Active Duty. It is 106,000 

Guard. It is about 70,000 Air Force Reserve. Within that pool, we 

481 

have to apply our manpower to the missions that we have undertaken, and we are doing that. 

Senator HAGAN. Secretary Donley, any comments? 

Secretary DONLEY. As the Chief suggested, we have reapplied 

manpower in some areas. We are still stressed in explosive ordinance disposal. We are stressed in contracting. We are stressed in 

joint tactical air controllers and other specialized fields. 

We have increased authorizations, but these are actually some of 

the most skilled airmen that we have, for which the pipeline is 

very long. We continue to work those issues, and we have also applied reenlistment bonuses where we can to help induce airmen to 

stay in with that mission. 

Senator HAGAN. General Schwartz, you mentioned the ISR. In 

the prepared statements, you indicated that the Air Force continued to rapidly increase its ISR capability and the capacity to support the military operations. 

Combat air patrols play a critical role in the current warfight, as 

you mentioned, and I understand that for fiscal year 2012, the 

budget request fully supports the ISR capacity needs, sustains the 

maximum production, and achieves 65 RPA combat air patrols in 

the CENTCOM theater by the end of 2013. 

What additional efforts are being done in the interim to mitigate 

this shortfall? How is the Air Force and the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

working with CENTCOM to ensure the timely and effective distribution of the resources? 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, the 65 CAPs, for the time being, are 

concentrated on the CENTCOM AOR. But clearly, when the missions subside there, they will be used more broadly by the other 

combatant commanders who have legitimate requirements, but 

have been out-prioritized, obviously, by the missions in CENTCOM. 

I think a key aspect here is, and it was suggested in an earlier 

question, the Air Force isn’t the only provider of ISR capability. 

There are capabilities in the other Services. The joint team needs 

to have access to them as well. In the case of Afghanistan, that is 

seven shadow platoons from the Army, for example. So there is an 

effort across the team to provide all the ISR capability that we possibly can. 

As you can imagine, we have needs for Japan surveillance. We 

have requirements for surveillance in the Mediterranean. Obviously, the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. So our youngsters are 

putting out at the moment. 

Senator HAGAN. As you mentioned the situation in Japan, how 

can you ensure the safety of the pilots? 

General SCHWARTZ. We have a surveillance process underway, 

and of the 34 aircraft that have operated in and around the areas 

of concern, we have confirmed that they were not contaminated. 

We have equipped our people with the detection capability to warn 

of contamination. 

We are monitoring the installations carefully, certainly Misawa, 

Yokota, and Kadena, but elsewhere in the Pacific, because the 

plume has the potential of moving elsewhere, depending on weather and so on. So the bottom line is there are protocols. We know 

what they are, and we are implementing them properly. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

482 

The well-being of our airmen and their families is fundamental 

to the mission effectiveness of our Air Force. It is important that 

these programs strengthen the Air Force community and enhance 

resiliency. 

I think some of the questions might have addressed this, but can 

you provide some insights regarding some of the innovative and efficient ways that the Air Force is looking to provide and sustain 

programs that will support the airmen and their families? We are 

all, obviously, always concerned about the families and the sacrifices that they also are making. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Secretary mentioned a couple of the 

major themes. Clearly, military family housing is one area that we 

have had considerable success with respect to privatized housing 

and so on. 

A second one is education. Perhaps the most important family 

issue is the quality of education for our youngsters. If we want to 

have thriving installations, we need to make sure that the schools 

that serve those installations are places where our families want 

to send their youngsters. We have worked hard to establish school 

liaison capability to make sure that our needs are understood by 

boards of education, by superintendents, and so on. 

Another area the Secretary mentioned is the exceptional family 

member. We were not doing as well as we should have. For an exceptional family that relocates from Virginia to Texas, it is a stressful time because they have certain support structure here. The 

issue is what is available in Wichita Falls, in Texas? 

We weren’t providing the backstop for that. We are now. We are 

helping our exceptional families with connecting with the support 

services that are at their future destination by coordinators at each 

base. 

Finally, child care. That is the fourth major theme. In the next 

2 years, we will meet the demand for child care at our installations. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, thank you for being 

here before us. 

I would just pick up on the comment you made about child care. 

In my former life as Governor in New Hampshire, I worked a lot 

on early childhood education and the importance of quality child 

care. We looked at the military as the model for the private sector 

because you all have been real leaders in recognizing how important the early years in a child’s life are. So thank you very much 

for that commitment. 

I am sorry to have missed much of the discussion. I had another 

hearing. So I will try not to repeat what has been said by my colleagues, except for one issue. I do want to reiterate what my colleagues Senator Ayotte and Senator Nelson raised with respect to 

the basing of the KC–46A. 

I know that I echo what you have heard from others about how 

pleased we all are that the decision on procurement has finally 

483 

been made and the importance of the deliberation and transparency of that process and the thoroughness. I very much appreciate that and look forward to working with you on a similar transparent and thorough process as you make the decision on where to 

base these planes. 

You won’t be surprised to hear that, as a Senator representing 

New Hampshire, I think Pease National Guard Base is one of the 

places that you should look at very carefully, and we look forward 

to working with you on that. I know that they will score very well 

on any objective criteria. So we look forward to that. 

There is a lot of work in R&D and innovation that goes into new 

systems for the military, new planes, and any of the initiatives that 

you have. New Hampshire has a very important defense industry 

that has done a lot of that innovation. 

I wonder if you could speak to how comfortable you are that in 

the current budget situation that we are facing in this country, 

that the R&D that needs to happen in order to provide the innovation that the Air Force is going to be relying on is going to continue 

to happen despite this tight budget situation? 

Secretary DONLEY. This is a very important issue for us, Senator. 

The Secretary of Defense has reinforced it by ensuring that we 

spend about 3 percent of our top line on R&D going forward. He 

has put focus on fencing resources to make sure we do not, in the 

vernacular, eat our seed corn going forward. 

Just last year, we completed a broad review in the Air Force of 

our future R&D requirements, titled ‘‘Technology Horizons.’’ It is 

something that the Air Force has done on a decade-by-decade 

timeline. We have just been through this process to help identify 

promising technologies that we think will bridge various aspects of 

our work going forward so, therefore, they represent good investments. 

Certainly, the IT pieces of what we have been working on and 

the development of the cyber community over the last 5 to 10 years 

are critical to much of that work. The materials, engines, and propulsion systems that are more efficient and capable also are coming 

along well. Also, directed energy work, which has long been of interest in the Air Force, continues to progress as well. 

There are a variety of areas here. We recognize the importance 

of making sure that we continue to develop the technological edge 

that sets our Air Force apart. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Can you talk a little bit more about what have 

been the most helpful tools in leveraging some of those new technologies? For example, one of the things we are considering right 

now in the Senate is the Small Business Innovation Research Program, of which DOD spends probably the biggest piece in encouraging small businesses to develop new technologies in areas that 

you have an interest in. 

So are there initiatives like that you feel are particularly important? Or have you developed other mechanisms internally that help 

drive this technological development? 

Secretary DONLEY. We do watch carefully to make sure small 

businesses, especially with unique and new capabilities, have a 

way of entering our market, if you will, our R&D process. So this 

is something that does get attention. 

484 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Finally, as we talk about R&D and new technologies, one area, 

obviously, that we are all very concerned about right now is energy. 

When the Secretary of the Navy was here last week, he talked 

about some of the new energy advances they are doing to reduce 

their energy consumption. 

I wonder if you could speak to what you are doing in the Air 

Force and also how you are cooperating with other branches of the 

military so that you are taking advantage of the progress that each 

of you are making? 

Secretary DONLEY. There is a Deputy Under Secretary at the 

DOD level that helps to coordinate work across the Services in this 

respect. She is doing some excellent work in getting us focused, especially on operational energy and support of the warfight, and 

how we can be more efficient down range in moving critical energy 

assets around the theater. 

But more broadly, as one of your colleagues had mentioned earlier, we are the largest user of energy in DOD, and aviation fuel 

dominates that. We have been able to internally reduce demand for 

energy for aviation fuel by 2 percent over the last couple of years. 

It has leveled off. But our challenges with the prices have continued to outpace our reductions. 

Nonetheless, going forward, fuel efficiencies is a significant part 

of our planned efficiencies over the next 5 years. Air Mobility Command is leading that work. We think there are further adjustments 

that we can make in flight planning and bringing on commercial 

best practices. So we think there is more work that can and should 

be done. 

A couple of other things. We have been working methodically to 

certify all the engines in the Air Force inventory to operate on fuel 

blends, if you will, from alternative sources of energy, including 

biofuels. But I would note that as far as we have come in getting 

those engines certified, I think the challenge in front of us really 

is, who will be the producers and suppliers in bulk quantities of 

those new innovative fuels? 

Which ones will we choose generally as the best practice or the 

best of many alternatives for aviation fuel going forward? Who will 

produce that, and when will that production capability come up to 

a level where we can start tapping it at an economical rate? 

We are very anxious to get about that work, but it is a DOD-wide 

issue, and it is also an issue with the Department of Energy and 

others, including the U.S. aviation industry. 

Senator SHAHEEN. It is really a national challenge. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

I will actually follow up on that. I know, Mr. Chairman, you have 

been generous with requests that I made. I know, as time progresses here, we might come to the conclusion that it seems every 

meeting we have had there are some elements of energy that we 

are talking about. 

It seems like we should probably have a more robust discussion 

about energy needs because you hit it on the head. It is supply that 

485 

is critical. Of course, from Alaska, we would argue that gas-to-liquid is a great opportunity in the future of clean-burning fuel and 

for aviation fuel there is a huge opportunity. 

As I just read, yesterday or the day before, just in DOD, the fuel budget is now $1 billion over because of the high cost or, in some 

cases, the inability to get the volumes you need. Therefore, you pay 

a higher price for it. 

So I look forward to that because we have to be serious about a 

long-term energy plan that has a diversified energy resource from 

a national security perspective as its first priority. Second is economic security. 

But I am sure you don’t want to see fuel in our lines coming from 

Iran, which we do have, or fuel coming from countries that may not 

have the most stable governments, as we are now experiencing 

$100 per barrel. Or waiting for the Saudis to tell us what price 

they will give us based on the volume they will produce, which is 

dangerous for us security-wise and economically. 

I look forward to an opportunity to bring in the person that is 

coordinating the new position, which is a great new position, to coordinate and discuss those issues. So I will hold that, but I just 

want to follow up on what was asked there. 

The no-fly zone discussion that occurred; this is a budget hearing. Obviously, there is public policy there. I understand that. But 

there is cost. There is cost in real dollars that have to come from 

somewhere, right? 

The aviation issue alone, the fuel cost to fund such a thing or the 

allocation of resources from scarce resources or limited resources 

that we are utilizing now have a push-and-pull effect in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Is that a fair statement? 

General SCHWARTZ. Depending on the mission assigned and its 

scope and scale, it could have an effect on either assets currently 

in theater or those that are bound for the theater. 

Senator BEGICH. But even if it is minimal, there is a cost that 

will be required out of your budget that we don’t have budgeted 

today. 

General SCHWARTZ. No question. 

Senator BEGICH. So somewhere, someone has to write a check? 

General SCHWARTZ. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. Sometimes we get a little excited about 

ideas, but we forget that there is a check that has to be written 

by somebody. We are experiencing that now with the Afghanistan 

war, and the Iraq war. They require lots of money, lots of lives, and 

a lot of issues here that in the front end, we are now realizing 

there is a cost. 

As we consider these issues, we have to also consider that piece 

of it. Because if we tell you here is a new policy, you are going to 

have to move some assets around. I just want to make sure I am 

not misstating that, that there is cost, no matter what level of an 

idea might or might not materialize. 

General SCHWARTZ. What we do is not free. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. You summarized it very well. 

Let me go to a couple just quick questions. One is about total 

force integration. In Alaska, Elmendorf-Richardson is working phenomenally and I consider it the model of joint base operations. 

486 

That is not necessarily the case everywhere, but I think we really 

have a great model. You know it well, being up there. 

The Active Duty and the Reserve, they work hand-in-hand. But 

I have to say there are some issues. There is a disconnect. I want 

to give you just a quick analysis or comment and then maybe ask 

some questions. 

There is kind of a disconnect between the policies and the 

resourcing of the initiative. Reserve components have to request 

military personnel appropriations (MPAs) for mandates to meet 

anything above and beyond regular requirements. Under the total 

force integration, these initiatives, on many occasions, are above 

normal requirements. But yet getting the MPA allocation is extremely difficult. 

I am going to give you an example. The 477th Fighter Group in 

Alaska was scheduled to deploy in support of theater security cooperation agreement. Reservists plan months ahead, and get everything geared up. It is not something they can just flip tomorrow 

and do. They get things all lined up. Then, 10 days before, they 

were told, ‘‘Sorry, we don’t have the MPA.’’ 

So then, as you can imagine, they start ratcheting down. Then, 

a few days before, they are told, ‘‘Nope, now we have it.’’ 

I think that is unacceptable, especially with reservists who have 

a different scenario in what they have to get prepared for to get 

ready to be on the front lines. Are you aware of this? What steps, 

if you are aware of it, are you taking to help resolve this issue, especially with the reservists that I think are coming under incredible pressure? This is just one example. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, this is a manifestation of the fact that 

the supplementals are contracting. In this case, it was a theater security cooperation mission, it was not related to CENTCOM operations, and so it had a lower priority. Ultimately, we found MPA 

resources to make it go. 

But you are right. There was this uncertainty about whether 

that was going to be the case. I think it is important to understand 

that as the supplementals subside or the OCO accounts subside, 

there is going to be less MPA available, and we are going to do less 

with less. We are going to have to recognize that for this decade, 

people have gotten used to being on long-term Active Duty. We are 

going to have less of that. 

We are going to have to be very surgical about where we use 

MPA. For example, the surge that we now have underway in 

Japan, and if we do something for Libya, we will naturally allocate 

what MPA we have to those missions. So, others who might have 

planned to have a training mission or something along those lines 

will be displaced. 

Senator, I think the key thing here is that we understand completely, particularly on these associated missions, that MPA is how 

the Reserves function. At the same time, I think we need to reset 

our thinking a little bit about how readily available MPA will be. 

Senator BEGICH. If I can hold you there, and my time is up, but 

I just have one comment after this. What I am hearing is you recognize this kind of back and forth or ricochet is something that has 

to be addressed around the Reserves, recognizing the new economics or budgeting that we are in, as well as other missions that are 

487 

pressuring against it. You recognize that is something we have to 

deal with? 

General SCHWARTZ. It is a management obligation. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. Last thing, I would not want to let Senator Shaheen walk away with the tanker concept alone. 

I know in the RFP there was like nine locations identified. We 

would hope that you would do your due diligence, and there is no 

better place that can touch so many places in this world than Alaska. 

As many in the Air Force know, it touches everywhere. We have 

members now in Japan serving the needs that are there, which we 

are very grateful of our troops to be doing that, but also around the 

world. We would not want to be excluded from any due diligence 

process that the Air Force and DOD would do. 

Senator SHAHEEN. We have a longer runway. 

Senator BEGICH. They have a long runway. We keep our airports 

open no matter when it snows. I will leave it at that. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. It is the advantages of competition we talked 

about before. [Laughter.] 

General SCHWARTZ. It is wonderful to be popular. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. I just have a few more questions for a second 

round. We have had a recent lawsuit filed in Federal court alleging 

that DOD failed to protect its personnel from being raped and sexually assaulted. 

Two of the plaintiffs were from the Air Force, and I am wondering if you can give us an assessment of the Air Force’s Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program. Is it having any impact 

that you can see? Secretary Donley, let me start with you. 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, as you are probably aware, we have a 

slight increase in our sexual assaults reported for fiscal year 2010. 

This is of concern to us. 

We have known for a long period of time that sexual assaults are 

among the least reported crimes in the United States and in the 

military as well. This is of management concern in our Air Force 

because for the most part, it reflects airman-on-airman violence, 

which is absolutely anathema to our core values and completely inconsistent with the respect that we expect airmen to reflect in their 

daily business with others. So we recognize this is an issue. 

We did commission last year an independent review by the Gallup organization, and you will be getting the results of this fairly 

soon, in which we asked them to survey across our Air Force what 

the prevalence and the incidence of sexual assaults probably is, 

based on a scientific survey. It is, as the criminologists and psychologists have told us for years, higher than is reported. 

You will see data there indicating that in the last year, as much 

as 3 percent of the female population and 0.5 percent of the male 

population believes that they have been victims of sexual assaults 

of one sort or another. This is a serious issue for us. 

We are reinvigorating our oversight, our management of this, 

and it is a very important issue for us going forward. We are increasing frontline training on this subject, and we are seized with 

the need to get a better handle on this. 

488 

Chairman LEVIN. General Schwartz, do you want to add anything to that? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I would only say that it is a crime. We 

don’t beat up on our spouses. We don’t beat up on our kids, and 

we don’t assault each other. That is the message that we have sent 

out. 

Chairman LEVIN. On the acquisition personnel issue that I made 

reference to before, the Air Force has made reforming its acquisition process a high priority. One of the elements is the hiring of 

more acquisition professionals, including personnel that are technically qualified to oversee programs. 

What is the current status of the efforts to meet the goal, which 

was identified in 2009? 

Secretary DONLEY. Sir, my recollection off the top of my head— 

we will correct this for the record if I am off base here—but I believe we have hired about 8,000 people into the acquisition workforce over the last couple of years. 

We have focused in our acquisition improvement plan that General Schwartz and I put in place at the end of 2008, early 2009. 

The focus of that was strengthening the workforce. So we think 

this is a very important priority, to get the right people in, get the 

right skills in, in both the financial management side and the systems engineering side that support a strong acquisition management. 

We have been very focused on that. 

Chairman LEVIN. Would you get us for the record the details on 

that? What was the goal in 2009, and where are you in meeting 

that goal? 

Secretary DONLEY. We will. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The Air Force is committed to maintaining our efforts to recapture acquisition excellence that we started October 2008, carried forward in the Air Force Acquisition 

Improvement Plan (AIP) dated 4 May 2009, and programmed in the fiscal year 2010 

PB and fiscal year 2011 PB. One of the cornerstones of Acquisition Excellence and 

the AIP was to revitalize our acquisition workforce to ensure that it is appropriately 

sized to perform essential, inherently governmental functions and is flexible enough 

to meet continuously evolving demands. The AIP established a goal to increase and 

fund military and civilian personnel authorizations as required, and to increase the 

manning priority for civilian and military acquisition authorizations, supporting our 

Acquisition Human Capital Strategic Plan goal to increase the size of the acquisition workforce to levels commensurate with workload. 

Consistent with Department of Defense terminology, our acquisition workforce is 

defined as those personnel who encumber an acquisition coded position (in accordance with the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act). Bottom-line, we 

have increased our acquisition workforce by 8,478 personnel as described below: 

Starting Position: Personnel on board 30 Sep 08—Military 8,762/Civilian 

16,080/Total 24,842 

Ending Position: Personnel on board 31 Mar 11—Military 9,065/Civilian 

24,255/Total 33,320 

As a result of the fiscal environment shifting in the Federal Government and 

within the Department of Defense, we are assessing the impact of a straight-lined 

civilian workforce at the fiscal year 2010 levels with exceptions for modest growth 

in strategically important areas—including Air Force planned Defense Acquisition 

Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF) hiring of just under 1,500 positions. The 

Air Force is performing a zero-based review of our entire workforce to strategically 

implement these new civilian constraints. While the planned DAWDF hiring is assured, we are looking at the broader impact to our acquisition workforce in the context of this review. 

489 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Finally, General Schwartz, let me ask you about the Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell (DADT) issue. Where are you in terms of the implementation of the policy? Have you seen any problems in the repeal of 

DADT? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, we have begun the internal training 

process. There were three tiers: the first are so-called experts, the 

attorneys, the clergy, medics, and so on; the second tier being the 

leadership; and the third tier being the broader airmen population. 

We have trained about 2,100 individuals so far, and that process 

will accelerate. 

We will complete the first two tiers here in a matter of a couple 

of months. We will certainly strive to move through the larger body 

of airmen as quickly as we can. 

We have made it clear that what this is about is treating each 

other with dignity and respect, that some of us in the Super Bowl 

were Pittsburgh fans and some of us were Green Bay fans, and 

that is the way it is amongst airmen, but it doesn’t affect how we 

do our jobs. Likewise, we are not about changing what people believe, but we are about maintaining Air Force standards, and that 

is what we are communicating. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you think you are going to be able to successfully implement that policy change? 

General SCHWARTZ. We will advise the chairman and the Secretary when that training is complete. They will certify, as you are 

aware, and we will move on, yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are you confident that is going to be able to be 

done without any major problem? 

General SCHWARTZ. We have some one-offs, Senator. We can talk 

about that, if you would like, off-line. 

Chairman LEVIN. Sure. 

General SCHWARTZ. But generally speaking, we will deliver on 

this. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you both. 

It has been a very good hearing, and we appreciate everything 

you do for the Nation and for the men and women that you serve 

with, and your families, we thank them especially. 

We will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK BEGICH

MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATION MAN-DAYS

1. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, the classic associate 

between the 477th Fighter Group (FG) and 3rd Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson is phenomenal. They work hand-in-hand to meet contingency and steady 

state mission requirements. However, there is no formal process for allocating mandays to the 477th FG so they can fulfill their requirements under the Total Force 

Integration initiative. A process is needed to appropriately manage the money, contingency, and steady state requirements, and most importantly the people in associate units. For instance, the 477th FG was scheduled to deploy in support of a theater security package (TSP) in January. The reservists planned for months to prepare by taking leave from their jobs, finding babysitters, and making other necessary preparations. Ten days before their scheduled deployment date they were 

told there were no resources to support the deployment. A few days before the deployment they were told they would, in fact, deploy in support of the mission. It is 

unacceptable to manage people and missions this way. TSPs are a known U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) biannual requirement. This is just one example of how the 

490 

lack of process creates unnecessary challenges for Active Duty and Reserve component personnel in fulfilling taskings. A functionally integrated unit, the 3rd Wing 

relies on their Reserve component counterpart to meet demands. In fact, because of 

the contribution by the 477th FG, the 3rd Wing plans to decrease Active Duty billets by 75 positions. Therefore, it is imperative to implement a process for allocation 

of man-days based on requirements. For steady state requirements this should be 

done well in advance of the year of execution. Are you aware of the challenges associate units face due to the lack of a formal requirements-based process for allocating 

military personnel appropriation (MPA) man-days? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. We share your concerns about ensuring resources are available to access Air Reserve Forces in support of our most critical missions, and that requirements-based decisions are made in a timely manner. 

The Air Force transitioned to a requirement-based process for budgeting MPA mandays during the fiscal year 2012 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) exercise 

in 2010. During the budget exercise, Major Commands identified their MPA manday requirements including any Total Force Enterprise units within their commands. Requirements were then evaluated based on Air Force Planning and Programming Guidance priorities, and vetted through the Air Force Corporate Structure for funding. This process identifies requirements and establishes funding levels 

for MPA man-days 2 years prior to execution of the man-days as part of the overall 

budget request. 

The recent 477th FG shortfall was a result of the fact that supplemental funding 

is shrinking, and the theater security mission they were supporting was not related 

to Central Command (CENTCOM) operations and therefore could not be funded 

with overseas contingency operations (OCO) funds. Given the importance of this 

mission, the Air Force reprioritized steady state man-day requirements funded 

through the baseline MPA to support this deployment. 

2. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, what are you doing 

to address this issue? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. As supplemental funding subsides, 

there will be fewer MPA funds available. We need to reset our thinking about how 

readily available MPA will be in the future. We are working with the Major Commands, Air National Guard, and Reserve commanders to communicate to the Force 

the decreased level of MPA funding and its impact on our citizen airmen. We are 

going to have to be very surgical about where and when we use MPA man-days. 

Even with our recently established requirements-based process for programming 

and allocating MPA man-days, we have to maintain the flexibility to respond to 

real-world events. We continuously monitor execution and changing demands to ensure MPA resources are applied to the most critical missions. For example, with the 

surge that we now have underway in Japan and Libya, we are allocating what MPA 

man-days we have to support these missions. This will likely require a 

reprioritization of MPA resources. 

3. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, how are you ensuring 

major commands, like Air Combat Command and in the case of Alaska-Pacific Air 

Force, understand and support associate unit need for MPA man-days to meet both 

steady state and contingency requirements? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The fiscal year 2013 Air Force Planning and Programming Guidance issued to the Major Commands identifies Total 

Force Enterprise requirements as the second highest priority for the allocation and 

use of steady state MPA man-days after non-OCO Aerospace Expeditionary Force 

deployments. In our recently established requirements-based process, the Air Force 

evaluates the Major Commands’ requests for steady-state MPA man-days based primarily on Air Force Planning and Programming Guidance priorities. 

4. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, if the plan is to proceed with a requirements-based process, when will it be implemented? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force implemented the requirements-based process for the MPA man-days during the fiscal year 2012 POM 

build which began in fiscal year 2010. Commands will have the final allocation by 

the end of June 2011. We intend to continue this process as we build future budgets. 

5. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, what specific actions 

need to be taken to implement the process and what is the timeline for completion? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force has fully implemented 

our requirements-based process to prioritize and allocate the MPA man-day funding 

491 

during the building of our fiscal year 2012 POM in 2010. The resulting MPA disbursements will be distributed to the Major Commands by the end of June 2011. 

We are applying the same process for identifying and prioritizing MPA man-days 

during the fiscal year 2013 POM build. 

SPACE PROGRAMS

6. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, how has the new National Space Policy, released in June 2010, and the National Security Space Strategy, released in January 2011, influenced Air Force space posture or investment 

plans; specifically utilization of commercial space ports like Kodiak Launch Complex 

(KLC) in Alaska? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. In accordance with the 2010 National 

Space Policy, the Air Force supports the purchase and use of commercial space capabilities and services to the maximum practical extent when such capabilities and 

services are available in the marketplace and meet U.S. Government requirements. 

The Air Force is cooperating with National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to jointly develop a national 

launch infrastructure modernization plan in support of the National Space Policy. 

As currently envisioned, this plan will address state spaceports and make particular 

note of the KLC with its demonstrated capability to support national security 

launch and test requirements. 

The next Air Force launch from the KLC is the Operationally Responsive Space 

TacSat-4 mission. For all future launches, the Air Force will determine which spaceport to utilize based on required orbital profile, mission, and cost effectiveness. The 

KLC is part of the National Space Access capability and one of the spaceports considered for launch. While the Air Force recognizes the value of the KLC, we do not 

currently have launches planned from the KLC after TacSat-4 because upcoming 

missions do not require highly-inclined orbits. 

7. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

parted ways in last year’s decision to restructure the joint National Polar-orbiting 

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program. The Air Force is 

now responsible for acquiring its satellites for a morning orbit, and NOAA is responsible for acquiring their own separate system for an afternoon orbit. These satellites 

are extremely important in Alaska. NOAA is facing an anomaly this year that most 

likely will hurt their ability to move forward with a new satellite. Do you have any 

concerns with their ability to meet weather and environmental requirements? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force has no reason to assert 

that the NOAA/NASA cannot meet their weather and environmental requirements. 

The Air Force supports the President’s budget request for the NOAA/NASA program. 

8. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, do you have any concerns with the military’s ability to meet those requirements? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The DOD component of the NPOESS 

restructure is called the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS). The program 

has made significant progress to date and all trends indicate that it will meet future 

milestones. The Air Force does not have any concerns with the military’s ability to 

meet weather and environmental requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP)-directed early morning orbit. 

9. Senator BEGICH. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, has the relationship 

between DOD and NOAA/NASA improved since this restructuring? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force is building an excellent 

relationship with the NOAA and NASA between our staff and product teams. DOD, 

NOAA, and NASA continue to cooperate on finalizing the transition of non-DOD 

content from the NPOESS contract to NASA contracts and defining the technical 

baseline for the satellite ground system. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOE MANCHIN

FUEL COST AND CONSUMPTION

10. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Donley, you have testified that the Air Force is 

committed to reduce its fuel consumption and the cost of the fuel it buys. Please 

492 

tell me about the Air Force experience with coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel and about how 

those experiences may ultimately affect the availability of this fuel in the U.S. market. 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is currently certifying its aircraft and associated 

vehicles, equipment and infrastructure for unrestricted operational use of two 50/ 

50 alternative fuel blends: JP–8 and synthetic fuel produced via the Fischer-Tropsch 

(FT) process; and JP–8 and biofuel produced via ‘‘hydroprocessed renewable jet’’ 

(HRJ) process. FT fuel can be produced from coal, natural gas or biomass. 

Since certifying the B–52 to use the synthetic fuel blend in August 2007, the Air 

Force has certified over 99 percent of its fleet for unrestricted operational use of a 

50/50 synthetic fuel blend. Certification activities are expected to be completed for 

the synthetic fuel blend by the end of 2011 completion. To date, no performance or 

safety-of-flight anomalies have been determined. 

The Air Force fuel demand, by itself, is most likely too small to create a market; 

however, as the Air Force will be a consumer, and not a producer, of synthetic fuel 

blends, the Air Force will ultimately be dependent on commercial suppliers for fuel 

production and availability. The Air Force will be prepared to use CTL fuel blends 

if industry can produce sufficient quantities of CTL fuel at a cost competitive price, 

while being compliant with all applicable Federal laws and mandates. 

11. Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Donley, if the United States could produce CTL 

fuel, would you buy it? 

Secretary DONLEY. For DOD, the Defense Logistics Agency is the mandated agency chartered with the purchase of bulk liquid fuels. The Air Force does not determine the source of its fuel supply and is only concerned that the fuel has the desired 

performance, environmental and safety specifications. By going through the test and 

certification process, the Air Force is positioning itself to integrate cost competitive, 

environmentally friendly, domestically produced alternative fuel blends by 2016. 

The Air Force will not be a producer of fuel, but will use what the market competitively offers and provides the best stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

Currently, over 99 percent of the Air Force fleet is certified for unrestricted operational use of a 50/50 synthetic fuel blend, where the synthetic component is produced via the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. FT synthetic fuel can be produced from 

coal, natural gas or biomass. 

The alternative aviation fuel certification process increases the types of fuel Air 

Force aircraft can use. Once the commercial market is ready, the Air Force will be 

positioned to use those fuels, as long as they meet the technical, environmental and 

economic requirements. Having the ability to use nontraditional aviation fuels provides the Air Force with an improved energy security posture and increased protection from the fiscal uncertainties that result from market fluctuations. 

C–5 FLEET

12. Senator MANCHIN. General Schwartz, what is the current status of our modernization program for C–5s? 

General SCHWARTZ. C–5 modernization consists of two programs, the Avionics 

Modernization Program (AMP) and the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining 

Program (RERP). We will install the AMP modification on all C–5s retained in the 

Air Force inventory. To date, 75 of 80 C–5s have received the AMP modification. 

The last C–5 AMP modification is planned for completion in March 2012. Additionally, AMP is a prerequisite for RERP. A total of 52 C–5s will receive the RERP 

modification. Once modified, they will be redesignated as the ‘‘C 5M.’’ As of April 

19, 2011, five C–5Ms have been delivered to the Air Force. The last of the remaining 

47 modified aircraft will be delivered by the third quarter of fiscal year 2016. 

13. Senator MANCHIN. General Schwartz, how does the Air Force envision the C– 

5 mission in future years? 

General SCHWARTZ. We do not anticipate a significant change in the operational 

execution of the C–5 mission. The C–5 provides a unique capability to move large 

amounts of outsized and oversized cargo very quickly over strategic distances. The 

only significant change we see for the C–5 is in the actual fleet size. Mobility Capabilities Requirement Study 2016 (MCRS–16) established the strategic airlift requirement at 32.7 Million Ton Miles per Day (MTM/D) to meet National Military Strategy goals. The current strategic fleet of C–17s and C–5s provides our Nation with 

excess airlift capability. As a result of this excess capacity and our desire to effectively manage taxpayer resources, the Air Force would like to retire up to 32 C– 

5A aircraft by fiscal year 2014. However, we are prohibited by National Defense AuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00498 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
493 

thorization Act (NDAA) language to decrease our strategic airlift fleet below 316 

without relief from Congress. We urge the Congress’ favorable consideration of our 

fiscal year 2012 legislative request. Without this relief, the Air Force will be forced 

to maintain a strategic airlift fleet in excess of our stated requirement resulting in 

the diversion of scarce resources. The Air Force would like the authority to manage 

the strategic fleet to meet our National Military Strategy in the most cost effective 

manner. 

14. Senator MANCHIN. General Schwartz, will the C–5 fleet be used for supply or 

reset missions in Afghanistan, or will we need to contract with the Russians for additional capability? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force will continue to use the C–5 fleet for both supply and reset missions in Afghanistan. However, civil carriers provide additional 

flexibility to the strategic airlift fleet. The Air Force continually monitors operations 

to ensure both efficiency and effectiveness. At times, utilizing commercial carriers 

can be more advantageous and /or economical when used to augment the strategic 

airlift fleet. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

FUNDING FOR THE MODERNIZATION OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX

15. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, I appreciate the 

comments in your prepared remarks emphasizing the continued strengthening of 

the nuclear enterprise as the #1 Air Force priority. However, I am significantly concerned by the fact that both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees did 

not meet the President’s full fiscal year 2011 request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in either version of the full year continuing resolution 

(CR). Despite the commitment made during debate of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) for the long-term modernization of the nuclear weapons 

complex, this failure to recognize the National security importance of NNSA funding 

is very troubling. Do you share similar concerns? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Our efforts to strengthen the Air Force 

nuclear enterprise are important for national security and require a partnership 

with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Funding delays or 

shortfalls for either organization could lead to program delays and added costs. In 

fiscal year 2011, we are relying on NNSA to complete the ongoing life extension 

study for the B61 and to initiate a life extension concept study for the W78 intercontinental ballistic missile warhead. These efforts will be at risk if NNSA’s funding 

in fiscal year 2011 is less than requested. 

16. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, do you agree that 

sustained support for the modernization of the nuclear weapons complex is a national security priority? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Yes. DOD recognizes maintaining an 

adequate stockpile of safe, secure, reliable nuclear warheads requires a strong partnership with the Department of Energy. The DOD has demonstrated its commitment to the nuclear weapons complex by transferring $5.7 billion to the National 

Nuclear Security Administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget process and a further $2.5 billion in the fiscal year 2012 budget process. This transfer supports critical nuclear weapons programs and infrastructure modernization in fiscal year 2011 

through fiscal year 2016. 

AERIAL REFUELING TANKER COMPETITION

17. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, what lessons-learned from previous efforts 

to award a tanker contract did the Air Force leverage to structure and conduct a 

competition here to withstand a high-profile bid protest? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force process for this tanker competition was driven 

by clearly stated requirements defined by the warfighter, more objective evaluation 

criteria and a fixed-price contract structure that would deliver the Air Force a capable aircraft at the most competitive price for our taxpayer’s dollars. The Air Force 

is now in the process of officially documenting the lessons learned from the previous 

efforts and how those lessons were successfully applied to this competition. We anticipate this to be complete in Fall 2011 and would be happy to share these results 

with the committee at that time. 

494 

18. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, what lessons-learned does the Air Force 

intend to apply to similar future procurements? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is drafting a final lessons learned paper from 

the KC–X procurement. Once completed and released, the Air Force will share these 

insights with the defense committees and will implement those lessons-learned on 

all applicable future procurements. 

19. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, do you have a sense of how much the taxpayer might save by buying these tankers under full-and-open competition and a 

fixed-price development contract (as is the case now with the program) compared 

to a sole-source lease, using a cost-reimbursable development contract (as was originally proposed in 2002)? 

Secretary DONLEY. There are many factors that make comparing costs from the 

varied structures of the proposed tanker lease in 2002, the KC–45 competition in 

2008 and the current KC–46 competition in 2010–2011 very difficult. However, it 

is safe to say that the Department has reaped a substantial savings for the taxpayer 

by buying these tankers under the current full-and-open competition and fixed-price 

development contract. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Air Force representatives have 

met with congressional defense committee staff on several occasions to provide 

source selection and proprietary information since the contract award, and are willing to brief you on the bids and resulting cost savings from past competitions, at 

your convenience. 

20. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, now that we have a winner, with a reportedly aggressive bid price, how will the Air Force ensure that the tankers come in 

at that price? 

Secretary DONLEY. While the tanker source selection resulted in an aggressive 

competition, the Department’s Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) and Air Force’s 

Service Cost Position were both in line with Boeing’s proposed prices. 

The 372 mandatory requirements were clearly defined and approved by the Air 

Mobility Command Commander. These warfighter requirements were closely coordinated upfront with the acquisition program office—this was done to eliminate the 

need for post-award Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs). The development contract and options for production are fixed-price, which encourages requirements stability and is reflective of our belief that the requirements for the KC–46A are well 

defined and stable. 

KC–46 program execution will be carefully watched by the Air Force and the DOD 

leadership to make certain The Boeing Company delivers what it promised during 

the source selection. The Air Force program office has established a new Program 

Control unit to specifically manage a stable program baseline and a Joint Configuration Change Board with Boeing to rigorously review and control baseline changes. 

As an added measure to ensure the tankers come in at the negotiated price, the Secretary of the Air Force directed a policy that requires the Service Acquisition Executive to approve level 1 changes impacting the KC–46 program cost, schedule or performance baseline. 

21. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, you’re on a tight timeline. How concerned 

are you about the overlap between production and development, that is, the concurrency, that’s built into this program? 

Secretary DONLEY. Last year, DOD announced a well-conceived source selection 

strategy to determine whether or not the proposals demonstrated the ability of an 

offeror to deliver all 372 mandatory requirements, with the first 18 aircraft delivered within 78 months after contract award. Both offerors’ proposals were thoroughly evaluated by a team of acquisition, maintenance and operational experts. 

Boeing’s schedule, as proposed, was considered awardable with a low-to-moderate 

risk schedule and development approach. 

Furthermore, because Boeing is contractually bound to deliver 18 operational aircraft within 78 months after contract award, and because the Air Force has negotiated fixed prices for all production aircraft, Boeing has a significant financial incentive to execute the baseline schedule. Should Boeing need to make changes to 

the aircraft configuration to be compliant with the system specification after production begins, the KC–46 Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract requires Boeing to modify the production aircraft to be compliant with the final aircraft configuration, at no additional cost to the Air Force. 

The Air Force is now focused on ensuring The Boeing Company executes to the 

KC–46 program cost, schedule, and performance baseline negotiated in the fixedprice contract. The Air Force program office has established a new Program Control 

495 

team to specifically manage a stable program baseline, and a Joint Configuration 

Change Board, with Boeing, to rigorously review and control baseline changes. As 

an added measure, to ensure the tankers come in at the negotiated price, the Secretary of the Air Force directed a policy that requires the Service Acquisition Executive to approve all level 1 changes impacting the KC–46 program cost, schedule, or 

performance baseline. 

22. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, the Pentagon’s recent experience with concurrent development in, for example, the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the 

Future Combat System (FCS) programs, has been awful. Why did the Air Force 

choose that approach here and why should we not be concerned about the risk of 

delays and possible retrofits with the development of Boeing’s tanker? 

Secretary DONLEY. Boeing’s schedule, as proposed, was deemed to have met the 

372 mandatory requirements and was considered awardable with a low-to-moderate 

risk schedule and development approach. 

Because Boeing is contractually bound to deliver 18 operational aircraft within 78 

months after contract award, and because the Air Force has negotiated fixed prices 

for all production aircraft, Boeing has a significant financial incentive to execute the 

baseline schedule. Should Boeing need to make changes to the aircraft configuration 

to be compliant with the system specification after production begins, the KC–46 

Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract requires Boeing to modify 

the production aircraft to be compliant with the final aircraft configuration, at no 

additional cost to the Air Force. 

The Air Force is now focused on ensuring The Boeing Company executes to the 

KC–46 program cost, schedule and performance baseline negotiated in the fixedprice contract. The Air Force program office has established a new Program Control 

team to specifically manage a stable program baseline, and a Joint Configuration 

Change Board, with Boeing, to rigorously review and control baseline changes. As 

an added measure, to ensure the tankers come in at the negotiated price, the Secretary of the Air Force directed a policy that requires the Service Acquisition Executive to approve level 1 changes impacting the KC–46 program cost, schedule or performance baseline. 

23. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, given how long it took to get us to this 

point, and the age of the KC–135 and KC–10 fleets, when do you expect to start 

the KC–Y and KC–Z procurements? 

Secretary DONLEY. As noted in the Aircraft Procurement Plan—fiscal years 2012– 

2041, ‘‘The Air Force has begun recapitalizing the tanker fleet with plans to develop 

and procure 124 KC–46A tankers by 2021. The KC–46A fleet will reach 179 aircraft 

in 2027.’’ Given the age of the KC–135 aircraft at that time (2027) and the anticipated demand, the Air Force would address plans to replace the remaining KC–135 

inventory with follow-on air refueling platforms. The current plan is to align the 

KC–Y with the final procurement of the KC–46A. Further study will need to occur 

to refine the total number and composition of the tanker fleet. 

24. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, I understand that, as a result of the contract award, Boeing will sign a fixed-price contract valued at over $3.5 billion to develop and deliver 18 aircraft by 2017. To be clear, exactly what does ‘‘over $3.5 billion’’ mean for the tanker development contract? 

Secretary DONLEY. The publically released target price of the Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract is $4.4 billion. The EMD contract requires design, development, test, verification, certification, and delivery of four tanker aircraft. The EMD contract also requires pre-operational support; development, 

management and conduct of type 1 training; and provision of operations, maintenance, installation, and training data, as required. Eighteen operational aircraft will 

be available to the warfighter 78 months after contract award. 

25. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, I understand that the configuration of 

Boeing’s tanker will involve putting a digital 787 cockpit into an analog 767 aircraft 

and a modified KC–10 boom to meet the gallon-per-minute offload requirement. 

What else can you tell us about the configuration of Boeing’s aircraft at this point 

and what does the design entail in terms of risk reduction on the platform or on 

the mission systems? 

Secretary DONLEY. All configuration differences between the U.S. Air Force KC– 

46 and the baseline Boeing 767–200/KC–767 were evaluated as being in the category of low to moderate risk. All are considered well within the design capability 

of the commercial/military large aircraft industries. Some of the more significant 

changes, in addition to the ones mentioned in the question, include: 

496 

Increased wing strength and landing gear (both from existing designs) 

Digital flight deck with large displays (both from existing designs) 

Auxiliary fuselage fuel tanks (from existing similar designs) 

Cargo floor and door (from existing designs) 

Aeromedical and passenger features (leveraged from existing military systems) 

Infrared defensive system (leveraged from existing military systems) 

Radio Frequency situational awareness system 

Electro-Magnetic Pulse hardening 

Night Vision Imaging System and covert operations compatibility 

Flight deck armor protection 

Chemical/biological weapons compatibility 

Flash blindness compatibility 

Laser eye protection compatibility 

Alert operation features 

Military voice and data communications 

Tanker unique flight management functionality 

26. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, has any work begun under the contract? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes. The KC–46 Engineering and Manufacturing Development 

contract was awarded on February 24, 2011. As of March 17, 2011, the Air Force 

has obligated approximately $392 million of fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 

funding to incrementally fund Boeing’s execution of the contract for design, development, test, verification, certification, and delivery of the first four tanker aircraft. 

BUYING SATELLITES UNDER MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS

27. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, I am gratified by 

the OSD’s decision not to approve the Air Force’s proposal to execute a multiyear 

contract in connection with the Advanced Extremely High-Frequency (AEHF) satellite program. As you know, to help ensure that DOD realizes the substantial savings it expects from using a multiyear contract in a given case, multiyear contracting opportunities should be Reserved for only the most stable and best performing programs. That is a requirement reflected in law. The AEHF program, 

which has chronically overrun in cost and schedule and has, to this day, failed to 

deliver promised capability, is not such a program. I understand that OSD will, 

nonetheless, help you think about a more appropriate, conservative block-buy approach that would make more sense for this program and for military satellite programs in general that, while continuing to only promise the delivery of much needed 

capability, are impinging on those resources that have been appropriated for the Air 

Force to buy satellites. We will help OSD think that through. What principles do 

you feel should guide a responsible block buy strategy for highly risky, very expensive, and as yet unproven military satellite programs? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The principles that should govern a 

decision for satellite block buys are stable requirements, a stable design, completed 

development, and readiness for steady state production. This is what is currently 

envisioned in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite program. 

AIR FORCE SPACE ACQUISITION PROPOSAL

28. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, I appreciate the stated goals of the Air 

Force’s newly announced Evolutionary Acquisition for Space Efficiency (EASE) initiative for procuring satellite systems. However, I continue to be concerned with the 

overall track record of cost overruns and schedule delays for space systems. One of 

the selling points of EASE, which calls for, among other things, the use of block 

buys for military satellites, is the potential for savings. How does the Air Force intend to conclusively determine that expected savings have been realized? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is confident that the AEHF program has established stable requirements and a stable design, has completed development, and is 

ready for steady state production. Given this confidence, the Air Force is prepared 

to negotiate a fixed-price incentive fee contract for the AEHF–5 and –6 block buy 

included in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget. The estimated savings for the 

AEHF block buy in fiscal year 2012 is greater than ten percent but is contingent 

on contract negotiations. These savings are measured against the traditional approach to acquiring satellites; therefore, the Air Force will achieve these savings at 

AEHF contract award in fiscal year 2012. At that time, cost of the awarded contract 

497 

can be contrasted with the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation estimate of 

the purchase under the prior status quo approach, yielding a measure of savings. 

Savings realized through block buys are intended to be reinvested in research and 

development for technology enhancement to advance mission area capabilities. 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS

29. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, as you know, last year U.S. Naval Air 

Systems Command (NAVAIR) effectively determined that the Marine Corps and the 

Navy’s versions of the JSF may end up being too expensive to operate. Specifically, 

it found that, with each flight-hour possibly costing about $31,000 in 2029, compared with about $19,000 per flight hour for current F/A–18 Hornets and AV–8B 

Harriers, the operating cost associated with the Navy’s versions of the JSF may be 

considerably higher than the costs to operate the legacy aircraft they are intended 

to replace. Has the Air Force reviewed and independently validated NAVAIR’s analysis; and, if so, do you agree with its finding on the expected operating costs of the 

JSF? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force has reviewed NAVAIR analysis and determined 

that the operating costs for all three of the JSF variants are higher than originally 

estimated. The OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) also conducted an Operations and Sustainment cost estimate for JSF and their estimate is 

consistent with the previous Air Force and Navy cost estimates. 

30. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what does that mean for the viability of 

the Air Force’s JSF program and what kind of mix we can expect in terms of the 

Air Force’s future strike fighter force? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force, along with our F–35 sister Services and international partners, recognizes that life cycle sustainment costs for the F–35 program 

must remain affordable to the warfighter. The Air Force is continuously engaged 

with the Program Office and the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, to investigate 

opportunities to reduce overall operations and sustainment costs, in order to capture 

the most affordable solution with the greatest capability. Additionally, the F–35 Program Office has several efforts underway to review methods to reduce sustainment 

costs, including: 

• A Sustainment Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) that will compare service organic logistics capability against the Program of Record (POR) contractorprovided supply chain management construct. 

• A Carrier Strike Group focused sustainment wargame. 

• A ‘‘deep dive’’ of the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) capabilities and challenges. 

The Air Force will gradually replace our F–16 and A–10 fleet with F–35As as we 

transition to a fifth generation fleet of tactical fighters. We will be required to maintain a mix of legacy and fifth generation tactical assets as we procure a more capable fighter force structure. 

31. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, to what extent is NAVAIR’s assessment 

(and the Air Force’s validation of that assessment) reflected in the Air Force’s current budget proposal? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal is in line 

with the NAVAIR assessment and is consistent with the OSD guidance to fund the 

program to the OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation estimate. 

F–35 LIGHTENING II JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

32. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, over the last few weeks, the media has 

been reporting that the Air Force may extend by more than 2 years the date by 

which it intends to deploy a squadron with initial operating capability (IOC). With 

the Air Force having stated as recently as last month that the F–35 will reach its 

IOC by mid-2013, we may now be looking at no earlier than 2015. I understand that 

to mitigate most cost effectively any potential gap in tactical fighter capability, a 

fleet viability board is performing structural evaluation tests on its F–16s to see if 

they can fly longer than planned. By when will that board conclude its work? 

General SCHWARTZ. First, for clarification, the Fleet Viability Board does not perform structural tests, but rather is an independent assessment body evaluating fleet 

technical health, availability, and cost of continued ownership. The Board recently 

concluded its assessment on the older pre-Block fleet (Blocks 25/30/32), and while 

498 

the final results are still pending, initial results indicate that the aircraft will reach 

their certified service life of 8,000 equivalent flight hours. 

The Board is in the process of performing an assessment of the newer post-Block 

fleet (Blocks 40/42/50/52), which should be final this fall. Additionally, the Program 

Office contracted with Lockheed Martin to perform a full scale durability test 

(FSDT) on a Block 50 aircraft with results anticipated in 2016. The fiscal year 2012 

President’s budget adds $15 million to begin Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for structural modification and avionics modernization as part of the Block 

40/50 service life extension. The FSDT, along with strong engineering data, will inform future decisions regarding the service life of these aircraft. 

33. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what are the preliminary findings of the 

board? 

General SCHWARTZ. The older F–16 pre-Block fleet (Blocks 25/30/32), used primarily for test, training, or operationally within the Guard and Reserve, has sufficient structural service life remaining to meet the current retirement plans. However, the Board assessment concluded that, if needed, the F 16 pre-Block fleet can 

extend its service life and be made more capable, but will require significant, associated investment cost and reduced aircraft availability. 

The Board assessment of the newer F–16 post-Block fleet (Blocks 40/42/50/52) is 

ongoing. Additionally, we are proceeding with a full scale durability test, and its resultant service life extension plan, in an effort to operate these aircraft longer than 

originally scheduled. Due to substantial design differences from older pre-Block aircraft, this durability test will be specific to the newer post-Block fleet. 

RQ–4 GLOBAL HAWK

34. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, I understand that 

you are planning to reduce the number of Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAV) from 22 to 11. By how much will that reduction in the number of Global 

Hawk aircraft the Air Force intends to buy increase the cost of each Global Hawk 

vehicle? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The December 2010 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) reflected Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) growth from 

$90.8 million to $111.6 million (+22.9 percent) and Program Acquisition Unit Cost 

(PAUC) growth from $150.1 million to $171 million (+14 percent). The subsequent 

draft program office cost estimate revealed a critical APUC breach from $90.8 million to $113.9 million (+25.4 percent) and significant PAUC breach from $150.1 million to $173.3 million (+15.5 percent). 

Cost growth was driven by program quantity/schedule changes, engineering and 

requirements changes, support changes, and general cost growth. 

35. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, will that increase 

in cost trigger any of the cost-growth thresholds under the Nunn-McCurdy law? If 

so, please explain. 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Yes. The Secretary of the Air Force notified Congress of a critical unit cost breach of over 25 percent in APUC and over 

15 percent in PAUC on 6 April 2011. The December 2010 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) reflected APUC growth from $90.8 million to $111.6 million (+22.9 percent) and PAUC growth from $150.1 million to $171 million (+14 percent). The subsequent draft program office cost estimate revealed a critical APUC breach from 

$90.8 million to $113.9 million (+25.4 percent) and significant PAUC breach from 

$150.1 million to $173.3 million (+15.5 percent). 

Cost growth was driven by program quantity/schedule changes, engineering and 

requirements changes, support changes, and general cost growth. 

SECRETARY GATES’ AIR FORCE ACADEMY SPEECH

36. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, in his speech at the 

Air Force Academy on March 4th, Secretary Gates expressed the fear that once he 

departs and once U.S. forces drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are those 

who look forward to getting back to what he called ‘‘real Air Force normal.’’ Do you 

agree with Secretary Gates’ views about the future of conflict and likely implications 

for the Air Force in the competition for limited defense dollars? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. We are committed to providing the 

most capable Air Force in the world, while continuing to be good stewards of our 

National resources. This involves not only the analysis of current and future 

499 

threats, but balancing requirements, risks, and limited resources to meet those 

threats. We must also maintain the ability to provide first class support to our personnel and the infrastructure required to operate in today’s global environment. As 

always, we are committed to working with our sister Services and the Secretary of 

Defense to build budgets that reflect the delicate balance between current operations and future requirements within assigned obligation authority. 

37. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, what do you see 

as the Air Force’s primary missions after Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is 

completed and the most important contingencies Air Force leaders should be preparing for in the future? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. In a post-OEF world, the United 

States faces a complex and uncertain strategic landscape with a vast array of diverse and complex security challenges. Threats created by aggressive state and nonstate actors, as well as continuing counter-insurgency challenges and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, will continue to undermine global security and 

complicate efforts to sustain peace. 

Other powerful trends will add complexity to the security landscape. A rising 

China with potential aims of creating its own Pacific region sphere of influence, increasing demand for resources, rapid urbanization of littoral regions, the emergence 

of new strains of disease, and cultural and demographic tensions are just some of 

the trends whose complex interplay may spark or exacerbate future contingencies 

that require Air Force, Joint Service, allied and partner nation involvement. 

Air Force preparation for the future will seek to sustain advantages and provide 

combatant commanders with capabilities to defeat increasingly capable adversaries 

across the full spectrum of military conflict, while at the same time, maximizing 

combat effectiveness and efficiency from every taxpayer dollar entrusted to us. Pursuing a range of adaptable and efficient mission capabilities embedded within our 

12 Air Force Core Functions will further the enduring advantages of Global Vigilance, Reach and Power, and adequately prepare the Air Force for an uncertain future. 

38. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, what changes, if 

any, in training, equipment, and force structure should the Air Force be making 

now to prepare for these likely contingencies? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force is committed to preparing for future contingencies through improvements to training, equipment and 

force structure while remaining ever mindful of our Nation’s fiscal challenges. Air 

Force training initiatives must prepare airmen for future contingencies across the 

range of military operations, and continue to foster mutually beneficial partnerships 

around the world. Successful partnerships will ensure interoperability, integration, 

and interdependence between coalition forces and provide our partner nations the 

capability and capacity to solve their own national security issues. The Air Force 

will continue to promote cross-cultural competence as a critically important skill for 

all airmen, and further emphasize language skills and regional knowledge. The Air 

Force will also increase the culture and language content of pre-deployment training 

and promote new language learning programs. The most valuable Air Force asset 

is our people and we will make every effort to further prepare our professional, allvolunteer force. 

The Air Force is committed to enhancing our capabilities to support the Joint 

force. We will ensure that we’re providing the right capabilities with our long-range 

strike, fighter force, strategic airlift and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms and ensure our space-based assets continue to deliver needed 

capabilities in the future. We will modernize where we can, but where modernization no longer is cost-effective, we will pursue recapitalization. As you know, one of 

our primary efforts includes retiring and recapitalizing legacy fighters and tankers 

and replacing them with F–35s and KC–46s. We will mitigate near-term fighter risk 

through aggressive management of F–35 production, legacy fleet review and 

sustainment, along with selected service life extension and modernization programs. 

We will continue to develop and invest in cyberspace capabilities and expertise to 

meet emerging mission needs, as well as expand collaboration with Joint, Interagency, academic, and international partners. We will continue to enhance ISR capabilities and increase Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination capacity to support combatant commander needs, as well as revise education and training programs to develop cyberspace professionals. 

While the current environment requires the Air Force to accept reasonable levels 

of risk as we balance our capabilities to address emergent threats and challenges, 

we will continue to pursue cost-effective training, weapon systems and equipment 

500 

that leverage existing capabilities, incorporate innovative solutions, and maximize 

Joint interoperability and integration of legacy and future systems. The Air Force 

will continue to support assessments of the future joint operating environment, 

which will enable the Air Force to provide a balanced force with a relevant spectrum 

of capabilities, seamlessly integrated with our Joint and coalition partners, to meet 

national strategic objectives and the requirements of future contingency operations. 

AIR FORCE END STRENGTH AND FORCE SHAPING

39. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, in 2007, the Air Force was implementing 

a goal of reducing the number of Active-Duty airmen to 316,000, a goal that Secretary Gates rescinded. Despite stability in end strength and even a 600-airman increase planned for in the fiscal year 2012 budget, the Air Force plans to reduce its 

numbers in certain officer military occupational specialties (MOS), conduct a reduction in force, and use other means to involuntarily separate hundreds of currently 

serving Air Force officers. Please explain why the Air Force is taking these personnel measures and what the scope and duration of the force shaping measures 

will be and what the ultimate result will be for the Air Force, particularly the officer 

corps. 

General SCHWARTZ. The previous reduction of Active Duty airmen was associated 

with a reduction to authorized Air Force end strength to the 316,000 level. Since 

then, Air Force mission requirements have resulted in an increase in our authorization end strength to 332,800, as of fiscal year 2012. We appreciate your support of 

this higher end strength level and are committed to operating within authorized levels. It is for this reason the Secretary and I approved a Force Management Plan 

that will size and shape the force to our authorized end strength ceiling by the end 

of fiscal year 2012. 

While our Air Force is fortunate to have so many dedicated airmen wanting to 

serve, a 16-year record high retention has caused our Active-Duty Force to exceed 

our authorized end strength level. As a result, starting in fiscal year 2010, we have 

implemented several measures to reduce officer and enlisted airmen. We have been 

successful in reaching our enlisted end strength, but remain approximately 2,300 officers over strength, as of the end of fiscal year 2010. Consequently, we made the 

difficult decision earlier this year to continue Force Management measures necessary to reach authorized levels by the end of fiscal year 2012. 

In order to minimize the impact on our current force, we have reduced active duty 

accessions and extended those voluntary separation programs implemented in fiscal 

year 2010. Even with these actions, our over-strength situation has required use of 

involuntary programs to include rollback of enlisted dates of separation to help balance enlisted end strength. To balance officer end strength, we had to utilize officer 

retention boards, reduced officer promotion opportunities along with force shaping, 

reduction-in-force and selective early retirement boards in 2010 with separations 

and retirements in fiscal year 2011. We must conduct the same in 2011 through 

early 2012 to meet our authorized end strength by the end of fiscal year 2012. 

At the same time, we are focused on shaping our force to ensure we have the critical skills and capabilities required now and over the next few years. To this end, 

we are cross-training officers and enlisted airmen from over-manned career fields 

into those with greater needs. We are also prudently using bonuses to target critical 

skill areas where we are undermanned and retention is low. 

40. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what legislative tools, if any, do you need 

to accomplish the force shaping goals you have in mind? 

General SCHWARTZ. Congressional authorities are key to successfully sizing and 

shaping our force. We are using existing authorities to the maximum extent; however, renewed and expanded measures would enable us to be even more effective 

in shaping our force. Thank you for the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 renewed authority to allow prior enlisted officers, with 20 or more years of total service, to retire 

with eight versus ten years of commissioned service. We implemented this authority 

in our current Force Management strategy to help manage our end strength for fiscal year 2011 and may continue it, if our request for another extension is granted 

beyond September 2013. 

In coordination with our sister Services, we worked closely with the OSD to request additional legislative authorities. As you may be aware, our authorities to 

shape our mid-grade officers by offering voluntary separation pay and conducting 

an involuntary reduction in force board expire in December 2012. We have successfully implemented these authorities over the past year, and have requested they be 

extended. For officers with more than 15, but less than 20 years of service, we are 

501 

requesting a Temporary Early Retirement Authority. Additionally, to incentivize officers to retire in skills excess to Air Force requirements, we request the authority 

to offer a voluntary retirement incentive pay. While we currently have the authority 

to selectively retire lieutenant colonels and colonels early, the existing authority is 

limited. Renewing the enhanced selective early retirement authority will allow the 

Air Force to manage our lieutenant colonels and colonels more precisely. We also 

request the flexibility to adjust the maximum years of active commissioned service 

for lieutenant colonels and colonels. For officers in the regular grade of lieutenant 

colonel, we request the authority to adjust the maximum years of service from 28 

years to no less than 25 years. For officers in the regular grade of colonel, we request the authority to adjust the maximum years of service from 30 years to no less 

than 27 years. 

Lastly, we are requesting an extension to the Career Flexibility to Enhance Retention beyond December 2012. This would allow us to continue to authorize 

servicemembers’ inactive status while serving on active duty in order to meet personal or professional needs and then return to active duty at the end of the period 

of inactivation. 

We requested all these legislative authorities through the OSD. Each of these authorities will provide all of the Services with additional tools to size and shape the 

Armed Forces to best meet current and future mission requirements. 

EFFICIENCIES EFFORT AND REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF GENERAL OFFICERS

41. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, the Secretary of Defense initiated an efficiency review several months ago that included the goal of reducing the grades and 

number of general and flag officers throughout the Services. What was your recommendation to the Secretary of Defense regarding Air Force general officers in this 

regard? 

General SCHWARTZ. In accordance with the initial guidance received from the Secretary of Defense in August 2010, the Air Force did a thorough scrub of all of our 

internal general officer positions. The Air Force completed this review and initially 

identified 18 positions that could be eliminated from the general officer ranks based 

on changing operational requirements and internal restructuring. There is risk associated with each of these eliminations, but on a case by case basis, the Air Force 

can assume that risk and still accomplish our mission. 

Subsequent to our input, the Secretary of Defense’s Efficiencies Task Force identified four additional positions for reduction. These positions are the Secretary of the 

Air Force Legislative Liaison Deputy and the Judge Advocates General for Air Combat Command, Air Force Materiel Command and Air Mobility Command. The latter 

reductions take the number of Brigadier General positions in Judge Advocate General Corps from four to one. We have since provided justification for maintaining 

each of these positions including the need for a pathway to grow flag officers with 

experience in the legislative process, as well as, senior military attorneys who are 

experts in application of lethal force, transportation, and aviation and acquisition 

law specialties, respectively. 

42. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, would you prefer to see more reductions 

in joint billets that would be filled by Air Force general officers, or, rather, in institutional billets throughout the Air Force? 

General SCHWARTZ. In addition to the 22 internal Air Force general officer billets, 

another 17 Joint positions were identified, for a total of 39 positions eliminated from 

our headspace. While we understand that many of these joint positions are tied to 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a reduction of this size concerns us greatly. The 

Air Force values Joint participation and it is our desire to be strong contributors 

to the joint fight. 

43. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what is your opinion about the appropriate number of Air Force general officers by grade? 

General SCHWARTZ. See response to question #42. 

AIR FORCE IMPLEMENTATION OF DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY REPEAL

44. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, DOD has finalized its plans for training 

military personnel under the new policy that will allow individuals who are gay or 

lesbian to serve openly. Training of senior leaders has already begun. What is your 

assessment of the validity of the plan for the Air Force? 

502 

General SCHWARTZ. The DOD-developed training plan delivers a solid foundation 

of knowledge and guidance to our airmen. Policies were examined for required 

changes and these updated policies were incorporated into a training program that 

informs, while emphasizing leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. 

Leadership from Air Force commanders and senior leaders is the key to successful 

implementation. Our Air Force leaders are clearly articulating upcoming policy 

changes and preparing the force for repeal—consistent with standards of military 

readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. Within this context, 

and guided by our core values, I am confident the Air Force will successfully implement this policy change with the same professionalism we demonstrate in all of our 

daily endeavors. 

45. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what criteria will you use when the Secretary of Defense solicits your view, as Chief of Staff, about the readiness of the Air 

Force for openly gay and lesbian airmen to serve? 

General SCHWARTZ. Notably, the plan laid out by the OSD, does not require 100 

percent of airmen to be educated and trained prior to certification. Instead, it ensures the execution of actions leading to certification is underpinned with a solid 

foundation consistent with standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. Within this context, I have tasked my senior leaders, 

commanders, chiefs, first sergeants, and supervisors, in addition to my experts, to 

be fully educated and trained prior to certification. Further, to assist us with recording training and tracking issues that could affect readiness and esprit-de-corps, I 

receive biweekly progress updates on policy development, training execution, and 

percent of the force trained. I also receive Major Command-level subjective feedback 

on training effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. 

I plan to utilize the Major Command commander assessments, along with a minimum of 75 percent of the force trained, as my criteria for recommending certification to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

46. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what steps are you taking to ensure that 

Air Force units and personnel who are currently deploying, or will be deployed when 

repeal takes place, and who are or will be experiencing the most austere, most demanding combat conditions are ready for this change? 

General SCHWARTZ. For all airmen preparing to deploy, commanders will ensure 

they receive the appropriate training. For all airmen currently deployed to locations 

where training may have an adverse mission impact, commanders have the discretion to schedule training within 60 days of redeployment. Computer-based training 

is available for all those airmen that do not fall within the previous category, or 

they may elect to attend a sister Service training program. 

SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCIES INITIATIVE

47. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, at Secretary Gates’ direction to the Military Services to find $100 billion in efficiency savings between fiscal years 2012 and 

2016, the Air Force has found $3.4 billion in efficiencies in 2012 and a total of $33.4 

billion over the next 5 years. I understand that Secretary Gates is allowing the Air 

Force to reinvest that efficiency money to, for example, fund a next-generation 

bomber, upgrade the radar system for F–15 aircraft, develop simulators for the JSF, 

and improve the B–52s’ computer infrastructure. Which elements of savings or efficiency that the Air Force has identified is the riskiest, in terms of not being achievable? 

Secretary DONLEY. First, we have mitigated risk in our efficiency plans through 

a variety of strategies including ramping up expected efficiencies further out in the 

Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) allowing additional time for planning and execution of the plans; selecting by-name owners of our initiatives to ensure responsibility 

remains at a personal level of accountability; and, by weaving efficiency planning 

and execution process into existing Air Force Corporate Structure to ensure efficiency plans are aligned with Air Force strategy and get reviewed on a regular 

basis. However, we are unable to eliminate risk completely due to a variety of factors. 

The majority of risk we currently assess in our efficiencies comes from external 

sources and is generally a product of assumptions made in the planning process. 

Commodity prices, for example, represent great risk to energy efficiencies in both 

the aviation and facility areas. Rising fuel prices could completely eliminate all dollar savings from efficiencies. Our business process efficiencies are based on a projected level of demand for service. Real-world contingencies could significantly chalVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00508 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
503 

lenge those projections and drive additional manpower requirements to meet those 

needs in spite of the process efficiencies we were able to garner. The same contingencies would also use our equipment at greater rates than currently projected 

which would require adjustments to acquisition strategies and replacement profiles. 

We monitor risk on a monthly basis, and therefore the type of risk and amount associated with that risk varies as we actually execute the efficiency plans. Currently, 

the Air Force assesses risk in the following areas that translate to $1.2 billion 

across the FYDP in efficiency plan shortfalls, and an additional amount of approximately $1 billion based on actual cost of fuel: 

• Installation Support/Communication Issues: Current restructure plans for 

installation support result in efficiency estimates that are less than originally anticipated. The Air Force is developing alternative approaches to 

mission support that will allow us to make up the difference. 

• Logistics and Installation Efficiencies and MAF Fuel Efficiencies: We can 

take actions through smart investments and standard operating policies to 

reduce energy consumption, but we cannot control the price of energy. Recent increases in oil prices highlight the inherent risk in achieving financial 

savings based on fuel and energy efficiencies. We expect to reduce energy 

consumption and reduce gallons/energy consumed. However, as price of fuel 

varies, it will impact our ability to achieve financial savings. 

• Weapon System Sustainment: Our aging platforms and equipment create 

upward pressure on costs—obsolescence is a continuing management challenge 

• The DWSS: Decisions were made to enhance funding to this program in 

finalizing the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget submission which impacts 

projected savings associated with this program across the FYDP. We are 

doing assessments within this program, our space portfolio, and broader acquisition efficiencies as a means to fill this efficiency target gap 

The process for managing efficiencies has considered that fact of life issues are 

inevitable. The ability to fill gaps quickly when they arise is essential and is part 

of the ongoing management process. The Air Force will be proposing additional efficiencies to fill any shortfalls in executing fiscal year 2012 and in building the fiscal 

year 2013 budget. 

48. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, the Air Force’s chief deputy management 

officer was recently quoted as saying that if the Service does not meet those efficiency goals, it could be pressed to remove money from areas it had not planned 

to cut, making the Air Force both less efficient and less capable. Do you agree with 

that assessment? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, I agree. The Air Force gave careful consideration to the 

development of efficiency initiatives and the application of savings to support mission and force structure requirements. Continuing our longstanding commitment to 

fiscal responsibility and operational efficiency, the Air Force is committed to a deliberate process to enhance capabilities by reducing expenses allocated to overhead and 

support functions while shifting resources to the modernization and readiness programs. If we find any portion of the efficiencies cannot be achieved in execution, we 

will find and execute another form of efficiency to ensure we preserve the critical 

warfighting enhancements included in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request. 

49. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, exactly how will you ensure that the Air 

Force actually holds those lines, so that money doesn’t migrate back into those accounts where it intended to spend less? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force comptroller is assisting with the means to track 

actual expenditures and ensure resources are not migrated back into efficiency 

areas. Efficiency initiatives that cannot be readily reported through Air Force financial systems or other sources will be reported to the comptroller through senior leadership assigned to those respective priority areas. The Air Force Audit Agency will 

be assessing the adequacy of financial controls to assure accurate financial data on 

the results of efficiency initiatives beginning in fiscal year 2012. 

The Air Force will use its existing corporate governance structure, the Air Force 

Board and Council, to regularly review status towards achieving identified efficiencies by measuring specific progress against the implementation plans. The Air 

Force Deputy Chief Management Officer is leading the Air Force Board, attended 

by flag officers/senior executives from across Headquarters Air Force and Major 

Commands, in monthly reviews of the execution status of efficiency efforts. 

504 

On a quarterly basis, the Air Force Council, co-chaired by the Under Secretary 

of the Air Force and the Vice Chief of Staff, will monitor plans and progress to ensure efficiency outcomes are being delivered and will also review readiness and performance data to ensure Air Force Efficiencies are not inadvertently impacting mission performance or the quality of life of airmen. 

50. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, did the Air Force put together a ‘‘Plan of 

Action and Milestones’’ document, which would help ensure that the Air Force has 

identified and will eliminate and capture cost-savings for reinvestment? If so, please 

provide a copy. 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force has established detailed implementation plans, 

which are the responsibility of senior leadership, to ensure results against programmed efficiencies. We are compiling and will track updates to plans through an 

Integrated Master Schedule. The Air Force can share the IMS which should be initially completed in May 2011, as well as individual plans (if desired). Please realize 

that some plans are more developed than others with ongoing updates as efficiency 

initiatives are implemented. 

COMMON VERTICAL LIFT SUPPORT PLATFORM/COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE HELICOPTER

REPLACEMENT

51. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, in this budget, the Air Force begins acquisition of a new support helicopter, the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform 

(CVLSP) to replace its UH–1 Hueys, principally at the missile fields. The Air Force 

has not announced an acquisition strategy, yet the budget includes money to acquire 

the first two helicopters. Please elaborate on what the Air Force intends to do here. 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force plans to conduct a full and open competition for 

the CVLSP program and award a contract to initiate procurement in fiscal year 

2012. We intend to purchase a Non-Developmental Item/Off-The-Shelf (NDI/OTS) 

aircraft that will allow us to meet the warfighter requirement for an initial operational capability in fiscal year 2015. 

52. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, since there is no money for development 

or testing, but money for procurement, is it safe to say you intend to buy a helicopter the military already operates? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force intends to purchase a NDI/OTS aircraft to accelerate fielding to the warfighter. Minimal Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding is required for operational test and evaluation to validate aircraft performance against key performance parameters. To clarify, there is RDT&E 

funding for CVLSP in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget FYDP, specifically 

$4.0 million in fiscal year 2011, $5.365 million in fiscal year 2012, $7.44 million in 

fiscal year 2013, and $8.934 million in fiscal year 2014. 

53. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, since we just took 10 years to buy a tanker, do you believe you can develop a requirement, run a competition, select a winner, and buy the first helicopters all in 1 year? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes. The Air Force intends to purchase a NDI/OTS aircraft, 

and we are confident we can conduct a source selection and award a contract on 

schedule. 

54. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, won’t buying off-the-shelf (as reflected by 

the absence of development or testing money sought for this program), limit the possible competitors? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes. The need to field a platform that meets the warfighter’s 

requirements and target Initial Operational Capability of fiscal year 2015 will limit 

the potential common vertical lift support platform competitors to those that have 

already developed a helicopter that can meet the user’s needs with little or no modifications, i.e. a non-developmental, off-the-shelf solution. However, market research 

and industry responses to requests for information indicate there are several potential competitors. 

55. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, how will you know you’re getting the right 

aircraft? 

Secretary DONLEY. We will conduct a full and open competition that will evaluate 

the capabilities of each offeror’s platform based on the warfighter’s requirements. 

505 

56. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, you said in testimony before the House 

that the Air Force is looking to address the CVLSP requirement and the longstanding need to replace our combat search-and-rescue helicopters with a common 

aircraft. But the requirements for range, speed, and payload would seem to be rather different between moving a squad around a domestic missile field and penetrating enemy territory. How do you reconcile those missions into a single airframe, 

especially given the timeline this budget establishes for procurement? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force reviewed many options in the process of deciding on the acquisition strategy for the HH–60 Recapitalization and CVLSP programs, including the potential merits of combining the program requirements and/ 

or source selections. After reviewing these options, we have decided to keep the acquisition programs separate. 

PRESIDENTIAL AIRPLANE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

57. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, we hear rumors or trial balloons about a 

replacement for the VC–25s that will serve as Air Force One. Where is that effort? 

Secretary DONLEY. The two VC–25 (Boeing 747–200) Presidential support aircraft 

will be 30 years old in 2017, the planned service life stated in the original operational requirement. We have established a Presidential Aircraft Replacement 

(PAR) program team to conduct preliminary acquisition planning and develop life 

cycle cost estimates, alternative acquisition strategies, and risk reduction analyses 

in anticipation of direction to proceed with an acquisition program. In addition to 

the items mentioned above, live fire test and evaluation, noise abatement, and facilities planning studies are also underway. 

58. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, when do you anticipate asking for funding 

for a replacement? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) Program (VC–25 replacement) is currently funded at $7–7.5 million annually to facilitate capability definition, acquisition strategy development, risk reduction, and facilities 

studies. The Air Force plans to request a funding increase in fiscal year 2016 and 

fiscal year 2017 to facilitate contract award and initial aircraft procurement in order 

to meet a fiscal year 2023 initial operating capability (IOC). 

F–22 RAPTOR TOOLING PRESERVATION STRATEGY

59. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, with Secretary Gates’ having decided last 

year to have the Air Force stop buying more F–22 Raptor fighter aircraft, what is 

the Air Force’s strategy for preserving unique tooling for that aircraft? 

General SCHWARTZ. All government-owned F–22 tooling is being preserved by dismantling and storage in CONEX containers at Sierra Army Depot (SIAD). The first 

of these CONEX containers was shipped to SIAD on February 25, 2011. The last 

shipment will occur in December 2012. As part of the effort to dismantle and store 

F–22 tooling, production processes are being documented using video and written 

documents to support sustainment. The program office has an active program to review, manage, and dispose of production tooling it determines is unnecessary for 

sustainment. 

60. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, is it intended to accommodate possible restart of the program or is it sustainment-only? 

General SCHWARTZ. The current F–22 shutdown strategy is sustainment-only. 

There is no provision for restart. 

F–22 RAPTOR SUSTAINMENT STRATEGY

61. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what is the sustainment strategy for the 

F–22 program going forward and, in particular, to what extent will that strategy 

use competition (or the option of competition) to drive down costs? 

General SCHWARTZ. The sustainment strategy going forward is to transition to a 

joint contractor/government support integration team. This transition will occur as 

the program implements the plan based on the findings of the 2009 F–22 

Sustainment Business Case Analysis. The plan was approved by the Secretary of 

the Air Force in 2010 and is currently being implemented. The projected net savings 

are more than $1 billion over the life of the F–22. Additionally, the F–22 program 

office has ongoing efforts to assess opportunities to compete elements of F–22 

sustainment work. Follow-On Agile Sustainment for the Raptor (FASTeR) is a 10- 

506 

year (2008 through 2017) Performance Based Logistics (PBL) business arrangement 

with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. Annual FASTeR contract awards will implement 

the transition to a joint contractor/government support integration team. 

AVIATION INDUSTRIAL BASE

62. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, with the major design of the F–35 and for the new tanker (at least theoretically) done, today we have 

no new fighters under development in this country. We have no cargo aircraft under 

development. Aside from the KC–46, we have no tankers under development. I don’t 

know the last time that was true. The F–22 and C–17 lines are getting ready to 

close, and the F–15 line is at very minimal rates. Maybe this is the natural consequence of the defense industry consolidations of the last decade. And maybe it’s 

just cyclical. To what extent does this development concern you? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force is very concerned about 

the current and projected state of the domestic industrial base, particularly with respect to its capabilities to support emerging Air Force requirements across all three 

Air Force domains—air, space, and cyber. Our pursuit of the new long-range strike 

bomber program will alleviate some of those concerns. This program will help keep 

engineers and other professionals engaged in the design and production of stealth 

and other sophisticated technologies critical to America’s military superiority. We 

recognize the current and projected fiscal environment will drive some very difficult 

budget choices. In that regard, it becomes even more critical for the Air Force to 

make data-driven investment decisions whether on research, engineering design and 

development, sustainment, or weapon systems upgrades. An example is the new 

long-range strike bomber program where the Air Force is going to make informed, 

tough capability tradeoffs to hold costs down so the Air Force can procure a sufficient and sustainable inventory over the long term. 

The Air Force is working with the OSD as it leads a sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier 

review of the current network of the Department’s suppliers. We expect this initial 

review, and subsequent updates, to provide all of DOD with a shared view of how 

the industrial base segments interface to support each of our capabilities. With this 

knowledge of the industrial base, the Air Force will be better informed so that our 

investment decisions can preserve the critical domestic industrial base capabilities 

needed for the range of Air Force missions. 

63. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, does the Air Force 

have a notion of what minimum capabilities or surge capacity it would like maintained in industry? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. In terms of minimum capabilities, 

some sectors of the industrial base quickly come to mind, such as aerospace engineering and design capabilities, while the impact of other areas on Air Force capabilities may be more subtle. As reported in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 

DOD recognizes that a hands-off approach to the industrial base is no longer viable. 

However, we do not yet have the knowledge base needed to inform a more active 

approach to shaping the industrial base. Following the QDR, the Air Force initiated 

several industrial base studies, specifically to evaluate the aircraft and munitions 

industrial bases. We expect the results of those studies to be complete later this 

year. The Air Force is also working with the OSD to develop this knowledge through 

a sector by sector, tier by tier review of the industrial base. To fly, fight, and win 

in air, space, and cyberspace, the Air Force draws on the industrial base for a broad 

array of products and services that enable the Air Force to perform its Core Functions. The Air Force looks to maintain our technological edge, particularly in stealth 

and other capabilities that ensure military superiority. Looking ahead to future investments, such as the Common Vertical Lift Support Program, the KC–46A, and 

the new long-range strike bomber, the Air Force expects some of these to be provided solely through domestic industrial sources, some to be provided with the support of our allies, while the global commercial market will provide the balance. The 

Air Force expects the OSD-led review to help inform Air Force choices in this regard. 

64. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, do you have a plan 

for how to maintain that capacity? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force does not yet have the 

knowledge base needed to inform a more active approach to shaping or maintaining 

the industrial base. Each of the three Air Force domains—air, space, and cyber— 

has a discrete set of requirements which can be expressed in terms of industrial caVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00512 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
507 

pacity. However, there are some common needs that cut across all three domains, 

such as the need for assured integrated circuits. As the Air Force works with the 

OSD to develop a knowledge-based approach to our industrial base network of suppliers and better understand how that network matches up to current and planned 

capabilities, we will improve our ability to make definitive plans for shaping industrial capacity. The Air Force intent is to take that developing knowledge of industrial base suppliers, view it through the lens of Air Force requirements, and develop 

focused efforts to maintain, in sufficient capacity, those domestic industrial capabilities essential for the range of Air Force missions and future investments, such as 

the Common Vertical Lift Support Program, the KC–46A, and the new long-range 

strike bomber. 

AIR FORCE NEW BOMBER PROGRAM

65. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, at an April 6, 2009, news conference on 

recommendations he was making for the proposed 2010 defense budget, Secretary 

Gates announced, among other things, that he would recommend deferring the start 

of a new bomber program, since much of today’s inventory will remain relevant 

through 2040. As DOD modernizes the existing bomber fleet to provide long-range 

strike capability, simultaneous investments in development for a follow-on bomber 

will be required. In your view, does Secretary Gates’ decision last year on the new 

bomber require upgrading the current B–52, B-l, and B–2 fleets? If so, how is that 

reflected in your budget request? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, we must continue to upgrade and sustain the B–52, B– 

1, and B–2 fleets as we simultaneously invest in the development of the new longrange strike bomber. Modernization of the current fleet is critical to keeping those 

platforms flyable, relevant, and fully integrated into Air Force and Joint operations. 

These upgrade programs ensure our legacy bomber fleet remains relevant through 

2040 and, together with the new long-range strike bomber, continues to provide an 

integrated long-range strike capability. 

The budget request in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget reflects over $4.14 

billion in investment funds for these bomber upgrade programs. The Air Force is 

currently executing multiple sustainment and modernization upgrades to the bomber forces, to include upgrades or replacement of cockpit displays, tactical and strategic communications and data links, navigation and positioning systems, radar and 

advanced targeting pods, weapons integration, and defensive systems. 

66. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, are there sufficient resources in the fiscal 

year 2011 budget to sustain the long-range strike aircraft fleet? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, the B–52, B–1, and B–2 fleets are adequately funded in 

the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

The Air Force will invest over $1.1 billion for B–52 bomber modernization over 

the current Fiscal Year Defense Plan and over $3.0 billion for operation and maintenance. 

[In millions of dollars] 

B–52 Fiscal Year 2012 President’s Budget 

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 

Defense Plan 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

RDT&E ......................................................................... 133.3 78.4 74.0 69.6 45.6 400.9 

Procurement ................................................................ 108.4 156.2 198.6 135.4 115.2 713.8 

O&M ............................................................................ 562.1 513.7 621.8 655.0 670.4 3,023.0 

The Air Force will invest over $719 million for B–1 bomber modernization over 

the current FYDP and over $3.0 billion for operation and maintenance. 

[In millions of dollars] 

B–1 Fiscal Year 2012 President’s Budget 

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Defense Plan 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

RDT&E ......................................................................... 33.0 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 37.1 

Procurement ................................................................ 198.0 173.1 120.6 81.1 108.7 681.5 

O&M ............................................................................ 495.9 458.5 479.1 676.6 932.2 3,042.3 

The Air Force will invest over $2.3 billion for B–2 bomber modernization over the 

current FYDP and almost $2.6 billion for operation and maintenance. 

508 

[In millions of dollars] 

B–2 Fiscal Year 2012 President’s Budget 

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Defense Plan 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

RDT&E ......................................................................... 340.8 432.2 423.0 361.6 271.4 1,829.0 

Procurement ................................................................ 113.7 110.1 101.3 79.5 75.3 479.8 

O&M ............................................................................ 448.3 498.1 546.7 538.3 544.8 2,576.1 

In addition, the Air Force will invest over $3.7 billion for development of the new 

long-range strike bomber over the current FYDP. 

[In millions of dollars] 

LRS–B Fiscal Year 2012 President’s Budget 

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Defense Plan 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

RDT&E ......................................................................... 197.0 294.0 550.3 999.5 1,699.8 3,740.7 

67. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, where is the Air Force going to make 

these investments? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force will invest roughly $4.14 billion across the 

FYDP to sustain and modernize the long-range strike aircraft fleet. 

The Air Force will invest over $1.11 billion in the B–52 bomber over the fiscal 

year 2012 President’s budget (PB) FYDP. B–52 sustainment and modernization efforts include: 

• Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) program provides integrated communication and mission management system with machine-to-machine, beyond-line-of-sight datalink interfaces for weapons retargeting; also adds new color displays with moving map and digital interphone 

• B–52 Extremely High Frequency (EHF) integrates the Family of Advanced Beyond-Line-of-Sight Terminals (FAB–T) providing secure, survivable two-way strategic command and control communications and upgrades 

the B–52 environment control system 

• Strategic Radar Replacement (SR2) integrates modern non-developmental 

radar, replacing the legacy APQ–166 radar to address systemic sustainment 

issues 

• MIL–STD–1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade provides internal J-series weapons capability (i.e., JDAM, JASSM, and MALD) through modification of Common Strategic Rotary Launchers and upgrade of stores management and offensive avionics software 

• Replacement of the legacy B–52 Anti-skid system with modernized system improving safety and cockpit display 

The Air Force will invest over $719 million in the B–1 bomber over the fiscal year 

2012 PB FYDP. B–1 sustainment and modernization efforts include: 

• Vertical Situation Displays Upgrade addresses sustainment issues with 

the current monochromatic pilot displays replacing them with color displays 

that provide primary flight information 

• Central Integrated Test System addresses sustainment issues by replacing the onboard fault diagnostics computer used by aircrew and maintenance personnel 

• Fully Integrated Data Link integrates line of sight and beyond line of 

sight Link-16 datalink communication, upgrades rear crew stations with 

color displays, automates retargeting capability, and provides Ethernet 

backbone for other aircraft modernizations 

• Radar Maintainability and Improvement Program addresses sustainment 

issues by replacing two line replaceable units in the legacy B–1 radar 

• Inertial Navigation System addresses sustainment issues by replacing 

the primary attitude control system consisting of three line replacement 

units 

• Gyro Stabilization System addresses sustainment issues by replacing the 

secondary attitude control system consisting of four line replacement units 

The Air Force will invest over $2.31 billion in the B–2 bomber over the fiscal year 

2012 PB FYDP. B–2 sustainment and modernization efforts include: 

509 

• B–2 Extremely High Frequency Satellite Communication and Computer 

(EHF SATCOM) Increment 1 replaces the current flight management processors and data buses and adds increased digital storage capacity laying 

the foundation for all subsequent B–2 avionics upgrades 

• B–2 EHF Increment 2 installs B–2 ‘‘low-observable’’ antennas and integrates the Family of Beyond-line-of-sight Terminal (FAB–T) to provide, secure, survivable strategic communication via AEHF SATCOM 

• B–2 Defensive Management System Modernization (DMS–M) effort replaces the original DMS hardware to allow the B–2 to address modern, proliferating electronic threats 

• B–2 Radar Modernization Program (RMP) moves the radar operating frequency to a band where DOD is primary user, by replacing the radar antenna with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) 

• B–2 integration of the GBU–57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) 

• B–2 Alternate High Frequency Material (AHFM) program robotically applies magnetic radar absorbing material (MAGRAM) during B–2 aircraft 

planned depot maintenance. AHFM eliminates 3,000 feet of tape and caulk 

and is credited with reducing low observable maintenance man-hours per 

flight hours by 39 percent 

• Continuing efforts to improve B–2 maintainability, including depot activation for selected avionics components, low cost aircraft and engine efforts, 

and low observable signature and supportability efforts 

68. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what sort of characteristics and requirements are the Air Force and the combatant commanders considering in a replacement aircraft for long-range strike? 

General SCHWARTZ. The characteristics and requirements for the new long-range 

strike bomber will be refined over the next several years to balance capability requirements with costs. At this point, we envision the new bomber will be highly survivable, capable of manned or unmanned operations, and nuclear capable. It will be 

a central component in an overall family of systems of deep-strike and enabling capabilities. Secretary Donley and I have been directed to keep the new bomber program characteristics and requirements stable, manageable, and tradable to ensure 

overall program affordability. 

69. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, in the face of the decision on the nextgeneration bomber, what concerns, if any, do you have about increasingly relying 

on the old B–52 platform to satisfy our long-range strike capability beyond the 2018 

threshold? 

General SCHWARTZ. Our primary concerns are with sustaining the B–52 and advancing its capabilities to fulfill the long-range strike role. Currently we are funding 

seven programs (communications, controls and displays, navigation, weapon delivery, target acquisition, airframe repair, etc.) with approximately $1.115 billion over 

the FYDP to achieve these goals. These investments will help ensure the continued 

relevance of the legacy fleet as we bring the new long-range strike bomber program 

along. 

JOINT SURVEILLANCE TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM

70. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, the E–8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack 

Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft has flown over 63,000 combat hours and 6,000 

combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. Have the JSTARS aircraft proven effective in these missions? Please explain. 

General SCHWARTZ. The E–8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 

(JSTARS) aircraft has consistently proven itself highly effective in direct support of 

ground combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the primary theater provider of Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) data. JSTARS supports both forensic and real time intelligence for joint and coalition activities. During 66,000 combat 

hours over Iraq and Afghanistan, JSTARS has collected more critical information 

on counter border activities, improvised explosive device networks, and troop over 

watch than any other GMTI system in theater. Additionally, JSTARS provides direct support, daily, to real time operations, on call requests, and troops in contact. 

71. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, I understand new engines will enable 

JSTARS platforms to last at least another 30 years and that development flight 

testing will be completed in 2011. Given that the Air Force has already invested 

over $500 million to refurbish the JSTARS fleet, including development and nonVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00515 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
510 

recurring engineering for the reengining program, wouldn’t continuing the 

reengining program be cost-effective to the Air Force? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force will complete the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) re-engining System Development and Demonstration 

(SDD) phase. However, based on the fiscal year 2011 Defense Appropriation Act 

that eliminated funding for re-engining shipsets (#3 and #4) and rescinded funding 

for spare engines, the Air Force is ceasing actions to re-engine the operational fleet 

at this time. Regarding the cost-effectiveness, the Air Force will be unable to recoup 

the costs associated with the JT8D–219 program within the projected 30 years of 

life extension. The timeline for a payback is not economically prudent. This was captured in the May 2010 report to Congress, titled ‘‘Replacing Engines On the E–8C 

JSTARS Aircraft.’’ The Air Force will leverage the re-engining investments based 

on the results of the May 2010 report to Congress and Air Combat Command’s 

GMTI Analysis of Alternatives. 

72. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, since some prior year funding for JSTARS 

reengining was reprogrammed by the Air Force or allowed to expire at the end of 

fiscal year 2009 and 2011 funds may not be approved by the appropriators, what 

do you intend to do to address the shortfall in funds in meeting the JSTARS requirement? 

Secretary DONLEY. The requirement the Air Force is working to meet was laid out 

in the Sep 09 OSD for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OSD/AT&L) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM). This ADM directed the Air Force to ‘‘continue 

the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar system (JSTARS) re-engining System 

Design and Development phase, including the development, flight testing, and production of the initial increment of re-engining shipsets.’’ 

We believe this requirement can be met with the two shipsets we have already 

procured and the funds programmed into the JSTARS Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation and Procurement lines. We do not see a shortfall in funds to meet 

the intent of the OSD/AT&L ADM. 

73. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, do you anticipate that some funds may 

need to be reprogrammed for JSTARS reengining this year? If yes, how much? If 

no, why not? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force does not anticipate reprogramming funds for 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) re-engining this year because the program is fully funded to complete the activities mandated by the Sep 

2009 OSD/AT&L Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM). 

UNMANNED INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT

74. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, in your prepared statement you indicate 

that the Air Force continues to rapidly increase its ISR capability and capacity to 

support combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq regions. What is DOD’s total 

level of investment in ISR in the fiscal year 2011 budget? 

Secretary DONLEY. I cannot speak to the entire DOD’s level of investment, however, the Air Force’s level of investment in ISR in the fiscal year 2011 budget is 

$14.351 billion. This total is inclusive of Air Force baseline funding ($12.912 billion) 

and Air Force OCO funding ($1.439 billion). This funding was requested in the Air 

Force National Intelligence Program, Air Force Military Intelligence Program, and 

Air Force ‘‘blue’’ total obligation authority (TOA) budget requests. Further breakout 

can be provided at the classified level. 

75. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, according to the fiscal years 2011–2040 

Aircraft Investment Plan, the Air Force plans to increase the number of unmanned 

Predator and Reaper platforms from a capacity of 50 orbits in fiscal year 2011 to 

65 orbits by fiscal year 2013. Does DOD’s fiscal year 2011 budget request and the 

associated fiscal years 2011–2015 FYDP provide the requisite funding to implement 

the projected growth in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and UAVs? 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, DOD’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for fiscal years 

2011 through 2015 includes the requisite funding and manpower to achieve 65 Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) of Unmanned Aerial Systems. The Air Force strategy continues MQ–9 Reaper aircraft procurement in addition to increased investments in 

the MQ–1 Predator as a part of a mixed fleet to achieve 65 CAPs by the end of fiscal 

year 2013. 

511 

76. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, do you anticipate a greater need for additional UASs? 

General SCHWARTZ. The simple answer is yes, we do anticipate a greater need for 

more Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). Let me explain; 

The demand for ISR and strike from UAS is insatiable, but the need goes beyond 

the ISR or strike mission set. The Air Force is on-track to evolve to an Air Force 

where remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) are viable alternatives to a range of traditionally manned systems, and an Air Force that harnesses increasingly automated, modular and sustainable systems. This will result in a leaner, more adaptable, 

tailorable, and efficient force that offers unique combat capabilities for the Joint 

Force. These platforms can and will conduct a variety of missions, to include ISR, 

mobility, electronic attack/protection, and strike. However, broadening the mission 

set will pose numerous technical challenges. 

To reach this end state, the Air Force would have to develop follow-on RPA systems for our existing MQ–1/Predator, MQ–9/Reaper and RQ–4/Global Hawk systems. These current systems are performing brilliantly in permissive environments, 

fulfilling the combatant commanders demands for coverage. We must develop new 

capabilities in order to expand the mission sets of our current platforms and provide 

the ability to operate in contested or denied airspace. This leap to new missions and 

improved survivability poses the greatest technical challenges. However, balancing 

expanded mission sets for remotely piloted platforms, with the continued need for 

manned platforms with similar mission sets within today’s fiscal environment, is an 

even greater challenge. 

We are considering how to pursue linear development of follow-on systems to replace the Reaper and Global Hawk. These MQ–M (medium) and MQ–L (large) programs seek to add increased loiter, refueling, and sensor capabilities and, for the 

MQ–M, improved strike capabilities. In order to achieve greater efficiencies and capabilities, and continue to operate in contested and denied airspace, we will need 

more capable systems. We are developing and testing the RQ–170—an RPA that 

will provide reconnaissance and surveillance in support of the Joint Forces Commander in less permissive environments. We are also working closely with our labs, 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and industry, to develop the technologies for enhanced stand-off capabilities such as high altitude, long endurance 

RPAs and to explore the potential for expendable systems linked to stand-off, loitering platforms. 

To employ RPAs across the full spectrum of conflict and in all environments, the 

Air Force requires a greater range of options for unmanned aircraft systems. To that 

end, we anticipate, and are planning for RPAs that will replace the existing systems 

and add new systems that will meet operational requirements that we are currently 

unable to fulfill. 

77. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, what strategic role do you believe UAVs 

will have in meeting near-term ISR, strike, cargo, and other capabilities supporting 

the current wars and other potential irregular campaigns? 

General SCHWARTZ. The most widely-tasked mission for RPA continues to be ISR. 

We expect this trend to continue across the range of military operations (ROMO) 

in the short term. The Air Force’s plan calls for growth in Predator and Reaper 

CAPs from 50 in fiscal year 2011 to 65 by the end of fiscal year 2013. The Air Force 

will continue to work with DOD in assessing requirements and the need for more 

capacity in future plans. 

Beyond ISR, RPAs have most visibly been employed in strike operations in support of ongoing conflicts, and we see this role continuing to expand in the near term. 

RPA strike capabilities have been well documented, and these aircraft have been 

used successfully on targets within permissive environments. The Air Force continues to investigate the use of RPAs in global precision strike missions across the 

ROMO. 

While the Air Force has no plans to use RPAs in a cargo carrying role in the near 

term, we continue to investigate unmanned applications for air mobility. The Air 

Force’s vision includes the development of a large-sized vehicle, the MQ–L, capable 

of assuming some of the airlift and air refueling workload after 2020. An additional 

RPA capability with strategic implications is the Airborne Infrared (ABIR) initiative. The Air Force is partnering with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in development and experimentation efforts leading to a demonstration of advanced sensors 

and targeting systems on MQ–9 Reaper RPA to meet ballistic missile defense early 

intercept and raid handling requirements. 

Another role where RPAs are currently supporting ongoing operations is as an 

airborne communications node. Two Global Hawk RPAs have been modified as a 

Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) in support of a CENTCOM 

512 

Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON). BACN provides a high-speed, IP-based airborne network infrastructure that extends communications ranges, bridges between 

radio frequencies, and ‘‘translates’’ among incompatible communications systems— 

including both tactical and civil cellular systems. 

Potential capabilities must also be balanced to achieve desired effects. For example, increased persistence is one of the greatest advantages of RPA employment. 

However, any additional pods, payloads, or weapons placed aboard an aircraft will 

result in diminished range and endurance. Additionally, our communications infrastructure is increasingly stressed. The data transfer requirements inherent in RPA 

operations translate to extreme amounts of communications bandwidth. 

AIR FORCE STRIKE FIGHTER SHORTFALL

78. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, is there a projected strike fighter shortfall for the Air Force? If there is, then what is that number? 

General SCHWARTZ. In 2010, the Air Force provided Congress a comprehensive review of the current and projected force structure that revealed a shortfall of approximately 3–5 percent of the total strike fighter aircraft through the FYDP. This shortfall is based on the number of fighter aircraft required to execute the National Defense Strategy at moderate risk utilizing guidance provided by the Quadrennial Defense Review as well as data from in-depth campaign modeling. The Air Force has 

an ongoing process to assess and aggressively manage force structure. Recent review 

provides insights for potential improvements with respect to this shortfall; however 

this analysis is ongoing and is a continually evolving product based upon the health 

of our fleet, strategic guidance, and status of major factors, such as the F–35 program. 

79. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, in your opinion, what are the options to 

help mitigate the strike fighter shortfall? 

General SCHWARTZ. In 2010, the Air Force provided Congress a comprehensive review of the current and projected force structure that revealed a shortfall of approximately 3–5 percent of the total aircraft through the FYDP. The F–35 program status remains the key variable in the fighter force structure forecast as the Air Force 

transitions to a predominantly fifth generation capability. F–35 delays are manageable across the FYDP, but have long term impacts that require mitigation. These 

impacts will be mitigated through aggressive management of F–35 production, legacy fleet review and sustainment, along with selected service life extension and 

modernization programs. 

In the near-term, to maintain ‘‘moderate’’ risk, the Air Force will sustain the F– 

16 Block 25–32 to a planned 8,000 hrs via pre-block structural sustainment funded 

via the fleet management program. In the mid-term, we will continue to assess the 

legacy fighter fleet and invest in selected service life extension and modernization 

programs. Finally, in the far-term, we will continue to monitor F–35 progress and 

continue to assess force capacity/capability. 

80. Senator MCCAIN. General Schwartz, in a limited defense budget, would buying 

more quantities of legacy aircraft such as F–15s or F–16s help mitigate a strike 

fighter shortfall in our tactical aviation wings? 

General SCHWARTZ. A robust F–16 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) and 

capability modernization programs will help mitigate the fighter force shortfall. F– 

16 Block 40/50 SLEP and modernization provides the same capability as new legacy 

aircraft procurement at substantially less cost. These cost savings generated from 

SLEP versus new procurement help ensure funding is not diverted from F–22 modernization or F–35 acquisition. 

LIGHT-SQUARED AND POSSIBLE DISRUPTION TO GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM SIGNALS

81. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn recently voiced significant concerns to the Chairman of the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) regarding the FCC’s provisional authorization of LightSquared’s 

new wireless broadband proposal and the potential for interference of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals. According to Secretary Lynn, there is a ‘‘strong potential for interference to these critical national security systems.’’ On that basis, Secretary Lynn strongly recommended that the FCC defer final action until proper interference analysis and mitigation studies can be conducted. Do you agree and share 

the concerns raised by Secretary Lynn? If so, why? 

513 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, I share the same concerns raised by Deputy Secretary 

Lynn. The FCC’s Order and Authorization issued to LightSquared, LLC on 26 January 2011 established an aggressive schedule to evaluate interference potential to 

Global Positioning System (GPS) users, with a final report deadline of 15 June 2011. 

This was a ‘‘fast-track approach’’ to evaluating potential impacts to a system as critical as GPS, particularly when compared to similar, past requests. Given 

LightSquared’s proposal and the potential effect it may have to a broad range of national security, civil and commercial GPS users, it is important for us to complete 

a careful review. The Air Force, in concert with other agencies, worked vigorously 

to produce reliable test results and to analyze the potential impacts to GPS as 

quickly and effectively as possible. In late March 2011, Air Force engineers organized a test team under the National Positioning, Navigation and Timing Engineering Forum (NPEF) with representatives from across DOD, Federal Departments and 

Agencies, academia and industry, along with support from LightSquared. On 14 

June 2011, the DOD and Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted the NPEF 

test report to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Report results demonstrated there are significant detrimental impacts to GPS operations, including degradation or loss of GPS function at standoff distances of a few 

kilometers extending to space. Possible mitigations were identified and evaluated 

but were deemed impractical as they would require costly significant modification 

or complete redesign and replacement of currently fielded GPS equipment, which 

could take 10–15 years or longer. 

82. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, have you independently conveyed your 

concerns? If so, what did you say, and when did you convey them? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force has conveyed these concerns through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which serves as 

our liaison to the Federal Communications Commission. The Air Force Representative to NTIA’s Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) signed a joint letter with eight other Federal Agency IRAC representatives expressing concerns. 

When the Air Force became aware of potential interference to global positioning 

system (GPS) signals, which are recognized as the world’s ‘‘gold standard’’ for spacebased positioning, navigation and timing (PNT), Air Force engineers at our Space 

and Missile Systems Center organized a test team under the National Positioning, 

Navigation and Timing Engineering Forum (NPEF). In addition to the NPEF members, first responders, as well as several commercial companies, participated with 

support from LightSquared. On 14 June 2011, the DOD and DOT submitted the 

NPEF test report to the NTIA. Report results demonstrated there are significant 

detrimental impacts to GPS operations, including degradation or loss of GPS function at standoff distances of a few kilometers extending to space. 

83. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, in your view, what are the National security implications of Light-Squared’s proposal? 

Secretary DONLEY. Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is vital to our National security and is relied upon by our military for a wide array of capabilities. 

GPS is integrated into almost every aspect of U.S. military operations. For example, 

GPS is used to guide troop movement, ensure the accuracy of precision-guided munitions, and synchronize communications networks. While military applications of 

GPS technology continue to grow, we must also look at national security implications in broader terms. Although we are all familiar with the position and navigation aspects of GPS capability, much of our National infrastructure and commercial 

applications rely on the GPS’ unique timing component. For example, Federal, civil 

and commercial enterprises worldwide use GPS to time-stamp business transactions, providing consistent, accurate record maintenance. Major investment banks 

use GPS to synchronize their network computers located around the world. 

It is for these and many more reasons that we are actively reviewing 

LightSquared’s proposal to assess its affects, if any, on GPS receivers. The Air Force 

appreciates LightSquared’s transparency and assistance in our efforts to evaluate 

military, civil and commercial GPS receivers. 

EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE

84. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, the fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to 

buy three less launch vehicles over the next 5 years yet will cost $3.4 billion more 

than what was planned in the fiscal year 2011 budget. That is three less rockets 

but the cost will increase by $3.4 billion. The Chief Executive Officer of the launch 

vehicle provider reportedly said that the #1 cause of cost increases for the Evolved 

514 

Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) is the uncertainty associated with NASA. And, 

according to United Launch Alliance (ULA), no major supplier of launch vehicles 

has right-sized their industrial base—leaving the Air Force to support it—when 

NASA used to support by more than 70 percent. In your view, is the uncertainty 

of NASA’s future driving cost increases in the EELV program? If so, what, if anything, can be done to mitigate that negative impact? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes, the uncertainty of NASA’s future launch vehicle programs 

is contributing to cost increases to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) 

program. This uncertainty and the fly out of the Space Shuttle program have 

stressed the launch industrial base—particularly the liquid and solid rocket propulsion industry. For example, the percentage of overhead the DOD covers at Pratt and 

Whitney Rocketdyne has increased from approximately 30 to 75 percent as a result 

of the retirement of the Space Shuttle and uncertainty of future NASA business. 

The newly appointed Air Force Program Executive Office for Space Launch program is currently developing a new acquisition strategy for the EELV program, targeted to begin in fiscal year 2013. Key elements of the strategy are an initial Atlas 

V and Delta IV lot buy of sufficient size to ensure economic ordering and a steady 

launch vehicle production rate. An Air Force/NRO study team and the Broad Area 

Review 2010 (BAR X) recommended an annual minimum production rate of eight 

launch vehicle cores plus associated upper stage engines, payload fairings, and solid 

rockets to sustain our spacelift industrial base. A recently conducted should cost review of the EELV program revealed 84 cost reduction initiatives that are currently 

being implemented on the program. With lot buys and a steady production rate, and 

implementation of the should cost review initiatives, we believe the supplier base 

will be right sized and costs can be controlled. 

Additionally, the Air Force and NRO intend to team with NASA to certify new 

providers as part of this acquisition strategy. A joint effort will ensure a consistent 

position is communicated to all potential new entrants on opportunities, certification, and requirements. We envision the EELV strategy will allow new entrants 

to compete for near-term missions above our block-buy commitment. 

INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE MODERNIZATION

85. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, a key review board reportedly concluded 

that an equipment failure was responsible for an hour-long communication outage 

at F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB) that affected 50 nuclear missiles last fall. 

Given the age of the current intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) infrastructure, 

some have speculated that the incident may be indicative of problems with an aging 

ICBM infrastructure. Do you believe the incident is indicative of such a broader 

problem or that it is isolated? 

Secretary DONLEY. Our newest Major Command, Air Force Global Strike Command, conducted an extensive review of last fall’s event and determined this was 

an isolated incident and is not indicative of age related systemic problems within 

the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force. Although this was an isolated 

event and the likelihood of a reoccurrence is remote, the Air Force is redesigning 

certain components to eliminate any possibility of a future like event. The Minuteman III (MMIII) ICBM weapon system alert rate exceeds 99 percent. The MMIII 

Weapon System continues to perform as a safe, secure and effective deterrent. 

Consistent with the NDAA section 1251 report, the Air Force, through the leadership of Air Force Global Strike Command, has developed sustainment and modernization plans, specified in the ICBM Master Plan, to ensure the infrastructure 

necessary to support and operate our ICBM fleet. We feel these plans will meet the 

challenges required to sustain the MMIII to 2030. 

86. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, how confident are you that the Air Force 

will be able to sustain the current ICBM force through 2030? 

Secretary DONLEY. We are confident the Air Force will be able to sustain the current Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force through 2030. The Air Force has 

developed a low-risk ICBM roadmap outlining robust sustainment and modernization plans. There are certain components we will need to modernize in order to get 

us to the 2030 date, to include the fuze, the guidance system and the propulsion 

system. Infrastructure sustainment has been ongoing and will continue through 

2030. Additionally, Congress has recently approved a study for a life extension program for the W78 warhead needed in the early 2020s. 

87. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, when should a decision be made for pursuing the development of a follow-on ICBM? 

515 

Secretary DONLEY. In accordance with direction from the Nuclear Posture Review, 

the Air Force has begun an initial study associated with a Follow-on Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capability. Pre-Materiel Solution Analysis efforts for 

the potential ICBM Follow-on are already underway, to include a Ground Based 

Strategic Deterrence Capabilities Based Assessment (GBSD CBA). These efforts will 

lead to a formal Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) beginning in fiscal year 2013. Based 

on the results of the AoA, a program decision will be made as to the direction the 

Air Force should take to maintain a ground-based strategic nuclear deterrent capability for the United States. Research and development is expected to take approximately 15 years to develop, acquire, and field an initial operational capability. 

JOINT MILITARY MEDICAL COMMAND

88. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, in its recent report 

titled, ‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars and Enhance Revenue,’’ the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) cited realignment of military medical command structures as an opportunity 

to significantly reduce costs in military health care. Historically, the Air Force has 

opposed consolidation of Service medical programs, citing the unique relationship of 

Air Force medical assets to line commanders. Do you favor establishment of a unified military medical command among the military departments? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. We do not favor the establishment of 

a unified military medical command. 

The vast majority of beneficiaries and related costs in the DOD healthcare system 

support military dependents and retirees. In this context, the administration of 

healthcare delivery is properly the responsibility of the military departments and 

a civilian defense agency. A military command is neither required nor appropriate 

for healthcare delivery, and we should not be expanding the Unified Command system in functional support areas not servicing the operational needs of combatant 

commanders. The Air Force Medical Service is fully integrated with the Line of the 

Air Force and medical personnel are considered key members of the wing commander’s team in accomplishing the wing mission. When Air Force units deploy, 

their medics deploy with them. The unified medical command would sever this close 

relationship at the expense of our existing effective organizational structure. 

The Air Force fully supports joint operations. Unity of effort through synergy, 

interoperable, and interdependent, integrated parts ensures success in joint operations. Just as the Air Force provides lift, close air support, and battlefield situational awareness for joint ground forces, the Air Force Medical Service deploys over 

1,707 medics worldwide to jointly support ground troops and air evacuation. 

Service oversight of medical assets led to the most effective treatment of casualties in the history of warfare. Savings outlined in the GAO report are not likely to 

be realized by establishing an independent unified medical command. Joint commands tend to add expense with new headquarters and systems for oversight of 

their components. Costs for medical services can be reduced by reducing contract 

costs in both the direct care system and managed care support contracts. Simplifying oversight of Defense Health Program dollars with a single Service accounting 

system would save more dollars, through greater accountability and standardization, than a unified medical command. 

Former Chief of Staff of the Army, General Casey, and General Schwartz worked 

with our Surgeons General to set up the Joint healthcare system in San Antonio. 

In September 2010, we signed a Memorandum of Agreement that established the 

San Antonio Military Health System. The governance structure is rotationally 

shared with a mission to optimize deployment readiness, clinical currency, graduate 

medical education, and quality health care for the 220,000 beneficiaries in the greater San Antonio area. There is no new or additional cost associated with this arrangement. 

Our successful Joint effort at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany integrated over 300 Air Force medical professionals, alongside Army and Navy medics 

to provide en route care for over 86,000 patients since the initiation of OEF and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Air Force medics are central players in the most effective Joint casualty care system in military history. Deployed to joint theater hospitals and supporting our air 

evacuation system, Air Force medics are saving lives of soldiers, sailors, marines, 

airmen, civilians, coalition forces, friend and foe alike. 

We can drive unity of effort and achieve a more efficient Joint medical system 

without the expense of establishing a unified medical command. 

516 

89. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, if you support such 

a command, how would you recommend that it be structured to optimize governance, efficiency, and warfighter support? If you do not support establishment of a 

unified medical command, please state the reasons why such action would not be 

in the best interests of the United States. 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force does not support a unified medical command and do not agree there would be cost savings by the creation 

of such a command. 

We believe a more effective and efficient Joint medical solution can be attained 

without the expense of establishing a unified medical command. Changes to doctrine 

can be made within current authorities and do not require the establishment of a 

new unified medical command. In order to achieve efficiencies, Service specific and 

Joint medical doctrine must be improved to assure Service capabilities are fully 

interoperable and interdependent to bolster unity of effort. The Services should continue integrating common medical platforms to reduce redundancy and lower costs. 

A unified medical command may not achieve the intended synergy or unity of effort that others suggest. All models of the unified medical command to date do not 

include medical forces intrinsic to Service line units. Medical forces will need to continue to serve in these line units—Air Force line supported medics represent five 

percent of Air Force medical personnel; Navy shipboard assets represent 25 percent 

of medical personnel; and Army line Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE) 

supported medics represent 48 percent of Army Active Duty medics. 

Any new unified medical command will require new systems and structure to 

oversee component headquarters and assigned forces. This will drive even higher 

costs. If a unified medical command follows the example of the current Joint Task 

Force, national Capital Region Medical (JTF CAPMED), it is highly unlikely there 

will be any cost savings. There is no need for another military Service and establishing such, in the form of a unified medical command, without the discipline and 

historical rule sets that govern existing Services, will likely drive costs much higher. 

Even more critical, a unified medical command may not be as responsive to the 

needs of Service warfighters as is the current oversight by the Services. 

Base Realignment and Closure 2005 created many opportunities for Joint oversight of medics. Given time to mature, these initiatives, along with the Service Surgeon Generals efforts to consolidate oversight of common support functions (information management, contracting, military health facility construction and financial 

management) in the new co-located medical headquarters will reduce redundancies. 

Adoption of a single Service accounting system to allocate Defense Health Program 

dollars and improve accountability would do more to reduce costs than a unified 

medical command. 

AIR FORCE EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES

90. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, the Air Force recently proposed an efficiencies initiative to consolidate two Air Operations Centers (AOC), the 601st at 

Tyndall AFB, FL, and the 612th AOC at Davis Monthan AFB, AZ. The Air Force 

is currently assessing the two AOC locations using their Strategic Basing process. 

I want to ensure that the process is fair and based on the most urgent long-term 

needs of the Air Force, the combatant commands, and national security. What is the 

projected savings from this AOC consolidation and how will the savings be 

achieved? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force portion of the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget directed consolidation of four Air and Space Operations Centers (AOC) to two and 

the inactivation of three Numbered Air Forces as part of the DOD’s efficiency initiative. The proposed consolidation of the 601st and 612th AOCs represents one of 

these planned efficiencies and is currently on hold pending further analysis. As the 

601st/612th AOC consolidation effort moved forward, an enterprise-wide option 

emerged that is potentially more efficient and effective for operational command and 

control. The Air Force is currently studying this new option which, if chosen, may 

obviate the need to consolidate the 601st and 612th AOCs and still achieve the necessary efficiency savings. 

91. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, since both AOCs have been operating with 

less manning than was planned and authorized, what manpower assumed savings 

were used to develop the initiative? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force portion of the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget directed consolidation of four AOCs to two and the inactivation of three Numbered Air Forces as part of the DOD’s efficiency initiative. The proposed consolidaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00522 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
517 

tion of the 601/612 AOCs represents one of these intended efficiencies and is currently on hold pending further analysis. As the 601/612 AOC consolidation effort 

moved forward, an enterprise-wide option emerged as both more efficient and effective for operational command and control. The Air Force is currently studying this 

new option which, if chosen, may obviate the need to consolidate the 601/612 AOCs 

and still achieve the necessary efficiencies. 

92. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, is the projected savings based on a final 

concept of operations for a consolidated AOC? If not, why not? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force portion of the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget directed consolidation of four AOCs to two and the inactivation of three Numbered Air Forces as part of the DOD’s efficiency initiative. The proposed consolidation of the 601/612 AOCs represents one of these intended efficiencies and the projected savings were based on manpower only. This concept is currently on hold 

pending further analysis. As the 601/612 AOC consolidation effort moved forward, 

an enterprise-wide option emerged as both more efficient and effective for operational command and control. The Air Force is currently studying this new option 

which, if chosen, may obviate the need to consolidate the 601/612 AOCs and still 

achieve the necessary efficiencies. 

93. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, will the basing process be fair and transparent with the criteria made public, and subsequently the results of the assessment made available to Congress? 

Secretary DONLEY. In accordance with the Air Force Strategic Basing process, the 

process will be fair and transparent, the basing criteria will be made public through 

an announcement to Congress, and the results of the assessment made available to 

Congress at the end of the process. 

94. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, as you know, the 601st AOC is collocated 

with 1st Air Force Headquarters, which also serves as the home of the Air Component Commander for U.S. Northern Command. Likewise, the 612th AOC is collocated with the 12th Air Force Commander and serves as the home for the Air Component Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). The consolidation 

will result in one Air Component Commander with no AOC on the same base to 

command and control air operations in their theater of operations. Why is this dislocation acceptable to the Air Force? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force portion of the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget directed consolidation of four AOCs to two and the inactivation of three Numbered Air Forces as part of the DOD’s efficiency initiative. The proposed consolidation of the 601/612 AOCs represents one of these intended efficiencies and is currently on hold pending further analysis. As the 601/612 AOC consolidation effort 

moved forward, an enterprise-wide option emerged as both more efficient and effective for operational command and control. The Air Force is currently studying this 

new option which, if chosen, may obviate the need to consolidate the 601/612 AOCs 

and still achieve the necessary efficiencies. 

95. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, what will be the operational impact to the 

Air Component Commander supporting the two combatant commanders of not having an AOC at their location? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force portion of the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget directed consolidation of four AOCs to two and the inactivation of three Numbered Air Forces as part of the DOD’s efficiency initiative. The proposed consolidation of the 601/612 AOCs represents one of these intended efficiencies and is currently on hold pending further analysis. As the 601/612 AOC consolidation effort 

moved forward, an enterprise-wide option emerged as both more efficient and effective for operational command and control. The Air Force is currently studying this 

new option which, if chosen, may obviate the need to consolidate the 601/612 AOCs 

and still achieve the necessary efficiencies. 

96. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, if this is a new concept of operations, 

should the Air Force be conducting other AOC consolidations? 

Secretary DONLEY. Yes. In addition to the Continental United States, the Air 

Force is consolidating two Air and Space Operation Centers (AOCs) in Europe. The 

Air Force currently has no plans to further consolidate AOCs. However, when and 

where operationally feasible and within an acceptable level of risk, the Air Force 

will consider additional consolidations. 

518 

97. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, DOD has proposed an efficiency initiative 

to reduce the number of Joint Task Forces (JTF). One of those being considered for 

consolidation is Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) South, which conducts 

counterdrug missions in primarily the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. Has the 

Air Force been asked to consider the consolidation of JIATF South to either of the 

AOCs proposed for consolidation? 

Secretary DONLEY. No. At this time, the Air Force has not been asked to consider 

the consolidation of the JIATF South to the Air Force Air and Space Operation Centers proposed for consolidation. 

F–16 PILOT TRAINING

98. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, at a time when the Air Force is being 

asked to find efficiencies in every activity, accepting risk in some cases by underfunding facility maintenance and flying hours, I am trying to understand the decision announced last year to move two F–16 training squadrons from Luke AFB, AZ, 

to Holloman AFB, NM. I realize that Luke AFB will receive up to five squadrons 

of F–35s, with the final number of training aircraft to be determined by the number 

of F–35s eventually in the Air Force inventory. I’m concerned that, like the F–22 

Raptor, that number will shrink dramatically over time as the cost of the F–35 continues to rise. As it stands today, Luke AFB can accommodate up to eight squadrons 

of aircraft in existing facilities on the ramp. So, without knowing for sure how many 

F–35 squadrons will be stationed at Luke AFB, why spend funds and effort now to 

move two F–16 squadrons to Holloman AFB? 

Secretary DONLEY. Relocating two F–16 squadrons from Luke Air Force Base to 

Holloman Air Force Base ensures the viability of a long-term strategic training location and the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) as a national asset. Holloman also 

has the capacity to accept two training squadrons. This move capitalizes on existing 

airspace and range complex availability, including WSMR, and takes advantage of 

readily available Joint training opportunities at Fort Bliss. 

99. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, is this split-base training of F–16 pilots 

efficient? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is moving active duty F–16 pilot training to 

Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico in order to beddown pilot training for the 

F–35 Lightning II at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. During the F–16 training transition, there will be a period where F–16 training squadrons operate at both Luke 

Air Force Base and Holloman Air Force Base. The staggered move will minimize 

the impact and loss of F–16 training. The disruption will be temporary, with all active duty Air Force F–16 pilot training consolidated at Holloman Air Force Base by 

approximately 2020. 

100. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, as currently planned, does the timing of 

the move of F–16s protect operations at Luke AFB from being subjected to a bathtub effect, where the F–16s will leave well before the first F–35s arrive? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is diligently working to implement all fighter 

aircraft decisions made in July 2010, including minimizing manpower fluctuations 

across all installations. We are currently planning for the first of two F–16 FTU 

squadrons to transition from Luke AFB to Holloman AFB in the third quarter of 

fiscal year 2013. F–35As are programmed to arrive in the fourth quarter of fiscal 

year 2013. This plan minimizes manpower and aircraft fluctuations at Luke AFB. 

101. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, I see the Air Force has already requested 

three military construction (MILCON) projects totaling $18 million in the fiscal year 

2012 budget request to prepare facilities at Holloman AFB for the arrival of the F– 

16s. Have the total costs for this move been determined? If so, please provide a comprehensive description of all one-time and recurring costs associated with the move. 

Secretary DONLEY. Our current validated estimate to relocate two F–16 squadrons 

from Luke Air Force Base to Holloman Air Force Base (a multi-year move) is $42.2 

million. Of that total, $18 million is for three fiscal year 2012 military construction 

(MILCON) projects, $3.5 million is for two fiscal year 2011 unspecified minor 

MILCON projects, $13.1 million is for 18 operation and maintenance (O&M) 

projects, and $7.6 million is for support requirements. Additionally, Air Education 

and Training Command has identified a potential requirement for additional 

MILCON, however those requirements have not yet been validated. 

To further refine requirements, a Housing Requirements Market Analysis study 

is underway at Holloman and should be complete by the end of June 2011. If addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00524 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
519 

tional requirements are identified, we will include them in future housing privatization negotiations, and through cooperation with the community. In addition, the dormitory master plan will be updated to account for potential changes in the base population. If requirements dictate, MILCON projects may be programmed, as appropriate. The most cost-effective means to fund all these requirements is still being 

determined, including capitalizing on existing equipment and facilities where possible. 

102. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, can the Air Force adequately conduct its 

pilot training mission at Holloman AFB, given the fact that the range to be used 

for training is owned, managed, and controlled by the Army, and their test activities 

have primacy in the Triad prioritization process? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is able to adequately conduct its pilot training 

mission at Holloman Air Force Base using the TRIAD Military Operating Area 

(MOA), which consists of the White-Sands Missile Range (WSMR)/Holloman Air 

Force Base/Fort Bliss operating areas. There is adequate capacity at TRIAD MOA 

to meet all training requirements. The Air Force and Army have developed a new 

construct to provide a more effective and efficient use of the TRIAD. 

103. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, why would the Air Force want to deliberately subject a tight F–16 pilot training syllabus to the impact of having to train 

on a range they do not own? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force and Army are using a joint scheduling enterprise to effectively schedule White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) and do not anticipate difficulties in supporting F–16 training. The Air Force and the Army have developed a new construct to provide a more effective and efficient use of the WSMR/ 

Holloman Air Force Base/Fort Bliss operating area named the TRIAD Military Operating Area (MOA). 

F–35 PILOT TRAINING

104. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, what is the current status and timeline 

for the arrival of the F–35 to Luke AFB? 

Secretary DONLEY. As briefed to the SASC professional staff members and the 

State of Arizona staffers on 20 Jun 11, continued fluctuation in the F–35 program 

has resulted in changes to the aircraft delivery schedule. Luke AFB is currently 

scheduled to receive its first aircraft in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. 

105. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, what are the major milestones and estimated dates of completion for the environmental impact statement (EIS)? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force has determined that the use of a more accurate 

noise model, recently made available, would be used in the F–35 Training EIS for 

Pilot Training Center (PTC)-1. The draft EIS will be released in the fall of 2011 and 

a Record of Decision (ROD) will be signed no earlier than March 2012. We will continue to keep you informed on these efforts. 

106. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Donley, when are the first jets scheduled to arrive? 

Secretary DONLEY. Based on adjustments to F–35 procurement included in the fiscal year 2012 budget, the Air Force is in the process of re-evaluating the F–35 aircraft delivery schedules. Luke AFB is currently scheduled to receive its first aircraft 

in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS

TANKER COMPETITION

107. Senator SESSIONS. Secretary Donley, what was the final bid price submitted 

by Boeing that ultimately won the most recent Air Force tanker competition? 

Secretary DONLEY. The publically released value of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract is $4.4 billion. The overall contract is valued at over 

$30 billion, with a final amount depending on the options exercised. 

108. Senator SESSIONS. Secretary Donley, what is the total estimated cost avoidance to the government that resulted from the cancellation of the 2001 congressionally-authorized Boeing lease proposal to the current fixed-price contract? 

520 

Secretary DONLEY. There are many factors that make comparing costs from the 

varied structures of the proposed tanker lease in 2002, the KC–45 competition in 

2008 and the current KC–46 competition in 2010–2011 very difficult. However, it 

is safe to say that the Department has reaped a substantial savings for the taxpayer 

by buying these tankers under the current full-and-open competition and fixed-price 

development contract. 

OSD and Air Force representatives have met with congressional defense committee staff on several occasions to provide source selection and proprietary information since the contract award, and are willing to brief you on the bids and resulting 

cost savings from past competitions, at your convenience. 

109. Senator SESSIONS. Secretary Donley, what is the projected unit price for the 

first 18 KC–46 aircraft? 

Secretary DONLEY. OSD and Air Force representatives have met with congressional defense committee staff on several occasions to provide source selection and 

proprietary information since the contract award, and are willing to brief you on the 

bids at your convenience. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS

TACTICAL AIR FLEET

110. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, in the past you have stated that the 

Air Force is accepting risk in its tactical air (TACAIR) fleet by forgoing the purchase 

of additional F–22s and, instead, extending the life of legacy 4th Generation Fighters. In light of continued delays in the F–35 program, can you give your current 

assessment of risk in this area? 

General SCHWARTZ. OSD’s decision to stop the purchase of F–22s at 187 was 

based on the planned F–35 initial operational capability (IOC) at the time. As you 

are aware, the F–35 IOC has slipped. There is no doubt that the slip will force us 

to be smart about how we marshal our resources to operate and overcome an adversary in an Anti-Access/Area Denial environment. In the short term, our ability to 

perform our mission is healthy. Service life extension (SLEP) and modernization of 

select 4th generation aircraft provides a cost effective solution to the forecasted 

shortfalls in the fighter force structure due to the F–35 program delays. This solution can mitigate some risk until the F–35 is fully capable and in sufficient numbers 

to perform its air superiority and global precision attack roles. Examples include upgrading the F–15 and F–16 fleets with advanced radars and self protection capabilities, and extending the F–16 service life. We are also making sure that the F–22’s 

advanced capabilities are fully implemented. 

111. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, are there specific gaps that are of 

particular concern? 

General SCHWARTZ. We are observing increasing deployment of adversary electronic attack capabilities that will place significant stress on the Air Force’s ability 

to achieve and maintain air superiority. This problem will increase as these systems 

mature and proliferate globally. The Air Force ability to operate within some regions 

of the world is also challenged due to a growing ballistic missile threat. Ballistic 

missiles are not a new threat, but the latest versions are more accurate and, when 

combined with access to exquisite ISR, can significantly upset our ability to deploy 

into and conduct unfettered regional operations. 

New adversary electronic warfare capabilities, combined with integrated air defense systems create another challenge for the Air Force. Our ability to use the 

space and cyber domains to command and control our platforms and systems will 

be increasingly contested across the range of military operations. These problems 

will only get worse as time goes on unless we move forward and modernize our air, 

space and cyber capabilities. We must also continue to develop tactics and procedures to operate in these challenging and degraded environments. The F–35 combined with the F–22 and the Long-Range Strike Family of Systems along with new 

radar, electronic warfare capabilities and weapons will all serve to ensure that the 

Air Force remains capable of delivering air superiority and precision effects globally. 

112. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, would you ever recommend procurement of additional legacy 4th Generation Fighters to mitigate this risk? Why or why 

not? 

General SCHWARTZ. Not at this time. Starting with the fiscal year 2010 President’s budget (PB), the Air Force committed to retire 250 legacy fighters to fund a 

521 

smaller and more capable force. As a bridge to the F–35, JSF, we will continue to 

sustain and modernize our legacy fighters and bombers in order to maintain our 

current capability and capacity. 

When the F–35 initial operational capability slipped, our mid-term risk increased. 

The Air Force will mitigate this risk through aggressive management of F–35 production and legacy fighter sustainment, along with selected service life extension 

programs (SLEP) and modernization outside the FYDP. The fiscal year 2012 PB 

plans for capability modifications and SLEP for the F–16 Block 40/42/50/52 fleet. Selected legacy SLEP of the most suitable F–16 Block 40s and 50s would add approximately 6–8 years to their anticipated service life and provides the most cost effective 

alternative to transition to a fifth generation capability. The Air Force also intends 

to accelerate the F–15E Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar modernization program and continue the A–10C wing replacement program. The Air 

Force will continue to monitor and assess the fighter force structure and will remain 

flexible to pursue all appropriate courses of action necessary to mitigate risk should 

the situation change. 

113. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, it is my belief that the original F– 

35 concept—recapitalizing U.S. and allied fleets with a single family of highly capable, interoperable, and affordable fighters—makes even more sense today than it did 

when this program began. While it was not unexpected that other countries would 

develop a fifth generation capability, as both China and Russia recently demonstrated, it does underscore the need for our own F–35 fifth generation aircraft to 

be fielded as quickly as is feasible. Please comment. 

General SCHWARTZ. It is true that potential adversaries around the world are 

fielding capabilities that are increasing the threat to our legacy 4th generation fighters and bombers. These include fifth generation fighters, integrated air defense systems, better munitions and effective electronic warfare capabilities. An operationally 

effective F–35, in coordination with the F–22, B–2 and ultimately, the Long-Range 

Strike Family of Systems will be necessary to effectively counter these increasingly 

effective weapons systems. While the Air Force would prefer the F–35 to be fielded 

sooner rather than later in order to meet these looming global challenges, it is vital 

that we field an F–35 that has the proven avionics and weapons integration capabilities needed to be operationally effective. Getting the F–35 to full-rate production 

has been a greater challenge than anticipated. Given the recent Technical Baseline 

Review, the program is moving forward as fast as pragmatically possible. 

AIR DOMINANCE

114. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, looking forward 10 to 15 years, how 

confident are you in the Air Force’s ability to maintain air dominance in the Pacific 

in the event of a major conflict? 

General SCHWARTZ. Our ability to provide air superiority for operations in the Pacific will be significantly challenged in the next 10 to 15 years. The Air Force will 

require robust tanker support and modernized fighter capability to ensure air superiority against rapidly evolving threats. Much of our ability will be dependent on 

the U.S. Navy’s ability to dominate the sea in the Pacific. Working together, the Air 

Force and Navy complement each other and can create effects that neither service 

can do alone. That is why the Air Force and the Navy have been jointly pursuing 

the Air Sea Battle Initiative to ensure that a joint, integrated approach to the problem occurs. 

115. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, as other nations improve their air 

forces, air defenses, and are able to more effectively target our staging areas in that 

region, how much concern do these factors raise and are you concerned that certain 

courses of action or options the Air Force can offer the President today may not be 

available down the road? 

General SCHWARTZ. Our primary concern is not that certain courses of action or 

options may be unavailable-rather, we must ensure the right courses of action are 

not delayed in the short-term. Potential adversaries are acquiring anti-access/area 

denial (A2/AD) capabilities, such as long range cruise and ballistic missiles, advanced surface-to-air missile systems, aircraft, surface ships, submarines, mines, 

counter-space systems and cyber warfare systems. Adversaries seek to use these capabilities to deny freedom of action to United States and partner nation militaries. 

Your inquiry directly addresses the issue of the A2/AD threat. The Air Force is 

acutely aware of the A2/AD threat and, partnering with the Department of the 

522 

Navy, has developed the Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept to address this future challenge. 

What is the A2/AD? 

Anti-access: Action intended to slow deployment of friendly forces into a theater 

or cause forces to operate from distances farther from the locus of conflict than they 

would otherwise prefer. A2 affects movement to a theater. 

Area-denial: Action intended to impede friendly operations within areas where an 

adversary cannot or will not prevent access. AD affects maneuver within a theater. 

Failure to effectively address such capabilities will result in a greater than desired risk for United States and partner nation forces operations both within the 

A2/AD environment and at extended distances from the area of conflict. Either circumstance puts at risk the ability of the Joint Force to accomplish its assigned operational objectives. Furthermore, the A2/AD environment, by its very nature, requires an Air Force that is strategic in character, built on a backbone of a LongRange Strike Family of Systems designed to rapidly break down an A2/AD environment in order to allow other forces to push forward into the region to restore stability. 

Air Sea Battle (ASB) 

ASB is a unified Air Force and Navy approach to address the evolving A2/AD environment. ASB focuses on enhancing three levels of cooperation: 

Institutional Cooperation will be enhanced by establishing an enduring organizational construct that will continue formal collaboration to address the 

A2/AD environment as it evolves over time. 

Conceptual Alignment will be perpetuated through the operational design 

which describes how capabilities and forces are integrated to accomplish 

operational objectives in an A2/AD environment. 

Materiel solutions and innovations will be collaboratively vetted to ensure 

they are complementary where appropriate; redundant when mandated by 

capacity requirements; fully interoperable and fielded with integrated acquisition strategies seeking efficiencies where they can be achieved. 

Addressing the A2/AD Problem 

ASB utilizes the central operational design of ‘‘networked, integrated, attack-indepth to disrupt, destroy, and defeat A2/AD threats. 

Networked: A2/AD strategies require multiple networked systems to be effective. The best way to defeat an adversary’s networks is with superior 

U.S. interconnected networks. Networked implies command, control, and 

communications capabilities to enable cross-domain advantage. 

Integrated: A2/AD strategies seek to exploit vulnerabilities in U.S. force 

integration. Integration of Air Force and Navy forces counters these 

vulnerabilities by combining the strengths of air and naval forces through 

shared innovation. This integration provides the offensive and defensive capabilities necessary to counter the spectrum of A2/AD threats. 

Attack-in-Depth is the method by which the United States defeats the adversary’s A2/AD capabilities and restores air and sea control, enabling subsequent action. A multi-domain offensive or counter-offensive operation is 

necessary to attack adversary vulnerabilities across the depth of his 

battlespace. 

Disrupt, Destroy, Defeat: A2/AD environments will be shaped by conducting sequential or concurrent tasks: 

Disrupt: conduct offensive operations to disrupt the A2/AD adversary’s 

command, control, communications, computer network, and ISR processes. 

Destroy: conduct offensive operations to seek out and destroy or neutralize 

any threatening A2/AD weapons systems within effective range of operating 

U.S. forces. 

Defeat: defeat the adversary’s employed weapons to preserve essential 

Joint forces and their enablers in order to sustain offensive and defensive 

operations. 

Combatant commanders can apply these tasks-disrupt, destroy, defeat-to achieve 

campaign crisis management escalation, de-escalation aims. The ASB concept will 

apply a tailorable portfolio of cross-domain capabilities to deter, and if necessary, 

defeat an A2/AD adversary in combat. 

523 

EFFICIENCY MEASURES

116. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, regarding the 

efficiencies you are finding in your fiscal year 2012 budget and beyond, first I want 

you to know that I support your efforts and appreciate the fact that you are working 

to ensure every dollar you spend is a wise use of taxpayers’ resources. To what extent are your efficiencies simply deferring expenditures to future years, versus real 

savings? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force identified corporate efficiency goals in ten overarching areas. Our efficiency goals represent real savings/ 

reductions versus deferring expenditures to future years. Only ∼1 percent of our $33.3 billion in Air Force-identified efficiency initiatives are related to re-phasing of 

programs due to fact-of-life slips or program execution status. They include re-phasing war Reserve material stockpile and training munitions procurement; re-phasing 

Wide Area Airborne Surveillance (WAAS) procurement; re-phasing AFNet support; 

and Link 16 Crypto Modernization for B–1, B–2, F–15. and F–16 systems. Real savings generated by these and other efficiencies permitted funds to be realigned to increase mission core capabilities and will reduce programmed or budgeted costs 

across the FYDP. 

117. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, rather than 

just finding ways to conduct missions more efficiently, thus saving money, have you 

worked to identify missions that you can stop doing; areas of focus and investment 

for the Air Force that may be outdated and unnecessary? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force is prepared to react to 

changes in strategic direction and national strategy that would reshape our force 

to realign with current global threats and realities. However, any potential changes 

to Air Force roles and missions, as defined by the National Military Strategy, would 

need to be led by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff. 

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 118b, DOD conducts a Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review (QRMR). The Secretary of Defense has always included Service participation in these reviews. One of the tasks of this review is to identify ‘‘any unnecessary duplication of core competencies and capabilities between defense components.’’ 

Using the guidance provided in the most current QRMR and Quadrennial Defense 

Review, the Air Force continues to focus its investment of limited resources on the 

most critical capabilities required to conduct our current roles and missions. 

Additionally, during development of the Air Force annual budget, every program 

and mission area is assessed to ensure that we are not wasting precious resources 

on outdated or unnecessary systems or processes. The next review is scheduled to 

take place in 2012 with the final report delivered to Congress in early 2013. Working in concert with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and 

the other Services the Air Force will determine which, if any, missions it can stop 

doing. 

118. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, I believe we 

can be more efficient but at some point doing more with less becomes a self-defeating exercise. In areas that you are making cuts, particularly when it comes to cutting contractors, if the mission itself is not going away, how will you ensure that 

the mission gets done if the people doing it are gone? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The overall focus of our efficiency effort is to concentrate on reducing redundancy and management overhead without 

impacting the Air Force mission and services. The Air Force efficiency initiatives ensure that we could make changes in those areas without adversely affecting mission. 

The Air Force also considered external organization experiences and a review of our 

own internal practices. In the areas where we are reducing staff (either government 

or contractors), the Air Force plan is to either modify the work itself to eliminate 

unnecessary and redundant tasks or to stop doing a job altogether that is no longer 

deemed essential. This approach is a means to keep from getting into the trap of 

‘‘doing more with less.’’ 

The Air Force corporate structure will closely monitor progress on efficiency goals 

and, as importantly, mission performance. Mission performance should either improve or be maintained at current levels. 

C–5

119. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, I understand there are now five operational C–5M Super Galaxies in service and the Air Force is using these assets to 

524 

support combat unit moves to locations in Afghanistan. I have heard good things 

regarding the performance of the C–5M; in fact I’ve heard it described as a game 

changer. I would be interested in your thoughts on this new aircraft. In your words, 

how well are the C–5Ms performing? 

General SCHWARTZ. The C–5M is indeed performing very well. The modified aircraft is able to operate from shorter runways and carry more cargo over farther distances and with greater reliability. The AMP upgrades the aircraft avionics and has 

increased safety, eased crew workloads, and enhanced situational awareness. The 

RERP provides higher-thrust and more reliable and environmentally friendly turbofan engines. The C–5M’s most recent accomplishments were in direct support of 

operations in Libya, where they delivered 38 percent more cargo for every hour 

flown when compared to the other C–5 models. The modification plan calls for delivery of 52 C–5Ms by 2016. The C–5M upgrade is absolutely vital to our strategic airlift capability for years to come. 

120. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, are they meeting the Air Force’s expectation set for the C–5 RERP? 

General SCHWARTZ. The program is on track to meet our expectations. We expect 

to have an initial operational capability by 2013, at which time our first unit will 

be completely equipped with C–5Ms. At this time we see no obstacles that will keep 

us from meeting that target. 

121. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Donley, assuming that Congress grants the 

Air Force’s request to retire some number of C–5As while the Air Force continues 

to comply with the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 minimum number of strategic 

airlifters, can you provide the systematic approach and analysis that was used to 

comply with section 137 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 to consider making these 

excess C–5s available to Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) operators or international 

coalition partners? 

Secretary DONLEY. To comply with section 137 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, 

the Air Force compiled a ‘‘Report on Retirement of C–5A Aircraft’’ in October 2010. 

This report concludes that the benefits of transferring C–5A aircraft to CRAF are 

limited. The analysis behind this is based on the fact that the C–5 is a Category 

C aircraft, meaning it is a combat configured platform, and would have to be demilitarized prior to being transferring to the CRAF. Demilitarization would render the 

aircraft suitable for scrap recycling only. Additionally, Category C aircraft are determined to not have commercial application based upon their military design characteristics. Furthermore, according to DOD 4160.21–M, transferring possession of Category C aircraft outside of the Federal Government is only authorized for museums 

or static displays. 

The report also determines that no excess C–5 aircraft will be transferred to eligible international coalition partners due to the Air Force’s requirements for spare 

parts and equipment. Currently, the demand for C–5 spare parts is significant, and 

in some cases supply chain backorders exceed 2 to 3 years. These retiring aircraft 

provide usable spare parts that will enable sustainment of the remaining active 

fleet. 

122. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Donley, you seemed to indicate in your March 

17, 2011, testimony that Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C–5As are already included in the C–5 RERP modernization, yet to date we have not received 

notification or documents to this effect. I understand that the Air Force already 

modified a C–5A to the C–5M Super Galaxy configuration and that its performance 

is comparable to any of the modernized C–5Bs (now C–5Ms). Since the Air Force 

is likely to have a number of C–5As in service for the next 30-plus years, it makes 

sense to me that the C–5 aircraft flown by our Air National Guard and Air Force 

Reserve should be modernized. For only $107 million investment for each RERP kit 

and installation, RERP pays for itself. Can you advise what the Air Force plans are 

for modernizing C–5As? 

Secretary DONLEY. All C–5As not programmed for retirement will receive the 

AMP configuration. Additionally, 16 Air Force Reserve Command C–5Bs will be upgraded with the RERP modification and redesignated as C–5Ms. 

MULTIFUNCTION ADVANCED DATA LINK

123. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, during our hearing several weeks ago 

with Secretary Gates, when I asked if DOD might be considering buying more F– 

22s, he indicated that there were ‘‘hundreds of millions of dollars’’ for F–22 upVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00530 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
525 

grades in the budget request. While there are funds requested for F–22 squadrons, 

I do not find any funds for the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL). In 2008, 

OSD published an Acquisition Decision Memorandum directing the MADL as the 

data link to provide the connectivity between our low observable (LO) aircraft beginning with the F–22. I understand that MADL is now deferred from the F–22 and 

I note that the most recent President’s budget request includes no funding for 

MADL. It now appears that we are without a program to provide connectivity between our LO fighters and other platforms. I believe we must have a means by 

which our newest LO fighters can be identified and are able to collaborate with each 

other directly or through some sort of gateway connection to share position and sensor data appropriately among our own forces. This connectivity is needed to connect 

our latest generations of LO aircraft to conduct operations, provide necessary command and control, and prevent fratricide. What programs are included and what resources are provided in your budget request this year to ensure timely development 

of these capabilities? 

General SCHWARTZ. The F–22 currently is able to use the IntraFlight Data Link 

(IFDL) that allows it to communicate with other F–22s. The MADL is still under 

development as part of the F–35 JSF program, as it was originally planned. 

As the result of a cost and risk analysis, the Air Force decided in the fiscal year 

2012 budget to defer integration of MADL onto the F–22 until MADL matures within the F–35. While this maturation occurs, the USAF will continue to assist the F– 

35 program office and the F–22 program office to ensure smooth integration of 

MADL on the F–22. In fiscal year 2011, $24 million was requested for the MADL 

Enterprise for this effort. 

In addition to these efforts, the capability to share data between the F–22 and 

our current fleet of fighters has been demonstrated successfully in multiple exercises with the BACN IFDL Subsystem (BACN BIS), hosted on a business jet test 

aircraft. This capability was not tested on the BACN Global Hawk Block 20 and is 

not fielded. The business jets and the Global Hawks equipped with the BACN payload and flying today in Afghanistan do not, at this time, have this specific F–22 

gateway capability installed, since there is no need in the current theater for this 

capability. We are currently studying the costs and risks of implementing a F–22 

gateway capability. If the cost-risk analysis is favorable, the USAF can proceed to 

introduce this F–22 gateway capability as an interim solution. 

124. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Schwartz, in your view, are we doing enough, 

and proceeding rapidly enough, to acquire this capability? 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes. We are proceeding in an effective manner to enable this 

capability. We are continuing to assess and balance the technical and cost risks and 

hope to deliver an interim capability as soon as possible. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER

GLOBAL HAWK

125. Senator WICKER. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, please provide an 

update on Global Hawk Operations in Libya and in Japan. 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Our newest Global Hawk, the Block 

30, a larger aircraft with improved sensors, flies almost daily in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector. At the same time, Global 

Hawk continues to support Japan with Operation Tomodachi relief efforts. 

In Libya, the Global Hawk served a key role in the battle to dismantle the regime’s Integrated Air Defense System by providing both pre- and post-strike imagery of surface-to-air missile sites and airfields. Flying from Sicily, the aircraft was 

able to remain on station for over 24 hours at a time. This endurance, when combined with the Global Hawk’s enhanced sensor capabilities, enabled it to obtain over 

400 frames of still imagery per mission, thereby satisfying the need for near-realtime status updates of regime and opposition forces. The RQ–4 also supported the 

search and rescue operation that recovered our downed airmen following the F–15 

mishap. 

In Japan, not only did the Global Hawk provide high-resolution imagery of earthquake and tsunami affected areas, but its infra-red imaging of damaged nuclear facilities enabled analysts to determine the temperature of various hot spots throughout the facility. In addition, the Global Hawk brought persistence and flexibility to 

the Pacific theater through its ability to fly to and from northern Japan from Guam 

(1,500 miles each way), while retaining the endurance to remain on station for 17 

hours. 

526 

126. Senator WICKER. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, how well is the 

Global Hawk performing in theater from the warfighter perspective? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Global Hawk aircraft are flying continuously in CENTCOM providing critical ISR and communications relay support to 

warfighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. The ISR configured Global Hawks carry a combination of electro-optical, infra-red, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensors on 

one platform to give the warfighter maximum flexibility to adapt to changing operational and environmental conditions during a single mission. The Block 10s currently in CENTCOM are on schedule to be replaced in May 2011 by the larger Block 

30 aircraft, which will carry a robust signals intelligence payload in addition to its 

imagery sensors. 

The Global Hawk Block 20 aircraft, equipped with the BACN payload are truly 

game changers and have been credited with saving lives in Afghanistan. Global 

Hawk BACN functionality reduces Command and Control issues associated with incompatible communications systems, adverse terrain, and distance. This payload extends communications ‘‘reach’’ for systems like Link 16 and Situation Awareness 

Data Link (SADL) and has special utility as an Army ground force voice and data 

relay. This system reduces the kill chain timeline by 20 percent which enables a 

40 percent increase in kinetic effects against insurgents. 

The Block 30 Global Hawk is exceeding the performance of the Block 10. We 

pressed the Block 30 into service sooner than anticipated due to urgent needs in 

Japan and Libya. Consequently, we are working through reliability issues discovered during Global Hawk test and development and are seeing the system prove 

itself in real world operations. During March 2011 alone, Block 10/20/30 Global 

Hawks flew 119 missions, logging 2,134.5 flight hours. 

127. Senator WICKER. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, what is your assessment of how we can further enhance the capabilities of the Global Hawk in support of our warfighters at sea or on the ground? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Over the FYDP, we will field six CAPs 

of multi-Intelligence (INT) Block 30 aircraft, three of which are just beginning operations in CENTCOM, European Command/Africa Command, and PACOM. These six 

CAPs represent our objective force structure to fulfill the Nation’s requirement for 

high-altitude ISR. 

Beginning in 2013, we will field the newest version of the Global Hawk, the Block 

40. It will carry the Multi-Platform Radar Technical Insertion Program radar and 

provide a multi-mission capability to the Battle Management Command and Control 

infrastructure as well as the ISR community. The radar will provide GMTI and 

high-resolution SAR imagery simultaneously as part of our baseline capability. As 

funding becomes available, the radar will be upgraded to detect maritime and airborne targets and provide some classified capability similar to that provided by 

other state-of-the-art airborne radars. 

Our current budget plans include key enhancements necessary to achieve the optimum performance from both the Block 30 and Block 40 assets. The first is our 

Ground Station Rearchitecture where we will replace the 13-year-old ground station 

technology and, at the same time, modernize the architecture to make it adaptable 

to emerging needs and, very important, make it compatible with the Navy’s MQ– 

4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) System. The second is our Communications System Rearchitecture project. This will enable the full use of all our 

Block 30 sensors simultaneously and make us compatible with the Wideband Global 

Satellite system for worldwide connectivity. 

Perhaps the greatest enhancement for the warfighter is the work we are doing 

with our Navy partner in achieving as much technical and operational synergy as 

possible between the RQ–4 and MQ–4C programs. We are working towards a common command and control ‘‘core’’ for our ground systems, enabling us to control 

each others’ aircraft. We also plan to achieve commonality and cost savings in our 

communications systems. Finally, we have plans for Joint Global Hawk/BAMS basing, joint aircraft and maintenance training, and, if possible, a joint aircraft maintenance facility. Our success will pave the way for greater cooperation in mission operations for the benefit of the warfighter. 

VERTICAL LIFT SUPPORT

128. Senator WICKER. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, I ardently believe 

that competition always provides best-value to the warfighter and the American taxpayers. What do you believe are key criteria in determining whether a program 

should be sole-sourced or competitively-bid? 

527 

1Secretary of Defense Statement on Department Budget and Efficiencies, 6 Jan. 2011. 

2 2010 QDR, p. iii. 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) Subpart 6 prescribes policies and procedures to be used to promote full and 

open competition. 10 U.S.C. 2304 and 41 U.S.C. 253 require, with certain limited 

exceptions, that contracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open 

competition in soliciting offers and awarding Government contracts. Listed at FAR 

6.302 are exceptions permitting other than full and open competitions: 

i. Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. 

ii. Unusual and compelling urgency. 

iii. Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental or research capability; or 

expert services. 

iv. International agreements. 

v. Authorized or required by statute. 

vi. National Security. 

vii. Public Interest. 

Policies and procedures for contracting without full and open competition are prescribed in FAR Subpart 6 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) Subpart 206. In accordance with FAR Subpart 6, if any of the above listed 

exceptions to competition apply, the contracting officer shall not commence negotiations or award a sole source contract unless the contracting officer—— 

Justifies the use of such actions in writing; 

i. Certifies the accuracy and completeness of the justification; 

ii. Obtains the appropriate level of approval for the proposed action—(levels are 

tied to dollar amounts and type exception). 

129. Senator WICKER. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, please provide an 

update on the Air Force’s acquisition plans for the Vertical Lift Support Platform 

helicopter. 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force plans to conduct a full 

and open competition for the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform program and 

award a contract to initiate procurement in fiscal year 2012. We intend to purchase 

a Non-Developmental Item/Off-The-Shelf aircraft that will allow us to meet the 

warfighter requirement for an initial operational capability in fiscal year 2015. 

130. Senator WICKER. Secretary Donley and General Schwartz, will the program 

be competitively bid? 

Secretary DONLEY and General SCHWARTZ. Yes. The Air Force will conduct a 

source selection for the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform program based on 

a full and open competition. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

PROPOSED REDUCTION TO B–1 FLEET

131. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, in a recent speech, Secretary Gates stated, ‘‘The fact that we are a nation at war . . . calls for sustaining the current military 

force structure.’’ The Air Force currently has a fleet of 66 B–1s, many of which are 

based in Texas at Dyess AFB. The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to cut 6 B–1s 

from the fleet’s 37 primary mission assigned aircraft—a 16 percent reduction in a 

fleet of combat aircraft that are heavily used in Afghanistan. In your view, how are 

the proposed cuts to the B–1 bomber fleet in the fiscal year 2012 budget consistent 

with Secretary Gates’ message on the need to sustain the current military force 

structure during a time of war? 

General SCHWARTZ. Secretary Gates’ message to sustain force structure was accompanied by a similar call for ‘‘maintaining modest but real growth in the defense 

top-line over the long term.’’ 1 In the same speech, Secretary Gates also acknowledged the Nation’s current fiscal situation makes answering this call untenable as 

the Defense budget cannot be exempted from the scrutiny and pressure faced by the 

rest of our government. Furthermore, in line with the 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review, we must rebalance current capabilities to prevail in today’s wars while 

building the capabilities needed to deal with future threats.2

528 

The Air Force conducted a comprehensive review of current bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection requirements in determining 

the risk associated with a B–1 fleet reduction. 

The results of high-fidelity modeling and simulation analysis conducted by Air 

Force Studies and Analysis indicated a reduction of six B–1 primary aircraft authorizations involves an acceptable level of risk against OSD-approved warfighting scenarios designed to assess capacity and force sufficiency to achieve campaign objectives within the specified time period. 

The Air Force conducted comparative analysis between B–1, B–2, and B–52 current and historical fleet mission capable rates, as well as model driven variable cost 

per flying hour data using the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency’s 2010 Air Force Cost 

and Performance tables, in order to support measured force structure adjustments. 

The B–1 in particular faces several grounding concerns due to a thin industrial base 

and avionics sustainment issues. In light of these facts, the Air Force determined 

a reduction of six B–1s is a prudent course of action to address these critical issues, 

thereby increasing the pool of equipment spares and freeing funds to source critical 

sustainment and capability modifications. The Air Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-term as a result of these retirements, 

while bridging the gap to the future long-range strike bomber. 

132. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, what are your plans to replace the operational capability that would be lost through the proposed retirement of these six 

primary mission aircraft? 

General SCHWARTZ. The results of tactical and campaign level analysis conducted 

by Air Force Studies and Analysis indicated a reduction of six B–1 primary aircraft 

authorizations can be taken with limited risk against currently approved OSD Analytic Agenda scenarios. Analysis focused on both mid-term (2016) and long-range 

(2024) scenarios that resulted in the optimum force structure composition based on 

the prevailing strategy and the force planning construct. Cost per flying hour and 

mission capable rate analyses further supported a modest B–1 reduction as a wise 

reinvestment strategy geared toward increasing the pool of equipment spares and 

freeing up funds to source critical sustainment and capability modifications. The Air 

Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-term as a 

result of these retirements, and money saved will be used, in part, to continue to 

fund fleet modernization programs including fully integrated data link, vertical situation display, and central integrated test system upgrades, providing a capabilitiesbased bridge to the long-range strike bomber (LRS–B). 

133. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, exactly how much of the savings obtained from this cut will be reinvested in sustaining and improving the current B– 

1 fleet, to include enhancements to a new radar system? 

General SCHWARTZ. The retirement of six B–1s will provide a total fiscal year 2012 savings of $61.9 million in procurement and sustainment funding. Of these 

savings, the Air Force will reinvest $32.9 million in fiscal year 2012 into critical B– 

1 sustainment and modernization programs to ensure the health of the remaining 

fleet. 

These programs include procurement and installation of Vertical Situation Display Upgrade and Central Integrated Test System sustainment efforts, Fully Integrated Data Link capability upgrade, and procurement of critical initial spares for 

these modifications. The ongoing Radar Maintainability and Improvement Program 

replaces two unsupportable Line Replaceable Units within the current radar system. 

The Air Force is assessing the remaining components of the B–1 radar, with consideration to both supportability and performance. The Department applied the remainder of the savings from the B–1 reduction to other Air Force and DOD priorities to include continuing to strengthen the nuclear enterprise and investing in 

building partnerships. 

134. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, the B–1 has proven to be a critical component of our long-range strike operations overseas, and as I understand it, has 

been called upon to maintain a constant presence in the skies over Afghanistan. Air 

Force officials have testified that the B–1 has employed nearly 40 percent of all munitions in OEF, and senior U.S. military leaders have consistently acknowledged 

that the B–1 fleet is doing an outstanding job. General Petraeus has called the B– 

1 a great platform and a very capable bomber. How did you determine, and what 

analysis supports, the decision that six B–1 aircraft are extraneous to the current 

warfighting requirement? 

General SCHWARTZ. While it is true that the B–1 is doing an outstanding job in 

the current fight, the fleet in general faces several grounding concerns due to a thin 

529 

industrial base and avionics sustainment issues. In light of these facts, the Air 

Force determined a reduction of six B–1s is a prudent course of action to address 

these critical issues, thereby increasing the pool of equipment spares and freeing up 

funds to source critical sustainment and capability modifications. The Air Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-term as a result of 

these retirements, while bridging the gap to the future long-range strike bomber. 

The Air Force conducted a comprehensive review of current bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection requirements in determining 

the risk associated with a B–1 fleet reduction. 

The results of high-fidelity modeling and simulation analysis conducted by Air 

Force Studies and Analysis indicated a reduction of six B–1 primary aircraft authorizations involves an acceptable level of risk against OSD-approved warfighting scenarios designed to assess capacity and force sufficiency to achieve campaign objectives within the specified time period. 

Additionally, the Air Force conducted comparative analysis between B–1, B–2, 

and B–52 current and historical fleet mission capable rates, as well as model driven 

variable cost per flying hour data using the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency’s 2010 

Air Force Cost and Performance tables, in order to support measured force structure 

adjustments. 

135. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, how will the proposed cuts to the B–1 

fleet impact B–1 operations in Afghanistan in the years to come? 

General SCHWARTZ. The proposed retirement of six B–1s will not impact ongoing 

theater operations. The Air Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-term as a result of these retirements due to increased equipment 

spares availability, while freeing funds for critical sustainment and modernization 

efforts to bridge the gap to the future long-range strike bomber. 

136. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, in your testimony you were asked by 

Senator Chambliss about the type of aircraft that would be used to enforce a nofly zone over Libya. You stated, ‘‘and you would have, undoubtedly, some bomber 

aircraft that would give you long dwell over specified target areas.’’ Considering the 

extensive role of the B–1 in Afghanistan and the potential that it could be used in 

future operations in Libya, is it prudent to consider any cuts to the B–1 fleet at this 

time? 

General SCHWARTZ. Recent aircraft availability statistics, near-term estimates indicating a declining trend in aircraft availability, a thin industrial base, and avionics sustainment issues support the Air Force’s decision to commence a modest reduction in bomber force structure. 

The Air Force conducted a comprehensive review of current bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection requirements in determining 

the risk associated with a B–1 fleet reduction. 

The results of high-fidelity modeling and simulation analysis conducted by Air 

Force Studies and Analysis indicated a reduction of six B–1 primary aircraft authorizations involves an acceptable level of risk against OSD-approved warfighting scenarios designed to assess capacity and force sufficiency to achieve campaign objectives within the specified time period. 

The Air Force conducted comparative analysis between B–1, B–2, and B–52 current and historical fleet mission capable rates, as well as model driven variable cost 

per flying hour data using the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency’s 2010 Air Force Cost 

and Performance tables, in order to support measured force structure adjustments. 

The B–1 in particular faces several grounding concerns due to a thin industrial base 

and avionics sustainment issues. In light of these facts, the Air Force determined 

a reduction of six B–1s is a prudent course of action to address these critical issues, 

thereby increasing the pool of equipment spares and freeing funds to source critical 

sustainment and capability modifications. The Air Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-term as a result of these retirements, 

while bridging the gap to the future long-range strike bomber. 

LONG-RANGE STRIKE

137. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, the fiscal year 2012 DOD budget request 

includes $197 million in Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E) funding to begin development of a new long-range bomber that we are told 

would be penetrating, carry precision-guided conventional weapons, and be nuclearcapable. In your testimony, you state that, ‘‘investing in a new penetrating bomber 

is critical to maintaining our long-range strike capability in the face of increasing 

530 

risk associated with anti-access and area-denied environments.’’ In your opinion, 

given that the Air Force only has 96 combat-coded bombers, would it be premature 

to retire any bomber aircraft before it is reasonably certain that a new long-range 

strike bomber will be fielded in the near future? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force remains committed to the Core Functions of nuclear deterrence operations and global precision attack and will continue to evaluate 

the legacy bomber fleet in concert with the entire Combat Air Forces fleets. This 

will ensure the proper mix of assets are available to provide the capacity and capability required to support our National interests as we bridge the gap to the future 

long-range strike bomber. 

The Air Force conducted a comprehensive review of current bomber force structure, existing capabilities, and future power projection requirements in determining 

the risk associated with a B–1 fleet reduction. 

The results of high-fidelity modeling and simulation analysis conducted by Air 

Force Studies and Analysis indicated a reduction of six B–1 primary aircraft authorizations involves an acceptable level of risk against OSD-approved warfighting scenarios designed to assess capacity and force sufficiency to achieve campaign objectives within the specified time period. 

The Air Force conducted comparative analysis between B–1, B–2, and B–52 current and historical fleet mission capable rates, as well as model driven variable cost 

per flying hour data using the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency’s 2010 Air Force Cost 

and Performance tables, in order to support measured force structure adjustments. 

The B–1 in particular faces several grounding concerns due to a thin industrial base 

and avionics sustainment issues. In light of these facts, the Air Force determined 

a reduction of six B–1s is a prudent course of action to address these critical issues, 

thereby increasing the pool of equipment spares and freeing funds to source critical 

sustainment and capability modifications. The Air Force expects to achieve an increase in aircraft availability in the near-term as a result of these retirements, 

while bridging the gap to the future long-range strike bomber. 

138. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, according to a Defense News article on 

February 16, 2011, Major General David Scott, Director of Operational Capability 

Requirements for the Air Force, told the defense industry that if the long-range 

strike family of systems is, ‘‘not affordable, we’re not going to buy it, and it’s going 

to just fall by the wayside like it has at a different time 2 years ago.’’ What steps 

are you taking to ensure that the new long-range bomber does not fall by the wayside like the Air Force’s next-generation bomber program that was deferred in fiscal 

year 2010? 

Secretary DONLEY. The new long-range strike bomber program is very much focused on affordability, constraining requirements, and lowering technological risk. 

The program will use a streamlined management and acquisition approach to balance capability with affordability. The new bomber will use existing, mature technologies and leverage systems and subsystems from other programs to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the Air Force will limit requirements based on 

affordability using realistic cost targets to inform capability and cost trade-offs. 

139. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, in January, you told reporters that while 

the new bomber would be able to carry nuclear weapons, it would not be immediately certified for nuclear weapons. Why will the new bomber not be certified at 

the outset to carry nuclear weapons? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Secretary of Defense directed that the new bomber be nuclear capable. The new long-range strike bomber will be designed from the outset 

to be survivable in a nuclear environment and capable of employing nuclear weapons. This includes compliance with Nuclear Weapons System Safety Rules, Nuclear 

Surety Directives, and applicable Military Standards during the engineering, manufacture, and design stages. Additionally, we will continue to sustain and maintain 

the existing bomber fleet. Given the timeline we envision for fielding the new longrange strike bomber, we have sufficient legacy capacity and capability to meet the 

Nation’s nuclear requirements. Nuclear certification is a stringent process with 

strict requirements, requiring additional rigorous testing beyond what is normally 

necessary for conventional strike aircraft. To preserve our focus on affordability and 

fielding capabilities when they are necessary, we will work with the combatant commanders to ensure that the new long-range strike bomber will be ready for the nuclear mission when they require such a capacity. 

This approach allows future leaders to tailor the bomber force to meet both conventional and nuclear requirements within the constructs of national policy, emerging threats, and treaty compliance. 

531 

140. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, what plans, if any, are being made to enable the B–2 to be certified to deliver a nuclear air-launched cruise missile? 

Secretary DONLEY. Strengthening the nuclear enterprise remains the top priority 

of the U.S. Air Force. The Air Launched Cruise Missile is a critical part of that enterprise. We are committed to retaining this capability through the Long-Range 

Standoff Weapon (LRSO). The LRSO Analysis of Alternatives, scheduled to begin in 

August 2011, will look at alternatives that are suitable for internal carriage on the 

B–2, B–52, and the new long-range strike bomber. 

AIR-SEA BATTLE CONCEPT

141. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR) directs the development of a joint ASB concept between the Navy and the 

Air Force. Secretary Gates, in his recent speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy, said 

this new doctrine recognizes ‘‘the enormous potential in developing new joint 

warfighting capabilities—think of naval forces in airfield defense, or stealth bombers 

augmented by Navy submarines—and the clear benefits from this more efficient use 

of taxpayer dollars.’’ What is the current status of the development and implementation of the ASB concept? 

General SCHWARTZ. The ASB Concept was approved and signed by the Chief of 

Naval Operations (CNO), Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Further, on June 2, 2011, the Secretaries of the Air 

Force and Navy approved the concept and annexes and forwarded them to the Secretary of Defense. The approved annexes are: the Concept Initiative Categories 

annex; the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, 

Personnel and Facilities Initiative Actions/Near-Term annex; the Initiative Actions/ 

Mid- and Far-Term annex; and the Initiative Actions/Spreadsheet. These annexes 

describe in detail the initiatives which allow air and naval forces to achieve ASB 

objectives, including the timing and relationships between all the actions identified. 

These documents will allow the ASB office, when activated, to lead the implementation of ASB throughout the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. 

The ASB office, to be established by a multi-service Memorandum of Understanding and manned by elements of each Service, will advocate, facilitate, monitor, 

and assess the integrated implementation of the ASB concept and initiatives, while 

further developing the concept. In the ‘‘facilitate, monitor, and assess’’ roles, the 

ASB office will coordinate and synchronize force development activities throughout 

the Services and report progress back to the Headquarters. To ‘‘further develop’’ the 

concept, the ASB office will ensure Services provide combatant commanders with 

forces capable of addressing current and emerging A2/AD challenges. 

142. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, to what extent has the ASB concept already influenced the investment decisions reflected in the Air Force’s fiscal year 

2012 budget request and the latest FYDP, and to what extent will it guide investment decisions in the future? 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force and the Navy are in the final stages of solidifying the ASB concept document that outlines the actions and capabilities that further integrate our air and naval forces to preserve and bolster our Nation’s freedom 

of action in the air, maritime, space, and cyberspace domains. While the concept 

was still being fully developed during the fiscal year 2012 budget build, the Air 

Force budget request includes funding for a broad range of programs that support 

the concept and provide significant capabilities in the ASB arena. 

For example, this budget request includes $197 million in fiscal year 2012 for developing the Air Force’s Long-Range Penetrating Bomber to provide enhanced capabilities to counter long-range integrated air defense systems. The Air Force budget 

request also includes an enhancement to the active Electronically Scanned Array 

radar improvement program that accelerates the procurement of these advanced radars on F–15C and F–15E aircraft by adding $240.9 million/FYDP. In an effort to 

move toward a shared organization and investment vision for a Distributed Common Ground System with the Navy, the Air Force requests $15 million in fiscal year 

2012 for new critical ISR Tasking, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination capabilities. In supporting these and a multitude of other ASB initiatives, the Air 

Force seeks to enhance key mission areas while maintaining a broad range of agile 

and flexible capabilities to address emergent challenges posed by anti-air capabilities. 

ASB is informed by the fiscal constraints facing both the Federal Government in 

general and the DOD. ASB uses a portfolio of U.S. forces and enablers, organized 

across domains by mission. In fiscal year 2012, the Air Force invested significant 

532 

resources within critical ASB mission areas to address evolving threats to access. 

Efficiency is a goal of the concept in that it will improve warfighter effectiveness 

and put in place the institutional foundations necessary to sustain the development 

of integrated air and naval forces. The concept will be one of many factors guiding 

the Air Force’s investment decisions in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. 

F–35 ACQUISITION

143. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, you note in your testimony that the 

multi-role F–35A is the centerpiece of the Air Force’s future precision attack capability and will complement the F–22’s world-class air superiority capabilities. The 

fiscal year 2012 budget request includes a major restructuring of the F–35 program 

that cuts procurement of the F–35 by 124 aircraft over the FYDP. Fifty-seven of the 

124 aircraft to be cut are the Air Force variant, even though DOD has said that 

the F–35A is performing satisfactorily. Please provide an update on this critical program and its importance to the future of the Air Force. 

Secretary DONLEY. The F–35 remains the cornerstone of our future tactical aircraft (TACAIR) fleet and continues to perform satisfactorily. In the first quarter of 

2011, the F–35A test fleet completed 82 test flights compared to the plan of 62 

flights (the total program (F–35A/B/C) numbers for the quarter were 199 test flights 

compared to a plan of 142 test flights). The first two production aircraft (AF–6/7) 

flew seven acceptance flights in preparation for delivery to the Air Force at Edwards 

Air Force Base in April 2011. 

The Air Force has been and will continue to provide detailed program metrics to 

committee staff members on a monthly basis. 

144. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, please comment on the immediate and 

near-term per unit cost impact for the Air Force as a result of this decision. 

Secretary DONLEY. The OSD CAPE is analyzing the detailed per unit cost impacts 

of the reduction of 124 aircraft throughout the FYDP in order to support the Milestone B Defense Acquisition Board, currently scheduled for no earlier than October 

2011. We will have better definition of the immediate and near-term per unit cost 

impact associated with the reduction when OSD CAPE completes its analysis. 

145. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, on January 11, the new Chinese fifthgeneration fighter, the Chengdu J–20, conducted a test flight. Analysts say the J– 

20, like our F–22, would be able to cruise at supersonic speeds at very high altitudes. Other reports indicate it would be able to carry more weapons, including airto-air missiles with longer ranges than their U.S. counterparts; anti-ship and antisurface weapons; and potentially weapons to destroy U.S. satellites. It is expected 

that the Chinese fighter will enter service in 5 to 7 years, when our F–22 Raptor 

is more than 15 years old. In light of these recent revelations and the potential 

threat environment, it seems to me we should be buying fifth-generation fighters 

such as the F–35 in greater, not fewer, numbers. Do you believe cutting the purchase of 57 F–35As, and a total 124 F–35s, from the FYDP can be justified, given 

this potential threat? 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, cutting the purchase of 57 F–35As, and a total of 124 

F–35s, from the FYDP is justified. DOD and the Air Force continually assess potential threats and the reduction in the number of fifth generation fighters across the 

FYDP does not significantly add risk to the Air Force’s ability to meet national security objectives. Procurement of F–35 aircraft was reduced in order to place the program on more secure footing and cut concurrency risks. Reducing the procurement 

ramp provides appropriate time to develop and test the full warfighting capability 

of the F–35. 

146. Senator CORNYN. General Schwartz, in a recent speech at the U.S. Air Force 

Academy, Secretary Gates said, ‘‘I believe that air supremacy—in all its components—will be indispensable to maintaining American military strength, deterrence, 

and global reach for decades to come.’’ He went on to say, ‘‘the F–22 is far and away 

the best air-to-air fighter ever produced, and it will ensure U.S. command of the 

skies for the next generation.’’ In your opinion, do the recent revelations regarding 

the Chinese J–20 indicate that the decision to cancel the F–22 program may have 

been premature and based on flawed or incomplete intelligence? 

General SCHWARTZ. The timeline for design and flight testing of the J–20 was 

ahead of intelligence estimates. However, analysis of future scenarios nonetheless 

incorporated possession of fifth generation capabilities by other nations. The size of 

the F–22 fleet is currently estimated as capable of supporting expected conflicts. As 

533 

aircraft such as the J–20 come online, continued support of F–22 modernization to 

provide required capabilities versus the demonstrated rapidly evolving threat is key 

to gaining Air Superiority through the complementary capabilities of the F–22 and 

F–35. 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR MUSEUM FUNDING

147. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2012 DOD budget request includes $14 million to fund preparation and delivery of a retired 

space shuttle at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force (NMUSAF). At a time 

when Secretary Gates has promised to eliminate excess programs and reduce unnecessary expenditures, I am disappointed that the Air Force considers this project a 

priority, especially when NASA Administrator Bolden has not yet made a decision 

on the geographic allocation of retired NASA shuttles. Did you consult with NASA 

prior to making this request? 

Secretary DONLEY. No, the Air Force did not consult with NASA prior to making 

the request for funds; however, the Air Force was acting pursuant to NASA guidance. NASA issued a Request for Information to the public in January 2010 in 

which it required potential recipient organizations to demonstrate the capability to 

bear a $28.8 million cost to complete display preparation for an orbiter and ferry 

the orbiter to its ultimate display location. NASA plans to retire the orbiters beginning in fiscal year 2011 and deliver them and other equipment to recipients by the 

end of fiscal year 2012. 

Per the DOD budget process, any substantial known requirement must be included in the President’s budget to prevent an unplanned execution year bill. Therefore, the Air Force incorporated the retired shuttle project in its fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 

Ultimately, NASA did not select the NMUSAF as a site for one of the retired orbiters and, thus, the $14 million is no longer required. However, NASA did select 

NMUSAF to receive a crew training module and other smaller artifacts. The 

NMUSAF is developing, designing and implementing exhibits and Science, Technology, Education, and Math (STEM)-related activities as part of an Air Force/ 

NASA partnership. Display of these artifacts will further educate the American and 

international public of our achievements in space. The Air Force will need as much 

as $2 million to transport NASA artifacts to the NMUSAF, and to purchase exhibit 

materials and interactive educational (especially STEM) displays. 

Space-associated artifacts provide learning opportunities for the history of the Air 

Force’s involvement in space programs. NMUSAF artifacts and collections inform 

Air Force personnel and encourage and maintain the American public’s support for 

its Air Force. NMUSAF provides unique STEM-related educational opportunities 

and important lessons for our servicemen and servicewomen, their families, and the 

general public. The museum is one of the most accessible parts of our military establishment and is a popular link between the public and military history. 

148. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, how can you justify subsidizing this unnecessary museum project at a time when the Federal Government is racking up 

record deficits and when private funding is available? 

Secretary DONLEY. The Air Force is responsible to resource the interagency transfer of excess property it obtains from other Federal agencies. Per the DOD budget 

process, any substantial known requirement must be included in the President’s 

budget to prevent an unplanned execution year bill. Therefore, the Air Force incorporated the retired orbiter project in its fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

Private funds were not available for obtaining a retired orbiter. The Air Force Museum Foundation, a private organization with IRS 501(c)(3) status, is primarily 

chartered to provide for major construction needs for NMUSAF; however, its mission does not include funding for operations and maintenance functions. 

T–38 REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT

149. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, the average T–38 aircraft is over 40 

years old. It is my understanding that the Chief of Air Education and Training is 

currently conducting an analysis to determine the way ahead for a T–38 replacement aircraft. One solution would be to embark on a joint effort to develop a T– 

38 replacement with a partner nation such as India, where a partnership already 

exists for the U.S. military to train Indian aviators. Benefits of a joint development 

effort would include a second stream of investment in the T–38 replacement, reduction of costs for the Air Force, and strengthening of ties with a very important partVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00539 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
534 

ner nation. Has the Air Force considered an effort with a partner nation to develop 

and deliver a replacement for the T–38? 

Secretary DONLEY. OSD is reviewing the sufficiency of the Analysis of Alternatives for the Advanced Pilot Trainer aircraft, which will replace the T–38. Once 

the analysis is complete and a Request for Information is sent out to the aviation 

industry, the Air Force can pursue an acquisition strategy that best fits the requirement for the replacement trainer. 

The Air Force has not pursued an effort to partner with another nation to develop 

a replacement for the T–38. Formalizing an arrangement with a partner nation, determining common requirements, and developing a suitable aircraft would take far 

longer than acquiring a currently available platform. A nondevelopmental aircraft 

offers the best opportunity to meet the Air Force’s desired schedule. 

150. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Donley, what are the advantages and disadvantages of partnering with a nation such as India on the development and fielding of 

a non-combat aircraft such as the T–38? 

Secretary DONLEY. In general, non-combat aircraft procurement involves a commercially available platform that is tailored to meet military requirements, and as 

a result there is not an opportunity for joint development. If we were going to develop a new platform, potential benefits of a joint development effort include additional investment funds, reduction of costs for the Air Force, and strengthened ties 

with allied nations. The potential disadvantages include lengthened schedule time, 

challenge of achieving consensus on requirements, potential for one partner’s requirements to drive costs, and time to develop necessary agreements. 

With respect to India, per its January 2011 Defense Production Policy, India prefers indigenous design, development, and manufacture of defense equipment, unless 

Indian industry is unable to make or procure the items from indigenous sources. 

India is developing the Indigenous Jet Trainer, HJT–36, which is expected to be 

operational later this year. The BAE Hawk Mk 132 currently serves as the Indian 

Air Force’s advanced jet trainer. It entered service in 2010. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(535) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND AND U.S. STRATEGIC 

COMMAND 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room SD– 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Nelson, Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Brown, Portman, 

Ayotte, Collins, Cornyn, and Vitter. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; 

Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Jason W. Maroney, counsel; Thomas K. McConnnell, professional staff member; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; and Roy F. 

Phillips, professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; Daniel A. 

Lerner, professional staff member; and Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member. 

Staff assistants present: Kathleen A. Kulenkampff, Christine G. 

Lang, and Brian F. Sebold. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Vance Serchuk, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator 

Reed; Ann Premer, assistant to Senator Nelson; Gordon Peterson, 

assistant to Senator Webb; Casey Howard, assistant to Senator 

Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Lindsay 

Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Joanne McLaughlin, assistant to Senator Manchin; Chad Kreikemeier, assistant to Senator Shaheen; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; 

Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde Taylor IV, 

assistant to Senator Chambliss; Joseph Lai, assistant to Senator 

Wicker; Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; Gordon Gray, 

536 

assistant to Senator Portman; Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator 

Ayotte; Matthew Rimkunas, assistant to Senator Graham; Dave 

Hanke, assistant to Senator Coryn; and Joshua Hodges, assistant 

to Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everyone. This morning’s hearing is one in a series of posture hearings held annually with the 

combatant commanders as part of the committee’s review of the 

President’s budget request for the coming fiscal year budget. Our 

witnesses are Admiral James Stavridis, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM); and General

C. Robert Kehler, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM). We welcome you both. 

Admiral Stavridis is no stranger to this committee, having previously served as Commander of the U.S. Southern Command. This 

is his second appearance before the committee in his current position. He comes at a most propitious time, being Supreme Allied 

Commander in Europe, in other words our NATO commander. 

This is General Kehler’s first opportunity to testify before the 

committee as the Commander of STRATCOM, having assumed 

command responsibilities just 2 months ago. General Kehler is not 

new to the issues, however, as most of his career has been involved 

with strategic and space systems. 

On behalf of the committee, let me thank you both for your long 

and distinguished service. We would also like to recognize the men 

and women who serve in the EUCOM area and around the world 

as members of the forces of STRATCOM as they support and enable a wide range of important global missions. Please pass along 

the appreciation of this committee to them for their commitment 

and their dedication, and to their families for the essential support 

that they provide. 

Once again, our service men and women have been called into 

harm’s way, this time as part of an international coalition to prevent the Qadhafi regime in Libya from carrying out a bloodbath 

against the Libyan people, who are currently seeking, often at 

great risk, the same democratic and human rights that are inspiring others in the Arab world. 

President Obama has taken a thoughtful and deliberate approach to the U.S. involvement in the Libyan crisis, emphasizing 

that a military mission be limited and have the support of a broad 

international coalition, including the endorsement of the United 

Nations (U.N.) and the Arab League. Securing the support and participation of an international coalition has been critical, both for regional and international acceptance of the use of military force and 

ensuring that the risks and costs of operations are not principally 

America’s. 

The President has consistently made clear that the U.S. leadership of this mission would be limited in time, and that there would 

be a handoff of command and control to a NATO-led coalition, 

which currently includes at least two Arab countries. 

President Obama has reiterated that it is a U.S. goal that Colonel Qadhafi should go. To achieve that goal without foreign ground 

537 

forces, the United States has applied significant tools of national 

power to increase heavy pressure against Colonel Qadhafi, his family, and close associates, including economic sanctions, a travel ban, 

and a freeze on more than $30 billion in Libyan assets. 

Today, representatives from coalition countries, as well as from 

the United States, the Arab League, the African Union, and other 

Arab countries, are meeting in London to discuss the international 

effort in support of the Libyan people. Qadhafi is more and more 

isolated, his military capabilities continue to be degraded, and air 

strikes will continue as long as he continues to threaten his own 

people. 

The international community, including critically important Arab 

countries, have responded to Qadhafi’s repression with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970, which imposed sanctions and a weapons embargo against Libya, and U.N. Security Council Resolution 

1973, which authorizes the use of ‘‘all necessary measures’’ to impose a no-fly zone and to protect Libyan civilians from the threat 

of attack by the Qadhafi Government. 

While coalition operations to enforce the U.N. Security Council 

resolution were initially under a task force led by the Commander 

of U.S. Africa Command, both EUCOM and STRATCOM have provided important support to establishment of the no-fly zone. Maritime and air assets based in Europe participated in the no-fly zone 

and in operations to protect civilians. STRATCOM demonstrated 

its global strike responsibilities when the B–2 Stealth bomber 

bombed airfields and other targets in Libya. 

Our coalition partners have brought significant assets to the 

arms embargo and no-fly missions against Libya. Enforcing the nofly zone has involved aircraft from 10 countries, including Qatar 

and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and maritime operations are 

being conducted by nearly 40 ships, two-thirds of which are provided by coalition partners, including aircraft carriers from France 

and Italy. 

Last week NATO took charge of the mission of enforcing the 

arms embargo and the no-fly zone against Libya, and on Sunday 

the North Atlantic Council (NAC), NATO’s political body, agreed to 

take command of all aspects of the military operations under the 

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, including the mission of 

protecting the Libyan people. Canadian Lieutenant General Bouchard, who will head the task force in charge of these operations, 

will report through the NATO Joint Task Force Command-Naples 

to Admiral Stavridis in his capacity as NATO Supreme Allied Commander-Europe. 

The President carefully set out the mission and helped organize 

a U.N. mandate and a coalition to pursue it before the mission was 

launched. It has gained momentum and achieved some notable success, and so far without any allied casualties. It is a unique moment in history when the international community comes together 

to stop a tyrant who is massacring his people. 

The President from the beginning said the military mission did 

not include regime change. If it did, it would surely require outside 

ground forces, which the President clearly and properly rejects. 

Our military leaders’ fear of mission creep has been understood by 

the President and respected. Those who are in favor of including 

538 

the military mission with the toppling of Qadhafi, need to address 

the problems created by getting deeper into the land of an Arab 

country, putting ourselves in the middle of a civil war, almost certainly destroying the coalition, and ignoring the U.N. mandate. The 

creation of that international coalition and mandate are of historic 

importance and essential to avoiding serious pitfalls. 

The goal of our effort is to make it possible for the Libyan people 

to have the opportunity to decide Qadhafi’s fate, just as the Egyptian people decided Mubarak’s. If the situation on the ground in 

Libya continues to be volatile and Qadhafi continues to threaten 

his own people, then the issue arises as to whether the coalition 

should arm the opposition in Libya. Such a step must be considered 

in the context of a NATO decision, it will require consensus. One 

critical consideration is whether providing arms to the rebels would 

be consistent with the mission and the mandate for intervention 

and, perhaps most importantly, whether the NATO coalition and 

its partners would maintain the critically essential unity if such a 

policy were adopted. 

President Obama has been cautious in weighing the conditions 

for the use of military force. I believe he will continue to weigh 

carefully the pros and cons of providing offensive arms, such as 

heavy vehicles and artillery, to the opposition. 

In Afghanistan, our European allies and partners make up the 

vast majority of the 48 countries and the more than 40,000 nonU.S. troops participating in the NATO-led International Security 

Assistance Force (ISAF). Along with 90,000 U.S. troops, our ISAF 

partners’ contributions have been significant, and we honor their 

sacrifices. At the NATO Lisbon summit last November, the ISAF 

participants agreed to endorse the Afghan Government’s assuming 

responsibility for security. This is an important and a welcome 

step. Recently President Karzai announced the first round of provinces and districts across Afghanistan where Afghanistan National 

Security Forces (ANSF) will take the security lead starting this 

summer. 

If we are to succeed, our message and our actions must be twofold. We must impart a sense of urgency to the Afghans on the 

need to take ownership of their country’s security, which is why 

I’ve been such a strong supporter of the July 2011 date set by the 

President to begin reductions of U.S. forces and begin accelerating 

the transition of security responsibility to ANSF. 

At the same time, we must assure and reassure the Afghans that 

as they assume more and more responsibility for security, we will 

be there to support them. Our European allies need to focus more 

on seeing this mission through to a successful conclusion and 

NATO members need to meet ISAF requirements for trainers for 

the Afghan army and police. 

The balance of my statement I will put into the record, and I will 

call now on Senator McCain. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

This morning’s hearing is one in the series of posture hearings held annually with 

the combatant commanders as part of the committee’s review of the President’s 

budget request for the coming fiscal year budget. Our witnesses are Admiral James 

G. Stavridis, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander, U.S. EuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00544 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
539 

ropean Command (EUCOM); and General C. Robert Kehler, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). Welcome to you both. 

Admiral Stavridis is no stranger to this committee, having previously served as 

Commander of U.S. Southern Command, and this is his second appearance before 

this committee in his current position. But he comes at a most propitious time, 

being Supreme Allied Commander Europe, i.e., our NATO Commander. This is General Kehler’s first opportunity to testify before the committee as the Commander of 

the U.S. Strategic Command, having assumed command responsibilities just 2 

months ago. General Kehler is not new to the issues, however, as most of his career 

has been involved with strategic and space systems. On behalf of the committee, let 

me thank you both for your long and distinguished service. 

I would also like to recognize the men and women who serve in the EUCOM area 

and around the world as members of the forces of STRATCOM as they support and 

enable a wide range of important global missions. Please pass along the appreciation of this committee to them for their commitment and dedication, and to their 

families for the essential support they provide. 

Once again our service men and women have been called into harm’s way, this 

time as part of an international coalition to prevent the Qadhafi regime in Libya 

from carrying out a bloodbath against the Libyan people, who are currently seeking, 

often at great risk, the same democratic and human rights that are inspiring others 

in the Arab world. President Obama has taken a thoughtful and deliberate approach 

to U.S. involvement in the Libyan crisis, emphasizing that a military mission be 

limited and also have the support of a broad international coalition, including the 

endorsement of the United Nations and the Arab League. 

Securing the support and participation of a broad international coalition has been 

critical, both for regional and international acceptance of the use of military force 

and for ensuring that the risks and costs of operations are not principally America’s. 

The President has consistently made clear that the U.S. leadership of this mission 

would be limited in time, and that there would be a hand-off of command and control to a NATO-led coalition, which currently includes at least two Arab countries. 

President Obama has reiterated that it is a U.S. goal that Colonel Muammar Qadhafi should go. To achieve that goal without foreign ground forces, the United 

States has applied significant tools of national power to increase heavy pressure 

against Colonel Qadhafi, his family, and close associates, including economic sanctions, a travel ban, and a freeze on more than $30 billion in Libyan assets. Today, 

representatives from coalition countries, as well as from the United Nations, the 

Arab League, the African Union, and other Arab countries, are meeting in London 

to discuss the international effort in support of the Libyan people. Qadhafi is more 

and more isolated, and his military capabilities continue to be degraded and air 

strikes will continue as long as he continues to threaten his own people. 

The international community, including critically important Arab countries, has 

responded to Qadhafi’s repression with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970, 

which imposed sanctions and a weapons embargo against Libya, and U.N. Security 

Council Resolution 1973, which authorizes the use of ‘‘all necessary measures’’ to 

impose a no-fly zone and to protect Libya civilians from the threat of attack by the 

Qadhafi Government. While coalition operations to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolution were initially under a task force led by the Commander of U.S. Africa 

Command, both EUCOM and STRATCOM have provided important support to establishment of the no-fly zone. Maritime and air assets based in Europe participated 

in the no-fly zone and in operations to protect civilians. STRATCOM demonstrated 

its global strike responsibilities when the B–2 stealth bomber bombed airfields and 

other targets in Libya. 

Our coalition partners have brought significant assets to the arms embargo and 

no-fly missions against Libya. Enforcing the no-fly zone has involved aircraft from 

10 countries, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, and maritime operations are being conducted by nearly 40 ships, two-thirds of which are provided by 

coalition partners, including aircraft carriers from France and Italy. 

Last week, NATO took charge of the mission of enforcing the arms embargo and 

the no-fly zone against Libya, and on Sunday, the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s 

political body, agreed to take command of all aspects of the military operations 

under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, including the mission of protecting 

the Libyan people. Canadian Lieutenant General Bouchard, who will head the task 

force in charge of these operations, will report through the NATO Joint Force Command Naples to Admiral Stavridis in his capacity as NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe. 

The President carefully set out the mission and helped organize a U.N. mandate 

and a coalition to pursue it before it was launched. It has gained momentum and 

achieved some notable success and—so far—without any allied casualties. It is a 

540 

unique moment in history when the international community comes together and 

acts to stop a tyrant who is massacring his people. 

The President from the beginning said the military mission did not include regime 

change. If it did, it would surely require outside ground forces, which the President 

clearly and properly rejects. 

Our military leaders’ fear of mission creep has been understood by the President 

and respected. 

Those who are in favor of including the military mission the toppling of Qadhafi, 

need to address the problems created by getting deeper into the land of an Arab 

country, putting ourselves in the middle of a civil war, almost certainly destroying 

the coalition, and ignoring the U.N. mandate. The creation of that international coalition and mandate are of historic importance and essential to avoiding serious pitfalls. 

The goal of our effort is to make it possible for the Libyan people to have the opportunity to decide Qadhafi’s fate, just as the Egyptian people decided Mubarak’s. 

If the situation on the ground in Libya continues to be volatile and Qadhafi continues to threaten his own people, then the issue arises as to whether the coalition 

should arm the opposition in Libya. Because such a step must be considered in the 

context of a NATO decision, it will require consensus. One critical consideration is 

whether providing arms to the rebels would be consistent with the mission and the 

mandate for intervention and perhaps most importantly whether the NATO coalition and its partners would maintain the critically essential unity if such a policy 

were adopted. President Obama has been cautious in weighing the conditions for the 

use of military force. I believe he will continue to weigh carefully the pros and cons 

of providing offensive arms such as heavy vehicles and artillery to the opposition. 

In Afghanistan, our European allies and partners make up the vast majority of 

the 48 countries and more than 40,000 non-U.S. troops participating in the NATOled International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), along with 90,000 U.S. troops. 

Our ISAF partners’ contributions have been significant and we honor their sacrifices. At the NATO Lisbon Summit last November, the ISAF participants agreed 

to endorse the Afghan Government assuming responsibility for security. This is an 

important and welcome step, and recently President Karzai announced the first 

round of provinces and districts across Afghanistan where Afghan security forces 

will take the security lead starting this summer. 

If we are to succeed, our message must be two-fold. We must impart a sense of 

urgency to the Afghans on the need to take ownership of their country’s security, 

which is why I’ve been such a strong supporter of the July 2011 date set by the 

President to begin reductions of U.S. forces and begin accelerating the transition of 

security responsibility to Afghan security forces. At the same time, we must reassure the Afghans that, as they assume more and more responsibility for security, 

we will be there to support them. Our European allies need to focus more on seeing 

this mission through to a successful conclusion and NATO members need to meet 

ISAF requirements for trainers for the Afghan Army and police. 

The last year has been an important one for EUCOM in the area of missile defense. In November, NATO decided at the Lisbon Summit to adopt as a core mission 

the missile defense of NATO territory and population. NATO endorsed the U.S. European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) as the U.S. contribution to that NATO 

missile defense system, and decided to expand its missile defense command and control network for that mission. As part of its historic missile defense decisions, NATO 

also invited Russia to cooperate with the alliance on missile defense, something that 

I believe holds potential to improve U.S. and NATO relations with Russia, and to 

send an important signal to Iran about our joint determination to counter its nuclear and missile programs. 

Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Navy sent the first Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 

ship for the EPAA mission, the USS Monterey, on its first deployment to the Mediterranean Sea for missile defense duty as part of Phase 1 of the EPAA. 

STRATCOM is the command responsible for ensuring that missile defenses are 

militarily effective. As missile capabilities of countries such as Iran and North 

Korea grow, the threat to deployed U.S. forces and allies in these regions also 

grows. The phased adaptive approach being established in Europe and as the U.S. 

element to NATO missile defense presents the most realistic option for defeating existing and anticipated regional missile threats. General Kehler and Admiral 

Stavridis, this is an area where both commands work collaboratively to ensure reliable capability. I look forward to hearing how you expect the implementation of PAA 

to proceed, and what you believe are the prospects and potential benefits of missile 

defense cooperation with Russia. I look forward also to discussing NATO’s commitment to missile defenses. 

541 

General Kehler, STRATCOM is indeed a global command with responsibility for 

space, strategic nuclear forces, global strike, cyber—with the new Cyber Command 

as a sub-unified command in STRATCOM, missile defense, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and combating weapons of mass destruction. 

Among the many challenges facing STRATCOM is the implementation of the New 

START treaty. Under the treaty both the United States and Russia have 7 years 

to come into compliance with the reduced levels of nuclear delivery systems and 

warheads. While we recognize that it is early in the reduction process, and that it 

will take most of the 7 years to make the decisions and implement the necessary 

changes in the force structure, the committee remains interested in the overall effort. 

When President Obama signed the START treaty in Prague in April 2010, he reaffirmed his commitment, made in Prague in April 2009, to continue to make reductions in nuclear forces. With respect to the new treaty he said: ‘‘While the New 

START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey. As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. 

Going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our 

strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.’’ 

Earlier this month 41 Senators, including several on this committee, sent a letter 

to the President raising concerns about reductions beyond those in the New START 

treaty and the administration’s ongoing deterrence review. I look forward to getting 

into a more detailed discussion this morning on the nuclear forces and how they will 

be reduced under the treaty, as well as on any plans being discussed for further 

reductions. 

The new subunified Cyber Command became fully operational at the end of last 

year. Nevertheless there are still many unresolved policy and other issues confronting the new command. General Kehler, we look forward to your views on the 

way ahead for both the Cyber Command as well as the forces from the military 

Services that will support the command. 

Space systems and the capabilities they provide have given a significant advantage to the United States and its allies both militarily and economically. Maintaining this advantage, however, is increasingly difficult as others intentionally seek to 

reduce our military advantage. In addition, as civil uses of the radio frequency spectrum increase, the possibility that important signals can or will be inadvertently or 

purposely jammed also increases. General Kehler, you have described space as ‘‘contested, congested, and competitive.’’ We look forward to a discussion as to the scope 

of the problem facing the STRATCOM and your views on how to ensure that the 

United States maintains the uninterrupted use of space and space assets. This includes how the United States might participate with other countries to establish 

rules of the road for space. 

Finally, one of the most important missions is STRATCOM’s role in combating 

weapons of mass destruction, particularly the efforts to stop proliferation of nuclear 

and related technologies. Proliferation prevention is a vital part of deterrence, but 

one that is often not fully supported or funded. While maintaining a safe, secure, 

and reliable nuclear stockpile is the most visible element of deterrence, preventing 

states and non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons, materials and technologies, is equally important. I look forward to receiving your thoughts on how the 

proliferation prevention programs and efforts can be strengthened and made more 

effective. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank 

our witnesses for joining us this morning and for their many years 

of service to our Nation. On behalf of the entire committee, I’d like 

to extend our thanks to all of the brave men and women in uniform 

you lead, who sacrifice so faithfully for us. 

I’d like to echo the chairman in saying it’s a pleasure to have 

General Kehler before the committee for the first time in his capacity as Commander of STRATCOM. Of course, it’s always a pleasure 

to have Admiral Stavridis back before this committee to discuss the 

many complex challenges in EUCOM, especially with U.S. forces 

engaged in military operations in Libya and with the upcoming 

transition of that mission to NATO command. 

542 

As the chairman said, the committee will hold a hearing this 

Thursday on the current operations in Libya, so let me just say 

briefly, the decision to intervene militarily in Libya was right and 

necessary. I believe last night the President made a clear and convincing case for that. The President’s action surely averted a mass 

atrocity in Benghazi. Had we not intervened, Libyan refugees 

would now be destabilizing Egypt and Tunisia, America’s moral 

standing in the broader Middle East would have been devastated, 

as we turned a deaf ear on Arabs and Muslims who were pleading 

for our rescue. The result of all this would have been a fertile 

breeding ground in Libya for radicalization, hatred, and the ideology of al Qaeda. 

Now that we have prevented the worst outcome, we have an opportunity to achieve the broader U.S. goal in Libya, as the President stated, forcing Qadhafi to leave power. I disagree with the 

President, that the use of force should be ruled out, but clearly 

facts on the ground show that we are taking necessary steps to do 

so. 

With our support, opposition forces are making significant 

progress toward that end on the ground. We just saw in Sirte that 

U.S. and allied air power is the key element in whether these 

rebels, the anti-Qadhafi forces, succeed or fail. We need to keep the 

pressure on Qadhafi and add to it where possible. 

Qadhafi may crack. It’s very possible that he may do so. But I 

don’t think we can place all of our hopes on that outcome. A long 

and costly stalemate is not in our interest. It was not in our interest to have a 10-year stalemate in Iraq following Operation Desert 

Storm. A long and costly stalemate in Libya would not be beneficial 

to any party. 

Though our focus is now on Libya, we must remember how many 

vital and diverse national security issues are being addressed in 

both of the commands that our witnesses lead. In EUCOM, all of 

the many diverse missions of our Armed Forces intersect, from 

combating transnational threats like terrorism or cyber attacks to 

building partnership capacity, from supporting NATO’s counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan to maintaining the strategic 

balance of forces with other Eurasian powers. EUCOM is doing it 

all. 

In addition to Libya, I’d be interested to hear what steps, if any, 

are being taken to support the defensive rearmament of Georgia. 

It’s not in our interest to leave a stalwart partner and NATO aspirant country without the means to properly defend itself. 

I also believe the entire committee would be interested in an update on the initial phase of our deployment of the European-phased 

Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense, as well as the 

progress made in projections for meeting the timeline set forth by 

the President for phases 2 through 4. This is especially important 

in light of recent statements by Russian leaders rejecting stated 

U.S. policy of deploying all four phases of this critical missile defense program. 

I know that both our witnesses have been involved, to varying 

degrees, in the search for common ground on missile defense with 

Russia. We’d be eager to hear both of our witnesses’ assessment on 

the prospects of such cooperation ever occurring. 

543 

Similarly, General Kehler, you take command of STRATCOM at 

a pivotal time, as we embark on a robust modernization of the nuclear triad and weapons complex, define strategic defense capabilities for the 21st century, and cement the role of cyber security and 

cyber warfare as core competencies. 

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2012 represents the initial 

investment in what will be a costly, yet vital, reinvestment in nuclear weapons modernization. The importance of Congress fully 

funding the long-term modernization of the nuclear weapons complex should have been driven home last year during the debate 

over the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Yet, in 

the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill that Congress is now considering for the Department of Defense (DOD), the House has cut 

the President’s request by $312 million and the Senate cut the request by $185 million. These actions are very troubling to me and 

I’d like to know whether you share this assessment, General 

Kehler, as well as how such cuts would affect your command’s mission of fielding safe, reliable, and effective strategic forces. 

Finally, on the issue of our cyber security, I was struck by a 

statement that General Keith Alexander made in recent testimony 

to the House Armed Services Committee. He said, and I quote: ‘‘We 

are finding that we do not have the capacity to do everything we 

need to accomplish. To put it bluntly, we are very thin and a crisis 

would quickly stress our cyber forces.’’ General Alexander was also 

very clear that the threat is not a ‘‘hypothetical danger.’’ 

I remain concerned that DOD lacks both the necessary legal authorities and sufficiently-trained personnel to fully perform its critical role in the realm of cyber security. 

Again, I welcome the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Admiral Stavridis. 

STATEMENT OF ADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN, COMMANDER, 

U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND/SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, 

EUROPE 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of 

the committee, thank you. It’s a pleasure and an honor to be with 

you here and also a great chance to be with Bob Kehler for his inaugural testimony, as several of you pointed out. 

I would like to take just a moment upfront to mention some of 

the things we’re doing at EUCOM, and I’ll group them into three 

broad categories. One is military operations, one is partnering and 

training with allies and friends, and the third is something I think 

is very important and it’s engaging with the interagency. 

In terms of military operations, I’ll conclude with a word about 

Libya, but let me start with a word about Afghanistan. At any 

given time, about 80 percent of the 45,000 non-U.S. troops who are 

in Afghanistan come from Europe. At this moment we have 12,000 

EUCOM soldiers who are forward deployed. We focus on Afghanistan from EUCOM and try our best to support General Jim Mattis 

and of course General Dave Petraeus, who’s both our NATO and 

our U.S. Commander in Afghanistan. 

Like General Petraeus, and of course he was up about a week 

ago, I am today cautiously optimistic about Afghanistan. I see 

544 

progress. As Dave said, it’s fragile, but I believe that we are moving forward in the right direction. Today we have a coalition of 49 

troop-contributing nations, the largest coalition in history, and it is 

making measurable progress in the transition to Afghan-led security operations. 

I can talk more about that in the question and answer period, 

but I did want to register my sense of cautious optimism for our 

progress in Afghanistan today. 

Partnership is a very important aspect of what we do at 

EUCOM, 51 nations are part of our military-to-military relationships. Last year, for example, we had 33 major exercises, engaging 

about 50,000 folks. We do a significant amount of training across 

the spectrum. Senator McCain mentioned Georgia. We do a fair 

amount with Georgia. Partnership-building is part of why there are 

45,000 non-U.S. troops today with us in Afghanistan. 

Third, interagency, we are also very engaged at EUCOM with 

our interagency partners. We are engaged in everything from disaster relief, in both Israel and Russia last year after forest fires, 

to working with the Drug Enforcement Administration on stemming the flow of narcotics out of Afghanistan because the profits 

and the money from that goes right back into the pockets of the 

Taliban. 

Those three things, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, are 

where we’re trying to focus: military operations, our partnering, 

and on our very good work with the interagency. 

In terms of future challenges, we talked about Afghanistan. We 

are also very concerned about the ballistic missile threat, as Senator McCain said. We can talk about how we’re doing, and I think 

the answer is reasonably well, on implementing the EPAA. We are 

seeking the right balance of relationship with Russia, trying to find 

zones of cooperation where we can. We continue to work on our 

military-to-military relationships with Israel and Turkey which are 

very important. Terrorism and cyber issues are on our plate, as 

well. 

Let me say a word about Libya since both the chairman and the 

ranking member mentioned it in their opening statements. I would 

like to clarify that I wear two hats. One is EUCOM, and in that 

U.S. capacity I am what is called a supporting commander. I am 

supporting the lead combatant commander, General Carter Ham. 

He is the principal U.S. operator and has been largely responsible 

for leading the coalition that has been in operation for several 

weeks. My role there is support, logistics, and moving troops forward for him. 

In terms of my other hat as the Supreme Allied Commander of 

Europe, I am effectively the operations officer for NATO. In that 

regard, as Senator McCain and Senator Levin mentioned, we are 

in fact taking this mission, the arms embargo mission, as of several 

days ago. We’ve taken the no-fly zone and now we are prepared 

over the next 24 to 48 hours to take over protecting the population, 

all of which stems directly from the U.N. Security Council Resolution. 

We are in the process of transitioning to a NATO-led operation 

from this coalition and I can certainly talk about aspects of that 

in my NATO hat as desired. 

545 

I hope that gives you a quick overview of what we’re focused on 

at EUCOM. I’ll conclude by saying I’m very proud of the men and 

women who serve there. I’ll certainly carry back the comments of 

the chairman, the ranking member, and the whole committee. I 

would conclude by saying that we at EUCOM are very grateful for 

Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, for the 

support you give us, for taking the time to come and visit us, and 

for your interest and your questions, which sharpen our responses 

and hopefully help us contribute to U.S. national security. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Stavridis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN 

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to share with 

you the successes achieved and the challenges being faced by the men and women 

of both the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Allied Command Operations since I last appeared before you. I 

have now been at the helm of these commands for almost 2 years and am happy 

to report we continue to make progress and develop stronger partnerships for our 

shared security. The most important activities and initiatives contained in these 

pages are those in which we work together with our allies and partners to build 

capacity to ensure U.S. security in the European theater and, thus, defend our 

homeland forward. 

The United States and Europe are inextricably linked—politically as allies and 

partners in diplomacy. Additionally, the European Union (EU) and U.S. economies 

account for about half the global economy. The two economies are interdependent 

to a high degree. The United States and the EU are each other’s top trading partners. In 2009, the EU exported $280 billion in goods to the United States, and imported $220 billion in goods from the United States. 

The most important ties for our command, of course, are those between our militaries. U.S. military traditions grew out of European ones. We have learned from 

each other, often in the demanding circumstances of combat, and we have consistently found ways to become partners and then allies. For the greater part of a century, U.S. soldiers have shared battlefields with their European counterparts—from 

the Argonne Forest to the sands of Normandy to the mountains of Afghanistan. 

With respect to mutual and global security perspectives, Europeans are superb partners. 

546 

MISSION AND VISION

The mission of EUCOM is to conduct military operations, international military 

engagement, and interagency partnering to enhance transatlantic security and defend the United States forward. 

We strive to be an agile security organization able to conduct full spectrum activities as part of whole-of-government solutions to secure enduring stability in Europe 

and Eurasia. 

• Our area of focus covers roughly one-fifth of the planet, including all of 

Europe, large portions of Asia, parts of the Middle East and the Arctic and 

Atlantic Oceans. 

• We are responsible for U.S. military relations with NATO and 51 countries on 2 continents with a total population of close to 1 billion people. 

• We direct the operation of more than 80,000 military personnel across 

10.7 million square miles of land and 13 million square miles of ocean. 

• We are responsible for maintaining the quality of life, including health 

care and schools, for approximately 130,000 Department of Defense (DOD) 

family members living in Europe. 


329ful1.eps
547 

Progress 

EUCOM has achieved progress through proactive initiatives and by responding to 

challenges and opportunities that arose over the past year. 

EUCOM’s Support to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. 

EUCOM’s activities to support ISAF operations are extensive and effective. At any 

given time, approximately 80 percent of the non-U.S. countries deployed to Afghanistan are from the European theater. EUCOM’s support to ISAF is largely focused 

on preparing these partner nations for deployment to Afghanistan. This includes 

dispatching mobile planning teams to assess partner nation equipment and training 

requirements and working with the country to develop a comprehensive pre-deployment plan. 

These requirements may include provision of equipment such as up-armored high 

mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV) and mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAP), and pre-deployment training to counter improvised explosive devices, build Observer Mentor Liaison Teams, and provide Expeditionary Intelligence Training courses tailored to the complex Afghan counterinsurgency environment. The command also works closely with our partner nations to fill critical 

National Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTM–A) training requirements. 


329ful2.eps
548 

In quantitative terms, since I last appeared before this committee, EUCOM has 

dispatched over 20 mobile planning teams and conducted 3 Observer Mentor Liaison 

Team rotations at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center, which included 16 

countries and 1,045 personnel and conducted 8 Expeditionary Intelligence Training 

courses in which we have trained 230 personnel from 14 countries. 

We have also trained over 1,860 soldiers from 15 countries to counter the threats 

posed by improvised explosive devices, and trained 2 Polish Brigades and 2 Georgian battalions for deployment to Afghanistan. On the logistics side, we have moved 

487 tons of equipment through Europe to Afghanistan over the Northern Distribution Network. In fiscal year 2010, we coordinated use of the DOD Lift and Sustain 


329ful3.eps 329ful4.eps
549 

Program to provide nonreimbursable air and sealift to move 14,897 passengers and 

4,206 tons of cargo for 13 contributing nations, who would have otherwise been unable to move equipment and personnel to Afghanistan. Also, we are able to support 

partner movements through our active involvement in two major European military 

transportation consortiums. EUCOM also coordinates and schedules the United 

States’ allocation of 1,000 flight hours in the Heavy Airlift Wing (HAW), comprised 

of three cooperatively shared Hungarian registered and certified C–17 aircraft. 

Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Training 

A growth area for EUCOM this fiscal year is counter-improvised explosive device 

training, where we plan to train as many as 5,000 partner nation soldiers during 

this fiscal year. 

Assuring Access 

EUCOM plays a critical role in assuring that the United States continues to enjoy 

access within and beyond EUCOM’s area of focus. Our mature basing footprint includes several locations that are used in support of U.S. Transportation Command’s 

enroute strategy which has proven to be vital in supporting recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well-established relationships with partner nations further 

complement our access capability. 

Multi-National Joint and Interagency Exercises 

The most intensive form of peacetime interaction with our allies and partners occurs in the conduct of joint exercises. EUCOM maintained a robust bilateral and 

multilateral exercise program last year, executing 33 major exercises involving nearly 50,000 U.S., allied, and partner nation personnel from 40 nations. The exercises 

focused on preparing partner nations for ongoing coalition operations including the 

ISAF in Afghanistan, enhancing NATO interoperability, and improving our military 

capability and interoperability with Israel. 

Exercises in the Baltics, Balkans, and Caucasus 

In support of NATO, EUCOM provided forces for nine NATO and NATO Partnership for Peace events in the Baltics. U.S. Naval Forces Europe also executed Exercise Baltic Operations, a longstanding multinational maritime exercise which included 12 nations focused on maritime interdiction and amphibious interoperability. 

Addressing the Balkans, two major exercises, Immediate Response 10 and Combined Endeavor 10, bolstered partner capabilities and eased regional tensions. Of 

particular note, EUCOM conducted Jackal Stone 10, a field training exercise in Poland and numerous other locations throughout the world, in cooperation with SpeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00555 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful5.eps
550 

cial Operations Command. This event involved more than 7 nations and approximately 1,100 partner nation Special Operation Forces personnel. Jackal Stone, along 

with other Special Operations exercises and Joint Combined Exchange Training 

events in over 25 countries, directly supports U.S. and partner Special Operations 

Forces’ readiness and capabilities for U.S., NATO, and EUCOM missions ranging 

from counter terrorism to high-intensity conflict. 

Arctic Zephyr 

Arctic Zephyr is a multi-phased exercise, convening initially as a table-top event 

and projected ultimately to culminate in a multinational search-and-rescue field exercise. In support of U.S. policy and strategy on Arctic issues, the long term goals 

of Arctic Zephyr are to maintain an understanding of the legal, commercial, and political ramifications of the changing Arctic environment and to strengthen relationships with other Arctic nations. This is one of the areas where EUCOM finds common ground and opportunities for cooperation with Russia. 

Austere Challenge 

EUCOM headquarters continues to successfully execute the Austere Challenge exercise series, the premier joint force headquarters exercise in the European theater. 

Austere Challenge 10 forged ahead into new territory when it expanded to train two 

Joint Task Force (JTF) headquarters simultaneously while incorporating a Frenchled Joint Force Air Component as well as French and Polish Brigade headquarters 

response cells, all firsts in European theater training. The benefits of combined, 

multiple JTF exercises are clear: challenge the Headquarters and component staffs; 

reinforce the U.S. position of seeking multi-national solutions; train as we fight; and 

identify the strengths and limitations of U.S. and coalition interoperability capabilities. 

A major advance during Austere Challenge 10 was the establishment of an enduring computer network for future training events and real world operations. EUCOM 

planners identified and established the battlefield information collection and exploitation system as the most capable network for expansion to support Coalition Task 

Force operations with NATO partners. More importantly, this system is being used 

at the Joint Multinational Training Center at Grafenwoehr, Germany, by U.S. and 

coalition forces preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. 

Austere Challenge 11 will venture back into the full spectrum, major combat operations arena. Participation will expand outside the theater and there will be a heavy 

focus on operating in the challenging cyberspace. The 34th Infantry Division Headquarters, from the Minnesota Army National Guard, will provide the Combined/ 

Joint Force Land Component Commander, and French and Polish Land forces will 

participate for a second year to operate as Mechanized Brigade Headquarters response cells. We continue building partner capacity by soliciting participation from 

partner nations around the European theater. 

Combined Endeavor 

During Combined Endeavor 10, our premier communications and electronics 

interoperability exercise, delegates came together from 40 nations (24 NATO and 16 

Partnership for Peace countries) to strengthen partnerships, increase communication interoperability, and enhance the capabilities and capacities of partner nations. 

551 

This marked Combined Endeavor’s 16th year building partnerships and featured 

the participation of Iraq and Afghanistan as observer nations. Both nations committed to increased involvement and a dedication to interoperability between their 

national forces and NATO/Partnership for Peace nations. Combined Endeavor continues to build bridges across Europe and Eurasia and supported the preparation 

of coalition forces for regional and global operations. In particular, Canada and the 

United Kingdom tested and trained on the command and control systems they will 

be using during their upcoming deployments to Afghanistan, and validated operational functionality and interoperability with the same partners with whom they 

will operate downrange. 

Additionally, two new training events were incorporated into Combined Endeavor. 

Cyber Endeavor leveraged the 102d Information Warfare Squadron, from the Rhode 

Island Air National Guard, to focus on improving the information assurance competencies and network defenses of our European partners, while Supreme Headquarters Allied Power Europe (SHAPE) held Exercise Steadfast Cobalt to focus on 

command, control, communications, and computers in preparation for NATO response force deployment and to maximize interoperability with other European nations. 

Flexible Leader 

This year’s flexible leader tabletop exercise and senior leader seminar leveraged 

lessons learned from the Haitian earthquake disaster, and helped validate newly revised plans which EUCOM planners have written for comparable contingencies. Extensive representation was present from several U.S. Embassy staffs, other U.S. 

Government agencies, and EUCOM’s Service components. Flexible leader highlighted the extensive work and progress that has been accomplished in foreign consequence management and humanitarian assistance planning, and also identified 

many courses of action that will improve EUCOM’s ability to respond to a crisis situation quickly and effectively. 

Patriots to Poland 

As stated in the August 2008 Declaration on Strategic Cooperation, and in an effort to strengthen the important strategic partnership between the Republic of Poland and the United States, the United States performs quarterly rotations of patriot batteries to Poland, enhancing U.S.-Poland air and missile defense cooperation. 

These rotations continue to familiarize Polish Armed Forces with the Patriot Missile 

System and have permitted U.S. Forces to share related tactics, techniques, and 

procedures on missile defense. Of benefit to both U.S. and Polish forces, U.S. Patriot 

crews have improved their individual tasks and crew drills including operations during deployment, rail activities, and missile transport, storage, and security. Since 

May 2010, there have been three rotations to Poland for training and exercise purposes only. Although initially focused on one location—Morag, Poland—the last rotation took place in Torun, Poland. A fourth deployment is currently underway. 


329ful6.eps
552 

State Partnership Program 

The State Partnership Program accounts for 45 percent of EUCOM’s military-tomilitary engagement. Founded in 1993, the State Partnership Program was originally designed to link National Guard States and territories with former Soviet bloc 

countries for the purpose of fostering mutual interests and establishing long-term 

relationships across all levels of society. EUCOM currently benefits from 21 partnerships, we are currently finalizing the protocols for a State Partnership Program with 

Kosovo, and there is potential for 1 or 2 more partnerships over the next couple 

years. The true value of this program is the enduring relationships that have been 

built over time, as many of EUCOM’s state partnerships are approaching their 20- 

year anniversaries. Perhaps the greatest example of how critical these relationships 

are is that, in 2010, National Guard personnel deployed to Afghanistan together 

with five partner nations as members of Observer Mentor Liaison Teams and other 

forces training and fighting side-by-side. 

European Command Organization 

EUCOM Headquarters takes a ‘‘whole of society’’ approach to maintaining security and stability while shaping existing structures to adjust to the security environment. These changes will be accompanied by a 15 percent manpower reduction as 

we eliminate lower priority missions and identify missions in which EUCOM can 

prudently accept additional risk. At the same time, we are increasing emphasis on 

emerging mission sets such as ballistic missile defense (BMD), military partnering, 

counter-trafficking, and cyberspace. To further embrace a ‘‘whole of society’’ approach to the security environment, the command is expanding its J9 directorate to 

focus on interagency partnering and the use of whole-of-government/society solutions to strategic challenges. Additionally, EUCOM has internally resourced a J7 directorate to provide independent assessments and analyses of strategic and operational processes and products. The command has also internally resourced a Joint 

Interagency Counter-Trafficking Center (JICTC)-Europe to focus on the critical 

counter-trafficking mission across the theater. 

We have also established a Military Partnering Center of Excellence to accelerate 

our efforts to expand the command’s international military partnering engagement 

activities. The Center will be a virtual, web-based partnering hub for U.S. and European partners to share best practices and lessons learned through military 

partnering collaboration, networking, and information sharing. The center will reside on a public web portal linked to existing DOD centers of excellence, most notably the Center for Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance, as well as 


329ful7.eps
553 

to educational and partnering organizations like the George C. Marshall Center in 

Garmisch, Germany. We plan to have the center fully operational by summer 2011. 

Russia Fire Fighting 

EUCOM also continues to stand ready to provide theater-wide rapid response capabilities for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response missions. This past 

August, under conditions of severe drought and in the midst of one of the hottest 

summers on record, a series of destructive wildfires broke out across Russia, 

prompting President Medvedev to declare a state of emergency in several areas. In 

response to Russia’s request, and in coordination with the Department of State 

(DOS), EUCOM planners, logisticians, and airmen rapidly identified and airlifted 

over 36 tons of valuable firefighting supplies and equipment on four U.S. Air Forces 

in Europe C–130 cargo aircraft to assist Russia in their emergent response to this 

destructive event. It is precisely this kind of rapid and agile response capability— 

to a neighboring nation in need—that illustrates the ‘‘Smart Power’’ combination of 

military capacity and in-stride diplomacy uniquely available to the Nation’s leadership from its overseas combatant commands. 

Israel Fire Fighting 

Similarly, this past December, a series of wildfires broke out across Israel threatening to engulf lives, homes, critical infrastructure, and valuable natural resources. 

At Israel’s request, and in coordination with DOS, EUCOM planners, logisticians, 

and operators rapidly dispatched five C–130 cargo planes loaded with 60 tons of 

critical fire-retardant materials necessary to extinguish the blaze. This effort—led 

by U.S. Air Forces in Europe—played an important role in the international response to Israel in its time of need, and supported our enduring mission to support 

and promote regional stability and security. It serves as yet another example of our 

ability to work together to support each other in times of crisis, demonstrating the 

value of cooperation among neighbors, allies, and partners, as well as the enduring 

strength of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. 

Efficiencies 

While striving to achieve our mission and vision, we are very mindful of today’s 

economic realities. This is why, in support of the Secretary of Defense efficiencies 

initiative, EUCOM has taken concrete steps to streamline our operations and move 

toward a more efficient and effective organization. The command will retain traditional J-staff codes because of their applicability across DOD. However, we are also 

executing an internal staff rebalance without incurring any growth and leading to 

a 15 percent decrease in required manning and budget. We have been taking a close 

look at all permanent billets and essential mission sets to ensure proper alignment 

and distribution of resources, and are actively seeking areas where efficiencies may 

be gained. 

We have focused our mission sets to accommodate our envisioned security environment, based on an analysis of strategic guidance, to include the Unified Command Plan, the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, and the Global Employment of the 

Force. Areas in which we believe we can harvest efficiencies, either through the focusing of missions or by willingness to prudently accept increased mission risk include: personnel management; General/Flag Officer and Senior Executive Service 

numbers and seniority; General/Flag Officer support; information technology; experimentation; planning, programming, and budgeting system participation; intelligence 

support; and logistics support. All decisions will be made with careful consideration 

of their effect on mission readiness. 

EUCOM Components 

Except when conducting joint operations or participating in joint exercises, 

EUCOM forces are assigned to, trained, and equipped by our Service-specific headquarters. U.S. Army in Europe (USAREUR), U.S. Marine Forces Europe 

(MARFOREUR), U.S. Naval Forces Europe (NAVEUR), U.S. Air Forces in Europe 


329ful8.eps
554 

(USAFE), and Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) provide the forces 

for all military-to-military engagements with our partner nations, provide a deterrence function in the region, and serve as deployable units for contingency operations. Understanding these commands is the key to understanding EUCOM, as 

they conduct the majority of our day-to-day activities. 

U.S. Army in Europe—Heidelberg, Germany 

Introduction and Overview 

With 42,000 Active Duty and Reserve servicemembers operating from six enduring Army communities, USAREUR serves as the key coordinator of activities by theater-assigned and rotational ground forces. The integration of these forces across the 

full spectrum of operations places responsibilities on the USAREUR ranging from 

the tactical and operational to the strategic level. With V Corps’ intermediate tactical headquarters capability deployed in support of ISAF efforts in Afghanistan, 

USAREUR directly oversees capacity building activities throughout EUCOM’s area 

of focus, including efforts in support of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). It also 

maintains critical logistical lead component duties in support of NATO’s Kosovo operations. The USAREUR translates strategic directives from the command and the 

Department of the Army into executable tactical orders for subordinate units, including planning for and executing key tasks in support of our European partners 

and Israel. 

Under these circumstances, USAREUR provides key tactical and operational 

forces, to include full spectrum combat units and strategic enablers, for global employment. As the U.S. military land component provider on the continent, 

USAREUR leads the ground effort in building partner capacity in support of global 

requirements. These efforts continue to be instrumental in supporting the ISAF 

commander’s requirement for improving the effectiveness of coalition ground force 

deployments, by training and preparing U.S. and European forces for operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Major Accomplishments 

With over 25 percent of its assigned forces deployed in support of operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, USAREUR continued to support the Secretary of Defense’s 

commitment to improving the capacity of coalition partners and allies by conducting 


329ful9.eps
555 

a robust training and exercise program designed to build partner capacity and increase coalition interoperability. 

Building Partner Capacity 

In 2010, USAREUR provided 755 soldiers from 10 nations with lifesaving drivers’ 

training on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. It trained an additional 422 soldiers from 9 nations to counter improvised explosive devices. Supporting U.S. national security objectives, this training enabled the command to prepare full-spectrum capable forces for global employment while improving partners’ 

and allies’ survivability and effectiveness during deployments. Additionally, in support of the ISAF commander’s top priority to train Afghan soldiers and police, 

USAREUR trained 50 Operational Mentor-Liaison Teams (OMLT) and Police Mentor-Liaison Teams (POMLT) for deployment to Afghanistan. 

Critically, USAREUR has worked to advance defense institutional transformation. 

One example of this was its assistance to Romania in the development of the country’s tactical, operational, and strategic military doctrine. USAREUR also promoted 

U.S./partner interoperability through its joint exercises and exchange programs, recently having conducted leader exchange programs with Israel in the areas of aviation, ground maneuver, training, reconnaissance, and military intelligence. Additionally, USAREUR enhanced capacity for maintaining regional stability—evidenced by 

its support to Poland—executing the first three Patriots-to-Poland rotations. 

Both on and off the continent, USAREUR planned for and exercised ground capabilities to support key NATO partners and Israel in defending against potential 

threats. It has worked with Israel to significantly improve their ballistic missile 

early warning capability and has enhanced bilateral air and missile defense training 

exercises in coordination with our partner. In addition to this assurance to 

allies and deterrence of potential aggressors, its ability to provide foreign consequence management and foreign humanitarian assistance ensured that 

USAREUR was, and continues to remain, prepared to support the United States’ 

Article IV and V commitments to our NATO partners. Finally, as part of the larger 

U.S. efforts to reset our relations with Russia, USAREUR included Russian military 

leaders as observers for three major exercises. 

Exercises 

Exercises continue to enhance the pre-deployment training of U.S. and coalition 

forces for current contingency operations, and serve to prepare these same forces for 

future coalition operations. This past year, USAREUR participated in 21 major exercises (including 3 mission rehearsal exercises) conducted in 11 countries with 28 

participating nations. Among these exercises was Juniper Falcon 11, an Israeli-led 

Joint Task Force-level exercise focused on improving Israeli Defense Force command 

and control and logistical capacity. Supporting America’s continuing partnership 


329ful10.eps
556 

Joint Task Force-level exercise focused on improving Israeli Defense Force command 

and control and logistical capacity. Supporting America’s continuing partnership 

with Turkey, Cooperative Resolve 10 was a battalion-level Command Post Exercise 

conducted in Turkey meant to enhance interoperability. As a final highlight, Rapid 

Trident 10 was a peacekeeping exercise involving 16 countries conducted in Ukraine 

to support its NATO interoperability goals through NATO’s Annual National Program. 

Humanitarian Assistance 

As part of our Humanitarian Assistance program, the Command also provided enabling support to AFRICOM for MEDFLAG 10, a medical skills exchange exercise 

conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo by U.S. and African militaries. 

Way Ahead 

USAREUR will provide combat power to support global operations while at the 

same time continuing to build partner capacity. Together, these efforts will help advance the long-term process of defense institutional transformation of U.S. partners 

and allies. As USAREUR trains and prepares for deployment alongside coalition 

partners in the coming year, it will continue to foster the residual effects of increased training effectiveness among friendly militaries—from improvement in 

counterinsurgency operations and incorporation of interagency concerns, to the updating of U.S./NATO interoperability doctrine. Specifically, in support of the President’s introduction of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), USAREUR 

will train with and provide assistance to European forces to ensure their ability to 

defend against ballistic missile threats. As part of a separate mission, USAREUR 

will provide similar assistance to Israel through bilateral agreements. As a whole, 

the engagements by USAREUR will continue to focus on improving relations, enhancing interoperability, focusing on mission success of both in- and out-of-area operations, and ensuring access to facilities and infrastructure throughout the theater. 

Marine Forces Europe—Stuttgart, Germany 

Introduction and Overview 

In 2010, MARFOREUR, with approximately 150 personnel assigned, focused on 

building partner capacity through combined activities and utilizing expeditionary 

forces to reassure allies, deter potential adversaries, and remain ready to respond 

rapidly to crises in the region. The U.S. Marine Corps’ expeditionary nature drives 

MARFOREUR to a primary orientation on security cooperation activities with our 

newest NATO allies and partners in the Caucasus, Black Sea, Balkan, and Baltic 

regions. 

Major Accomplishments 

With only a small Service component headquarters, MARFOREUR very effectively 

leveraged the capabilities of the Marine Corps in support of EUCOM objectives. 

MARFOREUR’s activities focused on building partner capacity to contribute to collective security in Europe and out-of-area operations, such as support to the ISAF, 

through targeted security cooperation and combined exercises. 

Building Partner Capacity 

Georgia Deployment Program-International Security Assistance Force: This U.S. 

Marine Corps-led joint program is successfully training and deploying Georgian infantry battalions to fight alongside NATO forces in the volatile Helmand Province 

in Afghanistan. Through an intense partnering concept with the marines, the Georgian Armed Forces have significantly increased their institutional capacity to plan 

and conduct training for units preparing to operate in a full spectrum counter-insurgency environment. 

U.S. Marine Corps Black Sea Rotational Force: During the summer of 2009, the 

U.S. Marine Corps provided a Special Purpose Marine Air—Ground Task Force to 

conduct security cooperation in support of EUCOM’s theater objectives. Forward deployed and operating out of the temporary Task Force East facilities at MK Airfield 

in Romania and the Novo Selo Training Area in Bulgaria, the Black Sea Rotational 


329ful11.eps
557 

Force conducted numerous and diverse targeted multi-national security cooperation 

activities with 12 partner and allied nations in the Black Sea, Balkans, and 

Caucasus regions to enhance partner military capabilities, expand U.S. and NATO 

access to strategic regions, and promote regional stability. 

Exercises 

In 2010, MARFOREUR, in coordination with U.S. Naval Forces Europe 

(NAVEUR), effectively reassured allies and deterred potential adversaries by exercising combined maritime expeditionary capabilities and improving EUCOM’s and 

NATO’s ability to rapidly deploy and assemble expeditionary forces in the region 

during several historic exercises. In total, MARFOREUR participated in 13 exercises 

to include joint, multilateral, and bilateral exercises in 2010. 

Cold Response 10 was a Norwegian-hosted 14-nation exercise conducted north of 

the Arctic Circle and focused on maritime/amphibious operations and interoperability. U.S. Marine Corps, under the Tactical Control of the United Kingdom’s 45 

Commando Battalion of the Royal Marines and embarked on Her Netherlands Majesty’s Ship Johan De Witt, participated in a brigade-sized beach assault. 

As part of Baltic Operations 10, U.S. Marine Corps and Navy forces, along with 

our Baltic State allies, conducted both a Maritime-Prepositioning Force offload and 

onward movement of combat equipment in Ventspils, Latvia, and a combined amphibious landing in Estonia during this EUCOM and-sponsored Partnership for 

Peace Exercise. The overwhelmingly positive response by our Baltic allies once 

again validated the unique and critical role of Maritime-Prepositioning Forces’ ability to rapidly respond to crises and support our allies. 

Humanitarian Assistance 

As part of the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, MARFOREUR 

works with the Norwegian Defense Staff, EUCOM, and Headquarters, U.S. Marine 

Corps, to develop and refine plans that enhance access to prepositioned equipment 

ashore for U.S./NATO operations and crisis response, Theater Security Cooperation, 

and Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief. 

Way Ahead 

Although it achieved successes with its current force posture, MARFOREUR will 

continue to seek greater Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit presence to satisfy the consistent demand by global core partners such as the United 

Kingdom and France for bilateral combined-arms and amphibious training. This 

type of training has largely been absent in the EUCOM theater since 2003. ResumVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00563 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful12.eps
558 

ing a sustained presence in the EUCOM region would serve to deter adversaries and 

assure allies and partners of our commitment to stability in Europe. 

MARFOREUR will continue to build partner capacity in theater through ongoing 

support to the Georgia Deployment Program-ISAF and the Black Sea Rotational 

Force, deploying in 2011 to support scheduled engagement and security cooperation 

activities with 14 partner nations. The Black Sea Rotational Force is expanding its 

activities to include preparing partner nations for deployment to Afghanistan and 

conducting noncommissioned officer development. 

U.S. Naval Forces Europe—Naples, Italy 

Introduction and Overview 

With approximately 8,000 Active Duty and Reserve servicemembers operating 

from 4 main installations supporting rotational air, surface, submarine, and expeditionary forces, NAVEUR conducts the full range of maritime operations and Theater 

Security Cooperation in concert with NATO, coalition, joint, interagency, and other 

partners in Europe. NAVEUR continues to perform Navy Component Commander 

functions which support day-to-day fleet operations and Joint Maritime Commander/ 

Joint Task Force Commander missions in support of EUCOM. Its presence not only 

strengthens relationships with enduring allies, it also develops maritime capabilities 

with emerging partners, particularly in the EUCOM’s southern and eastern regions. 

NAVEUR is enhancing maritime security in these regions through the development 

of maritime domain awareness, trained professionals, maritime infrastructure, response capabilities, regional integration, and a comprehensive approach for planning 

and execution. 

Major Accomplishments 

In 2010, NAVEUR met all warfighter mission requirements and maintained certification as Joint Force Maritime Component Commander, Europe. Additionally, 

the component focused energy and resources on Theater Security Cooperation activities to enhance interoperability between allies and the maritime capabilities of partner nations. These activities developed partner capacity through multiple events, exercises, and operations in order to promote maritime domain awareness, security, 

and sea control. Always ready to respond to crises in the European theater, 

NAVEUR also contributed to global efforts, such as Operation Enduring Freedom 

and anti-piracy operations off the coast of Africa by delivering trained forces, 

strengthening international relations, and increasing the efficiency of our interactions with our allies and partners. 

Theater Submarine Operations 

The stable presence and patrolling of U.S. Submarine Forces in the European theater defends U.S. national security forward, even as it enhances the security of our 

allies and key partners. Our submariners are engaging in vital missions that contribute directly to EUCOM’s core missions of transatlantic security and building 

partnership capacity. U.S. submariners have fully leveraged deployment time in theater, honing their skills and contributing to the command’s capacity to conduct critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations, anti-submarine and 

anti-surface warfare, undersea dominance, close proximity strike, high-value unit 

protection, and free and unfettered access to the vital sea lines of communication. 

In building our partners’ capacity, EUCOM has also facilitated the participation of 

Allied submarines, submariners, and associated staff in a vigorous series of theater 

Anti-Submarine Warfare exercises with U.S. submarines, exercises that all parties 

have leveraged to improve their warfighting proficiency and—importantly—their 

interoperability. 

These factors and opportunities are increasingly important as we observe a highly 

capable Russian submarine fleet whose pace, scope, and sophistication have risen 

dramatically in recent years. The Russian Navy has four new classes of submarines 

in development or near delivery. The next-generation Kilo-class submarine—the St. 

Petersburg class—is nearing completion. Available for export, it represents a significant improvement in both capability and quieting. The EUCOM area of focus is also 

the stage for the most sensitive Russian submarine operations and advanced weapons testing. Just this past October, Russian submarines successfully fired three submarine-launched ballistic missiles over a period of 2 days. These operations reveal 

a renewed Russian focus on the undersea arena. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

NAVEUR expanded EUCOM’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in 

support of allies through Operation Nomad Shadow, Operation Spring Offensive, 

and the first-ever ship-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicle missions in the Black Sea. 

559 

It also expanded the capability of naval bases in Rota, Spain, and Sigonella, Italy, 

to support intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets in support of both 

the EUCOM and AFRICOM. 

Building Partner Capacity 

Partnership and security cooperation events conducted by NAVEUR include: 

Eurasia Partnership Capstone 

NAVEUR’s flagship initiative throughout the Black and Caspian Sea regions was 

designed to integrate disparate regional efforts by all maritime partners into a global maritime partnership for Eurasia. This year’s October event drew 110 senior enlisted and junior officer attendees from 9 partner nations: Azerbaijan; Bulgaria; 

Georgia; Greece; Lithuania; Malta; Poland; Romania; and Ukraine. Courses were 

held at the Maltese Navy Training Facilities. Topics included: maritime interdiction 

operations; visit, board, search, and seizure procedures; search and rescue procedures; maritime law; and environmental protection. 

USNS Grapple 

In August, a Navy auxiliary salvage ship and embedded Mobile Diving and Salvage Company removed and scuttled six sunken and decaying patrol boats in 

Sarande ̈, Albania. These boats were towed to another location near the harbor and 

used to make an artificial reef, which is expected to boost the local economy through 

tourism. More importantly, the pier at the auxiliary naval base is now clear and 

can be handed over for use by the local fishing fleet, reducing unnecessary defense 

overhead involved with support of this area. 


329ful13.eps
560 

Exercises 

In 2010, NAVEUR participated in nine Joint Chiefs of Staff exercises and numerous NATO and EUCOM exercises. Baltic Operations 10 involved 11 European and 

NATO nations (including Russia), 32 ships, 200 vehicles, and over 3,000 personnel 

across a 1,000-square kilometer operating area in the Baltic Sea region. This annual 

exercise promotes mutual understanding, cooperation, confidence, and interoperability among forces and personnel of participating nations. Sea Breeze 10 was cohosted by Ukraine and the United States, involving 11 European nations, 24 ships, 

13 aircraft, and over 2,000 personnel across the Black Sea and Ukraine. This exercise enhanced the maritime capability of Black Sea and Partnership for Peace nations by exercising collective maritime safety, security, and stability actions. Breeze 

10 was co-hosted by the Bulgarian Navy, involved six European nations, and culminated in the NATO Response Force certification of Bulgarian and Romanian 

ships. 

Humanitarian Assistance 

Naval Forces Europe provided platforms, personnel, and resources to support Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief for Russian wildfires, the Ethiopian Airlines 

crash off the coast of Lebanon, and flooding in Portugal and Albania. The U.S. Navy 

routinely provides foreign humanitarian assistance in times of crisis, in cooperation 

and collaboration with many nations around the world. 

Way Ahead 

While responding to crises in the European theater will take precedence over all 

other activities in 2011, NAVEUR will also continue to build the maritime capacity 

of our allies, as well as new and emerging partners in a cost-effective and responsible manner with the desire of advancing all parties toward full interoperability 

and participation with our forces. NAVEUR will continue to improve information assurance and cyber system security of Command and Control/Information Systems. 

Interoperability with NATO Allies and achievement of NATO standards by new 

NATO partners, including preparing Strike Force NATO for the NATO Response 

Force 2012 rotation, will be important goals. The BMD capability, both afloat and 

ashore, will continue to develop and expand. Our forces will focus on the priorities 

of maritime safety, security, cooperation, and crisis response with the overall goal 

of advancing U.S. interests in the region. 

U.S. Air Forces in Europe—Ramstein Air Base, Germany 

Introduction and Overview 

With just under 26,000 Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve servicemembers operating from 5 main operating bases supporting 9 wings and many geographically separated locations, U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) is a key force provider of forward-based, full-spectrum airpower in support of EUCOM and DOD objectives. This 

posture enables simultaneous support to ongoing global operations, ensures global 

strategic access, assures allies, deters aggression, and remains the key to building 

partnerships. 

Major Accomplishments 

During 2010, USAFE supported ongoing contingency operations and worked daily 

with our NATO allies and partners to ensure security in the European theater and 

defend our homeland forward. Supporting contingency operations, 2,800 USAFE 

personnel were deployed at any given time throughout 2010. In Afghanistan, our 

fighters flew 23,500 combat hours, representing 39 percent of the total U.S. Air 

Force fighter hours flown. In addition, one of two Control and Reporting Centers assigned to USAFE was continuously deployed, providing constant air battle management and control. We contributed vital data links for world-wide communications, 

unmanned aerial system command and control, intelligence collection, and space operations. USAFE supported the treatment and movement of over 12,000 patients to 

and from Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Finally, USAFE continued to maintain critical en route infrastructure. This system of bases supported global air operations to three geographic combatant command theaters and smooth transit of over 

two-thirds of air mobility missions. 

Supporting contingency operations at the same rate as U.S.-based forces, USAFE 

simultaneously conducted EUCOM operational requirements. In addition to flying 

Combat Air Patrols in support of NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission, USAFE continue to conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions in the greater Levant region, as well as participate in the Georgia Deployment Program. 

561 

In support of the EPAA, USAFE led a U.S. and NATO BMD Task Force. This 

Task Force developed a concept of operations which significantly contributed to 

NATO’s recent decision to adopt this critical mission. USAFE began laying the foundation for BMD integrated command and control architecture in line with NATO 

Summit agreements, and led U.S. and NATO data-sharing integration efforts, which 

resulted in the development of clear strategic ballistic missile defense requirements 

and a demonstrated capability to exchange information between U.S. and NATO 

systems. 

Building Partner Capacity 

When not supporting combat operations, USAFE units serve in a permanent role 

of building partnerships and partner capacity. In 2010, USAFE conducted 767 building partnership engagements with 39 participant nations. Two-thirds of these 

events contributed to partner interoperability for Afghanistan operations. Nearly 

100 events in the Baltics, Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania focused on interoperability 

of NATO standards and equipment. As a result, these particular events fostered effective mobility operations and ensured strategic access to ranges, airspace, and airfields. 

In Poland, USAFE units helped develop capability to deploy and employ Polish 

F–16 and C–130 aircraft. USAFE conducted numerous tactical exchanges with Polish F–16 and C–130 pilots, providing training in all manner of combat and air mobility operations. As a result of these efforts, the Polish Air Force is advancing towards its goal of passing its first NATO tactical evaluation in 2011. 

In Romania, USAFE units assisted Romanian units across the full spectrum of 

air mobility operations. Both nations jointly exercised tactics and procedures to improve airfield planning and operations, combat search and rescue, and aircrew management procedures to improve Romanian air capabilities. As a result, the Romanian military is now a self-deployable force using its C–130s to move to, and conduct 

operations in, Afghanistan. 

Our engagement efforts also highlight the intrinsic value of noncommissioned officer development. Each of our in-country engagements highlights the need for empowered junior officers and noncommissioned officers, who serve as the backbone of 

effective military operations. 

These efforts serve to improve the defensive development of our allies and partners, and directly improve interoperability of forces engaged in combat. USAFE 


329ful14.eps
562 

trained with 28 nations to provide over 100 joint terminal attack controllers, highlytrained airmen providing the key link between airborne assets and supported 

ground combat units. As a result, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers from 15 nations 

now fight alongside their American counterparts in Afghanistan. Furthermore, 

training at USAFE’s Warrior Preparation Center provides tangible and continued 

assurance of the U.S. commitment to allied security while developing capabilities actively employed in ISAF operations. 

Exercises 

In 2010, USAFE participated in 60 Joint Chiefs of Staff, NATO, and EUCOM exercises. Ten nations, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Macedonia, Serbia 

and Ukraine, exercised to develop peace support operations, provide medical training, and foster interoperability. Likewise, 40 nations from North America, Europe, 

and the Middle East exercised to improve computer network and communication capabilities necessary for effective responses to natural disasters. During Exercise 

Brilliant Ardent, 60 aircraft from 6 nations, operating from bases in Germany, the 

Czech Republic, France, Poland, and the United Kingdom, validated the responsiveness and capabilities of the NATO Response Force. 

Humanitarian Assistance 

USAFE answered the call for assistance several times in 2010 with humanitarian 

airlift. This summer, we delivered over 36 tons of equipment to fight wildfires in 

Russia. In December, we airlifted 60 tons of fire retardant materials for wildfire relief near Haifa, Israel. In one of our building partnership capacity success stories, 

the Heavy Airlift Wing (HAW) at Papa Air Base, Hungary, executed several humanitarian relief missions. During Operation Unified Response, HAW C–17s delivered 

34 Swedish aid workers and 135 tons of aid to Haiti. In July, following the devastating flooding in Pakistan, the HAW delivered over 42 tons of medical supplies 

to Karachi, Pakistan. In April, the HAW repatriated the remains of the victims from 

the Polish air tragedy near Smolensk, Russia. Through continued training and commitment, the 12 nations of the C–17 HAW flew over 2,800 mishap-free hours in its 

second year of existence. 

Way Ahead 

As we move forward into 2011, USAFE will continue its focus on operating efficiently and effectively, maximizing its strategic location to support current operations while simultaneously expanding its building partnership portfolio. The command will continue to support the EPAA. Working closely with NATO, USAFE will 

deliver an Operational Level Concept, develop requirements for effective information 

sharing with allies, and establish the necessary venues for effective education and 

training in this mission area critical for the security of the United States, our allies, 

and partners. 

U.S. Special Operations Command Europe—Stuttgart, Germany 

Introduction and Overview 

SOCEUR is a joint command comprised of more than 1,500 Active Duty and Reserve personnel operating from 2 main forward-deployed locations: Stuttgart, Germany and Mildenhall, England. It has three assigned components: 1st Battalion, 

10th Special Forces Group (Airborne); Naval Special Warfare Unit-2; and the 352d 

Special Operations Group. SOCEUR continues to contribute significantly to the development of partner Special Operations Forces and stands ready to defend against 

transnational threats and rapidly respond to unforeseen contingencies within the 

European theater. 

Major Accomplishments 

In 2010, SOCEUR remained heavily engaged, conducting 25 joint combined exchange training events, 6 bilateral training activities, 46 Partnership Development 

Program events, and 2 bilateral counter-narcoterrorism training events. The command augmented this effort with numerous key leader engagements and staff visits 

to further develop partner Special Operations Forces’ organizational, institutional, 

and staff capabilities. Finally, SOCEUR deployed Special Operations Forces company-sized elements to both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as smaller Joint Planning 

and Advisory Teams and staff augmentation to support partner Special Operations 

Forces in Afghanistan. Focus areas for 2010 included building partnerships, supporting operations in Afghanistan, and countering transnational threats, all of 

which directly support EUCOM’s core mission of international military and interagency partnering to enhance transatlantic security and defend the homeland forward. 

563 

Building Partner Capacity 

The command’s effort to build partnerships focused on enhancing allied and partner Special Operations Forces’ interoperability and validating capabilities through 

the Partner Development Program and multilateral special operations exercises. 

The Partner Development Program is focused on training partner and allied Special 

Operations Forces in military assistance operations and is a proven strategy for 

building the capacity of allied and partner Special Operations Forces capacity, primarily for the ISAF. With adequate sustainment, it will also provide long-term Special Operations Forces’ capacity for future conflicts and out-of-area operations. Since 

its inception in 2007, and its initial funding as a program of record in 2009, European Special Operations Forces’ participation in the ISAF has increased nearly 500 

percent. Poland, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic have increased their investment and commitment of Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan with exceptional results. With military assistance being the primary special operations mission in Afghanistan today, and the continued focus on developing Afghan security forces, participation in this program will likely remain an important 

mission in the future. 

Over the past year, the Partner Development Program has also focused on increasing collective Special Operations Force rotary-wing aviation capacity among 

our allies and partners. Special Operations Force rotary-wing assets, deployed in 

support of the ISAF, will continue to be a high-demand requirement for future contingency operations. Training allied and partner aircrews and helping to upgrade 

their airframes, such as the MI–17, is an efficient solution for increasing rotarywing capacity and capability to support contingency operations. For example, the 

cost to upgrade five MI–17s and train the crews and maintenance personnel to the 

basic standard required to support Special Operations Forces is roughly equal to the 

cost of one new U.S. CH–47G helicopter, not including training or maintenance. Additional helicopter capacity is not only efficient; it also decreases the deaths and serious injuries caused by improvised explosive devices, by limiting road movements 

and increasing medical evacuation capacity. Thus, additional helicopter capacity 

could lead to potential increased troop contributions among these nations. 

While successful, the Partner Development Program has not reached its full potential. The program is hampered by cumbersome resourcing processes. Lack of focused Special Operations Forces resourcing to create a strategic capability makes 

it difficult to build enduring Special Operations Forces capacity. 

Exercises 

SOCEUR supported the annual international theater-wide Special Operations 

Forces capstone exercise, Jackal Stone 10. This year’s exercise was hosted by Poland 

and Lithuania and brought together approximately 1,100 Special Operations Forces 

servicemembers from 7 nations: Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Latvia, Croatia, Romania, and the United States. As a key element of the Partnership Development Program, Jackal Stone provides Special Operations Forces the opportunity to train together and build mutual respect while sharing doctrinal concepts, training concepts, 

and various tactics, techniques, and procedures. 

564 

Support Operations in Afghanistan 

Since 2007, SOCEUR has supported the ISAF through the continued deployment 

of a U.S. Army Special Forces Company and three U.S. Navy SEAL Joint Planning 

and Advisory Teams, which deploy and operate with our partner Special Operations 

Forces. We also continue to provide staff officers as rotational augmentees to the 

NATO Special Operations Forces Fusion Cell, a strategic element for building interoperability among partner Special Operations Forces. 

Way Ahead 

Looking to 2011 and beyond, SOCEUR will continue to increase allied and partner 

Special Operations Forces’ capabilities and capacity, both on the ground and in the 

air. It will seek to increase strategic understanding and partnerships as the European Distributed Special Operations Forces Network develops. SOCEUR will also 

continue its close partnership with the NATO Special Operations Headquarters and 

its ISAF partners. Support and enablement of ISAF’s Special Operations Forces will 

continue to be a high priority, as will efforts to counter transnational threats in 

order to protect our homeland. 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

In a theater as large and dynamic as EUCOM’s, the opportunities to initiate positive change are abundant, as are the ways in which security can regress unless we 

remain alert and attentive to negative trends. Every challenge in the region presents an opportunity for engagement and cooperation. 

Afghanistan 

Of the 49 nations besides the United States that have contributed 45,000 forces 

to the ISAF, approximately 80 percent of them (37 nations) come from the European 

theater. Together, these 37 nations have contributed nearly a third of the military 

personnel serving in Afghanistan. They have suffered, with hundreds killed in action. Supporting the ISAF has given EUCOM the opportunity to deepen its relationships with our allies and partners, using our expertise and experience to inculcate 

an expeditionary mindset and train deploying partner nation forces in irregular 

warfare. 

The contributions and sacrifice of Eurasian and European nations in Afghanistan 

have demonstrated the credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness of our international 

military cooperation. The scale of allied and partner force contributions to the ISAF 

has allowed the hand-over of significant responsibility for regional operations to coalition partners. NATO’s Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team (OMLT) program 

directly supports the development of the Afghan National Army, and the Police 

Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (POMLT) program supports the expansion of the Afghan National Police. Under these programs, European allies and partVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00570 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful15.eps
565 

ners are currently providing approximately 50 percent of the number of teams required to train Afghanistan’s security forces. 

Additionally, at any point in time, there are approximately 10,000 U.S. personnel, 

assigned to EUCOM, that are deployed to Afghanistan making vital contributions 

on a daily basis. However, within the European theater itself, EUCOM’s focus is to 

support other nations as they seek to contribute to security and stability efforts in 

Afghanistan. 

Many nations are making particularly large force contributions and have suffered 

high casualty rates relative to their populations. Our partners understand the importance of this mission, and they are willing to send their sons and daughters in 

harm’s way alongside our own to bring peace, security, and prosperity to the people 

of Afghanistan. Within the European theater itself, EUCOM lends whatever support 

it can to these nations as they seek to contribute to security and stability efforts 

in Afghanistan. Within the framework of contributing to international efforts in Afghanistan, and within the boundaries and authorities set by law, regulation, and 

international agreements, this support involves providing training, equipment, 

logistical assistance, and personnel augmentation. 

The Balkans 

The United States’ continuing support to NATO’s Kosovo Force and Operation 

Joint Guardian helps maintain stability in Kosovo and advances security progress 

alongside our NATO and EU partners. EUCOM has participated in NATO operations in Kosovo since 1999. EUCOM supports Kosovo Force through our land component, USAREUR, and leverages National Guard Bureau forces to source mentors 

and advisors for Task Force Falcon (Multinational Task Force-East), Regional Mentoring and Liaison Teams, NATO Training Teams, and elements of the Kosovo Force 

Headquarters, as well as to augment the Kosovo Force Military-Civilian Advisory 

Division. NATO presence was reduced from a peak of 14,000 in 1999 to 10,000 in 

January 2010, when it began reductions to a strength of 5,000. Kosovo remains stable and secure, as demonstrated in the peaceful conduct of elections in December 

2010. 

EUCOM has played a significant role in Bosnia’s progress since the 1995 implementation of the Dayton Accords. At the height of Operation Joint Endeavor in 

1996, more than 20,000 U.S. servicemembers served in Bosnia. The September 2009 

deactivation of Task Force Dayton, the last U.S. entity operating in Bosnia, marked 

a significant milestone for EUCOM. Less than 40 U.S. personnel now remain in 

Bosnia assigned to the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo and the United States Balkans National Support Element. EUCOM continues building partnership capacity 

with Bosnia through focused security cooperation initiatives, to include International Military Education and Training, Foreign Military Financing, and the 

State Partnership Program with Maryland’s Army National Guard. 

In a show of its increasing capacity, Bosnia assumed a key leadership role during 

EUCOM’s 2009 Combined Endeavor exercise, involving 40 countries and 1,200 personnel. EUCOM remains focused on Bosnia’s defense reform efforts and its entry 

into NATO, so that Bosnia can finally prosper, contribute more fully to coalition operations, and complete its path to Euro-Atlantic integration. Due to progress made, 

Bosnia was able to consistently contribute to the coalition efforts in Iraq between 

2005 and 2008, and now has over 50 personnel deployed to ISAF. Despite some remaining challenges, we have achieved quite a lot given what was happening in Bosnia just 15 years ago. 

Russia 

The complexities of establishing and maintaining a military-to-military relationship with Russia are many. On one hand, there are many areas of potential cooperation and partnership, including Afghanistan, arms control, counterterrorism, 

counter-piracy, counter-narcotics, and missile defense. Continued open dialogue can 

lead to additional opportunities for cooperation and openness, such as EUCOM’s response to assist Russia during last year’s wildfires. On the other hand, some of our 


329ful16.eps
566 

allies and friends in the region remain concerned about Russian actions, including 

the conflict in Georgia in the summer of 2008 and Russia’s continuing suspension 

of implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. 

Working with Russia is about balance and seeking to find the potential for cooperation, while maintaining an open and honest dialogue about all aspects of our 

relationship, including where we disagree. While a great deal of engagement with 

Russia is handled by either the State Department, in the diplomatic realm; or directly by the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, we at EUCOM 

are ready to pursue military-to-military communication, engagement, and even joint 

training and operations with Russia, where and when appropriate. 

In 2009, for example, EUCOM authored a framework document to resume military-to-military cooperation with Russia in an equal, pragmatic, transparent, and 

mutually beneficial manner. The framework not only addresses crisis response and 

consequence management operations, but also seeks to promote interaction and ensure mutual support in conducting counterterrorism and counter-piracy operations; 

peacekeeping missions; ballistic missile defense; and search and rescue. This framework document, signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Russian 

Chief of Defense at the 2009 Presidential Summit in Moscow, began to rebuild a 

structure for our bilateral defense relationship that allows wide-ranging and candid 

engagement on all issues of concern. This effort is then supported by EUCOM’s lead 

in developing the annual military-to-military work plan, which defines the events 

and activities that we aim to accomplish together over the next year. 


329ful17.eps
567 

In working the bilateral military-to-military relationship with Russia, however, 

EUCOM will work with NATO and other partners to implement an integrated and 

inclusive security cooperation architecture beneficial to all participants that does not 

come at the expense of our allies and partners. 

Israel 

The political/military environment in which Israel exists is volatile and uncertain. 

Israel faces frequently voiced threats from Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and others in 

the region. Iran’s aggressiveness and negative rhetoric could also pose serious security challenges to the region broadly, to the United States, and to other allies. In 

addition, conflicts such as the Lebanese conflict of 2006, the Gaza hostilities of 2008, 

or the cross-border shooting in August 2010 with Lebanon, could erupt at any moment. Conflict could result from instigation by Iran or its proxies, notably 

Hezbollah, or from miscalculation. 

EUCOM’s engagement with Israel continues to strengthen our relationship with 

this key regional ally. We conduct multiple headquarters and component-level theater security cooperation events annually with Israel and chair four bilateral, biennial conferences spanning planning, logistics, exercises, and interoperability. The 

United States and Israel routinely conduct training exercises that build partnership 

and work toward regional stability. This exercise portfolio includes eight major recurring exercises. The continued success of the exercise program improves interoperability, understanding, and cooperation between the Israeli Defense Force and U.S. 

military forces. EUCOM leadership and staff maintain uniquely strong, recurring, 

personal, and direct relationships with their counterparts in the Israel Defense 

Force. 

Turkey 

Turkey remains a strong ally and partner in the region and continues to grow in 

importance in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. Turkey will continue to play 

an important role in the fight against extremism, maintaining regional security and 

access, deterring common threats, and supporting NATO out-of-area operations, 

such as those in Afghanistan and Kosovo. As our presence in Iraq draws down, Turkey’s concern with possible volatility on their border may grow, driving them to play 

a larger role in regional stability. We have continued to develop new and productive 

ways to increase our engagement with Turkey in military-to-military areas, and as 

part of U.S. interagency efforts to help this important and centrally-located ally face 

the challenges posed by 21st century threats. 


329ful18.eps
568 

As part of that effort, SOCEUR continues to engage in a highly productive program of tactical exchanges and training events with Turkish Special Forces, and has 

focused part of this outreach program to develop, enhance, and convey lessons 

learned by U.S. Special Operations Forces over the past 8 years in the effective fusion of intelligence, operations, and interagency coordination. 

Also this year, EUCOM initiated Exercise Cooperative Resolve, a new bilateral exercise between USAREUR forces and Turkey Land Forces Command, focused at the 

battalion-level to share best practices and emerging concepts for command post operations, command and control functions, and other associated tactics, training, and 

procedures. 

On another front, EUCOM’s new JICTC-Europe, an information-sharing, internally-resourced collaborative enterprise, is working closely with our Turkish partners to assist and enhance the capabilities of Turkish agencies to combat illicit trafficking and terrorism, two often-interrelated and interdependent activities that 

threaten the security of our partners, our theater, and our homeland. 

Finally, EUCOM continues its highly successful Turkish/U.S. officer exchange program in which each country selects a group of promising, young field-grade officers 

for travel and exposure to each other’s military headquarters and facilities, building 

vital relationships on a personal level that will continue to pay dividends as these 

officers progress to higher ranks and greater levels of responsibility. 

Terrorism in Europe. Our contribution to the ever-evolving fight against 

transnational and indigenous terrorism continues to be one focused on intelligence 

sharing and partner-building. Across Europe, the threat of terrorist attack and the 

presence of terrorist support networks remains a serious concern. Violent-minded 

extremists seek to exploit vulnerabilities to radicalize local populations and 

logistically support jihadist war-zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The European 

continent remains a priority target for directed attacks from al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups who believe that lethal attacks will weaken the resolve of our partner 

nations to continue supporting the ISAF. 

The terrorist attack in Stockholm on December 11, 2010 and the late-December 

arrests of terrorist suspects in the United Kingdom and Denmark, among others, 

are indicative of a continuing threat. 

The threat from al Qaeda associated elements remains high, particularly in Germany, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Notably a recent study 

by the Danish Institute for International Studies found that between 2004 and 

2008, 84 percent of terrorists detained in Europe had a Western upbringing, and 

only 28 percent had links to foreign militant groups. This is indicative of the rise 


329ful19.eps
569 

of ‘‘home-grown’’, self-motivated terrorists who, despite their exposure to Western 

values, chose to learn jihad over the internet and act without direct guidance by al 

Qaeda senior leadership. 

European countries continue to improve their capacity to counter the terrorist 

threat by strengthening counterterrorism legislation, expanding international cooperation, and successfully prosecuting and jailing terrorist actors. To support this 

progress, EUCOM increases intelligence sharing at every opportunity. For instance, 

one of our projects disseminates evidence and information obtained by coalition allies on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan to International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) member countries’ police forces worldwide in order to strengthen their counterterrorism efforts. This project has assisted investigations in more 

than 70 countries. 

Ballistic Missile Threat 

There is an existing and expanding threat from ballistic missiles to the EUCOM’s 

area of focus. The continued development of missile technologies by states such as 

Iran and Syria, coupled with the transfer of rocket and missile capabilities and technologies to non-state actors such as Hizbollah, present the most significant combination of capability and intent into realized threat to EUCOM’s interests in Europe 

and the Levant. Iran in particular, with its growing inventory of ballistic missiles, 

views its conventionally armed missiles as an integral part of its strategy to deter, 

intimidate and retaliate against forces in the Middle East, Southeastern Europe, 

and Central Asia. 

Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist or violent extremist would represent 

a grave threat to the United States and our allies. The threat of a deliberate attack 

with a biological weapon, or the spread of nuclear weapons programs are threats 

that have far-reaching, destabilizing consequences. Al Qaeda and other groups aspire to incorporate weapons of mass destruction into their attacks. Special nuclear 

materials and the majority of the world’s nuclear weapons are located in the 

EUCOM area of focus. 

To succeed in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and 

their precursor materials, we must pursue a vigorous, comprehensive strategy sustained by a whole-of-government approach and strong international partnerships. 

The security of the weapons and these materials is a significant aspect of the command’s efforts to counter WMD. We must support partner and allied efforts to build 

capacity that detects and interdicts the movement of WMD materials, facilitates information-sharing arrangements, and, if an attack occurs, ensures a swift effective 

response that includes consequence management. Recent concerns over attacks in 

Europe truly underscore the importance of working with our partners and allies to 

prevent a catastrophic attack involving WMD on their soil and our homeland. 

Cyber Security 

Cyber security is a vital function for EUCOM, and we have made progress in securing our part of cyberspace during the past year. We have joined the efforts of 

other combatant commands, including the leadership of the U.S. Strategic Command and its sub-unified command, U.S. Cyber Command. The establishment of 

U.S. Cyber Command is a great step forward for DOD and all combatant commands. 

We are exploring the paths to more closely fuse our internal efforts in cyberspace, 

and have named a Cyber Integrator on our headquarters staff to build on our established Cyber Fusion Center. As the number and sophistication of attempts to penetrate our network increase daily, we must continue to meet that threat with innovation and expertise because we cannot afford more manpower. 

As we gain operational experience in cyberspace, we look for opportunities to provide bridges between industry, academia, government, and our military partners 

with the goal of increasing mutual awareness and security. There are many chalVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00575 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful20.eps
570 

lenges in this new domain and several of our friends throughout Europe have been 

the subject of cyber harassment (disruption of cyberspace functions) coincident with 

international disputes. As we look for answers and solutions to the evolving challenges in cyberspace, we synchronize frequently with our partners at various exercises and conferences, to include Exercise Combined Endeavor 10, which brought together forty nations focused on enhancing common awareness, building common understanding, and developing operational trust, as well as a 2011 European Cyber 

Conference Symposium hosted at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. We have several other visits and exercises planned in 2011. 

As we move forward, we are looking to leverage our existing EU and NATO relationships in concert with the newly formed U.S. Cyber Command to increase our 

shared security. With NATO’s desire to develop an infrastructure to meet the cyber 

security threat with a coordinated combined response, we are moving forward now 

to lay the groundwork for what we anticipate will be our role in this combined action. 

The Arctic 

The Arctic maritime domain is changing, and nations are responding by enacting 

policies to address anticipated challenges in the region. From environmental impacts to commercial enterprise, the prospect of unprecedented access to natural resources and northern shipping routes has raised related security concerns. Promoting regional stability in the Arctic is EUCOM’s primary objective for the Arctic. 

This is best accomplished through the use of open international forums to ensure 

stable, predictable management of the Arctic area. 

In areas of safety, security, resource management, and conflict resolution, we support multinational governance and the international rule of law. Development of 

peaceful and successful maritime domain awareness is essential, not only to the security of the region, but also to the safety of the mariners, workers, and tourists 

who will populate this vast expanse. EUCOM is committed to a future that includes 

collaboration with our partners, NATO members, and Russia on international 

search and rescue exercises, Arctic training, and transparent operations and diplomacy that fully respect territorial claims. 

Addressing environmental security in the Arctic region will require close cooperation with a wide range of Arctic stakeholders. Of particular note, we see Russia as 

a key potential partner in this area; one with substantial capabilities to respond to 

unforeseen emergencies and a clear willingness to protect the region from environmental disasters. We look forward to working with Russia and our other Arctic partners as we seek areas of mutual interest. 

Energy Security 

Our strategic national interests are served by fostering global economic development. A growing and open global economy enables the growth of the American econVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00576 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful21.eps
571 

omy, and that growth forms the backbone of our national security. Most of our 

major European partners are heavily dependent upon foreign energy sources for 

their oil and natural gas. This reliance can have a destabilizing effect on European 

economic development. Russia is one of the most important suppliers of crude oil 

and natural gas to Europe, accounting for 33 percent of oil imports and 40 percent 

of gas imports (87 percent for Italy; 81 percent for Spain; 61 percent for Germany; 

and 51 percent for France). Russia’s energy leverage represents a key factor in European and Eurasian energy security. Europe will continue to need Russian energy, 

as supplies from Russia are useful alternatives to reliance on the Persian Gulf for 

hydrocarbons and the pipeline infrastructure to transport it is already in place. 

EUCOM supports DOS objectives regarding European energy security, and we 

work with our interagency partners, NATO allies, and partner nations to support 

these objectives: diversification of energy transportation routes in Europe; greater 

intra-Europe integration of existing supply systems; the development of new, renewable, and alternative energy sources in Eurasia; and demand-side efforts to promote 

energy efficiency. Within EUCOM, we are proposing a joint concept for energy security to achieve these same objectives, ensure access, and decrease vulnerabilities 

within our own forces. Our J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate continues to employ a whole-of-government approach to collaborate with our partners and likeminded allies to develop frameworks for addressing major energy security issues. 

INITIATIVES

Effective pursuit of U.S., allied, and partner interests depends ultimately on our 

ability to innovate and find new and better ways of achieving our objectives. 

Support to NATO, especially in Afghanistan. 

Today, EUCOM’s largest contributions to support NATO lie in our efforts to train 

and equip partner nations to deploy alongside our own troops in Afghanistan. We 

have multiple lines of effort to support these activities. 

Joint Multi-National Readiness Center 

The Joint Multi-National Readiness Center supports EUCOM and Central Command (CENTCOM) operations by providing predeployment training to Europe-based 

U.S. forces and NATO Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams slated for deployment to Afghanistan. Currently, the center provides enduring observer/controller 

support to the U.S. Security Coordinator Israel to train the Palestinian National Security Forces. Joint Multi-National Readiness Center observer/controllers were also 

instrumental in the successful pre-deployment training of the Jordanian 2nd Ranger 

Battalion for operations in support of Afghanistan’s national elections. We have 

trained almost 4,000 soldiers to date and, through these efforts, EUCOM has enabled partner nations to make significant contributions to operations in Afghanistan. 

Georgia Deployment Program-International Security Assistance Force. 

MARFOREUR directly supports the Republic of Georgia’s 2-year program to deploy Georgian forces alongside U.S. Marine Forces to Afghanistan. The Georgia Deployment Program-ISAF will deploy four rotations of a Georgian battalion with a 

Marine Corps Marine Expeditionary Brigade to Afghanistan. As capabilities improve, Georgian forces will be able to operate independently. By using Georgian 

shadow instructors, MARFOREUR will create a Georgian training group that will 

largely take over the Partnership Training Program by their fourth rotation. Over 

this past year, this program trained two battalions that deployed to Afghanistan. 


329ful22.eps
572 

Interoperability 

EUCOM has significantly enhanced the ability to communicate with NATO and 

NATO member nations at the Secret level. The U.S. Battlefield Information Collection and Exploitation System (BICES) network is used for planning, exercising, and 

operating with our NATO partners in this theater. We exercised that capability in 

Austere Challenge 10, Jackal Stone 10, and a NATO Cyber Defense Exercise. As 

we leverage these opportunities to hone our ability to work together, we will continue to determine the capability requirements and develop the tactics, techniques, 

and procedures to ensure that BICES meets our NATO interoperability needs. 

In another area, the United States became a full participating member in the 

Military Engineering Center of Excellence. Through this body, our engineers have 

the opportunity to develop interoperability and relationships with engineer forces at 

all levels of command. We are able to provide expertise to other NATO countries 

and help them prepare for NATO operations. Through these engagements, our Nation also benefits by learning new engineering methods, and gains access to the resources of the Center of Excellence. 

Ballistic Missile Defense 

The concentrated efforts by our adversaries to illicitly procure ballistic missile 

technology, develop increasingly sophisticated missiles, and actively refine their 

abilities to employ those missiles against friends and allies have not abated. 

As we work to provide defenses for our deployed forces, families, friends and allies, EUCOM continues the extensive and active cooperation necessary to implement 

the EPAA to Missile Defense. Together with our partners in the DOS, DOD, Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA), and many others we are fully supporting the coordinated 

international engagement of the United States. 


329ful23.eps
573 

Our coordinated efforts are bearing fruit, with NATO declaring at the Lisbon 

Summit that it will develop a missile defense capability to provide full coverage and 

protection for all NATO European populations, territory, and forces. NATO reiterated its longstanding invitation for Russia to cooperate with the Alliance in this endeavor. We are also working with Poland and Romania who have agreed to host elements of our missile defense systems. As part of these efforts, EUCOM is working 

with both the MDA and the Commander, Naval Installations Command, to ensure 

that facility infrastructure will be ready to go when the system is activated. 

In order to provide for Communication, Collaboration, Coordination and, potentially, Command and Control of U.S. and NATO Missile Defense forces, EUCOM’s 

J6 directorate has aggressively deployed BICES (NATO SECRET) workstations 

throughout EUCOM’s Headquarters and our Service components. These 

workstations are supported by theater collaboration services for secure voice, chat, 

and information-sharing as well as the Battle Command Systems—providing U.S. 

and NATO forces with all the tools necessary to execute this mission successfully. 

This spring, EUCOM will add U.S. ships afloat to the BICES architecture, further 

integrating our sensors, shooters, and platforms within theater. 

At the same time, EUCOM is preparing for the arrival of the initial assets that 

will operationalize the EPAA. As we work together with our partners and allies to 

field an operational capability this year, I maintain my firm belief that the capabilities delivered will serve as a catalyst to develop a cooperative solution with our allies and partners in the region. 

Joint Interagency Counter Trafficking Center 

This past August, EUCOM stood up the JICTC to support interagency efforts 

across the theater to counter the growing transnational trafficking threat. 

Transnational trafficking is a multi-faceted U.S. national security concern which has 

potential to undermine U.S. and international efforts to protect public health and 

ensure regional security. Transnational organized criminal activity contributes to 

weakening the rule of law, and fosters other forms of illicit activity such as terrorism, insurgency, organized crime, weapons trafficking, money laundering, human 

trafficking and piracy. Left unchecked, this activity can continue to spread and metastasize, threatening the stability and legitimacy of key states, as well as the U.S. 

Homeland. 

EUCOM’s trafficking center will complement DOS’s interagency programs and assist the international community and European national efforts to build self-sufficient border management skills, competencies, and capacity among partner nations. 

The vision is that we will stand up a truly international, interagency organization 

focused on counter-trafficking. Though loosely modeled on Joint Interagency Task 

Force (JIATF)-South in Key West, our trafficking center will have important differences. Unlike JIATF–South, the JICTC will not directly participate in detection, 

monitoring, and interdiction operations on land or at sea. Instead, it will provide 

depth and capacity to our interagency partners and, by doing so, will provide anVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00579 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful24.eps
574 

other layer to regional security and the defense of our homeland. EUCOM is also 

leveraging opportunities to link U.S. Government agencies through information systems by building a common, user-friendly information technology portfolio that facilitates information-sharing and cross-cooperation. We are developing agreements 

on information-sharing standards with partner military, police, and civilian organizations to support counter-trafficking and exploitation activities. Our main focus 

will initially be on counter-narcotics, but will ultimately integrate other aspects of 

the transnational trafficking threat. No additional resources are needed to stand up 

the JICTC, and we plan to be fully operational by September 2011. 

Whole-of-Government/Whole-of-Society Approach 

Interagency partnering remains the heart of the enterprise for this command, and 

is critical to how we approach security challenges in our theater. Building on the 

interagency cooperation that presently exists at our U.S. Embassy Country Teams, 

we have also grown the interagency presence at EUCOM to best effect interagency 

collaboration at the regional/operational level. 

Since I last addressed you, we have welcomed additional representatives to 

EUCOM headquarters from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department 

of Energy, and the Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration who 

wish to coordinate their activities with the U.S. military. This is in addition to representatives already in place at the headquarters from the DOS, Department of the 

Treasury, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Additionally, we are actively working with the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) to once again secure their representation at EUCOM. Finally, 

the Department of Justice will soon add their prosecutorial and rule of law expertise 

to our team as, together, we seek to build partner capacity in Europe and Eurasia 

and, in so doing, better defend our homeland forward. 

We have also introduced the DOS Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization into our Combined Endeavor exercise. This infusion of interagency participation 

facilitates cross-cooperation, coordination, and information sharing between DOD 

and DOS in the context of whole-of-government operations within the European theater. This reinforces the command’s commitment to building stronger partner capacity, not only among our internal U.S. Government agencies, but also with NATO 

and European partner government agencies as well. We look to integrate with both 

U.S. interagency organizations and those of NATO and our partner nations by coupling the U.S. whole-of-government approach with the comprehensive approach 

functions of our partners. 

We have also established a J9 Interagency Partnering Directorate, the first new 

directorate at EUCOM since 1967. In addition to working with interagency partners, 

it also engages and collaborates with international and nongovernmental organizations, academia, the private sector, think tanks, and military academic organizations. In the private sector, for example, we have gained many new insights by 

partnering with numerous organizations. As part of our efforts to engage leading 

European professionals, we have instituted the European Partnership Program to 

both listen to European business professionals and leaders and to speak directly to 

them about our mission in Europe and Eurasia. In addition, our new Academic Outreach function has leveraged the knowledge and fresh thinking of military and civilian academic institutions to help us in our military planning processes. 

575 

Public Private Cooperation 

EUCOM has begun work to leverage the expertise and other assets of the private 

sector to achieve its objectives as well as support the efforts of NATO Allied Command Operations. We are currently working with private businesses as well as nonprofit nongovernmental entities. For example, in collaboration with CENTCOM, we 

organized a public-private workshop on further development of the Northern Distribution Network and the potential for building a ‘‘silk road,’’ or commercial transportation network for commerce between Europe and Eurasia through Afghanistan. 

The participants included officials from the U.S. Transportation Command, Defense 

Logistics Agency, CENTCOM, USAID, the Asian Development Bank, the International Road Union, the National Defense Transportation Association, and other 

business executives, who agreed on recommendations for further action on developing and implementing a silk road strategy as a component of the U.S. transition 

strategy for Afghanistan. We are also looking at ways to incorporate this kind of 

collaboration for issues like cyber security, assessments, and humanitarian assistance. 

Humanitarian Assistance Programs 

EUCOM’s Humanitarian Assistance programs directly benefit the Nations where 

they are executed, and consist of: the Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Program; 

the Humanitarian Assistance-Other Program; and the Humanitarian Assistance 

Program-Excess Property. Projects funded through these resources complement 

USAID efforts, enhance regional security cooperation, and advance U.S. interests 

throughout the region. They also bolster a country’s own capability to respond to 

disasters, thereby diminishing the need for future U.S. involvement, and provide an 

example of the value of a military in times of peace. 

While the EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance budget is relatively small, it has a 

disproportionately high and positive impact. Last year, the command executed $17 

million in Humanitarian Assistance Project funding for 145 security assistance related projects across 18 countries. One example of a Humanitarian Assistance 

project that was carried out in an interagency and public-private manner to gain 

efficiencies and maximize impact was our contribution to a nursing school in Georgia. We contributed through training to the construction of the facility, while Emory 

University staffed it and the USAID equipped it. 

Another example was EUCOM’s partnership with the USAID, an engaged nongovernmental organization, and the Albanian Ministry of Health in an integrated 

effort to establish telemedicine capabilities throughout Albania. This past December, 

6 of 14 telemedicine centers were connected to enhance basic health care, disaster 

management and emergency response across the country. While EUCOM training 

assisted in renovation of the facilities, the impact of the combined effort provides 

a higher level of health care and continued medical education nationwide. 


329ful25.eps
576 

Innovation 

Implementing new ideas and innovations is vital to achieving success in today’s 

complex and adaptive security environment. Indeed, success may well be determined in our labs, think tanks, and centers of innovation. The original discovery, 

development, and rapid implementation of technology and ideas are imperative for 

staying ahead of our adversaries who are continuously adapting and innovating as 

well. 

Acting as a catalyst and accelerant, and working in close collaboration with the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Services, the U.S. Interagency, industry, and 

our partner nations, our Innovation Cell has achieved tangible results in furthering 

unique and innovative technologies. Results include discovery and enhancement of 

a unique human detection technology, a cross-domain solution for collaboration with 

our allies, and acceleration of a system to support space-based wireless internet access to remote regions. Each of these successes has been achieved by partnering 

with and leveraging the unique technologies of our allies. The command has enabled 

access and connected unique partner nation technologies to counter improvised explosive devices, piracy, and smuggling. Future innovative projects planned are in 

the realm of information technologies to support population-centric counterinsurgency tools. 

Cultural Understanding and Language Study 

I have often talked about the power that comes from understanding a country’s 

culture. At EUCOM, we are always trying to find ways to increase our understanding of European culture throughout our organization as we continue the important work of building and strengthening our relationships with partner nations. One 

example is our Next Generation Advisory Panel, a body of up-and-coming civilian 

leaders from several European countries with whom we engage on a regular basis 

to seek their unique perspective on a variety of issues. Another is our notable author series, which brings prolific writers and thinkers to the command whose books 

add important historical context into an open forum for engagement and discussion 

with our staff. Our Academic Outreach Division recently brought an expert on RusVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00582 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful26.eps 329ful27.eps
577 

sian and Central European security issues to the command as part of the EUCOM 

Forum for International Affairs Speaker Series. Additionally, EUCOM’s Strategic 

Languages Program has joined our headquarters in Stuttgart with the Defense Language Institute in order to provide foreign language training for our staff members. 

OUR MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCE

None of the activities described in these pages would be possible without the people that make up EUCOM. We have a responsibility to our people and their families 

to ensure the readiness and health of our force and provide quality of life support 

to the families. Being stationed overseas presents unique challenges and opportunities for our force. Maintaining a balanced and efficient overseas force posture, however, is critical to the defense of the United States. 

Deployment, Behavioral Health, and Compassionate Fatigue and Family Support 

Protracted combat operations and multiple deployments have placed significant 

stress on our servicemembers and their families. Several organizations and studies 

within DOD have identified an urgent need for sustained behavioral health services 

to support these warriors and their family members. As we continue to maintain 

mission readiness, it is imperative that our dedicated military men and women, and 

their families, have access to these vital programs and services without stovepipes 

in a stigma-free environment. A 360-degree review of these programs, with an analysis of the connection between at-risk indicators and catalysts, is needed to eliminate gaps in support. The goal is alignment of focused caregiver teams with corresponding indicator data systems to ensure the health of our force and family. We 

will also continue to work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

working definition for resilience, while determining initial measures for baseline assessments to address at-risk indicators. 

Additionally, we must also care for our vital caregiver teams. Last year, I testified 

on the state of EUCOM’s community caregivers, who themselves have shown signs 

of stress, burn-out, and compassion fatigue. At that time, I briefed you on our comprehensive compassion fatigue program, entitled ‘‘Providing Outreach While Enhancing Readiness—Caring for the Caregiver,’’ which focuses on providing caregivers with tools and strategies to prevent and mitigate the risk of stress, burn-out, 

and compassion fatigue. 2010 was the first year of execution for this initiative; one 

we plan to continue and one that is showing promising results. Lastly, we continue 

to support ongoing efforts to improve complex care management and the medical 

portion of the disability evaluation process, which will result in improvement of 

wounded, ill, and injured warrior benefits. 

Theater Infrastructure 

Thanks to strong and continued congressional support, previous annual military 

construction authorizations and appropriations have enabled EUCOM to address a 

balanced mix of our most pressing mission, mission support, quality of life, and 

housing requirements. The goal of our fiscal year 2012 military construction program is to support ongoing force posture initiatives, consolidation efforts, and infrastructure recapitalization projects including the Kaiserslautern Military Community 

Medical Facilities Recapitalization and Consolidation project. As always, when there 

are opportunities to leverage NATO common funded investments, we do so. Where 

required, we pre-finance our projects to reserve a future opportunity to recapture 

a portion of our investments through the NATO Security Investment Program. At 

enduring locations, we continue to sustain and recapitalize our infrastructure 

through responsible use of both the Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 

program and the military construction program. At non-enduring locations, we are 

optimizing use of all available resources to ensure these installations remain fully 

mission effective until the installations are removed from the inventory. To that 

end, EUCOM’s footprint currently includes approximately 350 distinct real estate 

sites (ranging in size from small unmanned communication sites to Ramstein Air 

Base), which collectively make up the present command footprint, down from 1,200 

during the Cold War. Anticipated changes, some of which are planned within enduring installations, will result in the return of approximately 100 of these sites to host 

nations soon. We are constantly reviewing requirements across the current and new 

mission, quality of life, and agency portfolios to work towards joint solutions where 

appropriate. EUCOM’s future requirements will appear in our Theater Posture Plan 

and military construction requests. The sites are all tax and rent free and receive 

much host nation support. 

578 

We are pleased that the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) is 

planning and executing a $2.1 billion investment into DODEA’s Europe school infrastructure that has been in need of support for many years. Many of our schools are 

converted barracks from the 1950s and will benefit tremendously from this investment. At the end of this 7-year program, all failed or failing infrastructure will be 

recapitalized, providing concrete proof of our priority to take care of our people and 

their families. Additionally, we will continue to address and pursue improvements 

to our military family housing and barracks/dormitories in the 2012 military construction program to improve the living conditions of our families. 

Force Posture 

The presence of U.S. forces in the European theater serves many important functions. It fosters relationships and deepens partnerships with individual countries as 

well as an entire region of significant importance to U.S. global strategic interests, 

as evidenced by the overwhelming number of ISAF troop-contributing nations that 

come from this theater. This continuous presence and partnership allows EUCOM 

to train alongside our allies and partners to build their capacity as well as our own, 

and increase interoperability. U.S. forces stationed in Europe today act to assure our 

allies even as they deter and dissuade our adversaries, and are the most visible indication of the ongoing U.S. commitment to the NATO Alliance. EUCOM’s footprint 

also enables the projection of U.S. power globally. Sites and installations in Europe 

provide superb power projection facilities for the support of coalition operations and 

overseas contingency operations. 

As we consider U.S. presence overseas, we must consider the security environment in which we are currently operating. As the post-Cold War security environment changed, the size of our forces saw a corresponding change. The number of 

Active Duty U.S. personnel in Europe has gone from over 400,000 during the Cold 

War to approximately 80,000 today. With ongoing activities in Afghanistan and 

Iraq, we assess that we should maintain our asset levels to maintain our current 

levels of effort in the immediate future, to include deployment rotations and partner 

training schedules. As our engagement requirements change, we will also look to adjust our asset levels. As the Secretary of Defense has said, ‘‘Based on our review, 

it is clear we have excess force structure in Europe. We are looking closely at alternative courses of action, but none would be implemented before 2015 or without consulting our NATO allies.’’ In doing so, we not only look at pure numbers of troops 

when examining force posture, but also at capabilities and force mix. As the mission 

in Afghanistan begins to draw down, we may begin to reduce in the area of combat 


329ful28.eps
579 

troops. However, as our ballistic missile defense mission develops in the near future, 

we will also evaluate the force posture needs associated with that growing mission. 

There are five significant force posture initiatives that EUCOM is undertaking to 

support building the capability and capacity of partner nations in Europe, increase 

expeditionary capability from Europe, support other combatant commands, and 

achieve basing efficiencies. 

The first initiative is in direct support of the EPAA. The EPAA is the U.S. voluntary national contribution to NATO missile defense. This will be an integral component of NATO’s mission to provide full protection and coverage for all NATO European populations, territory, and forces as well as enhance the defense of the U.S. 

Homeland. 

The second initiative is an Unmanned Aerial Systems Center of Excellence at 

Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy. The synergistic impact of combining U.S. Air 

Force Global Hawks, U.S. Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance, and NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance unmanned aerial systems programs at one location within 

close proximity to three geographic combatant commands is a prime example of how 

the EUCOM is maximizing our efficiency within the European Theater. 

The third initiative is the timely stationing of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) into 

theater. The proper timing of the JSF bed-down ensures that the U.S. maintains 

its leadership role within the NATO Alliance. 

The fourth initiative is developing a U.S. Transportation Command requirement 

for a Black Sea/Caucasus enroute location to further U.S. expeditionary capability. 

The EUCOM will meet this requirement while maximizing our basing efficiencies. 

The final initiative, is providing direct support to AFRICOM, which is located in 

Europe. The EUCOM, because of our global strategic location, is properly positioned 

for other combatant commands and interagency partners to leverage our resources. 

We consider it our responsibility to maximize efficiency in the theater. 

NATO/SHAPE

NATO has been the anchor of Trans-Atlantic security for more than 60 years, ensuring the security of its members, enhancing peace and stability throughout Europe, and countering threats across the globe. In November 2010, the heads of state 

and government of the alliance approved a new NATO Strategic Concept at the Lisbon Summit and mandated a series of actions to modernize and enhance the Alliance’s capability to address the complex challenges of this era. The summit was a 

pivotal event in the alliance’s history, framing its future and demonstrating the political will of its members to strengthen our individual and collective readiness and 

capabilities for the full range of security challenges. 

New Strategic Concept 

NATO’s new Strategic Concept, the first in 10 years, is titled ‘‘Active Engagement, 

Modern Defense’’. The Strategic Concept reconfirmed the bond between all members 

to defend one another against attack, including against new threats to the safety 

of our populations. It committed the alliance to prevent crises, manage conflicts, and 

stabilize post-conflict situations, including by working more closely with our international partners, most importantly the U.N. and the EU. It offers NATO’s partners 

around the globe more political engagement with the alliance, and a substantial role 

in shaping the NATO-led operations to which they contribute. It restates the alliance’s firm commitment to keep the door to NATO open to all European democracies 

that meet the standards of membership, because enlargement contributes to the 

goal of a Europe whole, free and at peace. The Strategic Concept also commits 

NATO to continuous reform towards a more effective, efficient, and flexible alliance. 

The Strategic Concept reaffirms the fundamental purpose of the NATO alliance and 

defines three core tasks for the alliance: Collective Defense; Security through Crisis 

Management; and Cooperative Security through Partnership. 


329ful29.eps
580 

Collective Defense 

On Collective Defense, the new Strategic Concept reaffirms the alliance’s core 

mission of mutual defense as set out in Article V of the Washington Treaty. This 

Article V commitment remains firm and binding. NATO will deter and defend 

against any threat of aggression, and against emerging security challenges where 

they threaten the fundamental security of individual allies or the alliance as a 

whole. The Strategic Concept mandates the maintenance of alliance deterrence, 

based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, and reaffirms 

deterrence as a core element of our overall strategy. The alliance also agreed to pursue missile defense as a core element of alliance defense and deterrence. 

Crisis Management 

Concerning Crisis Management, the new Strategic Concept commits the Alliance’s 

unique and robust set of political and military capabilities to address the full spectrum of crises—before, during, and after conflicts. It recognizes that crises and conflicts beyond NATO’s borders can pose a direct threat to the security of alliance territory and populations. The Strategic Concept and the Lisbon Summit Declaration 

highlight the importance of a ‘‘Comprehensive Approach to Crisis Management.’’ 

NATO will engage, where possible and when necessary, to prevent crises, manage 

crises, stabilize post-conflict situations and support reconstruction. NATO will actively employ an appropriate mix of political and military tools to help manage developing crises that have the potential to affect Alliance security before they escalate into conflicts, to stop ongoing conflicts where they affect Alliance security, and 

to help consolidate stability in post-conflict situations where that contributes to 

Euro-Atlantic security. 

A modernized and comprehensive approach to crisis management will involve engaging actively with other international actors before, during, and after crises to encourage collaborative analysis, planning, and conduct of crisis management activities. It also requires a capability to monitor and analyze the international environment to anticipate crises and, where appropriate, take active steps to prevent them 

from becoming larger conflicts. The role accorded to Crisis Management in the Strategic Concept also reaffirms NATO’s unique and essential role as a transatlantic 

forum for consultations on all matters that affect the territorial integrity, political 

independence, and security of its members as set out in Article IV of the Washington Treaty. 


329ful30.eps
581 

Cooperative Security and Partnership 

With respect to Cooperative Security and Partnership, NATO’s new strategic concept recognizes that the alliance is affected by, and can affect, political and security 

developments beyond its borders. This concept mandates NATO to engage actively 

to enhance international security: through partnership with relevant countries and 

other international organizations; by contributing actively to arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament; and by keeping the door to membership in the alliance open to all European democracies that meet NATO’s standards. In particular, 

the Strategic Concept highlights the importance of enhancing collaboration with the 

EU and U.N. It also stresses the priority accorded to forging a true, strategic partnership with Russia. In particular, the alliance will pursue cooperation with Russia 

in the sphere of Missile Defense as well as enhance our cooperation in counterpiracy, counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and ongoing ISAF operations. 

In Lisbon, the NATO Heads of State and Government Summit Declaration contained many taskings related to implementing, or operationalizing, the new Strategic Concept. In particular, Crisis Management, Comprehensive Approach, Partnership, and Missile Defense will be focus areas for NATO Headquarters, Allied Command Operations, and Allied Command Transformation. The Lisbon Summit also 

tasked continued reforms for NATO in many spheres related to reducing costs and 

delivering efficiencies and effectiveness. NATO will continue to implement these important Lisbon decisions simultaneously and we will continue to conduct operations 

of high importance to our collective security. 

NATO-European Union Relations 

The EU is another potential partner for NATO in its Comprehensive Approach 

and, although slight, some progress has been made in the areas of cooperation and 

coordination between these two entities. In land operations, tactical coordination 

continues and, in Afghanistan in particular, there has been a growing willingness 

on both sides (ISAF and EU Police Mission Afghanistan) to coordinate efforts. This 

will hopefully lead to a more complementary approach, combining resources and capabilities to build ANSF capacity. In the fight against piracy, NATO and the EU 


329ful31.eps 329ful32.eps
582 

have agreed to share tactical information for increased situational awareness and 

synergy. There have been other examples of tactical cooperation such as a recent 

incident during which an EU ship refuelled a NATO ship at sea. This common use 

of logistics support is an area that offers potential for further cooperation between 

the EU and NATO. 

Afghanistan 

NATO’s operation in Afghanistan continues to provide the alliance a catalyst for 

change to ensure timely and relevant support to our combat forces. America’s allies 

in NATO have shared the risks, costs, and burdens of this mission from the beginning. They have contributed to the ISAF and the ANSF and have made significant 

non-military contributions as well. 

The situation in Afghanistan today is complicated and deeply challenging, as external pressures are balanced with internal recovery from 30 years of warfare. As 

we proceed in this campaign, the successful transition of security responsibilities remains the key issue. Much has been achieved in the past 12–18 months. The troop 

surge of 30,000 U.S. and 10,000 allied troops has had a significant impact on the 

ground, especially in southern Afghanistan. More importantly, the restructuring of 

the headquarters, including the activation of the ISAF Joint Command and NTM– 

A, have provided the ISAF Commander the leadership capacity to implement a 

counterinsurgency campaign focused on securing the Afghan population, developing 

the ANSF, and engaging the Afghan Government as a catalyst of change. We have 

largely halted the expansion of the insurgency, and are beginning to show signs of 

progress toward Afghan security self-reliance. These strategy reviews and increased 

attention on Afghanistan are welcomed by our allies and partners as we move forward. Our allies have already contributed a great deal to this war, fighting, bleeding, and dying side-by-side with our own troops. 

There are four areas in which we must succeed in order to win in Afghanistan, 

and some progress has been made across all four. The first is to achieve synergy 

between our civilian and military efforts. To help accomplish this, NATO has reinforced the Senior Civilian Representative position with Ambassador Mark Sedwill. 

His efforts, in parallel with the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, have shown 

exceptional progress in governance and development. Ambassador Sedwill and his 

team are providing the necessary balance to the military work being done by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The 

Senior Civilian Representative’s efforts cannot be taken in isolation. Additional civilian expertise is still required to mentor, coach, and guide the Afghan Government 

to take active visible steps to show that it is stamping out corruption, improving 

efficiency, and delivering necessary services to its people effectively. 


329ful33.eps
583 

1The Brookings Institution, The Afganistan Index, http://www.brookings.edu/foreign-policy/afghanistan-index. aspx, 31 August 2010, 36. 2The International Council on Security and Development (ICoS), Afghanistan: The Relationship Gap, July 2010, 14. 

The second area critical to the Afghanistan counterinsurgency effort is that the 

Afghans themselves must be at the center of this effort. In this aspect, the restructuring of the headquarters and the Senior Civilian Representative have provided the 

leadership capacity to engage appropriate Afghan leaders and move towards independence. The Afghan people, through village and district elders and shuras, have 

begun to assume responsibility for the well-being of their country and are showing 

growing confidence in their own government’s ability to provide basic security and 

services without corruption and tribal favoritism. 

A third important key to success in Afghanistan is effective strategic communication. A continuous flow of information that serves to bolster our actions is essential 

to assuring the Afghans, as well as our enemies, that the United States and our 

allies are committed to a secure and stable Afghanistan. We have work to do, but 

are improving. 

Fourth and finally, as has been reaffirmed time after time by the alliance, the 

most important role that the military can play in Afghanistan is to increase the size 

and capability of the ANSF through training and mentoring so that they may be 

able to take lead responsibility for securing their country. This is—and remains— 

the top resourcing priority in Afghanistan. Although the progress of NTM–A and the 

increase in capacity and capability of the ANSF has been described as miraculous, 

trainers and mentors are still needed. Progress has been exceptional. Watching the 

enthusiasm as record numbers of recruits train at the Kabul Military Training Center definitely perpetuates optimism. 

Recent polls have shown positive indications that progress is being made in Afghanistan. Almost 60 percent of Afghans believe their country is heading in the 

right direction.1 Afghans are 83 percent confident that the Afghan National Army 

can provide security in their area and 75 percent confident in the Afghan National 

Police.2 Thousands of insurgents are being captured or killed and hundreds of improvised explosive devices have been recovered. These are all indicators that validate our effort to put the Afghan people at the center of the equation in Afghanistan. We need to continue giving the Afghan people hope that they are not destined 

to live under the yoke of tyranny, and offer them every opportunity to live in a future Afghanistan worthy of their sacrifices. 

Kosovo 

Today, approximately 8,000 troops, including 800 U.S. soldiers, from NATO’s 

Kosovo Force are deployed in Kosovo, working alongside local authorities to increase 

self-reliance in a multi-ethnic environment. The Allies decision to continue force reductions while developing internal security forces is the best declaration of this safe 

and secure environment. Operations remain challenging as tensions have potential 

to flare quickly but, by March 2011, planned force levels will be reduced to about 

5,000 as 5 sites of historical and political importance have already transferred from 

allied security to local authorities without incident. Following Kosovo’s declaration 

of independence in February 2008, the alliance reaffirmed that the Kosovo Force 

shall remain in Kosovo on the basis of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244. 

NATO and the Kosovo Force will continue to work with the authorities and assist 

the U.N., EU, and other international actors, as appropriate, to support the further 

development of a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic, and peaceful Kosovo. 

NATO and Iraq 

At the Istanbul Summit in June 2004, the Allies agreed to be part of the international effort to help Iraq establish effective and accountable security forces. The 

outcome was the creation of the NATO Training Mission in Iraq (NTM–I), which 

to date has trained over 14,000 Iraqi security sector personnel. NTM–I is involved 

in police training, establishing and mentoring Iraq’s military academies, and facilitating substantial equipment donations and regular out-of-country training hosted 

by NATO Allies. All NATO Allies contribute to the training effort through deployment of trainers, provision of equipment, or NATO’s financial contribution. The Government of Iraq regularly praises NTM–I, and continues to request its continuation 

and expansion. 

Active Endeavor 

Under Operation Active Endeavor, NATO ships are patrolling the Mediterranean 

and monitoring shipping to help detect, deter, and protect against terrorist activity. 

The operation evolved from NATO’s immediate response to the terrorist attacks 

584 

against the United States on September 11, 2001, and, in view of its success, is continuing. As the alliance has refined its counter-terrorism role in the intervening 

years, the experience that NATO has accrued in Active Endeavor has given the alliance unparalleled expertise in the deterrence of maritime terrorist activity in the 

Mediterranean Sea. NATO forces have hailed over 100,000 merchant vessels and 

boarded 155 suspect ships. 

By conducting these maritime operations against terrorist activity, NATO’s presence in these waters has benefited all shipping through the Straits of Gibraltar. 

Moreover, this operation is also enabling NATO to strengthen its relations with 

partner countries, especially those participating in the Alliance’s Mediterranean 

Dialogue. 

Supporting the African Union 

Well beyond the Euro-Atlantic region, the alliance continues to support the African Union in its peacekeeping missions on the African continent. Since June 2007, 

NATO has assisted the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) by providing 

airlift support for African Union peacekeepers. Following renewed African Union requests, the North Atlantic Council has agreed to extend its support by periods of 

6 months on several occasions. NATO also continues to work with the African Union 

in identifying further areas where NATO could support the African Standby Force. 

NATO’s continuing support to the African Union is a testament to the alliance’s 

commitment to building partnerships and supporting peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts beyond the Euro-Atlantic region. 

Ocean Shield 

Building on previous counterpiracy missions conducted by NATO beginning in 

2008 to protect World Food Program deliveries, Operation Ocean Shield is focusing 

on at-sea counterpiracy operations off the Horn of Africa. Approved in August 2009 

by the North Atlantic Council, the current operation, working with almost 40 ships 

from allies and partners in the context of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast 

of Somalia, continues to contribute to international efforts to combat area piracy. 

This operation challenges normal paradigms, with information-sharing and coordination as the keys to success. These operating forces, from four different task forces 

under different mandates, have had an impact coordinating efforts through NATO’s 

shared awareness and de-confliction efforts. These efforts, along with the commercial shipping industry’s strong encouragement of best management practices, have 

forced changes in the way the pirates operate; they have adapted by moving farther 

out into the Indian Ocean, and we must adapt accordingly. Although piracy in the 

Gulf of Aden has been somewhat reduced, the overall number of hijackings has increased, as have the number of hostages held by the pirates. It is clear that, a 

longer-term strategy to build regional counter-piracy capacity is required, including 

clarification in international law of jurisdiction for pirates apprehended in international waters, as well as responsibility for their trial and incarceration if found 

guilty. This is under discussion among the allies. 


329ful34.eps
585 

national waters, as well as responsibility for their trial and incarceration if found 

guilty. This is under discussion among the allies. 

NATO Special Operations Forces 

The U.S.-led NATO Special Operations Forces (SOF) Coordination Centre was officially rechristened and activated as the NATO Special Operations Headquarters 

in November 2010. The NATO Special Operations Headquarters, projected to be 

fully operational in 2012, has already had a significant impact coordinating, supporting, training, and enabling functions for NATO SOF, and it continues to develop 

Alliance crisis response options. The evolution of this headquarters will better synchronize SOF across the Alliance, enhance NATO SOF unity of effort, and provide 

Allied SOF with a multi-national out-of-area command and control capability. 

The NATO Special Operations Headquarters Communications Network underpins 

allied and partner SOF collaboration by providing an unprecedented vehicle for command, control, communications, and intelligence-sharing for networked operations. 

The Headquarters’ SOF Fusion Cell, in Kabul, Afghanistan, demonstrates this operational impact among allied and partner Special Operations Forces. This stakeholder-run enterprise, manned by 40 personnel from 11 nations and several agencies, focuses on garnering information from a multitude of allied and partner 

sources, and fusing that information with operational requirements to produce and 

disseminate actionable intelligence to ISAF SOF Special Operations Task Groups 

and our Afghan partners. 

The NATO Special Operations Headquarters is building enduring operational capabilities, collaborative policies and procedures, and networked command, control, 

and communications mechanisms among NATO SOF. Collaborative training and exercises reinforce this framework to ensure allied and partner Special Operations 

Forces are interoperable in order to operate more effectively in designated combined 

operations well into the future. 

NATO Noncommissioned Officer Initiatives 

The first ever NATO Noncommissioned Officer Bilateral Strategic Command 

Strategy and Recommended Noncommissioned Officer Guidelines was published in 

October 2010. This first examination of alliance-wide Noncommissioned Officer 

Corps utilization defines critical gaps based on listed assumptions and implications, 

and delivers recommendations on how best to address them. It also outlines desired 

leadership qualities required in a multi-national environment, addresses NATO noncommissioned officer education, and explores the use of Command Senior Enlisted 

Leaders to assist the commander in the professional development of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps in order to better meet the demands of working in the NATO 

Alliance. Additionally, our Command’s Senior Enlisted Leaders have led NATO efVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00591 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful35.eps
586 

forts to assist partner nations with Noncommissioned Officer reform in several countries this year through their involvement with initial assessments. We are working 

to tie these NATO initiatives into EUCOM’s theater campaign plan to assist our 

partners with their Noncommissioned Officer transformation. We believe these efforts will result in the more effective use of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps— 

an essential component to achieving success in a multi-national environment. 

CONCLUSION

The soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians of EUCOM and Allied Command Operations contribute to our national security everyday through their professional engagement with our allies and partners across the European theater. As we 

look forward to continued success, I ask for your continued support of these extraordinary men and women and their families to ensure they receive the care and benefits they deserve. 

Operationally, we will continue to seek and use flexible authorities and funding 

mechanisms to build the capacity of those partner nations willing to contribute to 

current operations. This has become increasingly important because of the surge of 

activities in Afghanistan and the need to get our allies and partners more involved. 

Your continued support for authorities like NDAA Section 1206, Foreign Military Financing, the International Military Education and Training program, and Coalition 

Readiness Support Program has been pivotal in addressing our strategic needs in 

the European theater, not only for partner-nation forces deploying to Afghanistan, 

but for all of our other allies to help build partner capacity. These programs allow 

us to provide them with equipment and training necessary to achieve interoperability with our own forces, and better prepare them to handle the responsibilities 

to which they commit their forces. 

Furthermore, our efforts to fulfill this short-term task of building enduring capability are vital to ensuring the long-term stability and security of Europe. In addition to increasing the contributions of our allies and partners to operations outside 

Europe, building partner capacity allows us to make significant progress toward 

achieving EUCOM’s strategic objectives. For example, we have been able to conduct 

security sector reform assessments in Albania, an interagency effort critical to integrating Balkan countries into the European community. We also have numerous 

programs targeted at countering the proliferation of WMD throughout the theater 

such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. But we cannot stop there. We are also supportive of efforts to pool 

DOS and DOD resources for the purpose of funding more robust, comprehensive security sector assistance programs to respond to emergent challenges and opportunities, as originally proposed by Secretary Gates. This would greatly aid our efforts 

to ensure interoperable, deployable NATO forces. Realizing the vision of the Lisbon 

Summit, a NATO with robust interoperable Article V and expeditionary capabilities 

requires U.S. support with training and equipment for newer NATO allies and partners. With greater flexibility, these authorities can achieve greater strategic goals 

in support of our theater and national objectives. 

EUCOM and Allied Command Operations continue to serve as a transatlantic 

bridge that unites the United States and our partners in Europe. We are building 

and strengthening relations with our European partners that will help ensure the 

security of the United States at home and abroad. As President Barack Obama said 

at the recent NATO Summit, ‘‘Our relationship with our European allies and partners is the cornerstone of our engagement with the world, and a catalyst for global 

cooperation.’’ Indeed, we are truly 


329ful36.eps
587 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Admiral Stavridis. 

General Kehler. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. C. ROBERT KEHLER, USAF, 

COMMANDER, U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND 

General KEHLER. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to present my 

view on STRATCOM’s missions and priorities. As you’ve noted, I’m 

privileged and humbled to appear today for the first time as the 

Commander of STRATCOM. 

I’m also pleased to appear today with Admiral Jim Stavridis, the 

commander of EUCOM and, of course, a great colleague that I’m 

looking forward to getting to know better and work with in the 

coming years. 

No question, Mr. Chairman, today’s national security landscape 

is marked by protracted conflict, constant change, and enormous 

complexity. We’re facing a significantly different operating environment than those we have experienced in the past. 

Of the threats we face, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 

clearly represent the greatest threat to the American people, particularly when they are pursued or possessed by violent extremists 

or state proliferators. To deal with the environment today demands 

faster and more comprehensive awareness, strategic thinking, flexible planning, decentralized execution, rapid innovation, and unprecedented information-sharing. 

STRATCOM’s mission remains clear: to detect, deter, and prevent attacks against the United States and to join with the other 

combatant commands to defend the Nation should deterrence fail. 

STRATCOM’s first priority is to deter nuclear attacks on the 

United States and our allies. As we implement the New START 

treaty, we are committed to maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. We are also the strongest possible advocates 

of the investments that are needed to sustain and modernize the 

nuclear triad and the nuclear weapons complex that underpins it. 

While nuclear deterrence is our number one priority, 

STRATCOM also has broader responsibilities in the 21st century. 

Ongoing operations demand our full commitment as well. In partnership with the other combatant commands, our next priority is 

to improve our plans, procedures, and capabilities to address regional problems, especially where those problems or where the capabilities are to address issues cross regional boundaries. 

On that note, STRATCOM also is a supporting command to 

AFRICOM. You mentioned that we provided B–2s early in the 

Libya operation for AFRICOM’s use. We are also taking steps and 

have taken steps to make sure that they have the space capabiliVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00593 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

329ful37.eps
588 

ties that they need, to make sure that the networks are there and 

operational, have sufficient capacity and are secured, and have also 

provided planners to AFRICOM on a variety of issues that 

STRATCOM had expertise on. 

We are engaged as a supporting command in ongoing operations 

there, as well as our long-term engagement in other regions of the 

world in support of other combatant commanders. Our activities 

primarily in that regard are synchronizing planning and capabilities for things like missile defense, intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and combating WMDs. All of 

these synchronization efforts are helping to bring unity-of-effort to 

regional operations and increased effectiveness to the capabilities 

that we can bring to bear. 

Another one of our priorities is to improve our capabilities and 

operating concepts in the important civil and national security 

areas of space and cyberspace. Space, of course, is increasingly contested, congested, and competitive, and its importance to the 

United States goes far beyond national security. Ensuring uninterrupted access to space, space-based capabilities, improving our 

awareness of objects and activities in space, and enhancing the protection and resilience of our most critical systems are all essential 

objectives. 

Achieving those objectives demands continued investments to improve space situational awareness and to sustain our critical space 

capabilities, while we also pursue increased opportunities with allies and commercial partners. 

Our greatest challenge in cyberspace is to improve our ability to 

operate and defend the DOD network at network speed, to make 

sure our critical activities can continue even in the face of adversarial attempts to deny or disrupt them. STRATCOM and its subunified command U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) are working 

hard to improve our organizations and relationships, enhance our 

network situational awareness and protection, increase our technical capacity, and to develop the human capital we need as we 

look to the future. 

We have much to do, but we also know today’s fiscal environment demands that we must maximize both mission effectiveness 

and taxpayer value. We’ll continue our efforts to identify every possible place where we can become more efficient as we work to become even more effective. 

Finally, we’re committed to taking care of our warriors, our government civilians, and their families. To this end, STRATCOM 

fully supports the efforts of the Services to properly train, equip, 

support, and care for our men and women. We will work diligently 

to ensure that they have a safe and a positive work environment. 

Mr. Chairman, great challenges lie ahead, but so too do great opportunities. The men and women of STRATCOM perform their difficult missions with remarkable skill and dedication every minute 

of every day. I’m proud to be associated with them and look forward to working with you and the committee as we address these 

important national security issues. 

Thank you again for this opportunity and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Kehler follows:] 

589 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. C. ROBERT KEHLER, USAF 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to present my views on U.S. Strategic Command’s (STRATCOM) 

missions and priorities. Today marks my first appearance before you as the Commander of STRATCOM. I have occupied this position for a short time, but I have 

been involved with STRATCOM’s missions for much of my career. I was privileged 

to spend 2 years as the Deputy Commander, and most recently I served as one of 

STRATCOM’s Service component commanders. STRATCOM’s Active Duty, Reserve, 

and civilian members, who are standing watch this very minute at locations across 

the country and around the globe, exemplify the best of today’s joint force. I am 

privileged to lead this remarkable team, and I look forward to working with you to 

assure our Nation’s security. 

America’s strategic forces proudly continue their longstanding role as the foundation of our national security posture. The President of the United States has assigned STRATCOM the responsibility to detect, deter, prevent, and defeat attacks 

against the United States, its territories, possessions and bases, and to employ appropriate force to defend the Nation should deterrence fail. The command’s specific 

mission responsibilities include planning, synchronizing, advocating, and employing 

capabilities to meet the Nation’s strategic deterrence, space operations, cyberspace 

operations, information operations, global strike, missile defense, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and combating weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 

objectives. We conduct these activities in close coordination with other combatant 

commands around the world. Today, I would like to describe the strategic context 

in which we operate and STRATCOM’s priorities for addressing our many challenges. 

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

The national security landscape continues to be marked by protracted conflict, 

constant change, and enormous complexity. While war remains a difficult struggle 

between human beings, today’s operating environment is significantly different than 

those we experienced in the past. The number and type of actors (state, non-state, 

terrorist, criminal) are rapidly changing, and the distinction between combatants 

and noncombatants is less clear. Friend and foe alike can span global distances in 

seconds through space and cyberspace, and technological advances allow adversaries 

to cross traditional geographic and military boundaries with ease. Adversaries seek 

advantages by using asymmetric means to find and exploit our vulnerabilities and 

to defeat our advanced capabilities in air, sea, space, and cyberspace. At the same 

time, these adversaries wield hybrid combinations of capabilities, strategies, and 

tactics and operate in the shadows to present us with ambiguous indications and 

situations. Rapid technological evolution and the wide civil availability of formerly 

advanced military capabilities have also reduced ‘‘entry costs,’’ making available 

completely new weapons and enabling actors to access capabilities that would not 

have been available to them in the past without significant investment. Indeed, surprise may be our deadliest foe, because it can make our plans ineffective, our training irrelevant, and, therefore, our organizations vulnerable. 

The need to foster strategic stability and deter strategic conflict, ensure uninterrupted capabilities from and access to space and cyberspace, respond to traditional 

and non-traditional threats, and deal with surprise in an era of rapid technological 

advances presents STRATCOM with significant challenges. Of the threats we face, 

weapons of mass destruction clearly represent the greatest threat to the American 

people, particularly when pursued or possessed by violent extremists or state 

proliferators. The potential of nuclear uncertainties in unstable regions adds special 

significance to this concern. 

At the same time, today’s fiscal environment will pose additional challenges regarding the means and manner with which we address the difficult global, strategic 

landscape. Last year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates challenged us to foster an 

efficient ‘‘culture of saving’’ throughout the Department of Defense (DOD). The resulting review emphasized our responsibility to maximize both mission effectiveness 

and taxpayer value. STRATCOM’s exhaustive assessment of our missions identified 

some functions that we could reduce, consolidate with other DOD organizations, or 

eliminate in favor of higher priority operational requirements. We are now evaluating these initiatives with the DOD leadership and will realign resources as directed at the conclusion of this assessment. 

In summary, the challenges are great, the choices are hard, and there is no textbook solution. 

590 

PRIORITIES

The 21st century security environment demands fast, comprehensive awareness, 

strategic thinking, flexible planning, decentralized execution, rapid innovation, and 

an unprecedented emphasis on sharing information. In this environment, 

STRATCOM has been uniquely organized and positioned to shape and employ global 

capabilities to deter, enable, and, when needed, join with the other combatant commands to fight and win the ever changing joint fight. 

First and foremost, we must guarantee a safe, secure, effective, and ready nuclear 

deterrent force. As affirmed by the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), sustaining 

and modernizing the nuclear weapons complex, the triad of nuclear forces, the 

human capital, and key supporting command, control, and communications (C3) and 

ISR capabilities is essential to retain confidence in the deterrent’s long-term credibility, provide tools to combat proliferation, and assure our scientific and innovation 

edge. 

Next, in full partnership with the other combatant commands, we must improve 

our plans, procedures, and capabilities to address transregional problems. Ongoing 

operations demand our full commitment, and STRATCOM’s activities both enable 

and support joint operations around the world. The command’s work to synchronize 

and advocate for missile defense, ISR, electronic warfare, and combating WMD 

plans and capabilities helps bring unity of effort and flexible capabilities to transregional operations. Whether providing space-based communications or position, 

navigation, and timing information, rapidly transmitting data around the world, or 

ensuring tested, capable missile defenses or other globally significant capabilities 

are developed, positioned, and optimally managed, STRATCOM is instrumental in 

winning today’s dynamic joint fight. 

Finally, we must continue to improve our capabilities and operating concepts in 

the important civil and national security areas of space and cyberspace. Ensuring 

uninterrupted access to space and space-based capabilities, improving our awareness of objects and activities in space, integrating their effects with all operational 

phases, improving space access, protection, and resilience, and expanding our planning and implementation for partnership operations requires that we continue our 

investment and that we demand acquisition results. For cyberspace, we must enhance network protection and mature our organizations, capabilities, workforce, and 

partnerships to ensure effective operations. 

STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

In today’s complex security environment, the concept of strategic deterrence must 

encompass strategies to deter adversaries and dissuade competitors across the full 

range of their capabilities. We must consider actors and capabilities in aggregate, 

not in a vacuum, a need that highlights the importance of a better understanding 

of adversaries’ values, motivators, capabilities, intentions, and decisionmaking processes. Not every potential adversary has or seeks nuclear weapons, and modern deterrence requires broad coordination, tailored strategies, effective capabilities, international cooperation, and focused capabilities like conventional prompt global strike 

(PGS). 

Still, STRATCOM’s first priority is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, 

our allies, and our partners. Last year, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the 

NPR, and the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) discussions produced 

an important national consensus that affirmed the necessity of the United States’ 

nuclear deterrent and the funding required to sustain it. The President has pledged 

that the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent 

as long as nuclear weapons exist. STRATCOM is now committed to implementing 

the New START treaty and to advocating for planned investment in the deterrent 

force. The updated ‘‘1251 Report’’ submitted in February of this year outlines both 

DOD and Department of Energy nuclear funding requirements through fiscal year 

2021. While budget estimates will be refined as major program baselines evolve, 

these important investments must begin immediately. Congress approved the first 

of these increases for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in initial fiscal year 2011 continuing resolutions, and I strongly urge full funding in fiscal 

years 2011 and 2012. 

Nuclear Enterprise 

The fiscal year 2011 and 2012 budget requests reverse several years of downward 

trend in nuclear enterprise funding. These budgets provide investments in the facilities, equipment, and personnel dedicated to sustaining and managing the Nation’s 

nuclear weapons, as well as to dismantling weapons no longer needed. To emphasize 

the importance of this investment and to better understand the conditions, urgent 

591 

needs, and impending challenges across the complex, I plan to visit each lab and 

production facility during my first 60 to 90 days in command. 

The men and women of America’s nuclear weapons complex perform uniquely difficult, highly technical, and demanding work. As our stockpile ages well beyond each 

weapon’s originally designed lifespan, robust stockpile surveillance and assessment 

programs will enable strategic deterrence and stability at the New START treaty 

force levels. Weapon safety, reliability, and performance may change in ways we 

cannot fully predict, and surveillance activities permit confidence and continued 

stockpile certification without nuclear testing. Dedicated surveillance and life extension studies constitute the best means of informing the President and Congress of 

our nuclear weapons’ health, status, and requirements. The NPR’s case-by-case approach to studying and selecting from the full range of life extension options (refurbishment, reuse, and, if needed, replacement) ensures the best future for our stockpile. 

Today, a narrow window is available to synchronize weapon sustainment efforts 

for the W76–1 and B61 (full scope) life extension activities—cost-effectively introducing improved safety and security features, avoiding a second B61 nuclear refurbishment in the 2020s, and potentially reducing the stockpile by consolidating four 

legacy B61 variants into a single weapon. In addition, a Nuclear Weapons Council 

study of W78 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and W88 submarine launched 

ballistic missile (SLBM) life extension program options will examine opportunities 

to use modular fuze components and develop a possible common warhead, potentially reducing costs and supporting long-term capability sustainment. These and future actions that evaluate ways to reduce warhead numbers and types through 

stockpile commonality and flexibility offer the opportunity to continue accomplishing 

our strategic deterrence mission while also achieving the goal of a smaller, more efficient stockpile. 

Strategic Delivery Vehicles 

The NPR also affirmed the continuing need for the nuclear triad, which provides 

the President with multiple options for a variety of scenarios. The value of the triad 

lies in its flexibility and responsiveness to the changing world environment and in 

its ability to hedge against technical failure, geopolitical change, or a breakthrough 

in another nation’s capabilities. America’s strategic forces require continued investment to ensure their future capability, and STRATCOM is actively engaged with 

our Service partners to define and advocate for necessary nuclear force modernization and recapitalization programs. 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles 

The widely dispersed and responsive Minuteman III ICBM force provides high 

readiness, low operating costs, and sovereign basing with multiple aim points that 

complicate adversary targeting. The Air Force is successfully concluding decade-long 

efforts to enhance safety and security and to sustain the Minuteman force through 

2020. The Air Force is also evaluating requirements to sustain the force through 

2030. STRATCOM supports these programs and is working with the Air Force on 

a capabilities based assessment and pre-analysis of alternatives (AoA) activities that 

begin to define options for a follow-on land-based strategic deterrent beyond 2030. 

SLBMs 

Ohio-class ballistic missle submarines (SSBNs) provide an assured and highly 

survivable response capability, and the highly accurate Trident II D5 strategic 

weapon system continues to exceed the demanding operational reliability standards 

established almost 30 years ago. By the time they begin to retire in 2027, the Ohioclass SSBNs will have served for more than 40 years. The Navy completed an Ohioclass follow on platform AoA and, with STRATCOM, continues to refine specific replacement requirements. STRATCOM fully supports Navy efforts to maintain the 

current fleet, fund the necessary research and development for its replacement, and 

sustain the Trident II D5 ballistic missile and associated infrastructure to satisfy 

future deterrent requirements. For example, current infrastructure at Naval Base 

Kitsap-Bangor, WA, lacks sufficient Explosive Handling Wharf (EHW) capacity to 

meet growing missile handling requirements. A second Pacific EHW wharf at Naval 

Base Kitsap-Bangor, WA is essential to long-term SSBN readiness. 

Bombers 

America’s B–2s and B–52s ensure that the President has visible and flexible conventional and nuclear global strike and deterrence options. Affirming their critical 

deterrent role, the nuclear-capable bomber force transitioned to STRATCOM’s dayto-day operational control in 2010. STRATCOM now has a far stronger voice in balancing this unique, dual-capable nuclear and conventional bomber force’s day-to-day 

592 

readiness, training, and operational employment. While the Air Force continues to 

sustain mission-critical systems, it will also soon begin developing a new long-range, 

dual-capable penetrating bomber. Coupled with the development of a new bomber, 

two additional capabilities will ensure the viability of the air-breathing leg of the 

Triad for decades to come. Air Force investments will sustain the Air Launched 

Cruise Missile through 2030 (or until a suitable replacement is fielded), ensuring 

standoff capability for the long term. Further, the bomber force must be supported 

by a fleet of new aerial refueling tankers to extend their range and assure the 

bombers’ strategic and extended deterrence roles. STRATCOM supports Air Force 

progress toward ensuring the long term health of the airborne component of our 

strategic capability. 

Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications 

A reliable, assured C3 capability from the President to the nuclear forces is fundamental to an effective strategic deterrent. National leaders, commanders, ISR assets, and strategic forces must share assured linkages to confidently understand and 

effectively address nuclear mission demands. Current systems require investments 

to ensure reliability and address looming capability gaps in our National Leadership 

Command Capability. 

A new Strategic Command and Control Complex and Nuclear C3 node at Offutt 

Air Force Base, Ne, is at the center of our nuclear C3 plans. The fiscal year 2012 

budget seeks a first increment of $150 million to begin replacing the aging and fragile Curtis E. LeMay building and colocated facilities. Today’s building, command 

center, and computer systems took shape long before the IT revolution and now lack 

the capacity to support current mission demands. The buildings’ systems strain to 

support numerous computer and communication systems, and the spaces occasionally experience serious heating and cooling problems, electrical failures, and other 

outages. For example, in December 2010 and January 2011, two water pipe ruptures 

caused significant system outages and dislocated staff for several days, although the 

Command remained capable of performing its missions due to extraordinary 

workarounds and the remarkable efforts of the dedicated staff and a small army of 

outside emergency help. 

Prior to defining the current requirement, STRATCOM—in consultation with the 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Air Force—evaluated sustaining the status quo, 

renovating the existing facility, or engaging in new construction. The evaluation 

concluded that new construction offered the most operationally efficient solution to 

support STRATCOM’s missions, operations, and nuclear C3 needs. The new facility 

will ensure an electro-magnetic pulse-protected, flexible, sustainable, reliable, and 

collaborative environment with an infrastructure that meets the security challenges 

of today and tomorrow. 

Conventional Prompt Global Strike 

A limited, credible, conventional PGS capability would provide the President with 

an important deterrent option in some strategic scenarios. Today, we still lack the 

ability to rapidly deliver conventional effects against fleeting or geographically isolated targets, allowing a potential adversary to establish a sanctuary using mobility 

and strategic depth. Research, development, test, and evaluation projects continue 

making progress, and I ask you to continue supporting these PGS efforts. 

International Engagement 

Deterring and dissuading nuclear threats in today’s national security environment 

also requires careful attention to international relationships. While the specter of 

global nuclear war may be more remote than decades ago, the possibility for miscalculation between nuclear-armed states remains a perilous threat to global security. As noted in the NPR, ‘‘Enduring alliances and broad-based political relationships are the foundation of strategic stability and security.’’ Indeed, many nucleararmed states are important partners in combating proliferation. New START lowers 

the maximum number of U.S. and Russian strategic offensive arms, restores an important, confidence-building verification regime, and provides opportunities to continue military-to-military engagement. China’s willingness to consider and study 

Secretary Gates’ proposal for a strategic security dialogue represents an important 

avenue for growth between our two militaries in this area as well. STRATCOM will 

continue to support DOD, Department of State, and geographic combatant command 

activities to develop stable and cooperative relations with other responsible nuclear 

powers and will be prepared to provide advice on other arms control measures that 

could encompass a greater range of weapons. 

593 

SPACE

Throughout the 20th century, the United States and other countries developed 

and exploited the space domain’s extraordinary potential, including changing how 

we navigate, communicate, and understand our world. However, the domain is increasingly congested, contested, and competitive. Guaranteeing mission assurance 

through adequate Space Situational Awareness (SSA), resilience, and critical-asset 

protection is essential. The new National Space Policy, signed by the President, and 

the National Security Space Strategy (NSSS), co-signed by the Secretary of Defense 

and Director of National Intelligence, emphasize the need to continue developing resilient capabilities which will improve our ability to satisfy combatant commanders’ 

requirements for uninterrupted ISR, expanded military satellite communications, 

and position, navigation, and training support. Implementing the NSSS will position 

the national security space enterprise to shape and strengthen the space domain’s 

safety, stability, and security; to maintain and enhance U.S. advantages in space; 

to energize the U.S. industrial base by engaging a broad range of partners; to prevent and deter aggression; and to improve sustainability, acquisition, and flexibility 

of U.S. space capabilities. 

Situational Awareness 

SSA is central to mission assurance and increasingly important. As part of its 

SSA mission, STRATCOM now tracks more than 22,000 orbiting objects. Approximately 1,100 of these objects are active satellites, but the remaining debris litter 

a variety of orbits and threatens both critical systems and human spaceflight. While 

space surveillance is improving, we do not yet have robust, assured, and real-time 

situational awareness of the orbital domain. Current and future investments should 

expand data integration, sharing, and exploitation; improve object detection, identification, and tracking; and advance our ability to characterize potential collisions 

(conjunctions). Notably, the proposed Space Fence promises to expand detection capacity more than tenfold from just two or three locations outside the continental 

United States and to construct a more comprehensive orbital picture. Increasing the 

number of objects tracked will be largely useless, however, without corresponding 

improvements in data integration and exploitation technologies. As part of its SSA 

mission, the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) must also be prepared to identify and attribute purposeful space system interference and provide timely recommendations to address the interference. Without SSA of the orbital domain, link 

segment, and supporting ground infrastructure, any plans for resilience, mission assurance, augmentation, and reconstitution will have a weak underpinning. 

STRATCOM fully supports funding for both the JSpOC Mission System and planning and design work for a modern JSpOC facility that will facilitate a generational 

leap from static displays to automated, real-time visual conjunction analyses—improving our ability to protect critical space-based assets and maintain our free access to and use of space. In addition, technology will soon allow us to link multiple 

sensors together in a single network that will meet the needs of many users. 

Cooperation 

As a global domain, space and space-based capabilities operate irrespective of geographic or military boundaries. As more nations join the space-faring ranks each 

year and the number of objects in earth orbit grows, the need to establish norms 

of behavior and to improve the cooperation and collaboration among responsible 

space users grows as well. Our objective is to sustain a safe, stable, and secure 

space domain while maintaining the national security advantages space systems 

provide. U.S. efforts to share SSA data represent an important step toward greater 

international space cooperation, which should eventually help to integrate sensors 

and data from allies and partners worldwide and ultimately move towards a combined space operations center. 

Today, the STRATCOM SSA sharing community includes more than 41,000 users 

in 141 countries. Our efforts promote the safe and responsible use of space by providing satellite operators with highly accurate predictions of close approaches between space objects for every satellite operator. Since the Secretary of Defense delegated his authority to enter into agreements with commercial entities to the 

STRATCOM commander last September, we have concluded 19 agreements and are 

processing others. Each partner and each agreement signifies an operational relationship that can yield important exchanges, perhaps someday leading to a broad, 

international partnership for SSA. STRATCOM fully supports expanded planning 

and implementation for space partnership operations among allies, coalition partners, and commercial interests and will work with our partners in the DOD and 

elsewhere to help review proposals to establish normalized behavior. 

594 

Space-Based Capabilities 

Enabling better situational awareness will improve the overall U.S. space posture; 

however, long-term, uninterrupted capability from space requires equal dedication 

to protection, resilience, augmentation, and reconstitution of assets in space, supported by timely design and development, cost-effective acquisition, and high-confidence space launch. Today’s operating forces rely on space capabilities throughout 

the kill chain and beyond. Putting already stressed space capabilities that allow the 

joint force to navigate, communicate, see the battlefield, and strike under all conditions in the kill chain places those same valuable capabilities on any potential adversary’s target list. STRATCOM fully supports DOD efforts to improve resilience 

and increase the protection of key space assets. 

Launch 

Reliable space capabilities also require an assured ride to orbit. Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles are the DOD’s primary launch vehicles and the sole U.S. vehicles for much of the national security manifest. STRATCOM supports further Air 

Force investments in this and other programs that will assure our access to space. 

Additionally, improvements in manifest and scheduling processes and investments 

designed to sustain and ensure national launch facilities’ availability for future demand will maximize synergies between launch management and national priorities. 

Industrial Base Concerns 

Beneath our national security space requirements lies the need for a stable, responsive, and innovative national industrial base. Since the space age began, we 

have rarely been so reliant on so few industrial suppliers. Many struggle to remain 

competitive as demand for highly specialized components and existing export controls reduce their customers to a niche government market. Careful interagency 

planning that more tightly defines and oversees requirements, supported by stable 

budgets and production rates will help sustain a national industrial base essential 

to commercial users, military space, and the strategic deterrent. The retirement of 

the Space Shuttle and other changes at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also injected significant concern into the solid rocket motor industrial base—an industry we cannot afford to lose. Substantial weakening of this capability would impede current strategic system sustainment and follow-on development. While industry adjustments are inevitable, DOD is developing a plan in consultation with NASA to sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base to ensure we 

retain right-sized, cost-efficient, and viable design, development, and production capabilities. STRATCOM supports these important DOD efforts to improve program 

stability, increase the quantity and quality of the acquisition workforce, strengthen 

clarity and articulation in the requirements process, and stimulate scientific and 

technological advancements. 

CYBERSPACE

Last fall in Foreign Affairs, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn noted that, 

‘‘Every day, U.S. military and civilian networks are probed thousands of times and 

scanned millions of times.’’ Like space, cyberspace capabilities have rapidly become 

critical but also increasingly vulnerable. Cyberspace’s pervasive presence, high importance, difficulty of attribution, and low cost of entry highlight some of our challenges. Combined with a growing, global reliance on cyberspace and its hosted capabilities, this constant evolution challenges mission assurance efforts—particularly as 

the threat moves from exploitation to disruption. Ensuring reliable, sustainable networks, freedom of access, and freedom of maneuver is not just a DOD problem. This 

is a national security problem. Assuring access demands sustained, resilient, and 

flexible approaches to maturing our defense capabilities, our capacity, and our cooperative relationships within and beyond the U.S. Government. 

Capabilities 

The most important asset any commander can have is robust, up-to-date situational awareness. Cyberspace is dynamic, and specific threats require specific countermeasures. The Maginot Line failed because it was static and the defense failed 

to anticipate and address technological and tactical changes. After the fact, detection and attribution don’t work in cyberspace today either. The offense always has 

a strong advantage, overwhelming, subverting, or defeating static defenses. Continued advances in system and organization teamwork, coupled with the development 

and deployment of information-based capabilities and intelligence-driven sensors 

that ‘‘see’’ intrusions and can respond at equivalent speed is essential. Driven by 

strong, capable organizations, dynamic, agile, and informed capabilities that comVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00600 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
595 

prehend the network and mitigate threats at the boundary will significantly 

strengthen defense of DOD networks. 

In response to the growing threat, last year the DOD established U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) at Fort Meade, MD as a sub-unified command to STRATCOM. 

STRATCOM delegated responsibilities to CYBERCOM to coordinate, plan, synchronize, and execute cyberspace operations in order to better defend DOD networks 

and to support other combatant commanders. We must accelerate the acquisition of 

comprehensive, shared cyber awareness tools to expand opportunities to secure critical information, reduce points of vulnerability, and develop responses to ensure 

warfighter access to essential information systems. 

Capacity 

Today, operators at CYBERCOM and its subordinate Service components work to 

defend against and attribute numerous information network intrusion attempts. The 

cyber workforce is growing, but our organizations and capabilities must also grow 

to keep pace with ongoing operations. STRATCOM is working with CYBERCOM to 

improve the cyber awareness of every DOD member with access to an information 

system, strengthen organizations, resolve roles/responsibilities, expand partnerships, 

build technological and human capacity for full-spectrum cyberspace operations, and 

integrate cyber capabilities into every commander’s plans and operations. Recruiting 

adequately trained and equipped cyber warriors is challenging, but fortunately 

young Americans grow up learning and adapting to new technological platforms 

from a young age. Service cyber career paths are still being developed, and these 

critical, technical skills need both time to develop and sustained investment to prevent their atrophy. Sustained force development emphasis and investment is essential. The United States is also home to the world’s premier educational and commercial information technology entities. We must continue to capitalize on this capacity 

and partner with these organizations on our requirements and to spur domestic 

math and science interest. Doing so will help develop, expand, and sustain a base 

of cyber expertise and adapt DOD personnel processes to attract, develop, and retain 

the cyber professionals necessary to protect critical DOD infrastructure and preserve U.S. freedom of action in cyberspace. 

Cooperation 

Cyber defense must include a wide range of partners. After all, this is truly a national security issue, making interagency and allied partner engagement and information sharing essential to a robust defense. Military operations depend on the 

broader U.S. information technology infrastructure, and defending military networks will net fewer benefits if the wider civilian infrastructure remains at much 

greater risk. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is ultimately responsible 

for coordinating the protection of the ‘‘.gov’’ and domestic ‘‘.com’’ domains, but DOD 

has much to offer in terms of intelligence and technical support. The DOD-DHS 

Memorandum of Understanding signed last fall lays important groundwork for enhanced cooperation, mutual support, and synchronized operations. 

WINNING TODAY’S FIGHT

In strategic deterrence, space, and cyberspace, STRATCOM both operates forces 

and supports the full range of military operations. The broad scope of our responsibilities and trans-regional capabilities is clearly woven into the fabric of today’s 

operations. Winning the fight, whether we are either a supported command or are 

supporting the geographic combatant commands, is something our team strives to 

do each and every day. However, STRATCOM also has responsibilities to integrate, 

synchronize, and advocate for other capabilities with trans-regional impact, and we 

are dedicated to partnering with other combatant commands to improve the 

warfighting effectiveness of these capabilities. 

Information Operations 

Consistent with our mission to improve strategic joint capabilities, STRATCOM 

participated in a 2010 Secretary of Defense directed strategic communication and 

Information Operations Front-End Assessment, designed to evaluate and recommend improvements for DOD roles, missions, definition, management, and resources for strategic communication and information operations. As a result of the 

assessment, STRATCOM will reorganize the Joint Information Operations Warfare 

Center (JIOWC) at Lackland Air Force Base, TX. Existing JIOWC resources and 

missions not specific to electronic warfare will be realigned to the Joint Staff, and 

STRATCOM will remain the DOD lead for electronic warfare. 

596 

Electronic warfare 

The electromagnetic spectrum spans almost every modern technological convenience. While operational plans normally assume unfettered spectrum access, this assumption is not assured. Changing industry standards, global growth of civilian devices, military bandwidth requirements, and disruptive or destructive adversary 

electronic warfare capabilities all threaten to pinch or sever the shrinking electromagnetic links between national security platforms and the operating forces that 

rely on them. 

Recognizing future threats, potential limitations, urgent warfighter needs, and the 

need for unified DOD advocacy, JIOWC completed several Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) tasks to examine capability gaps and solutions for emerging 

electromagnetic spectrum threats. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required DOD to develop an electronic warfare strategy, submitted 

to Congress last year. That electronic warfare strategy concluded that we must 

move beyond the traditional understanding of electronic warfare by combining it 

with other kinetic or non-kinetic capabilities to increase U.S. combat effectiveness 

and achieve electromagnetic spectrum superiority. STRATCOM is planning to establish a Joint Electronic Warfare Center to advocate for and support DOD Joint electronic warfare capability requirements, resources, strategy, doctrine, planning, 

training, and operational support. 

Missile Defense 

The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) exists to meet combatant commands’ theater defense needs and to provide for the limited defense of the United 

States. Working with geographic combatant commands and the Missile Defense 

Agency, our efforts focus on building tailored, regional missile defense architectures 

using the concept of a Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) and on meeting urgent 

warfighter capability needs. STRATCOM’s work provides a comprehensive assessment of the fielded BMDS’s suitability and effectiveness and combines warfighter 

needs for air, cruise missile, and ballistic missile defense capabilities to inform programmatic actions and guide future R&D investment priorities. 

At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies affirmed 

the PAA for missile defense as a means to address the continued qualitative and 

quantitative growth of global ballistic missile programs. The Allies also invited the 

Russian Federation to participate in missile defense cooperation. As a strategy, PAA 

applies to several geographic combatant commands, and STRATCOM’s current challenge is to make sound, analytically-based recommendations to balance limited 

BMD assets worldwide. The European PAA’s four phases of increasing capability 

are designed to defend against existing and near-term threats posed by short- and 

medium-range ballistic missiles and to build up defenses against long-range ballistic 

threats over time as those threats mature. As stated during the New START treaty 

debate, the United States will not agree to any ballistic missile defense limitations 

or constraints and indeed intends to continue developing and deploying systems consistent with U.S. interests. The U.S. missile defense program is not designed to 

counter the strategic forces of Russia or China, but rather to address limited ballistic missile threats such as those posed by Iran and North Korea. 

As various regional PAAs develop, STRATCOM will continually re-evaluate the 

standing Global Integrated Missile Defense Concept of Operations and other acquisition, deployment, basing, and employment plans for missile defense capabilities 

between and across all areas of responsibility. Our analysis will ensure that the 

joint warfighters’ requirements receive deliberate management and readiness structures to ensure timely, flexible deployment, employment and redeployment of tested, 

understood BMD capabilities during and after crises. Consistent with the Ballistic 

Missile Defense Review, new advancements and allied technologies must be made 

interoperable with existing systems, including required improvements in discrimination capabilities essential to the efficient employment of limited missile defense resources. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

Timely, useable situational awareness and intelligence analysis is essential to all 

military operations. Airborne, submarine, and space-based ISR capabilities all provide key indications and warning information to commanders facing an array of traditional adversaries, non-traditional threats, and challenging intelligence problems. 

For the past decade, ISR efforts focused primarily on meeting the expanding demand in the CENTCOM area of responsibility. As overseas contingency operations 

change, DOD must carefully examine force requirements to ensure we organize, 

train, and equip a balanced force across the range of requirements, including antiaccess environments and the New START treaty verification. An objective, multiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00602 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
597 

domain, capabilities-based architecture that improves the ability to identify requirements across geographic boundaries and the range of potential threats is essential 

to appropriately balancing risk against necessary programmatic, budgetary, and acquisition decision points. 

STRATCOM’s ISR efforts achieved significant resource efficiencies and shaped 

ISR capability decisions through initiatives like the ISR Force Sizing Construct 

project, the High Altitude Transition study, the Synoptic Operational Area Reconnaissance Study, and the Mobile Nuclear Air Sampling Study. STRATCOM also successfully advocated for a critical CENTCOM ISR capability—designed and executed 

in approximately 30 months and at a lower cost than traditional acquisition processes. The Services and Intelligence Community must continue to strive for better 

integration in order to reach greater efficiencies—not only for the collection platforms themselves but also across the still-limited processing, exploitation, and dissemination architecture needed to transform collections into actionable intelligence. 

Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Another mission area requiring sustained attention is combating WMD, since the 

pursuit of WMD by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states remains the primary threat to the United States, our allies, and our partners. 

STRATCOM received the responsibility to synchronize DOD combating WMD activities in 2005 and has made discouraging, detecting, deterring, and, if necessary, defeating these threats a priority for theater operations and strategic deterrence. Some 

actors seek nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons to coerce their neighbors or to 

deter U.S. intervention in regional conflicts. Others may seek such weapons to use 

them in terrorist attacks or as weapons of war. Diffuse networks of non-state entities, secretive state sponsors, shell corporations, and terrorist-financed transactions 

challenge our intelligence organizations to develop comprehensive, accurate, and actionable assessments that enable global combating WMD. STRATCOM continues to 

pursue further national combating WMD capability improvements with interagency 

partners to coordinate combating WMD objectives, plans, and activities. 

Among current and future combating WMD enhancements are technological improvements to detect, analyze, and assess WMD developments. The 2010 QDR affirmed the need to enhance National Technical Nuclear Forensics capabilities to increase nuclear threat attribution and to deter those considering nuclear weapons 

transfer or use. In the past year, the STRATCOM Center for combating WMD (SCC 

WMD) embedded Proliferation Security Initiative activities within U.S. Africa Command, CENTCOM, and U.S. Southern Command exercises and supported planning 

and funding efforts to expand exercise participation and training synchronization 

across geographic combatant commands. Finally, SCC WMD collaboratively operates 

the Interagency Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Database of Responsibilities, Authorities, and Capabilities (INDRAC) System with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. INDRAC provides a strategic level information reference resource 

to inform combating WMD operations, planning, advocacy, training, and exercises 

across the government. 

In the 2010 QDR, the Secretary of Defense directed DOD to establish a Joint Task 

Force Elimination Headquarters to ‘‘better plan, train, and execute WMD-elimination operations . . . with increased nuclear disablement, exploitation, intelligence, 

and coordination capabilities.’’ Last December, Secretary Gates tasked STRATCOM 

to execute this task and stand up a Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination of WMD with ‘‘standing exploitation and intelligence cells in order to plan, 

train for, and execute global WMD elimination operations.’’ STRATCOM is currently 

analyzing the requirements necessary to implement the Secretary’s direction. 

CONCLUSION

Great challenges lie ahead of the United States and STRATCOM, but so too do 

great opportunities. The command is dedicated to being an effective steward of taxpayer resources while maintaining a strategic force structure ready and able to 

deter aggression, preserve U.S. freedom of action, and defeat adversaries when necessary. The uncertainty inherent in today’s complex, multi-domain security environment requires that we summon our best efforts to develop and deploy the plans, systems, and forces needed to sustain America’s deterrent, ensure unfettered access to 

and through space and cyberspace, and win the dynamic joint fight. I look forward 

to working with Congress as we pursue these priorities together, and I appreciate 

your support and counsel in the months and years ahead. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to be here today. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Let’s say a first round of 7 minutes for questioning. 

598 

Admiral, let me start with you. Do you agree that it was important to secure international support and participation, including a 

U.N. resolution and support by Muslim countries, before commencing military operations against Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Senator, any time the United States can operate in a coalition environment is to our advantage. Afghanistan 

is a good example, with 49 partner nations. I would agree with 

that. 

Chairman LEVIN. From a military perspective, what difference 

does it make to have that international support in place? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It makes a very significant difference in a 

wide variety of ways. Let me name three. One is the simple addition of resources. Taking Afghanistan as an example, as I mentioned earlier, 45,000 non-U.S. troops are there, and 98,000 U.S 

troops. Which are significant resource contributions. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is that true in Libya as well? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It certainly is. In Libya, for example, and you 

mentioned in your opening statement, today there are roughly 40 

ships operating in general support of that operation. Only about 12 

of those are U.S. ships. That addition of resources is first and very 

primary. 

Second, you get the exchange of ideas. When we have 28 NATO 

nations and Arab nations coming together, both in Afghanistan and 

in Libya today, we have different views of looking at things. That 

can at times create friction, but I would argue over time it creates 

better ideas, because not one of us is as smart as all of us thinking 

and working together. 

Third, I would say access. To do an operation like Libya or Afghanistan requires overcoming the tyranny of distance and geography. We do that best with allies, because international air space 

and the high seas aren’t everywhere. 

Those would be three things I would say off the top of my head. 

Chairman LEVIN. As to the decisionmaking process that lies 

ahead of us, what will happen if Qadhafi’s forces appear to truly 

stop fighting? Who would make the decision as to whether or not 

that was real and then what the response should be? Is that a military decision in the field? Is that a political decision by NAC? Who 

makes that decision? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, it would begin in the field with an onthe-ground assessment. Of course, as we can appreciate, in the last 

5 weeks of this operation I’ve heard personally at least five different ceasefires announced by Qadhafi’s forces, none of which have 

been true. It would have to begin with an on-the-ground assessment. 

It would be backed up by higher level intelligence assessments. 

That data would then be flowed into the joint task force commander for NATO, Canadian General, Lieutenant General, Charlie 

Bouchard. He’s headquartered at Naples. It would be assessed 

there in an operational context, moved up to my headquarters in 

Mons, Belgium, where the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers 

Europe (SHAPE) is located, and we would put a strategy view on 

it. 

599 

Mr. Chairman, it would then go to the NAC to be evaluated for 

whether there would be a shift in direction which would be given 

to us. 

Chairman LEVIN. If the evaluation was that it was a real stoppage of war by Qadhafi against his own people, what’s the effect 

of that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. There would be another level that this discussion would have to go to, which would be the U.N., since the authority for NATO to participate in this operation is under the U.N. 

Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. 

Taking your hypothetical question, if there was an assessment by 

NATO that conditions had changed on the ground, then there 

would be, depending on the situation, a pause in activity while it 

was evaluated at a political level as to further steps to take. 

Chairman LEVIN. In terms of arming the opposition forces, is 

there a consensus within NATO or the NAC as to whether to arm 

the opposition forces, have you made a recommendation or have 

you received one from General Bouchard? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I have not made or received such a recommendation. Of course, we’re at very early days at this point. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you have any recommendation on that at 

this point? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do not at this point. 

Chairman LEVIN. Has NATO, or the NATO representative, engaged with the Libyan opposition forces? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. To my knowledge, there is not a NATO representative on the ground in Libya at this time. 

Chairman LEVIN. Shifting to Afghanistan, Admiral, do you continue to support the beginning of reductions of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by July of this year? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. General Petraeus is evaluating that now and 

I’m awaiting his recommendations. 

Chairman LEVIN. I believe in the past you’ve indicated that you 

do support the President’s decision to begin the reductions in July, 

with the pace of those reductions to be determined by conditions 

on the ground? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Conditions-based, I agree. 

Chairman LEVIN. In terms of the pace of reductions. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is that still your position? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. During the committee’s hearing on February 

17, Admiral Mullen said the decision to begin reductions of U.S. 

troops in July of this year has given the Afghan leadership a sense 

of urgency that they didn’t have before that decision was made. Do 

you agree with Admiral Mullen? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do. I would add that it has also energized 

their efforts in training the ANSF, which is central to whether or 

not we will be able to begin those reductions. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you support increasing the end strength 

targets for the Afghan Army and Police up to an additional 70,000 

personnel by the end of 2012? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I believe that additional ANSF will be necessary over time. I have not done the specific analysis of number 

600 

or timeline, but I believe our current target of 305,000 would probably be better served in the long-term to have an increase in that 

number, yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. You made reference to the radar deployment in 

Europe this year. You’ve indicated that there’s some progress being 

made, I believe, by that deployment. There’s been some suggestion 

from Secretary Gates, who was recently in Moscow, that there’s a 

possibility of a missile defense cooperation with Russia. President 

Obama and President Medvedev have discussed that as well by 

phone, apparently, and the White House statement was that President Obama affirmed why the U.S. believes that cooperation with 

Russia on missile defense could enhance the security of the U.S., 

Russia, our allies, and our partners. 

As the combatant commander responsible for working with Russia through EUCOM and through NATO, do you agree that a missile defense cooperation with Russia, if done properly, could be in 

our interests? Do you believe it’s possible that we could agree on 

cooperative measures with Russia? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir, it’s possible. Several steps would 

have to occur for us to get to that point, beginning with getting our 

own security deployed, settled, and in place. Then that would have 

to be connected with a NATO system, because it’s very important 

as we approach a missile defense relationship with Russia that it 

be done in a NATO-Russia context. The next step would be connecting the missile defense through the Active Layered Theater 

Ballistic Missile Defense and the Air Command and Control System. 

Third, at that point you would have the possibility, as you mentioned, of finding a zone of cooperation that could provide a missile 

defense cooperation between the United States, in a NATO context, 

and Russia. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Admiral. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, do you agree that when the no-fly zone was implemented Qadhafi was basically in the suburbs or on the outskirts 

of Benghazi and, as the President stated, there would have been 

a massacre of very large proportions? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. Everything about Colonel Qadhafi’s 

history would tell us that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you agree that if we had imposed a nofly zone 3 weeks earlier, when the momentum was on the side of 

the anti-Qadhafi forces, that it’s very likely that Qadhafi would 

have fallen then? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It’s hard to say if Qadhafi would have fallen 

then or not. 

Senator MCCAIN. Isn’t it very clear that the use of air power and 

armor is what reversed the tide against the anti-Qadhafi rebels? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. At least in the view of some of us, an opportunity was passed up by not invoking a no-fly zone 3 weeks ago, 

which would have then prevented Qadhafi from using his superior 

armor and air power to drive the rebels all the way back to 

Benghazi. There’s an upside and a downside to seeking coalitions. 

601 

There is an argument to it that you should act in warfare when 

the opportunities present themselves. 

Do you agree that air power is decisive in this conflict on the side 

of the anti-Qadhafi forces? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It has been thus far. 

Senator MCCAIN. The U.N. resolution, as I understand it, says 

we should take all necessary measures to prevent humanitarian 

disasters to befall the Libyan people, right? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Lieutenant Bouchard just said that the goals of 

the air campaign remain the same, and I quote him: ‘‘to protect 

and help the civilians in population centers under the threat of attack.’’ Do you agree with General Bouchard’s statement? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Does that mean that ‘‘protect and helping the 

civilian population centers’’ goes all the way to Tripoli? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Any time there is a threat to the population 

of Libya we have sufficient rules of engagement to strike against 

forces that are demonstrating hostile acts or hostile intent against 

them. 

Senator MCCAIN. There is hostile intent taking place in the city 

of Tripoli, wouldn’t you agree, in suppression of anti-Qadhafi 

forces? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Any Qadhafi forces that are demonstrating 

hostile intent against the Libyan population are legitimate targets. 

Senator MCCAIN. Basically what’s happening here is we’re saying 

that we won’t overthrow Qadhafi by force, but in the interest of 

protecting and helping the civilians and population centers under 

the threat of attack we are moving rapidly to the west. 

The media is reporting that we are employing AC–130s and A– 

10s to provide more targeted close-in protection for civilians? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That is correct, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. The only other question—I know this is a very 

tough one, but there are persistent rumors that Qadhafi really has 

very few friends and it’s likely that at some point they will crack 

and he will either leave, be killed, et cetera. Is that something that 

you think is a pretty good possibility of happening? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As I look at the situation in Libya, Senator, 

you can see a wide range of possibilities out ahead of us, that run 

from a static stalemate to what you just described, Qadhafi cracking. If we work all the elements of power, a more than reasonable 

chance, of Qadhafi leaving. The entire international community is 

arrayed against him. The events today in London, where 40 nations gathered to discuss this, would lend weight to the theory that, 

as Secretary Gates said in testimony or on a talk show, he probably 

doesn’t need to be hanging any new pictures. 

Senator MCCAIN. Clearly, we just want him gone, whether to live 

with Chavez, meet Hitler and Stalin, or be tried in a criminal 

court. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The international community, virtually every 

world leader, has ascribed to a statement along the lines that Qadhafi should leave Libya. 

Senator MCCAIN. A stalemate is not an acceptable solution. We 

learned that from the Iraqi experience after Operation Desert 

602 

Storm, that sanctions and no-fly zones don’t succeed. Is there a lesson we could draw from that experience? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. A stalemate is not in anybody’s interest. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Is the United States, at present, providing defensive weapons to 

Georgia or helping Georgia acquire such weapons? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, we are working with Georgia in training 

their security forces. 

Senator MCCAIN. I’m asking about weapons. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. In terms of defensive weapons, at this moment we are not providing them with what I would term, high-end 

military defensive weapons. 

Senator MCCAIN. It’s hard for me to understand, since the Russians still occupy territory that is clearly Georgian territory and 

continue to threaten Georgia. Yet we’re not even giving them weapons with which to defend themselves. It is not comprehensible. 

Do you believe the Russian Federation is serious when its leaders say that they will withdraw from the New START treaty if the 

United States deploys all phases of the EPAA to missile defense? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I’m not familiar with their making that dramatic a statement. I’ve seen other statements that would indicate 

they intend to continue a dialogue and discussion with us moving 

forward across the missile defense sphere. 

Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, does DOD have the necessary 

legal authorities it needs to respond to a cyber attack? 

General KEHLER. Senator, it doesn’t have all the authorities it 

needs. In fact, in some cases our role has been defined at this 

point, to defending and protecting the DOD network. The relationship outside that is being established with the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), which has the lead for protecting critical infrastructure across the United States. There are limits to 

what DOD can do today. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you please submit to the committee in 

writing what you think is necessary in order for us to give you the 

capability to defend this Nation against a cyber attack? A lot of us 

feel that this is the new battleground of the 21st century, and for 

you not to have all the tools at your disposal to protect this Nation’s national security interests in the event if a cyber attack is 

an unacceptable situation. 

We’ve been bouncing around between different committees: Intelligence, Armed Services, and Homeland Security. Everybody has a 

different idea. We would be well served if you would provide us, at 

least in your view, what is the absolute minimal necessity in order 

to defend the country. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Senator, I understand your concerns. The threats we face in and through the 

cyberspace domain are forcing us to carefully consider what it means for the military to perform its traditional role of defending the Nation. This work includes developing an in-depth and shared understanding of what it means to conduct traditional military operations in this networked era. More specifically, we need to determine how the Department of Defense (DOD) will perform three different but related 

potential roles in and through cyberspace: 

1. Defend DOD networks and conduct other traditional military operations. 

2. When directed by the President, conduct full-spectrum cyber operations including defending the Nation when it comes under foreign cyber attack. 

3. Provide military support to civil authorities, as directed. 

603 

Addressing the threats we face in the cyberspace domain and incorporating cyber 

operations into our broader military operations raise unique policy, legal, and doctrinal issues that we continue to work our way through. 

DOD is working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the executive branch to develop a set of legislative proposals that will provide the U.S. Government with additional authorities required to protect the Nation through a wholeof-government approach against sophisticated cyber threats. While the specifics are 

still under development, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure necessary authorities are available. 

In addition to legislative proposals to broaden U.S. Government cyber authorities, 

DOD continues to address additional issues related to cyberspace definitions, doctrine, and rules of engagement. These efforts build on steps already taken to establish the appropriate relationship between DOD and DHS, to form U.S. Cyber Command, and to improve our defense of DOD networks. 

As in the case of the development of other new military activities, we will continue to identify new requirements as we go forward. I will work with other components in DOD and with the interagency to provide you with details regarding the 

administration’s ongoing and follow-on legislative proposals, and will do so as soon 

as possible. 

General KEHLER. Yes, sir. I would add one other point. DOD has 

reached out to industry at this point to do a pilot program to see, 

as we work through, what it would take and what additional authorities might be involved there. There are some additional steps 

being taken now and I will provide you my thoughts more later. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain, and we will share 

your answer in that regard with Senator Lieberman’s committee; 

Senator Collins, the ranking member of that committee, are deeply 

involved in that, and a number of other committees as well. Legislative efforts are being organized to make sure that you and other 

agencies have all the authorities that they need, that they work together to make sure that there are no cracks in our defense, and 

that there’s clarity in terms of the authority and responsibility for 

the response as well. We’ll share that with Senator Lieberman and 

Senator Collins and the other committees. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just pick 

up very briefly on what you’ve said, General Kehler. Your testimony states, which I know to be absolutely valid, that you don’t 

have sufficient legal authority. I suppose in a time of crisis the 

President could invoke his constitutional authority as the Commander in Chief to direct the Pentagon to take the action it would 

have to take because we’re not adequately defended from cyber attack today. 

The fact is that DHS, which Senator Collins and I oversee in our 

committee, has been working much more closely on these matters 

with the Pentagon and the National Security Agency. We urgently 

need to get over classic Senate committee territorial turf battles 

and pass legislation this year to clarify authorities for protection of 

American cyber space, including, as you suggest, the majority of 

American cyber space, which is privately owned. 

There was an encouraging meeting a couple of weeks ago which 

was convened by the two leaders, Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, the chairs, and ranking members of the relevant committees. 

We’re on a course now to try to get legislation, before the Senate 

by the end of the spring. I appreciate what you’ve said. 

604 

I thank you both for your service. Admiral Stavridis, let me just 

come back to where we are in Libya now and the role of NATO. 

Your description of the line of authority was very helpful because 

now that the United States is turning over authority to NATO, it’s 

very important for us to understand what NATO is. I’m glad 

NATO’s involved, of course, because what’s happening in Libya is 

not just a concern for America or a threat to America, it’s a concern 

to most of the rest of the civilized world. Therefore it’s very important that NATO and our allies in the Arab world be involved. 

When the United States turns responsibility over to NATO, it’s 

not like we’re taking a hot potato and throwing it to somebody else. 

We’re NATO. Not all of it is NATO, but we’re at the heart of 

NATO. We’re most of NATO. We have great allies with us there. 

Just to go over this quickly, three missions are now moving to 

NATO control. The arms embargo, am I correct that that is now 

being overseen by an Italian officer? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. Just to add to what I said earlier, 

there’s an Italian three-star in Naples. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Who has command of the maritime piece of 

this. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Okay. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Then there’s a Canadian three-star who is 

the joint task force commander, and the air piece of it will actually 

be run out of Turkey, out of Ismir, Turkey, by a NATO headquarters there, which has a U.S. three-star and a French threestar. You have Italian, French, Canadian, and American all in the 

chain of command. 

Just to put a metric on it, of the 40 flag and general officers that 

are involved in this whole thing, only 5 of them will be American 

as we move forward. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. The civilian protection mission, who’s that 

under now? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That’s under Lieutenant General Bouchard. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. The Canadian. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The joint task force commander, executing 

through the other two officers I mentioned. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let’s follow that chain up. Who do they report to? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. They report to the NATO joint force commander, Naples, who is an American four-star, Sam Locklear, who 

was also the commander of the Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, 

which was the Libyan operation. There’s good continuity in that as 

he fits in both of those operations. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. We have continuity and another American 

officer there. Then does he report directly to you? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. He does. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. You’re a distinguished American Admiral 

and we’re proud of you and thank you for your service. 

Then you report to the NAC. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I do. I would add that my report goes 

through a military committee headed by an Italian four-star admiral, Admiral Di Paola, who is actually the senior officer in NATO. 

That committee takes my advice, puts a military eye on it. Admiral 

605 

Mike Mullen is the American member of that 28-person body. It’s 

all the chiefs of defense, we would say all the chairmen of the joint 

chiefs. Then the advice goes to the NAC. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Am I right that the NAC gives you, if I 

might put it in the term, general authority, but does it not have 

to approve every mission that you carry out? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. For instance, if Qadhafi’s forces are surrounding a town in Libya, you don’t have to go back to the NAC 

to get approval in terms of protecting civilians? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Correct. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Okay. I appreciate that. 

Again I make the point that having NATO involved is critically 

important, for all the reasons the President said last night, but it’s 

not like the U.S. is not involved. We’re very centrally involved, and 

we should be. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. Again, that chain of command that 

I just described is not dissimilar to the one that we used in Afghanistan from a NATO perspective. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Exactly. 

We have taken a very forward-leaning understanding on the part 

of the U.N. resolution that talks about ‘‘all necessary measures’’ to 

protect the Libyan civilians, it’s the right thing to do. Based on the 

U.N. mandate, we have effectively conducted a campaign of air 

strikes against Qadhafi’s forces. This has not only protected civilians, but also paved the way, as General Carter Ham said yesterday for the rebels, freedom fighters, in Libya to advance. 

I wanted to ask you whether you’re confident that NATO is 

united in its interpretation of the civilian protection mission going 

forward, that there will not be a diminution of that mission in the 

days and weeks ahead with NATO in control? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, I’m confident I have the rules of engagement that I need to continue the campaign in the manner to which 

it’s been conducted. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I want to ask you a final question. My time 

is running out. We’re under grave budgetary pressure and there 

are already calls from some quarters to reduce the U.S. military 

footprint in the EUCOM area of responsibility. I’m struck by the 

fact that what’s happening in Libya makes the argument for the 

continued importance of our military footprint in Europe and how 

its enabled our operations in North Africa. 

I wanted to ask you if you’d just take a moment to respond to 

the point that’s made that, World War II is long over, the Cold War 

is over; what the heck are we still doing in Europe? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Senator, I always like to start answering 

that question by just putting some context to it. If we could, let’s 

go back to the end of the Cold War, when there were 400,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 1,400 bases and sites around 

Europe. That was a big, muscular operation. We’ve now reduced 

that by about 75 percent. We’re down to about 80,000 U.S. troops 

in Europe. We’ve come down to 17 main operating bases. We still 

have lots of little outlying sites, but we’ve reduced that overall footprint by 75 percent. 

606 

The European platform permits us to reassure allies, to deter 

and conduct military operations, as we’re doing today in Afghanistan and in Libya. It also provides support for training and building of partnership capacity. Those are all vital functions. 

I’m comfortable that we can take a little bit more out of that, a 

little bit more efficiency. We’ve looked very hard at that over the 

last year and we’re very close to a decision that I think will make 

some minor reductions in EUCOM. Overall, we’ve seen the real 

value of this European footprint and I applaud the wisdom of Congress, which has supported it, for the four reasons I mentioned, it’s 

a very valuable one for us. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Admiral, and thank you, General. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Most of the questions on Libya have been asked and I suspected 

that would be the case. But there’s one other one that’s a little bit 

sensitive, but somebody has to say it. There have been several reports about the presence of al Qaeda among the rebels, among 

those with whom we are associated. What are your thoughts about 

that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, as you can imagine, we’re examining 

very closely the content, composition, and the personalities, of the 

leaders in these opposition forces. The intelligence that I’m receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership that I’m seeing 

are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel 

Qadhafi. 

We have seen flickers in intelligence of potential al Qaeda, 

Hezbollah. We’ve seen different things. At this point I don’t have 

detail sufficient to say that there’s a significant al Qaeda presence 

or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We’ll continue to look at that very closely as part of doing due diligence as 

we move forward on any kind of relationship. 

Senator INHOFE. I don’t say this critically of you, of course, because you didn’t make this decision. Wouldn’t that have been a 

good idea to find out before we took some of the steps that we’re 

taking? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. From the moment this crisis has unfolded, 

there has been a great deal of intelligence applied to this, although 

General Ham as the AFRICOM commander would be in the best 

position to give you the details on that. 

Senator INHOFE. I was planning on talking to him. 

Let me carry on a little bit from what Senator Lieberman was 

saying. I was going to approach it from a little different perspective. Back in the 1990s, it was actually Jim Jones at the time was 

talking about the reduction of our presence, installations, and personnel in Western Europe. At that time one of the reasons was, 

this was particularly true in Germany, a lot of the problems existed 

at that time with the environmental movement, they were somewhat restricted in what our capabilities were going to be in terms 

of how many hours we can train, how many days a week, after 

hours, and that type of thing. That was one of the considerations 

at that time. 

607 

I’d like to ask you, first of all, has that changed? Second, I have 

another question to ask about our presence there. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I would say that in my 2 years, roughly, as 

the commander of EUCOM, I have not felt any restrictions on my 

ability to do the kind of training maneuvers in Germany or in any 

of the other countries. In fact, Germany hosts Grafenwoehr and 

Hohenfels. I think you visited there, sir, our big training center 

there, probably a premier training facility. We’ve put 14,000 people 

there in the last year. 

Senator INHOFE. A lot of that was before you arrived at that position. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It was, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. At that time I actually went over to Eastern Europe, Bulgaria, and Romania, places where they wanted us to come 

over and were willing to give us 24–7 and also do a lot of the 

billeting and other things. I just wondered where that was now. 

Let me ask you this. There’s a lot of criticism since the downgrade. I was shocked when I read your written testimony and 

found that it was down 80 percent from where it was in the 1990s. 

I didn’t realize that. That being the case, there’s still some military 

construction (MILCON) that is going on there, and I know a lot of 

people are critical of that. There are some parochial reasons for 

that back here also. 

With that being the case, could you talk about any consolidation 

that’s taking place that is going to justify any MILCON and how 

that works in our current position? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, we are doing a great deal to search for 

these efficiencies to consolidate our footprint and have been doing 

so over the last 5 years. In fact, I’m testifying in front of the 

MILCON subcommittee and will have a chance to lay that out. We 

have a reasonable plan that strikes a balance between what we 

need to do to support our families in Europe as well as maintain 

the headquarters that’s undertaking the operations we’re seeing 

today. 

Senator INHOFE. Okay. I’m sure you will get asked a lot of questions about that when you are before the Appropriations subcommittee. 

There are some 20 State partnership programs going on right 

now. I know that my State of Oklahoma has Azerbaijan. They have 

all kinds of good reports, but I’m wondering how you see it when 

you’re looking at the whole thing. Is it time and resources well 

spent with our Guard activities? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, it is. We have 22 of these programs 

around. The one from Oklahoma, for example, does everything from 

prosaic military training, police training, to oil field training. We 

try to match up the State with the country. The presence, for example, of the Oklahoma State partnership program has been very 

helpful in Azerbaijan in maintaining our access through our transit 

routes because of the strong military-to-military relationship. 

Multiply that by 22 all around Europe and you can see the bang 

for the buck here is really quite significant. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s good. That’s what I’m getting from our 

people there, so I assumed that that was the case. 

608 

I just came back from spending some time in Israel and talked 

to Prime Minister Netanyahu for some length. His first comment 

was ‘‘Welcome to the earthquake’’ when we got over there. When 

you stop and think about it, everywhere over there, we’ve been 

talking about Libya, but you have Iran, Syria, and Egypt. Israel is 

our only one great friend there. Do you think we’re doing enough 

to ensure the defense of Israel? Any comments you could make on 

that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I had the same conversation a week ago with 

Lieutenant General Benny Ganz, who is the chief of defense, the 

chairman of the joint chiefs, if you will, of Israel. We talked about 

the whole region. I think Israel is watching very closely these 

events on their periphery, as they should be. 

Part of our job is to reassure them and continue to engage with 

them. From EUCOM, we’re doing that across everything from missile defense, weapons systems, training, to intelligence exchanges. 

It’s a good time for all of us to recognize exactly what you said, 

that Israel is in the middle of an earthquake zone, and from a military-to-military perspective we’re working very closely with them. 

Senator INHOFE. I was going to get into a couple other programs 

that I know you’re enthusiastically supporting and have in the 

past, like the train and equip program, the Commanders Emergency Response Program, and Combatant Commanders Initiative 

Fund. Let me just mention, if there’s no time to answer this, General, my concern has been, back when we took out the plans for a 

ground-based interceptor in Poland, with the necessary radar in 

the Czech Republic, by the time we would receive the same capability we were looking at a program that’s not definite in terms of 

when it will come along. 

What I’m talking about is the Standard Missile-3 (SM–3) Block 

2B, the long-range program. Right now we don’t have a date. It’s 

still a concept. My feeling is that the others, like the SM–3 Block 

2A and other programs, are good, they’re coming along. We have 

the Aegis capability and all of that. For the record, since my time 

has expired, I’d like to have you share with me whether you share 

my concern over the fact that we would have had in my opinion 

that capability much sooner? When our intelligence gives us a 

range that Iran’s going to have this capability that we all dread 

thinking about, somewhere between 2015 and 2020, to me that’s 

what keeps me up at night. If you could for the record get into as 

much detail on that as possible, I would appreciate it. 

General KEHLER. Sir, I’ll provide that for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The European Phased Adaptive Approach is the right strategy for fielding an effective Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe. Today’s Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense, as part of a layered defense is protecting our Homeland from 

a limited intercontinental ballistic missile attack. We have the ability to stay ahead 

of the North Korean and Iranian threat with our overall BMDS plan. Even so, we 

are working closely with Missile Defense Agency and Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Policy to ensure we have an adequate hedge strategy should our acquisition/deployment plan experience delays or emerging threat materializes sooner 

than predicted. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

609 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your service and your testimony today. 

Admiral Stavridis, the President has quite rightly ruled out any 

ground forces entering Libya from the United States. At least looking ahead, there is the possibility that through many possible outcomes, the Qadhafi regime departing swiftly or rebels ejecting it, 

that there would be a need for some stabilization on the ground. 

Is that something that NATO is considering? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, I wouldn’t say NATO’s considering it yet. 

When you look at the history of NATO, having gone through this, 

as many on this committee have, with Bosnia and Kosovo, it’s quite 

clear that the possibility of a stabilization regime exists. I have not 

heard any discussion about it yet, but that history is on everybody’s 

mind as we look at the events in Libya. 

Senator REED. These events are moving fast. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I understand. 

Senator REED. Let me ask another question which is related. As 

you pointed out in your opening testimony, a significant number of 

forces in Afghanistan are NATO forces or European allies. What effect, if any, has the current operation in Libya had on their ability 

to maintain their presence in Afghanistan? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As I was saying to someone the other day, 

if you can be lucky in terms of how a crisis unfolds, one aspect of 

the Libyan crisis is that the types of forces, ships and aircraft principally, are the forces that are not in such high demand in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a landlocked state, where the Taliban have no 

air capability. In that sense I’m confident that we’ll be able to move 

forward and keep the resource balance both ways. 

Again, I do want to say that the allies have been very forthcoming with ships and aircraft, as I pointed out in talking to the 

chairman, and I’m confident we’ll have the forces we need to do 

this in both places. 

Senator REED. I’m sure you once again want to, for the benefit 

of Senator Lieberman and I, point out the decisive role of submarines in conducting this operation. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Senator Lieberman will be happy to hear 

that there are submarines involved in this, and they are part of the 

NATO force that is doing the arms embargo and are a stated requirement. 

Senator REED. Also delivering land attack missiles. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Indeed they are, 90 of them from U.S. submarines, for example. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

I want to open this question up to General Kehler also, to talk 

about the emerging cyber dimension in warfare and our lack of preparedness. Senator McCain referred to it in his comments, and 

General Alexander’s comments also. From your perspective as the 

NATO commander, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and 

yours from STRATCOM, General? I’ll start with Admiral Stavridis. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. From a NATO perspective 

we’re very aware of this. It’s part of our strategic concept which 

just came out. NATO has two organizations that focus on this. One 

is the NATO Cyber Defense Center, appropriately, in Talinn, EstoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00615 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
610 

nia, a nation that has suffered a cyber attack, and also the NATO 

Computer Incident Response Organization, which is part of my organization in the SHAPE headquarters. 

Those two together work with General Alexander, and I would 

conclude by saying we are also pushing to engage with the European private sector. Just as General Kehler said a moment ago, 

this private-public nexus is so important in the world of cyber, and 

we’re working very hard to engage the European private sector 

through the NATO piece, so that we can then connect with U.S. efforts through Keith Alexander and up to his boss, General Kehler. 

Senator REED. Can I just follow up? You just appointed a special 

assistant for public-private partnerships. Is this the whole range of 

public-private partnerships? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Exactly. I believe, Senator, that we have 

learned how to do joint operations. We are getting much better at 

interagency operations. A growth area in security is the privatepublic sector where those two things connect, and cyber is probably 

the prime example of it at this moment. 

Senator REED. Are there any other commander in chiefs that are 

doing what you are doing? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. We’re sharing that idea now and there’s general interest in it, sir. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

General Kehler, please. Any comments would be helpful? 

General KEHLER. Senator, I would just add that you’ve hit on a 

key aspect here with the public-private partnership activity. Certainly here is a domain that is largely in the public domain. I don’t 

think we have much of a challenge any longer convincing people 

how important cyber security is. 

What we see here is a threat that is evolving from everything 

from the old nuisance hackers, the 13-year-old in the basement 

down the street, to exploitation, where people deliberately come in 

and steal things through cyberspace from the networks, to denial 

of services or other activities, to perhaps a place where they will 

go to destructive activities. 

In every one of those cases, as you look at defining the role of 

government, the role of DOD, the role of private industry and others, the issue that is foremost on our plate these days, is making 

sure that we have put in place the right relationships, roles, responsibilities, and in some cases making sure that we have the 

right authorities, so that we can act at what our cyber experts 

would call network speed, which is a very tough challenge for us. 

Most of the frustration that many of us have is that it seems like 

we’re always closing the barn door after the horse is gone. We have 

to be in a position here where we can do better in terms of protecting ourselves. We’ve done a lot over the last couple of years to 

get DOD in a better place. It will not happen overnight. We started 

with this disparate collection of networks that we are trying to 

make behave as one network for DOD. That in and of itself is a 

challenge. But we are making some progress here. 

The next steps that we have to take, though, is to have better 

situational awareness. That’s a shared responsibility between the 

combatant commands, and broader than that, out into the public 

domain as well. We have to have better capacity and that gets to 

611 

our ability to recruit, train, and retain the right cyber experts. 

Then of course it gets to the authorities question, so that we have 

properly sorted out this balance between our constitutional protections and our need to act on behalf of the Nation, of course with 

the appropriate civil authorities in the lead. 

Those are the challenges that we have today. Those are being 

worked very hard in many places. I’m confident that we’re making 

progress, but we will return to all of you, as I was asked to do earlier today, with some specific suggestions. 

Senator REED. My time has expired, but just a final comment. 

You may get back to me or just make it in a round of questioning. 

We’ve become so dependent on things like Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Do we ever train at NATO or at STRATCOM off-line, 

with a compass, which is a very challenging device, I can attest to. 

GPS is a lot easier—or, in a concept of installations, redundancy? 

That is, old systems that in an emergency you can get off line and 

use them? 

My focal point would be, if a natural disaster can wreak the 

havoc in Japan, someone messing with their control systems electronically could produce the same catastrophic effect. We’re at the 

verge of a whole new dimension in warfare, and I’m glad that you 

gentlemen are thinking thoughtfully about these issues. Thank 

you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Reed has raised such an important 

question. Would you get back to us on that issue, on the redundancy and the backups, including some of the old-fashioned types, 

in case our more modern technology are interfered with? Could you 

get back to the committee on that issue? 

[The information referred to follows:] 

General KEHLER. Senator, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has established 

backup or alternate command centers capable of quickly assuming command and 

control of STRATCOM forces and ensuring continuity of our most critical mission 

functions should the primary command center be degraded or rendered inoperable. 

Additionally, STRATCOM component commands are dispersed throughout the country, which provides immediate redundancy of vital command and control functions 

for critical mission sets. All STRATCOM fixed and mobile command and control centers maintain a diverse range of satellite, high-bandwidth terrestrial fiber, and radio 

communication capabilities. The STRATCOM staff regularly trains with these systems so we understand the vulnerabilities and how to work around the loss of systems. When communications are too badly degraded, alternate facilities are trained 

to assume command of STRATCOM missions. STRATCOM conducts over 250 restricted or degraded communication exercises a year. We go to great lengths to ensure we can minimize the impact of any communications degradation. 

As the command continues planning for construction of its new headquarters 

building, well-considered redundancies and backup systems will be incorporated to 

further reduce the risk to positive command and control. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The U.S. European Command (EUCOM) Joint Operations 

Center (JOC) maintains a fully redundant and active facility at Kelley Barracks in 

Stuttgart, Germany. At this location, we maintain laptop workstations for all JOC 

positions. We also have Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET), Nonclassified (Unclassified but Sensitive) Internet Protocol Router Network, Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) voice communications, and Secure Video Teleconferencing 

(SVTC) capabilities. We monitor and upload roaming profiles for positional accounts 

and conduct operational checks on a weekly basis. In the event of a total loss of 

SIPRNET, the JOC will operate on a separate domain from EUCOM. 

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has sufficient hardened and nonhardened headquarters installations spread over the territory of its member states. 

These command and control facilities are well connected to NATO, as well as national networks. Therefore a loss of effective command and control is highly unVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00617 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
612 

likely. The main and the alternate NATO network control centers are implemented 

in facilities protected against nuclear, chemical, and biological threats. 

General KEHLER. Will do. The short answer is we’re not as good 

as we need to be, but we are working on it. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. If I could add, this is an area in which coalitions are helpful, because many of our allies aren’t at the same 

level of technical capability and we get a window into other ways 

of doing business. I will provide an answer as well, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. For the record, thank you. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m just wondering if you both could comment on the level of disruption, if any, on those under your command caused by the continuing resolutions (CR) that we’re dealing with? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I’ll start. Our principal concern at this point 

is twofold. One is the start of military construction projects. That’s 

becoming more and more of an issue for us. Second there’s a psychological overhang that is disruptive to the troops, although they 

know their pay and their essential services will continue, many of 

the functionalities that support them are vested with our civilian 

workforce, and that would be problematic as well. Those would be 

two things I would point to. 

General KEHLER. I’ll pick up on that, Senator, in that, first of all, 

we’re in this interesting time period now where many of the combatant command headquarters are becoming over 50 percent civilian workforce. Civilians are concerned about what will happen 

here, will there be a government shutdown, and how this will impact them, I share their concern. 

Second, I’m also concerned about some issues that are outside 

DOD’s budget. Specifically what I’m interested in is making sure 

that we continue the investment plans that were laid down for the 

National Nuclear Security Agency because of the work that they 

are doing for us regarding the stockpile, and the anticipation that 

we have that they will need to provide additional investment so 

that we can restore the stockpile as we go forward and do the appropriate life extension programs. 

I’m concerned about those two things and have been somewhat 

reassured that in the stockpile work I believe that we are okay to 

continue as it is. I am concerned as long as the CR process is going 

on, that those two things are okay. 

Senator BROWN. I can tell you just for the record, and based on 

my personal dealings with our caucuses, no Republican is talking 

about shutting down the government. We’re hopeful that we can 

come together and continue to not only address our budgetary concerns to move our country forward and give you the stability you 

need. I’m going to continue to work in that regard. 

General Kehler, is it true that, and I believe it is, that the cyber 

attacks are growing? As we talked about for 17 minutes last April, 

DOD networks along with other government networks, were routed 

through China; is that accurate? 

General KEHLER. Senator, I’ll have to get back to you on that. 

That one doesn’t jump into my mind, but let me find out and I’ll 

get back to you. 

613 

Senator BROWN. If you could actually, because that has a great 

concern to me and many others. I know when you came before us 

and we confirmed you that was one of your concerns, was dealing 

with the cyber security and people, whether it’s the everyday young 

hacker or established terrorist cells trying to gain access to vital 

security information. 

I concur with the chairman. If there’s something that you need 

that you don’t have, I’d like to know about it. You talked about 

being reactive versus proactive, I, for one, would like to be very 

proactive. 

General KEHLER. Sir, if I could, though, just add a point. I’ll 

check and make sure that I understand the issue that you’re asking about. However, having said that, one thing about the global 

Internet is that it’s global, and the pathways that information 

takes through that Internet are sometimes interesting. 

Having said that, though, for our critical information in DOD we 

take great care to make sure that that information is properly protected. We have, again, more work to do, but I don’t want you to 

think that we’re not taking steps to make sure that that information is protected. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Senator, as noted in Director of National Intelligence Clapper’s statement to the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it is accurate that in April 2010 

a large number of routing paths to various Internet Protocol addresses were redirected through networks in China. This redirection was the result of a small Chinese network provider improperly asserting routing responsibility for over 50,000 

networks from over 170 countries. This diversion of data affected traffic to and from 

U.S. Government and military sites, including sites for the Senate, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as a number of Fortune 500 companies for approximately 18 minutes. Given the significant 

number of Internet protocol addresses, routing paths and network providers this 

type of occurrence is not unusual and is often attributed as accidental as a result 

of a single mistyped numerical digit. However, this incident highlights the fragile 

nature of the global Internet infrastructure and the potential capability of top-level 

Internet service providers to disrupt or degrade connectivity. In these cases and during the event last April, DOD network operators immediately identified the erroneous routing and remedied the routing path. The Internet’s core protocols are susceptible to accidental and illicit modifications that could result in eavesdropping or 

wide-spread outages. Cooperative global research, development, and implementation 

of secure, robust, and resilient Internet protocols is necessary to ensure the stability 

and integrity of the Internet into the future. 

Senator BROWN. No, I wouldn’t think that. Thank you. 

Admiral, I, like many others, have been wrestling with our involvement in Libya. On the one hand, I understand the need to 

protect innocent civilians and you draw a line in the sand when 

you recognize that enough is enough. I’m also wrestling with, and 

I’ve been asked the question, who’s next? Under what circumstances do we do the same thing with other countries that are 

facing very similar circumstances? Are we now going to be the 

northern light for the entire region, to be there to address every 

concern of every country? 

That’s my first question, if you could comment on it. Do you have 

any thoughts on that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Senator, the President in his speech last 

night addressed that concern and did it very well, and the policy 

level at which a decision like that would be made is in the execuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00619 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
614 

tive branch with the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the 

Secretary of State. 

Obviously, at my level, my job is to provide options from a military context and then, when given a military mission, execute it. 

Our current mission, as we’ve talked about, is everything from the 

humanitarian, the arms embargo, the no-fly zone, and protecting 

the population. I’m comfortable with the mission I’ve been given. 

We’re executing that. If and when there are decisions about other 

conflicts, then certainly we’ll be prepared to do that. 

Senator BROWN. I appreciate the job you’re doing, and when they 

say jump, you say how far, I understand that. I, like many others, 

are concerned if there is a next incident. 

Is it true that we have been flying virtually all of the military 

aircraft sorties into the region over the last couple of days? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir. I can give you just a rough idea of 

the numbers. 

Senator BROWN. If you could, that would be great. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sure. We have flown the majority. In very 

round numbers, out of 1,600 sorties the United States has flown 

980 of them. We’ve probably flown 60 percent of the sorties. As we 

now get NATO into the picture, you’ll see that U.S. percentage go 

down significantly and you’ll see the allied component of it go up. 

For ballpark purposes, about 60 to 40 U.S.-allied. Just to give 

you one other number, if you don’t mind, the actual strike sorties, 

the bomb dropping, we’re roughly 50 to 50 U.S. and allied. The allied contribution has been reasonable and it’ll increase a bit as we 

get NATO more involved. 

Senator BROWN. In terms of submarines, Tomahawks, et cetera, 

we’re the only ones. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. In terms of Tomahawk missiles, those were 

virtually all from the United States. There were a handful from the 

Brits, but for all intents and purposes the Tomahawks were a U.S. 

mission with a little bit of help from the Brits. 

Senator BROWN. What’s the cost per Tomahawk? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I’ll find out and get back to you, but I want 

to say $1.5 million. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Each Tomahawk missile costs $1.5 million. 

Senator BROWN. That’s my understanding as well. How many did 

we drop? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Two hundred. 

Senator BROWN. That’s some real numbers. I’m concerned about 

when we get into these conflicts. Here we are, we’re wrestling with 

cutting billions and we’re dropping billions on the other hand. Like 

I said, who’s next, what’s next? I’m a little concerned as to where 

we’re going from here, but I’ll deal with that in other measures. 

I do appreciate you coming. I always find these very helpful to 

understand the whole picture better. Thank you. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Admiral, General, thank you so much, first of 

all, for being here and thank you for your service. I can tell you, 

615 

I’ve met the finest that America has to offer and they’re in DOD, 

the Services, and all of our military. 

Do you plan, either one of you can answer, to ask for supplemental appropriations from DOD or Congress to support the Libyan operations? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, a decision like that would come from the 

Secretary of Defense or elsewhere in the administration. That 

would not be something a combatant commander would precipitate. 

Senator MANCHIN. Total cost has been quite high, as far as I 

know as Senator Brown just mentioned it, and we’re all concerned 

about that, because we’re going to be making some difficult decisions here, and the cost that we’re spending elsewhere is concerning. The first week was approximately $600 million-plus? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, again I’m probably not the right person 

to give you a set of numbers. It’s fair to say that the operation will 

be in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars. I’m not the right 

person to ask. I can certainly convey that to DOD and get you the 

right number. 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you have an estimation on a timetable of 

how long you think we’ll be there? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, it’s very difficult to ascertain that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. Do you believe that any part of the coalition expects to put ground troops in Libya, or are there ground 

troops in Libya now? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, there are no ground troops in Libya now 

to my knowledge. 

Senator MANCHIN. By any of the coalition or NATO? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Not to my knowledge. I have heard no discussion of doing so at this point. 

Senator MANCHIN. You don’t know of any of the coalition planning on having ground forces? We’ve said that we will not put 

American troops on the ground in Libya. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. Is that still correct? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is correct, and it is also correct that in the 

conversations around NATO over the last number of weeks, as this 

was debated, there was no discussion of the insertion of ground 

troops by any other partner. 

Senator MANCHIN. To both of you, General, maybe you can start 

this one off, why do you believe that the image of the United States 

is so poor in the Middle East? With all that we try to do and all 

the good that we try to do, why has the image of our country been 

so poorly received and is at all-time lows as I understand? 

General KEHLER. Sir, I can’t really speculate on why that is. 

Senator MANCHIN. You’ve seen the polls. You know what’s going 

on, right? 

General KEHLER. I’ve certainly seen the press reporting that asserts that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

General KEHLER. It’s very difficult for me, not having responsibility for that region, to be looking at that information every day 

and having my own opinion on why that might be. 

Senator MANCHIN. We have everybody’s opinion that comes and 

everybody has a little different take on this. The bottom line is, as 

616 

I’ve always said, when you’re an unwelcome visitor, you usually 

leave. We don’t seem to be a welcome visitor or a welcome neighbor, if you will, to the Arab League, even though they might want 

us for certain areas. We don’t seem to have the support of the people. 

I can’t figure that out. We’re here trying to liberate. The greatest 

country in the world is the United States of America. We’re the 

most generous country. For some reason, in the Middle East that 

doesn’t transcend. I don’t know if it’s something that we’re doing 

wrong from a military end of it or from our policy end. 

Do you have any comment on that whatsoever, what we could do 

to improve our image? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I would say, as to why the United States is 

challenged in parts of the Middle East, has to do with our overall 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, both Muslim countries which 

by and large have not been popular in that part of the world, our 

relationship with Israel, which is at odds with many of these Muslim states; and it’s important, however, to make the point that we 

do enjoy positive relations with many of the Arab nations, certainly 

at the military-to-military level. 

If I could, I’ll give you two concrete examples of that. Both stem 

from my experience in NATO. One is the NATO engagement that’s 

called the Mediterranean Dialogue, which its partners are Morocco, 

Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, as well as Israel. It’s possible by working 

diligently and finding zones of cooperation to improve these sort of 

relationships. 

The other place I would mention from a NATO perspective and 

also an area in which the United States has good relations with 

Muslim countries would be in the Gulf, where the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative of NATO counts among its members essentially all 

of the Gulf states there. Of course, in the coalition that we’re undertaking today, Senator, we enjoy the support of the UAEs and 

Qatar, both of whom are flying actual missions as part of this. 

Your point is well taken, that we need to work on this, but all 

is not lost. I’d close by saying we enjoy a very positive relationship 

with a very prominent Muslim nation and that is Turkey, who is 

a member of NATO, is involved in this coalition with us, and is in 

Afghanistan with us. It’s very possible to have very positive relations with—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Our relations are pretty poor, right? I mean, 

as far as the image of the United States being in the Middle East 

from the citizens of the Middle East? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That’s a fair statement, yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me ask another question I have. You were 

talking about the rules of engagement, which I took to understand 

that we’re able to engage whenever we think there is any threat 

or harm to American troops or the American mission. So you feel 

free to use the rules of engagement apply in Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir, they will along those lines, as well 

as rules of engagement that permit everything from stopping ships 

that we think are bringing weapons in, to stopping Qadhafi’s forces 

if they are attacking the population or demonstrating an intent to. 

Senator MANCHIN. What about the rules of engagement in the 

Afghanistan war, in the Pakistan mountains, where the Taliban 

617 

and al Qaeda are, that we know of? You don’t have the same green 

light on the rules of engagement there as you do in Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The rules of engagement in Pakistan are fundamentally different, yes, sir, from the rules of engagement that 

are in place in the Libyan campaign. 

Senator MANCHIN. When we know that there’s harm being orchestrated, being directed, we can’t do a thing about it? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. General Petraeus addressed this when he 

was here last week, and he would tell you that he’s in constant dialogue with his counterparts across the Pakistani border, notably 

General Kayani of Pakistan, to try and work on these cross-border 

issues. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. I know that Chairman Levin has 

been getting some information on that, and if we could just be kept 

up on the cost on a weekly basis of what we’re incurring as far as 

the U.S. military, would that be a fair question? 

Chairman LEVIN. It’s a fair question and we can ask that directly 

of DOD if you’d prefer. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That would probably be the best—that’s 

going to be the best source, rather than feeding it through me, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. Mr. Chairman, if you will do that I’d appreciate it very much, and if we can keep the committee updated on 

what the cost to the American people for that support would be. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Manchin has made a really good effort 

to ascertain these costs. I’ve tried the best I could to get some information, but it’s slow in coming, and he’s right in asking for it. We 

will ask the right people in DOD to promptly give us a cost estimate as up to date and then a week-by-week estimate as well. 

Thank you for pressing that, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Ayotte is next. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Admiral and General, for your service to our country. 

Again, pass on our gratitude to the troops that serve underneath 

you for the important work and the sacrifices that they’re making 

for us. 

I notice you described, Admiral, the mission in Libya. How do we 

define success in Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The military mission that I am given and 

under which I am operating at the moment has some clear metrics 

associated with it. Let’s take the arms embargo, for example. It 

would be zero penetration of Libya with arms coming to resupply 

Colonel Qadhafi, for example. 

In terms of protecting the population, our metric would be, is the 

population safe, are the civilians under attack? What we would 

want to establish over time is a situation, which we would call in 

the NATO context, a safe and secure environment for the population. 

In terms of the no-fly zone, the metric’s obvious. It’s no flying by 

any of the military aircraft or any other aircraft without authorization from NATO. 

In terms of the humanitarian mission we’ve been assigned, it’s 

numbers of refugees, are they receiving the care, and so on. 

618 

That’s the military mission we’ve been given, and we have some 

reasonable metrics that will apply as we go forward to make sure 

that we meet those for policymakers. 

Senator AYOTTE. I certainly understand and appreciate those 

metrics. My question is getting at overall, what’s our objective? 

How do we measure successes in Libya? Meaning, if we have Qadhafi in power and he decides to wait us out, one of the concerns 

I have is, what’s our strategy if that’s the outcome? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. If you look at what’s happening today again 

in London, where 40 nations are coming together to discuss this, 

virtually every nation’s leader has spoken to the desirability of the 

departure of Colonel Qadhafi. How the international community arrives at that will be a combination of the work that’s being done 

in a military context by and under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council resolution and NATO, coupled with the economic sanctions, the financial control of assets and Libyan goods that are outside the travel restrictions. 

By putting that cumulative pressure on the regime in Libya, you 

have the best chance of achieving what the heads of state have indicated they desire. 

Senator AYOTTE. Don’t you think it will be difficult without some 

type of military involvement to get a man like Qadhafi to go? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It’s hard to say. When you look historically 

at different leaders, sometimes they stay, they fight, and they die, 

and sometimes they crack, give up, and they leave the country. 

There’s a wide spectrum of what could happen going forward. 

It is clear that the international community, as indicated by the 

statements of the leaders of so many different countries, that it’s 

time for Colonel Qadhafi to leave. 

Senator AYOTTE. I’d like to follow up on a question that Senator 

Inhofe asked you about, and that’s the relationship or information 

relationship between al Qaeda and the rebels in Libya. There was 

open source reporting earlier this week that al Qaeda affiliates in 

North Africa may have stolen surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya recently. Can you tell us about that incident? Also 

what does that say, if anything, about the relationship between the 

rebels and al Qaeda affiliates? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I’d like to take that question for the record 

and come back to you, so I can give it the full benefit of a classified 

response. That would probably be the appropriate way to tackle 

that one. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. I appreciate that, and appreciate 

that some of that information might need to be classified. But I 

think it’s a very important question for us to understand in this 

committee. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

[Deleted.] 

Senator AYOTTE. I’d also like to ask you about, overall with your 

command, the command of the European forces, to be a member of 

NATO we’ve asked each member of NATO to commit at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) toward military spending. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Right. 

619 

Senator AYOTTE. Yet not all members of NATO are committing 

2 percent of their GDP to military spending. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That’s correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. In fact, what we’re seeing is even our strongest 

allies, for example the United Kingdom and France, are dealing 

with the same budgetary pressures that we’re dealing with here in 

the United States. How do you believe that that’s going to impact 

NATO? Also, given the fact that we’re relying substantially on 

NATO for our involvement in Libya right now, with people withdrawing from their commitment in terms of percentage that they’re 

willing to spend on military spending, how do you think that that 

will impact our readiness, A, going forward, and B, in particular 

this conflict in Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Let me give you the good news and the bad 

news. The good news about NATO is that it’s a resource-rich alliance. The GDP of NATO is about $32 trillion. It’s about twice the 

GDP of the United States. The GDP of NATO is about half that 

of the world’s GDP. The good news is there are resources there to 

meet these commitments, in my belief. 

The bad news is, Senator, and as you just pointed out, our allies 

in many cases are not committing even the minimum 2 percent. I 

am concerned about that as I look at the future of the alliance, 

where some members are meeting that commitment and others are 

failing to do so. It is incumbent upon nations like ours, that are 

meeting the commitment, and our leaders, to continue to make this 

point. I thank you for asking me about it. It’s something I talk to 

all of the uniformed military members about constantly. It is very 

concerning. 

In terms of will it get better, we all hope that as we emerge from 

this series of global economic concerns that there will be a rise in 

the economy and there will be more breathing space. In the immediate future, I agree with you, it’s extremely concerning and we 

should continue to talk, encourage, and pressure our allies to meet 

those kind of spending commitments. 

Senator AYOTTE. I certainly share your concerns, particularly 

given the conflicts that we are leading throughout the world, that 

that commitment has to be the commitment that we’re making. I 

certainly will be an advocate for that with our allies. 

I see that my time is up. I just wanted to also reiterate to both 

of you, it’s very important, to follow up on the chairman’s and Senator Manchin’s comments, that this committee get very good information on the cost of the conflict in Libya and regular updates, 

given the fiscal challenges that we’re facing right now in this country. Also, none of us want to see this diminish our efforts in Afghanistan. 

I appreciate you both for your distinguished service to our country, and thank you very much for answering my questions today. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

both for your extraordinary service to our Nation. Again, I join my 

colleagues in thanking the very courageous and dedicated men and 

620 

women who work under you in defending our Nation and its national interests. 

I would like to ask a question about the health of the men and 

women who come to you after serving directly under your command, in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly as to traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD), whether you consider the ongoing efforts sufficient to address their health needs in those areas? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I’ll start, Bob. I am particularly concerned 

about TBI because my duties with NATO bring me often to Afghanistan and also because in my EUCOM region I have a fair amount 

of opportunity to see all of this at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, one of our largest military hospitals. 

TBI, in particular, is something that needs more focus. I believe 

that we have yet to really understand the extent of the challenge 

we have ahead of us because of the concussive effect that many of 

our young men and women are undergoing. It’s an area that I am 

focused on. My wife has focused on this as well in terms of family 

and family support. It can be difficult to diagnose, as you appreciate, and we are all working very hard on the challenge. It’s worth 

highlighting TBI in particular from my experiences. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. General? 

General KEHLER. Senator, I would add to that, although there 

aren’t that many STRATCOM people forward deployed, we have a 

fair number of combat veterans, of course, that have returned to 

STRATCOM. If I may, just let me back up 60 days to when I was 

commanding a Service component where we were deploying a fair 

number of people forward all the time. I share Admiral Stavridis’s 

concern about TBI. 

I also am still concerned about PTSD. We have not yet cracked 

the nut here that relates PTSD and other experiences, it’s not just 

as a result of combat, but stressors that are occurring elsewhere. 

The suicide rates that we are seeing, which are still far too high. 

As a commander, I am greatly frustrated that all of the things that 

we are trying, all the things that the Services are trying, still do 

not seem to have turned the corner for us in addressing what is 

far too high a suicide rate. 

I remain concerned about that. I believe that the physical care 

that our wounded warriors receive is superb. In the visits that I’ve 

made to our hospitals and the visits that my wife makes to the hospitals in her work, like help sew adaptive clothing for those who 

have been wounded and all of the efforts that go on there. I am 

encouraged by what I see and I believe that our people from battlefield, to Landstuhl, and to the air medevac that occurs in all of 

that, they get magnificent care. 

We haven’t yet gotten to the bottom of why our suicide rates are 

way too high, and there is some relationship here, but it is not a 

sole relationship with combat or the unique stresses of combat. 

There are other stressors in our people that are showing themselves. We are spending a lot of time and energy trying to work on 

that. I know all the Service Chiefs are working on that. I know 

that the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 

and others are all equally concerned. We have more to do to take 

care of our people in that regard. 

621 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to commend both of you for your 

very eloquent remarks on this issue, and particularly on the suicide 

issue, because I know that you and your colleagues are doing more 

than ever and the quality of care has improved in ways that might 

have been unimaginable just a few years ago. Yet in these areas 

of TBI, PTSD, and suicide, we still have a lot of work to do. 

I would just say, I know this sentiment is shared by many of my 

colleagues that anything we can do to help you we would very 

much like to do. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. If I could just add one thought, in a sense 

I suppose it’s a positive one. We’ve come a long way since Vietnam 

in this regard. You look back at the literature post-Vietnam—a 

book about this is ‘‘Achilles in Vietnam,’’ which is an early study 

of PTSD and its effects. We have learned an awful lot. We are still 

in the discovery phase and that’s an area we need to continue to 

learn more about. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Regarding the bilateral security cooperation that you lead with 

Israel as a cornerstone of our larger strategic relationship in ways 

that are both large and small, how the Phased Adaptive Approach 

(PAA) concerning missile defense will be executed with regard to 

Israel’s security and Israel’s contribution to protecting Europe? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, we enjoy an extremely robust broadspectrum relationship with Israel. But I would say our particular 

work in missile defense is quite strong. We have a whole series of 

exercises that we do. I had the chance to go a little over a year ago 

and see one of the major deployments of this nascent PAA set up 

in and around Israel. We keep ships that are engaged in that network. 

I’m very confident that that’s an area where we have learned a 

lot and that we are then going to be able to apply that in the EPAA 

and knit all of that together, that knowledge that we shift from our 

work with Israel to our work with Europe. 

General Kehler may want to comment from his background. He’s 

also very deep into missile defense. 

General KEHLER. Sir, I would just echo this. The relationship 

with Israel actually goes beyond the operational relationship. 

There’s a technical relationship there on missile defense as well. 

The Director of the Missile Defense Agency would tell you that he 

has a very strong relationship there. We find, as Jim Stavridis just 

said, that there are many positive lessons that have been learned 

from our relationship with Israel that can be applied elsewhere as 

we look at the PAA, both in Europe and elsewhere. 

An important recognition that you are making here, without saying it directly, is the importance that we see to being able to 

counter the large proliferation of short-range and medium-range 

ballistic missiles that are now appearing in our theaters around 

the world and pose a threat to our forward-deployed troops and our 

allies. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you for articulating that recognition on my part better than I could have done. Thank you for your 

testimony here today, which has been very useful and important. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Blumenthal. 

622 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, you mentioned how important it is to define roles and 

responsibilities when it comes to cyber security. I certainly agree 

with that statement. I want to make sure that you’re aware that 

Senator Lieberman and I have been working on this issue for the 

past 2 years in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs Committee. The fact is that in our country, 85 percent of 

the critical infrastructure that is at risk is in the private sector, 

and it is DHS that has the lead in establishing that relationship. 

We are working, as the chairman mentioned, in a bipartisan way 

to develop a bill. We need to do so because there are an astonishing 

1.8 billion attempted attacks on government computers each 

month. I’m not sure people realize that the volume has just escalated. 

As you prepare your report for this committee with your comments and advice, I want to make sure that you’re more fully 

aware of what is going on with the Senate Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs Committee, and we will get you information 

about our bill to better inform your comments. 

General KEHLER. Senator, thank you. I am aware of all the hard 

work that’s been going on there and I would appreciate whatever 

information we can get from that. 

I would add one other point, if I may. The interesting question 

for us, over the whole time that we’ve had a U.S. military, we have 

carved out the appropriate relationship between the military and 

civil activities. That’s what needs to get carved out here, is that appropriate relationship. What has driven us in an interesting direction here is the speed with which this is all emerging. 

The work that you have been doing in the Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs Committee and I think the memorandum of agreement that was established between DOD and DHS 

is a very good start. Thank you for that offer. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you for that clarification. My concern 

was your earlier comments could have been interpreted as saying 

that DOD should take over all responsibility in this area. That 

would be, I think you would agree, a mistake. It would raise all 

sorts of civil liberties issues. I don’t think that’s what you were intending to convey in response to Senator McCain’s question. 

General KEHLER. Certainly not, and thank you for pointing that 

out. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Admiral, I’m going to turn to some of the questions about Libya 

while we do have you here. Again, I do want to thank both of you 

for your service as well. You stated in response to a question from 

our chairman that it was important to have a U.N. resolution and 

an international coalition. Don’t you think that it also would have 

been helpful to have a congressional resolution that specifically authorized the military strike against Libya, given that there was no 

national emergency on our part? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I would defer that question to the executive 

branch, as in the President or the Secretary of Defense. When I 

commented that it was good to have a U.N. Security Council resolution, I’m talking about the military clarity that it provides in 

623 

terms of what the mission I’m supposed to do, as a military officer, 

is all about. 

Senator COLLINS. That’s certainly a fair response and the one 

that I thought that you would give, and understandably would 

give. Since you did answer the chairman’s question about the desirability of the U.N. resolution, I did think it was fair to ask you 

that. 

Let me turn to another issue. Secretary Gates stated that the action by the U.N. Security Council with respect to Libya originated 

with the unanimous resolution of the Arab League and also the action taken by the Gulf Cooperation Council. Now, I know that 

Qatar and the UAE are now participating in the coalition and providing some aircraft. The fact is that there are many Arab nations 

in the neighborhood with significant air assets that, to date, do not 

seem to be participating. From 2001 to 2008, we provided $10 billion in Foreign Military Sales to Egypt, $10 billion to the Saudis, $2.6 billion to Turkey, 

and $2.4 billion to Kuwait. The Saudis have more than 200 F–15 

fighters. Egypt operates more F–16s than all but three countries in 

the world. 

I’m very concerned about the lack of Arab state participation in 

enforcing the no-fly zone. In fact, I believe they should have taken 

the lead. I realize that only the United States and a few of our allies have the capabilities to provide intelligence, coordination, and 

logistics. What is the reason that we’re not seeing more of a contribution from Arab states in the region, particularly those that do 

have significant air assets? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I’m not sure I’m qualified to walk you 

through nation-by-nation in terms of why an individual nation 

would decide to either participate fully with air strikes or to fly in 

the no-fly zone or to simply support the resolution in the Arab political body. I can certainly go back to General Mattis, who is the 

combatant commander for that region, who could really walk you 

through every one of them. It’s a legitimate question. 

What I can say, Senator, is from a NATO perspective, which is 

where I touch this issue, we will continue to aggressively pursue 

participation by the Arab states in all aspects of what we are 

doing. As I mentioned earlier in response to another question, we 

have two mechanisms for doing that in NATO, the Mediterranean 

Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative. Those are both 

bodies in which we can continue to move these requests forward 

and from a military-to-military level put pressure on them to fully 

participate in this. 

It’s a good question. I will go back and have DOD come back 

with a nation-by-nation breakdown to help understand it. From a 

NATO perspective we’ll continue to push forward to get as much 

support as we possibly can from the other Arab states. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

From the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) perspective, we continue to 

aggressively pursue participation by the Arab states in all aspects of operations 

under authority from United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. 

Current examples of tools to solicit participation include the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative. These provide excellent venues to discuss options for participation. There are, however, many other valuable and worthy 

624 

participants in this operation and NATO is constantly working to enhance participation. I encourage you to follow up with the Office of the Secretary of Defense for 

more detailed and current information on Arab nation participation. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, gentlemen. Let me turn to Libya. Let me make 

an initial comment. I support the actions of the President and the 

administration. For us to have stood by while Qadhafi moved on 

the towns and cities of the western part of Libya would have been 

unconscionable. It would have been indefensible. 

Having said that, I’ve also made it clear I’m going to continue to 

ask as many questions as come to mind. Admiral, if I might, the 

rebel forces have been more or less welcomed by the civilian populations in the east. If the rebels are able to close in on cities that 

are generally more supportive of the Qadhafi regime, how will 

NATO protect civilians caught in a potential crossfire? 

Then that question can become even more intriguing and important if you frame it this way. If rebel forces fire on civilian targets 

or military targets that place civilians in harm’s way, how are we 

going to protect those innocent people? Would we fire on the rebel 

forces, for example? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. From all that I’ve seen, at the current stage 

of this conflict we are working very hard to protect all of the civilian population. In doing that, we are setting up air zones. This is 

where the no-fly zone is actually more than simply a no-fly zone. 

It is a protective zone that allows us to use our air assets to interdict a situation in which civilians are coming under attack. 

In terms of whether or not we would parse through civilians 

versus rebels versus opposition leaders versus Qadhafi forces, we 

would have to rely on our intelligence, particularly our signals intelligence, to have a sense of what’s occurring on the ground, and 

then make conditions-based decisions at that time. 

Senator UDALL. It is difficult, though, Admiral, as you present 

the various scenarios. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It is difficult. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Particularly when you move into more densely 

populated areas. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Indeed. 

Senator UDALL. How do our aircraft prevent civilian casualties 

and other damage. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It’ll be extremely challenging. We are aided 

by a sense that is manifest in much of the country, which is 

against Qadhafi. As more and more pressure is applied, as we continue to apply both economic sanctions, financial freezing, we 

squeeze the economy, I believe that his support base will shrink 

and the tribal aspects of Libya will come to play in a way that will 

hopefully achieve the policy indication of a departure of Qadhafi. 

I agree, it’s going to be complicated and conditions-based as we 

move through. 

Senator UDALL. Ideally, the use of military force here is designed 

to create political space so that the Qadhafi regime falls, either of 

its own accord and its own decisionmaking or through outside 

forces, particularly brought to bear by the rebel forces. 

625 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. That’s the end game, using military force to 

drive political ends. I see you agreeing and in acknowledgment. 

If I could, I’ll turn to an entirely different subject, to General 

Kehler. I know you talked about International Traffic Arms Reductions (ITAR). Since I came to Congress in 1999, we’ve been talking 

about ITAR and the way in which it restricts our private sector. Increasingly, I think you could make the argument that it actually 

does the opposite of enhancing our national security, because we 

are not developing the capabilities that we might. 

Could you speak to that assessment and then, more specifically, 

how have our export controls under ITAR affected our military 

space acquisitions and development? Most importantly, are these 

export controls slowing the development of critical space-based assets that support our warfighters? 

In other words, this policy is contradictory to other policies that 

we have in place, although well-intentioned when it was first put 

into place. 

General KEHLER. Senator, your concerns are well founded. From 

my current seat as the Commander of STRATCOM, here’s where 

this impacts us most. Just as you suggest, if in fact our industrial 

base cannot provide the kinds of capabilities that we need, then we 

need to go back and take a hard look at why that is. What impact 

that has on us as a military operational force, of course, depends 

on what it is that has been delayed. 

There is at least one thread that runs back through our industrial base. It isn’t the only thread, but there’s at least one thread 

that runs back there, that says that some export controls, while 

well intentioned, need to be there to preserve the best of our national security technologies and capabilities. There is a danger here 

that export controls, if not reviewed and refined, can in fact create 

the opposite kind of situation, where our industry is no longer competitive, therefore our industry is declining, therefore their ability 

to provide for us is also declining. 

The President’s new national space policy that was signed last 

summer and the recently approved National Security Space Strategy both point this point, and they both essentially say it’s time for 

us to go back and take another look at ITAR. I support that. It’s 

time for us to do that kind of a look. There needs to be a careful 

balance struck here between preserving and protecting our highest, 

most important national security technologies, especially where 

they relate to space and where they relate to cyberspace, although 

that’s not directly touched in quite the same way. 

It’s time for that type of review and I would encourage that. 

Senator UDALL. With well-intentioned efforts, you can build walls 

so that those outside the walls can’t see in or get in, but the same 

situation then applies to those who are inside the walls. It’s harder 

to get out and it’s harder to see over the top of those walls. 

General KEHLER. Yes, sir. There are many, many instances, certainly in my last job, where I had some responsibility for acquisition, where industry would come to us and say: The reason we are 

having trouble is because of ITAR. It’s not a blanket indictment of 

ITAR, nor is it a blanket indictment of the intent behind ITAR. 

Execution needs a harder review and that needs to occur soon. 

626 

Senator UDALL. There is joint jurisdiction here, some question 

about jurisdiction between the Department of State (DOS), DOD, 

and the committees that are involved, which I know the chairman’s 

engaged in. This is the time to push this in ways that perhaps we 

haven’t. 

General KEHLER. Yes, sir. No question about it, this is a shared 

responsibility and DOS does have a significant role here in all of 

this. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you again. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank both of you for your service to the country, and we appreciate your leadership. I’ve gotten to know both of you and have 

great personal affection and admiration for you. 

Senator McCain and Senator John Kerry were correct when they 

called early on for a no-fly zone in Libya, at a time when momentum was with us and they had a chance to be decisive in the outcome of the effort. As a result of the delays that have occurred, we 

now have a more difficult position and difficult situation. 

Senator McCain, to his credit, is a patriot. He’s not criticizing the 

President. His view simply is that if this is the right thing, let’s 

do it, and we’ll support the President in his action. 

Admiral Stavridis, you mentioned that it is important to secure 

the U.N. and NATO resolutions before action. You noted that the 

entire international community is against Qadhafi. But Congress 

has not voted, as Senator Collins stated, we got approval from a 

lot of different places, but we don’t have one from Congress. 

General Kehler, a no-fly zone normally means that you usually 

use our Air Force to ensure that an enemy’s air force is not able 

to attack forces that we think ought not to be attacked. It normally 

does not cover, attacking by our Air Force of the enemy forces on 

the ground on one side of a conflict. Would you comment on that 

briefly? 

General KEHLER. Sir, again from my role in STRATCOM, it’s a 

difficult point for me to comment on. I’ve heard the operation described as a no-fly zone, but actually there’s some additional language that goes with that that characterizes the operation in the 

way that it’s being conducted. 

Senator SESSIONS. Additional language comes from the U.N., apparently, which is nice to have. I would ask you, Admiral Stavridis, 

what if China had vetoed that resolution? What if Turkey or some 

other country in the NATO family objected? What if the Arab 

League had some objections to this? Would the United States then 

stand by and allow a slaughter to occur? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That’s a decision that would squarely rest 

with the President in terms of making an executive branch decision 

and my point in saying that the U.N. Security Council resolution 

was a good thing to have is that it simply broadens the mandate. 

From a military officer’s perspective, the U.N. Security Council resolution, sir, lays out those military tasks very clearly. In that way, 

it was helpful. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is interesting, that you seem to be taking, as your command, the U.N. and the rules of engagement they 

627 

have authorized, and we don’t have any U.S. rules of engagement 

that I’ve understood with clarity, certainly not from Congress. It’s 

not your fault. I’m just saying that the extent to which Congress 

has been bypassed in this process is rather breathtaking. 

I hope there’s no suggestion that we’re establishing a precedent 

by which the United States won’t act unless multiple international 

bodies approve that action, because I remember the famous Patton 

quote, ‘‘A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.’’ Sometimes that means a lot of lives at stake. 

Proper, prompt, aggressive action can be decisive in military conflicts, isn’t that true, Admiral Stavridis? Delay can be fatal to the 

success of an operation? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. That is true, and we see examples of that in 

history. 

Senator SESSIONS. Admiral Stavridis, we love our European allies and I understand you’ve proposed and suggested we might 

delay the withdrawal of some of our brigades from Europe. We 

have four now and the plan is to come down to two. Our German 

friends are some of the best economic and political partners we 

have in the world. However, tell the American people why we have 

to have 40,000 troops in Europe if they’re cutting their budgets far 

more substantially than we’re cutting ours? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Just to walk through this, we currently have 

four brigade combat teams in Europe as part of about 35,000 soldiers that are there. It bumps up to 40,000 at times. There was a 

decision made several years ago to cut back to two. 

Senator SESSIONS. I was part of a congressional delegation that 

traveled to Europe to examine the bases that would be enduring. 

It was during a time when we were closing U.S. bases under the 

base realignment and closure policy. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Subsequently, in the course of the Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD decided to take one more look at that 

decision as to whether we wanted to cut all the way back to two 

or reduce some other level of that. That analysis has been going 

on for about 6 to 8 months and is now reaching final decision. I 

know that has not been announced as yet. 

I believe that your fundamental question is, why do we have 

troops in Europe at this stage, given that they have the resources 

to defend themselves and so forth. I would say there are still legitimate reasons for a reasonable number of U.S. troops in Europe. As 

we talked about earlier, we’re down from 400,000 in Europe and 

we’ve come down 75 percent already since the end of the Cold War. 

The reason for them is partly what you’re seeing right now. It’s 

the use of these bases in Europe as forward areas from which we 

can operate in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as we are today. It’s 

also deterrence, reassurance, training, and working with our allies. 

I would argue, sir, that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I believe in your statement you say it’s a demonstration of United States commitment. If Europe isn’t committed 

to defending itself, does it need to have us to defend them? We 

have Europeans that pretend to help us in Afghanistan, but who 

won’t allow their soldiers to fire their weapons. 

The Government Accountability Office has reported that it costs 

$17 billion for DOD installations in Europe and they estimated $24 

628 

billion through 2015 to operate and maintain our bases there. Is 

NATO so frail that we have to have another $1.8 billion construction project to maintain perhaps more troops than the plan has 

called for? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Senator, we’re looking very hard at making 

every reasonable reduction in those numbers of troops. I would 

argue, let’s take Afghanistan as an example. We have 45,000 nonU.S. troops in Afghanistan with us. We’ve lost, very tragically, 

1,400 of our young men and women killed in action. Our allies have 

lost 900 killed in action. On a proportional basis, that’s actually 

higher than our own losses. 

They’re in it. They’re in the fight in Afghanistan. I would argue 

that part of the reason they are there with us, in Afghanistan and 

in Libya, is because of those enduring commitments, fully taking 

your point that we ought to look at every reasonable way to reduce 

it to a minimum in order to give our U.S. taxpayers the best bang 

for the buck. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know you’re familiar with Japan and our 

fleet that’s there and how much Japan supports it. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. They pay about 40 percent of the cost of our 

military bases in Japan. I believe the Europeans have gotten far 

too comfortable under the American umbrella. They’re reducing 

their budget substantially across the board. We’re trying to hold 

ours at a minimum reduction, maybe without reduction, and they 

want us to keep more and more troops there. It’s a situation that 

cannot continue, and both of you need to know that when our government spends $3.7 trillion and takes in $2.2 trillion, we are on 

an unsustainable path, as the Federal Reserve Chairman has told 

us. Money is going to be tight in the defense budget and these are 

some areas that real savings can accrue without weakening our 

ability to defend America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Yes, Senator Nelson. I’m sorry. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Admiral and General, for your service, and all those 

who serve with you. We appreciate so much the commitment to the 

defense of our country. 

General Kehler, in your written testimony you discuss the need 

to build a new STRATCOM and control complex. You note that reliable and assured command, control, and communication from the 

President to the nuclear forces are fundamental to our strategic deterrent. This requires resolving some gaps in our capabilities, gaps 

that need to be addressed and will be addressed by the planned 

new STRATCOM and control complex and the nuclear command, 

control, and communications (C3) node at Offutt Air Force Base. 

To the extent that you can expand on the C3 plans, the requirements, and how the new STRATCOM and control complex will 

meet national security requirements. Would you please try to explain so that we can understand? It’s more than a building; it’s a 

housing structure for a command. Please outline that? 

General KEHLER. Yes, sir. The STRATCOM location fulfills a 

unique role in the overall national nuclear command and control 

629 

system. It is a unique node on a network of nuclear command and 

control, a fact that we came to discover with great clarity when we 

had an 8-inch water main break in the building back in December 

and seriously impacted our ability to get the job done. 

Therefore, as we look at retaining the appropriate nuclear command and control capabilities, the things that are at STRATCOM 

right now that are encompassed inside the physical plant, inside 

the headquarters building itself. We’re talking about unique operational command and control activities, and we’re certainly talking 

about unique fusion capability there to begin to pull the pieces of 

not only our nuclear command and control, but space, cyber space, 

and other pieces, together as well. 

As we went forward to look at how we need to address the physical vulnerabilities that we have there, from what is now an antiquated physical plant, a plant that was never designed to do what 

we are asking STRATCOM to do today. In fact, when that physical 

plant was built, STRATCOM had one mission and that was nuclear 

deterrence. Today that is one of many missions that STRATCOM 

has. 

As we looked at this, the physical plant is not going to be capable 

of keeping up. Therefore, the analysis that was done prior to my 

arrival leads us to believe that the best course of action is to create 

an updated command and control node with the appropriate planning tools and to surround that with a new building. That’s the 

pathway that we are on. 

When we look at building a new building, I think that that’s not 

an adequate way to describe this, because a new building is one 

thing. What we are actually creating here, though, is a command 

and control node, a nuclear command and control node, a planning 

center that has unique capabilities for global planning requirements, that has to be housed in a facility that can support that. 

Those two things together is what we are asking Congress to support. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

Admiral, at the onset of the operations in Libya the President 

noted the United States’ unique capabilities to establish a no-fly 

zone, in other words the Tomahawk missiles, and the United 

States employed those unique capabilities in support of the U.N. 

resolution, with the partnership of NATO. I understand that our 

committee has asked and is working to get a cost to date for the 

mission in Libya, along with weekly cost reports. I appreciate this 

as I believe it’s needed, because there are really two questions that 

go beyond what the role of the mission is. That is the cost and how 

long. 

I’ve had a number of people ask me if there is any kind of an 

exit strategy, although those same people didn’t necessarily ask 

that question about Iraq or Afghanistan. They are asking it right 

now. Could you give us some indication of what we’re looking at 

in terms of costs to date, just on the basis of ballparking it? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Again, Senator, as I mentioned to a couple 

of your colleagues, I’m really not the right person to ask. I will say 

that the operation, as it runs over months, will be in the hundreds 

of millions of dollars. 

Senator NELSON. Hundreds of millions of dollars? 

630 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Hundreds of millions of dollars, yes. I’ve 

pledged to Chairman Levin to take back the message to DOD that 

you’re looking for a cost to date and weekly updates. I believe that 

will be registered loud and clear back at DOD and I understand 

that. 

In terms of an exit strategy, events at this point are so fluid. 

We’re 5 weeks into this thing. The first set of protests began on 

February 15. The U.N. Security Council resolution was 30 days 

later, March 17. NATO has taken over the mission. Everything has 

moved extremely rapidly. 

As I look out the spectrum of how this could unfold, it’s premature to say what our exit strategy is until we have at least a 

little more clarity moving forward. 

Senator NELSON. With respect to NATO, do you have information 

that would indicate what percentage of the total costs or the total 

budget of NATO is borne by the U.S. Government? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I will find out the answer to that. I think 

that the NATO budgeting structure, unlike the U.N., which is balanced and in some ways bigger nations pay more, I think the 

NATO common funding pool is exactly that, a common funded pool. 

I don’t think the United States pays a disproportionate share of 

NATO costs. 

When you get into operations that NATO is doing or any operational setting, the NATO approach is, costs lie where they fall. 

Which means that the nation that is bringing a force to the fight 

is the one that pays for that force. In that sense, taking Afghanistan as an example, the United States is about 2 to 1 in terms of 

a ratio, so it would be bearing roughly twice the cost, for example. 

But those are very rough estimates. I’ll refine those and report 

back to you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Approximately 20 percent of the total North Atlantic Treaty Organization budget 

is borne by the U.S. Government. 

Senator NELSON. That would be fine. 

Thank you very much to both of you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, General, welcome. It’s good to see you both. 

General, if you’ll forgive me, I have a number of questions that 

I need to ask the Admiral. We appreciate your service. In the limited time we have, I wanted to focus my attention on Admiral 

Stavridis. 

I’m struggling a little bit, Admiral, to understand what the plan 

is, now that we’ve intervened in Libya and then handed things off 

to NATO, especially given the unrest still extant in Egypt and Bahrain. Who knows where this contagion will spread and how it will 

all end. Part of this inability to understand what the plan is is because the President, again, this is not your fault, but the President 

did not come to Congress and engage Congress in this discussion 

about his intentions. That’s why we have a lot of these questions. 

I want to ask you, first of all, to help me understand it as you 

understand, what the contours are of this new doctrine of intervening for humanitarian purposes and not when our, as Secretary 

Gates said, vital interests nor an imminent threat was likely to 

631 

come from Libya, but we intervened to save civilians, which I understand and any human being with a heart would feel compassion 

for. 

It strikes me that, for example, there have been civilians killed 

in Syria in protests against the government. We know Syria is a 

state sponsor of international terrorism. It is a police state, and it 

has facilitated the entry of foreign fighters into Iraq that have 

killed American troops. We know that Syria is complicit with Iran 

in the shipment of weapons through Syria to Lebanon that 

Hezbollah can use to then attack Israel. 

It strikes me that, as bad as Colonel Qadhafi is, he’s been in 

power 42 years. Why Libya and why not Syria? Can you help me 

understand as you understand why? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As to why Libya, as we look at the NATO 

side of this thing, where I’m somewhat qualified to speak on this. 

In terms of U.S. policy decisions, those more fairly rest with, at my 

level, with General Ham from AFRICOM, Secretary of Defense 

Gates, and so forth. 

I can tell you from a NATO perspective, as the NATO organization looked at the imminent possibility of a massive slaughter in 

Benghazi catalyzed NATO. It was the size of it, it was the ability 

that NATO had because of the geography of Libya being so close 

to Italy, and it was looking at the potential outcomes from that 

event from a European perspective of potential mass migrations. 

Destabilization into Egypt was a significant concern in the halls of 

NATO. 

It was, Senator, a combination of proximity to Europe, the sense 

of imminent mass disaster, and the capability. Here I would draw 

a historical parallel going back to the conflict at Bosnia, which you 

may remember in the 1990s there was an event at a place called 

Srenbrenica, you may remember, where 8,000 men and boys were 

executed in a day or 2. It was as a result of that—that catalyzed 

NATO at that time. It’s probably fair to say the memory of that 

and the fact that Benghazi looked as though it was going to fall 

with a similar scenario, based on the statements of Qadhafi and his 

son. 

All of that came together. 

Senator CORNYN. Fair enough. Our experience in the Middle 

East, though, has been when America intervenes that, it was General Powell who coined the ‘‘Pottery Barn Rule’’: If you break it, 

you own it. We’ve seen our intervention in Iraq and in Afghanistan 

not go exactly as we might have planned, to say the very least, 

which causes me concern about what the future is going to mean 

in Libya under a NATO command. 

Just so we can understand this, I believe that the question that 

Senator Nelson was asking, my understanding is you’re correct in 

terms of the financial contribution the United States makes to 

NATO. But right now, out of the 132,000 troops that are in Afghanistan, about 90,000 of those are U.S. troops, but they fall under 

NATO command, correct? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. Just to sharpen the numbers slightly, 98,000 U.S. troops and 45,000 non-U.S. troops, about 2 to 1 

would be the ratio there. 

632 

Senator CORNYN. I thank you for that. In your view, is NATO 

adequately resourced in terms of personnel and financial resources? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. In terms of—— 

Senator CORNYN. In Afghanistan? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. In Afghanistan, yes, sir. In fact, another set 

of numbers that are worth knowing, and I mentioned them to one 

of your colleagues, of killed in action, there have been, sadly, over 

1,400 U.S. So 2 to 1, you would expect about 700 of the allies. In 

fact, 900 allies have fallen. They are in this fight with us and are 

taking losses and making a significant contribution. 

Senator CORNYN. Admiral, my staff has handed me an article 

that quotes General Caldwell, commander of NATO’s training commission who said that NATO still faces a shortage of 740 trainers 

needed to train Afghan soldiers and policemen. Assuming that 

NATO is able to handle its commitment in Afghanistan, could you 

explain, if NATO does decide to deploy stabilization forces in Libya, 

would that include U.S. troops under NATO command? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. If NATO decided to deploy troops, whether or 

not the United States decided to participate with troops would be 

a national decision for the United States. Let me turn it around. 

In terms of the no-fly zone that we’re enforcing right now, Senator, 

Germany, for example, has chosen not to participate in that mission. It’s not required that every nation in NATO participate in 

every mission. There is a capability to choose among them, and 

that tends to balance itself out. 

For example, the Germans, who are not in the Libyan operation, 

are contributing 5,000 troops in Afghanistan. They’re actually the 

second largest non-U.S. contributor there. 

Senator CORNYN. My time is running out. Let me just conclude 

with this question. Assuming the humanitarian crisis that you detailed and that the President talked about last night is sufficiently 

compelling to warrant the intervention of the U.S. military and 

now NATO’s involvement, can you imagine any set of circumstances where NATO would just simply pull out and allow that 

humanitarian crisis to continue? Or do you think it’s more likely 

than not that it would see it to some sort of satisfactory conclusion 

that did not involve a massive loss of innocent civilians’ lives? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It’s always dangerous to talk about a hypothetical, but based on the conversations I’ve seen and heard around 

NATO as the alliance signed up for the mission, NATO will see it 

through to conclusion. I’ll give you a practical example, if I may: 

Kosovo, 1999. The alliance decided to go in. It went in with air 

strikes. It then sent in boots on the ground. When I took this job 

2 years ago, there were still 15,000 NATO troops in Kosovo. Today 

that’s come down to about 6,800, moving toward a goal of 5,000. 

That’s okay. That’s indicative of the ongoing level of engagement. 

By the way, of the 6,800 troops, only about 800 of them are U.S. 

troops. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you see any scenario under the NATO mission that would be deemed a success, where Qadhafi would remain 

in power? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The international community, speaking 

through all the leaders, has continued to indicate a desire for Colonel Qadhafi to leave. The NATO mission at the moment is humaniVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00638 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
633 

tarian, arms embargo, no-fly zone, and protect the population. How 

you square those two will be determined in the weeks and the 

months ahead. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

both of you for being here and the great job that you’re doing for 

our country. We really do appreciate it. 

One of my concerns has to do with the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in our schools. I know that 

developing, expanding, sustaining, and retaining a steady stream of 

cyber specialists is critical to our national security. General Kehler, 

in your prepared statement you indicated that the cyber workforce 

is growing, but recruiting adequately trained and equipped cyber 

warriors is challenging. You also mentioned the importance of 

partnering with our Nation’s educational and commercial information technology entities to spur domestic math and science interests. 

This is certainly an area that I’m extremely interested in. I was 

reading recently where out of 34 nations the United States is 14th 

in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math. This is a huge concern. 

Can you describe some of your efforts in recruiting a steady 

stream of cyber warriors and how can Congress help you in this regard? Have you and your staff been engaged with universities and 

high schools that specialize in the STEM education? 

General KEHLER. Senator, let me answer the middle question 

first. We appreciate the fact that Congress continues to mention 

STEM and the fact that you all have it as part of your general 

agenda, some of you with specific agenda items. To continue to 

push that is important for all of us and for our overall national security, not just in cyber, but as I look across the board in 

STRATCOM we’re the beneficiary of a great deal of our highest 

tech weaponry. No question about it, both in the industrial base 

that produces that for us as well as in the military members that 

we have to recruit to be part of those operations, STEM is critically 

important to us across the board. 

Let me get to the specifics of cyber. Each of the Services have 

now put together programs to recruit, train, certify, and retain 

cyber specialists. We have put, from STRATCOM, a bit of a demand signal on the Service components. For example, what they 

brought to CYBERCOM initially was a policing up, if you will, of 

all the Service specialties that already had a hand in the cyber 

business. What we said to them in the last year or so was: That’s 

not enough; we need to increase the demand signal. 

We are now going through requirement studies, if you will. The 

first one was completed. We laid on the Services a requirement for 

a thousand more cyber operations people. That was split among the 

Services to about 300 each and the wheels are turning to produce 

those. 

It’s now up to us to come back and quantify, with a little bit 

more fidelity, what additional cyber capacity we need. We know we 

need more. The question is how much more and of what skills. The 

Services are being responsive, in this regard. All of them have a 

634 

way to recruit from the beginning. In fact, at least one of them has 

put in place the requirement all the way into basic military training for basic cyber awareness. Like every marine’s a rifleman, 

every sailor’s a firefighter, every servicemember, certainly every 

airman—I can speak for a Service I just came from—every airman 

is going to be a cyber defender. 

That kind of philosophy is going to be very helpful in the long 

run. In addition, there are advanced degree programs that have 

been put in place, both in the Air Force and steps are being taken 

in the Navy. As we retain these people as we go forward, there’s 

going to be a great deal of ability for us to try to keep up with the 

private sector, which is where most of the rapid advances occur. 

The final thing that I would say that the Services have done that 

makes me feel good as the user of those capabilities is they’re looking very hard at the Reserve components and at the National 

Guard, because where it makes sense for us to link up the Reserves 

and the Guard with the civilian community that they are attached 

to and that they come from cyber. 

Go to places like Seattle, Silicon Valley, the Carolinas, or places 

where the hotbeds of cyber high tech activity are; those are ideal 

places for Reserve units or National Guard units that can do double duty, if you will, keep a foot in the civilian community while 

bringing those kinds of talents to national security as well. 

I would tell you that I believe that the wheels are turning. I believe that progress has been made. We are looking at what joint 

training might look like, what joint certification might look like, 

how is it that we ask the Services to provide complementary capabilities, not competitive capabilities. So far what I’ve seen out of 

the Services is they’re amenable to working with STRATCOM and 

CYBERCOM in all of those ways forward. 

I would make one other point. The Deputy Secretary of Defense 

has had a great leadership role in all of this. He has been very 

vocal in his commitment from DOD’s standpoint to want to have 

DOD correctly positioned to have the capacity that we know we’re 

going to need for the future. 

Senator HAGAN. I can see you are very interested in this, too, because it’s something for our national security and we need to do a 

much better job. I know that you’re always in competition with the 

private sector, too. I’m also glad you mentioned North Carolina. 

A couple of weeks ago I asked the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy, Miche`le Flournoy, how our NATO partners can significantly contribute to growing, training, and equipping a sizable and 

capable Afghan National Security Force (ANSF). Under Secretary 

Flournoy indicated that this is an area for potential reinvestment 

by our NATO and ISAF partners, particularly as some of our partner forces redeploy or change the nature of their commitment to 

the mission. 

Admiral Stavridis, can you describe your efforts aimed at conveying to our NATO allies the importance of maintaining forces in 

Afghanistan at appropriate levels and providing additional funding 

for the ANSF Trust Fund? I was recently over in Afghanistan and 

had an opportunity to visit the training center there and there was 

a lot of good work going on. 

635 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, Senator. I’m very pleased, as you 

were with your visit, with the overall training effort. Lieutenant 

General Caldwell, who heads that mission, has about 5,000 people 

on his team. They have at any given moment about 35,000 Afghans 

in training. They have trained 100,000 Afghans, for example, in literacy, speaking of education, which is really an extraordinary 

thing. In addition to all the warfighting skills, they’re teaching 

basic reading to many of these young Afghan men and women. 

What we are encouraging the allies to do now as some of them 

are withdrawing forces is to shift those to the training mission. I’ll 

give you two practical examples. The Canadians, who have fought 

very valiantly in Afghanistan, decided to downsize their combat 

mission, but they have added almost 1,000 people to a training 

mission, which is flowing into Afghanistan right now. 

The second one I would mention are the Dutch, who also fought 

very valiantly with too many casualties in southern Afghanistan. 

They’ve decided to shift to a training focus and they’re moving to 

bring 545 members to focus largely on training, with a few other 

activities as well. We’re showing them as an example to other nations, and as we begin this transition this summer in Kabul, Mazar 

e-Sharif, Herat, Panshir, and Bamayan, we are going to be able to 

turn over the warfighting to the Afghans and take some of our 

forces to do the training. In the end, that’s how we will succeed in 

the security dimension in Afghanistan. We are going to train our 

way to success there. 

Senator HAGAN. How about the funding of this? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The funding is in place. It is at the moment, 

I would hasten to say, largely, overwhelmingly from the United 

States, and that’s something that we need to work on with our allies. This is an area, Senator, where even nations that are not in 

the troops on the ground portion of this can be very helpful. 

There are 70 nations that are engaged financially in Afghanistan. Almost 49 have troops on the ground. But that trade space 

is a place where I’m encouraging our national folks to focus, our 

diplomats to focus, on funding the Afghan Security Training Trust 

Fund. I agree with you, that’s an area where they could do more. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you Senator Hagan. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both 

for your service, and thanks to all the great service of the men and 

women in uniform who serve with you. 

Admiral, the fundamental confusion about the situation in Libya 

is this: The statement is that we’re mostly there to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. Everyone knows that the greatest threat toward that end is Qadhafi remaining in power and regaining control 

of the country. Yet ousting Qadhafi is not a goal of the operations. 

To the average Louisianian, that doesn’t connect. Can you explain that to us? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I can only explain what I do as a military officer leading from the NATO perspective. The military mission I’ve 

been given, Senator, is to focus on all the things we’ve talked about 

in the course of this hearing, which range from the humanitarian 

636 

operation, the arms embargo, the no-fly zone, and to protecting the 

population. 

As distinct from the military mission that I am charged with, as 

I listen to all of the world leaders talk about this there’s a consistent refrain that the time has come for Qadhafi to move on. The 

way those connect is a sense of, by our participation in protecting 

the people of Libya we create a safe and secure environment in 

which the people of Libya can make a determination, and that they 

then have the ability to undertake the kind of effort that would in 

effect create regime change, as we have seen in other nations in 

the Middle East. 

It’s fair to say that regime change is an aspiration that has been 

articulated by many world leaders and is under discussion today in 

London, I’m sure. The military mission that at the moment that I 

am focused on, that I am charged with, is the one that I described 

to you a moment ago. I don’t think the two are directly linked, but 

they may connect over time, particularly if we add other tools to 

the kit in terms of the financial squeeze, in terms of the travel restrictions, finding the money and turning it off are all part of this. 

Again, we’re in the very early days in this process. We’re 6 weeks 

into it and at the moment my focus as a NATO commander is on 

the military mission that I’ve been given. 

Senator VITTER. Can you imagine the progress of the Qadhafi 

forces not posing serious humanitarian threats? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. From everything we’ve seen in the last 5 or 

6 weeks, whenever Qadhafi’s forces have an opportunity to move 

and to operate, they pose a threat to civilians, very much so. 

Senator VITTER. Okay. That’s my general point. We’re somehow 

trying to have it both ways, that this is a humanitarian mission, 

but we’re not taking sides in a civil war. My main point is that that 

is rounding a square peg and you can’t do it. It would be more constructive to be direct and clear about it so we know what we’re getting into or what we’re not getting into. 

Do you have any reaction to that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Those are points that would be well taken up 

with the policymakers in DOD. I believe you’ll have a series of 

hearings in which that could be appropriately addressed. At my 

level, as a military officer I’m very focused on the mission that I’ve 

been given from my civilian leadership. 

Senator VITTER. Okay. The cost of this. We’re going to get reports 

on the ongoing cost of these operations. Can you tell us generally 

what current defense accounts are being used to offset these costs? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No, sir, again not within my purview either 

as a combatant commander in EUCOM, where I am flowing forces 

to AFRICOM. The budgetary train that comes behind that is handled by each of the individual Services, so DOD would be able to 

give you that answer. I’ll, as I mentioned to the chairman, I’ll gladly convey that back. 

Senator VITTER. Well, if you can add to the request that we’ve 

talked about before, that we also get a report specifically about 

where money is coming from. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

637 

As I understand it, the Department of Defense (DOD) is currently covering the 

costs for Libya operations by deferring other DOD requirements and, in the case of 

munitions, by drawing down inventories. For more specific and up-to-date information, I recommend you contact DOD’s Comptroller. 

Senator VITTER. Finally on intelligence. The President specifically highlighted intelligence as a significant continuing U.S. role 

in Libya, in his remarks last night. At the same time, on the same 

day Vice Admiral Gortney stated that we have limited intelligence 

capability and, specifically, we don’t know who the rebels are. 

Those seem like inconsistent comments. Can you explain that? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, sir, I can take a try at it. We’re, again, 

very early in the process. When Admiral Gortney was talking about 

limited intelligence he was talking about having the opportunity to 

really understand who is in the opposition, what is their background, what are their connections, who are they talking to. We’re 

in the process of working very hard, as you can imagine, to gather 

that intelligence right now. 

In terms of intelligence support to the mission broadly, we’re 

talking about the whole array of U.S. capabilities. That’s everything from satellites, signals intelligence, U–2s, to other aircraft 

that are gathering intelligence. Those two elements come together. 

One is a resource and an enabler and the other is a proximate intelligence requirement or need, and by enabling and using those resources in the operation we have a much better chance of gathering 

the specific intelligence on the opposition that we very much need. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Stavridis, General Kehler, I am sorry that I missed your 

testimony. I was presiding. But I’m delighted to be here and to 

have you both here. General Kehler, it’s nice to have you here as 

the commander, for the first time, of STRATCOM. But all my questions are NATO-related, so I will direct them to Admiral Stavridis. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I think General Kehler’s going to put in a request to always testify with me. [Laughter.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. I’m not surprised. I only have one Libya question, so that should make you feel better. 

I want to pick up on the concern that was raised by Senator Collins about Arab involvement in the mission in Libya. I share the 

commitment that you expressed and she raised about maximizing 

the engagement on the part of our Arab allies in what’s happening 

in Libya. I know that some had expressed concern that having the 

mission led by NATO might discourage some of our Arab allies 

from participating. 

Can you tell me if that’s your view and what you’ve heard from 

Arab countries about NATO leading the mission? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I can, Senator. I do not agree with the statement that shifting the mission to NATO will reduce Arab participation. I base that on several factors. One is, and I’ve mentioned it 

a couple of times in the hearing, two suborganizations we have at 

NATO that you know about: the Mediterranean Dialogue, which 

has five Arab nations from around the periphery of the Mediterranean, in fact, almost all of the ones in North Africa, except Libya; 

638 

and the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative, which is a similar organization in the Gulf States of the Arabian Gulf. 

Both of those organizations give NATO an ongoing set of relationships with 11 Arab nations in total, and we have tapped each 

of those and overwhelmingly the impression we get is that the 

Arab states are very willing to operate with NATO. We already 

have two. There are a couple more coming or are in sensitive conversation. The range of participation and engagement, in the end 

doing this under NATO auspices will be very positive, and we’ll 

continue, as I told Senator Collins, to work it very hard. I’ll come 

back to you in 30 days and follow up on that particular point. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

From the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) perspective, we continue to 

aggressively pursue participation by the Arab states in all aspects of operations 

under authority from United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. 

Current examples of tools to solicit participation include the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative. These provide excellent venues to discuss options for participation. There are, however, many other valuable and worthy 

participants in this operation and NATO is constantly working to enhance participation. I encourage you to follow up with the Office of the Secretary of Defense for 

more detailed and current information on Arab nation participation. 

Senator SHAHEEN. They would be participating as full partners 

sitting around the table as decisions are being made? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I would say that for military operations the 

28 member states of the NAC will be the deciding body. This is 

parallel to the situation in Afghanistan, where the 28 NATO nations are the actual military decisionmakers. 

Around that nucleus of 28 NATO nations, the political partners 

come together with very free dialogue, and yet they don’t have delineated control over the military operations. That’s a pretty functional arrangement. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Now I want to switch to the Balkans. You mentioned Kosovo and 

the reduction in both NATO and U.S. forces in Kosovo. Is it your 

assessment that we’re making good progress there? One of the concerns that was raised with me over the weekend when I was at the 

Brussels conference was concern about some of the holy sites in 

Kosovo and the extent to which they would be secure if NATO 

forces withdrew. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Senator, we’re making very good progress in 

Kosovo if you look at a time scale. 10 years ago we were launching 

Tomahawk missiles into Belgrade to kick off that conflict. When I 

came on the job, we had 15,000 troops. Because we’ve been able to 

maintain a safe and secure environment, we reduced to 10,000, and 

in February I came down to 5,000 troops. 

I’m very comfortable at that level. In a year I’ll take another look 

and we’re going to work our way out of a job in Kosovo, because 

the ongoing dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo continues to improve. 

In terms of the sensitive sites, we started out with nine of those. 

We have turned over five of them at this point. We’re about to turn 

over a sixth. Two are particularly sensitive and we’re going to hold 

those for some number of months into the future. You’re correct to 

raise that as an indicator of what we’ll look at as we go forward 

to ultimately close this mission out. 

639 

Overall, I am pleased with the progress in Kosovo and I believe 

we’re on the right trajectory. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That’s encouraging. 

Last April, NATO placed a number of conditions on Bosnia’s 

membership action plan (MAP). I was one of those who argued that 

it would be important to offer MAP for Bosnia as they are trying 

to work their way through some of their governmental structures. 

At this point, however, given the challenges that they’ve had in 

putting together a government, can you talk about what progress 

there is in moving forward on MAP and what message the people 

of Bosnia might want to take away as they watch their leaders 

squander a real opportunity? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. You categorized it correctly, in that there is 

continuing acrimony between the three major groups in Bosnia, 

which is holding them back from making significant progress on 

the MAP at this time. 

One concrete example would be the allocation of defense properties, which are distributed amongst the Croat, Bosniak, and Serbian ethnic populations, bringing those together in a centralized 

way. We have yet to see real progress on that. That’s, for example, 

one of the conditions of movement on the MAP. 

I am not encouraged about that. We will continue to work with 

them and try and move progress there, because that’s very important and I am concerned about Bosnia falling backward if we don’t 

all continue to work together there. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

I’m out of time, so I won’t ask you about the new strategic concept and I will save that for another time. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

I just have a couple questions. First of all, Admiral, you testified 

earlier that you are comfortable with the mission which has been 

given to you. I take it that means that you view that the mission 

is sufficiently clear; is that correct? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Speaking as a NATO commander, I hold this 

mission as a NATO commander; yes, sir, it is clear to me what the 

NAC has tasked me with. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay, and you’ve said you’re comfortable with 

that mission? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. I am comfortable with that mission. 

Chairman LEVIN. The fact that there’s no exit strategy yet, is not 

troubling to you? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. It’s very early in the process and I am confident that one will develop. Again, events in London today may 

give us some indication. 

Chairman LEVIN. General Kehler, you made reference to or you 

were asked about the EPAA. Do you support the EPAA? I’m not 

sure you answered that question fully. 

General KEHLER. Yes, I do. 

Chairman LEVIN. Why? 

General KEHLER. Missile defense for the United States has been 

based on two major objectives. Objective number one has been to 

make sure that our homeland is protected against a limited balVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00645 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
640 

listic missile attack from North Korea and to extend that if events 

warrant and Iran develops similar capacity. 

At the same time, objective number two that has emerged has 

been to make sure that we are responding to the regional threats 

that we see that are growing at a very, very fast pace. The PAA 

is intended to put resources in the theaters where we need to add 

to the defenses of U.S. troops and our allies, but to do so in such 

a way that it builds upon the threat. I support that. I think that’s 

the right way to go forward. That gives us a prudent way to go forward and it allows us to hedge our activities as well. 

Inherent in both pieces of this missile defense activity that we 

are putting together, there are appropriate hedges in place that 

allow us to adapt and to respond as needed. 

Chairman LEVIN. The regional threat is an existing threat, is 

that correct? 

General KEHLER. The regional threat is an existing threat and 

growing. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is it true that the PAA addresses an existing 

threat? 

General KEHLER. It does, yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. Unlike the previous approach, is that correct? 

Because isn’t the existing threat the short- and medium-range missiles? 

General KEHLER. That’s right. 

Chairman LEVIN. Particularly the Iranian missiles? 

General KEHLER. Yes, and that includes Iranian missiles, that 

includes missiles from other actors as well. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. The advantage of the PAA as I understand it is that it addresses that existing threat? 

General KEHLER. It does. 

Chairman LEVIN. The other threat, which is the threat to the 

homeland, can be addressed by the existing defense that we have 

on the West Coast, including Alaska and California; is that correct? 

General KEHLER. That’s right. That’s the Ground-based Midcourse Defense. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay, thank you so much, both of you. Yes, Admiral? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, if I could, I’d like to just make a comment about a naval officer because I’d like this to go into the Congressional Record. Vice Admiral Robert Moeller died yesterday. He 

was the first Deputy Commander of AFRICOM. You met him, 

every member of this committee met him. He came around and created AFRICOM along with General Ward. 

He died last night, but I wanted to say for the record that the 

performance of AFRICOM during the Libyan operations has been 

exemplary, and I believe that the quality that Vice Admiral Moeller 

built into that organization is part of it, and I wanted to say that 

on the record. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you for mentioning that. We appreciate 

that. What was the cause of his death? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Sir, he died of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, 

Lou Gehrig’s Disease, as it’s commonly known. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you for making reference to him and his 

valiant service. 

641 

Thank you both for the service that you’ve given to our country, 

for the men and women with whom you work, and to your families. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LEVIN. We will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

COMMAND AND CONTROL

1. Senator REED. Admiral Stavridis and General Kehler, does the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) or U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) train to 

maintain command and control without the use or ability of electronic systems like 

satellites, Global Positioning System (GPS), communications, etc.? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. 21st century coalition, joint warfare, and network enabled operations cannot be conducted without sufficient support from electronic systems for 

communications and navigation. NATO and NATO Commands do not routinely 

train their staffs to be prepared for a longer lasting failure of electronic communications, although there are some fallback systems available. 

General KEHLER. All STRATCOM fixed and mobile command and control centers 

maintain a diverse range of satellite, high-bandwidth terrestrial fiber, and radio 

communication capabilities. The STRATCOM staff regularly trains with these systems so we understand the vulnerabilities and how to work around the loss of systems. When communications are too badly degraded, alternate facilities are trained 

to assume command of STRATCOM missions. STRATCOM conducts over 250 restricted or degraded communication exercises a year. We go to great lengths to ensure we can minimize the impact of any communications degradation. 

2. Senator REED. Admiral Stavridis and General Kehler, what installation 

redundancies and back-up systems are in place within U.S. European Command 

(EUCOM), NATO, and STRATCOM to prevent a loss of command and control in the 

event of a natural disaster or damages suffered during an attack? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The EUCOM Joint Operations Center (JOC) maintains a fully 

redundant and active facility at Kelley Barracks in Stuttgart, Germany. At this location, we maintain laptop workstations for all JOC positions. We also have Secret 

Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET), Non-Classified (Unclassified but Sensitive) Internet Protocol Router Network, Secure Terminal Equipment voice communications, and Secure Video Teleconferencing capabilities. We monitor and upload 

roaming profiles for positional accounts and conduct operational checks on a weekly 

basis. In the event of a total loss of SIPRNET, the JOC will operate on a separate 

domain from EUCOM. 

NATO has sufficient hardened and non-hardened headquarters installations 

spread over the territory of its member states. These command and control facilities 

are well connected to NATO, as well as national networks. Therefore a loss of effective command and control is highly unlikely. The main and the alternate NATO network control centers are implemented in facilities protected against nuclear, chemical, and biological threats. 

General KEHLER. STRATCOM has established backup or alternate command centers capable of quickly assuming command and control of STRATCOM forces and 

ensuring continuity of our most critical mission functions should the primary command center be degraded or rendered inoperable. These redundancies include geographically dispersed fixed facilities and mobile (airborne and maritime) platforms. 

Additionally, STRATCOM Component Commands are dispersed throughout the 

country, which provides immediate redundancy of vital command and control functions for critical mission sets. As the command continues planning for construction 

of its new headquarters building, well-considered redundancies and backup systems 

will be incorporated to further reduce the risk to positive command and control. 

COALITION PARTNERS CAPABILITY

3. Senator REED. Admiral Stavridis, what have we learned from our coalition 

partners, who may not operate at the same level of technical capability? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Having more limited satellite access than the United States, 

many of our coalition partners operate in a manner similar to the way we did over 

20 years ago—processing command and control and targeting information point-topoint over the high frequency radio spectrum. Increasingly over the past decade, 

U.S. forces have become critically dependent on satellite communications networks 

642 

to process and move large amounts of information. In the event of a major cyber 

attack with the potential to degrade these networks, our partners’ dependence on 

point-to-point high frequency communications, widely perceived as a weakness in today’s information environment, would provide a degree of immunity and preservation against a major network attack. 

Additionally, U.S. smart weaponry, while incredibly precise, has created a heavy 

reliance on high technology and intact information networks. In the event that our 

technical edge was removed through a major cyber attack, U.S. forces would have 

to revert in many cases to manual modes of operation. In the absence of GPS signaling, the accuracy of many of our military operations would depend on individual 

operator skill and training. This remains the mission space within which many of 

our coalition partners still operate. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR E. BENJAMIN NELSON

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FUNDING

4. Senator NELSON. General Kehler, during the New Strategic Arms Reduction 

Treaty (START) debate last year there was a lot of discussion about the administration’s commitment to modernize the nuclear weapons complex, the substantial additional funding that both the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) built into the NNSA budget requests for fiscal year 2011 and beyond. It looks as if a significant portion of the request for fiscal 

years 2011 and 2012 may be cut by the House. How important is it to maintain the 

NNSA funding for the weapons, naval reactors, and nonproliferation programs? 

General KEHLER. The President’s fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 budget levels for NNSA programs are essential to maintain the stockpile, support crucial 

naval reactor design activities, and address the administration’s nonproliferation 

initiatives. Moreover, a modernized infrastructure is critical to safely reducing the 

nuclear stockpile and supporting civil nuclear interests. Cuts to these programs will 

delay vital life extension programs (LEP), impact the Ohio Replacement program, 

and adversely affect nonproliferation initiatives. 

5. Senator NELSON. General Kehler, NNSA funds the research and development 

for new nuclear reactors for naval surface ships and submarines. This includes the 

ongoing work to support the new nuclear propulsion systems for the Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). Under the Continuing Resolution 

(CR), the funding has been restricted to the fiscal year 2010 funding levels. If there 

is a CR for all of fiscal year 2011, will the Ohio-class replacement be delayed? 

General KEHLER. It is my understanding that a new nuclear propulsion system 

is a critical prerequisite to the fleet size, performance, and operating concept of the 

Ohio Replacement SSBN. Reductions to the Ohio Replacement Program funding will 

increase schedule and possibly performance risk. Any delay in platform delivery 

could impact the Navy’s ability to meet the Nation’s survivable strategic deterrent 

requirements during the transition period from current Ohio-class SSBN (2029– 

2041). The first Ohio Replacement Program submarine delivery is timed to manage 

the transition and maintain 12 SSBNs in strategic service. 

6. Senator NELSON. General Kehler, NNSA has not been allowed to start the life 

extension study for the W–78 warhead for the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This study was supposed to have started last fall. Among 

other issues, the study was to look at the feasibility of consolidating the arming and 

fusing systems of the warheads. What are the impacts of further delays in the

W–78 life extension study? 

General KEHLER. Continued delays in the W–78 LEP will introduce risk to the 

Minuteman III weapon system and subsequent LEPs, as well as delay improvements in safety and security. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

LIBYA

7. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, the President said last night that it would 

have been a mistake to define the mission for the U.S. military as regime change 

by force. I think many Americans who have been watching cable news may be somewhat confused by that statement, considering that the rebels are now advancing 

under the cover of our airpower. How would you explain our military mission when 

643 

our military actions are clearly supporting Libyan rebels that are seeking a regime 

change by force? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. NATO’s military mission is three-fold and entirely derived 

from United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 1970 and 1973. The 

first part of its mission is to enforce an arms embargo. The second part is to enforce 

a no-fly zone. The third part is to take all necessary means to protect civilians and 

civilian populated areas from attack. These three missions are being carried out by 

NATO forces and those of partner nations under Operation Unified Protector. 

8. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, isn’t it correct that this is not simply a 

humanitarian operation? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, this is not simply a humanitarian operation. 

In support of UNSCR 1973, Operation Unified Protector has a three-fold mission: 

to enforce a maritime and air arms embargo, to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect 

civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack. 

9. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, once NATO assumes command of operations in Libya, does that mean that the selection of targets and other tactical-level 

command decisions will require consensus in the capitals of all NATO allies? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. No. The operation plans from Supreme Headquarters Allied 

Powers Europe (SHAPE) are agreed to by the North Atlantic Council (NAC), the political decisionmaking body within NATO, comprised of the member states’ Foreign 

Ministers, Defense Ministers, or Heads of State. After this, the subordinate Headquarters’ tactical operations and orders are planned and executed in line with the 

agreed direction and guidance contained within these plans. 

10. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, from a military perspective, how would 

you assess the odds that Muammar el-Qadhafi will manage to hold onto power? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Although this issue falls outside the mandate of UNSCR 

1973, I will say this is difficult to predict. The situation is fluid, but it appears Qadhafi’s strategic aim is to consolidate his control over Libya by using force against 

the people. To date, he has failed in this aim. 

11. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, in your opinion, from a military perspective, what are the main gaps in the capabilities of the opposition forces in Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. From my military perspective, the opposition forces in Libya 

are not a professional military force. As such, they do not possess the basic fundamental elements necessary to conduct a large scale undertaking like unseating Colonel Qadhafi and his regime. Specifically, they are still formulating a unified command structure that provides clear lines of communication that facilitate command 

and control throughout the various disparate elements loosely aligned across the 

country. In addition, they lack the numbers of weapons and equipment, as well as 

the level of proficiency required to employ and operate the weapons and equipment, 

to carry out sustained military missions in this situation. 

12. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, do you believe that, with continued coalition air support, Libyan opposition forces will be capable of pushing all the way to 

Tripoli? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. This is difficult to predict, as many factors are involved. Our 

focus, however, is on enforcing the arms embargo, enforcing the no-fly zone, and 

taking all necessary means to protect Libyan civilians. I would also like to clarify 

that Operation Odyssey Dawn, led by U.S. Africa Command, is not providing ‘‘coalition air support;’’ rather, it is protecting civilians and civilian populated areas as 

mandated by the UNSCR 1973. 

13. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, how would you assess the morale of Qadhafi’s forces? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As of today, Operation Odyssey Dawn has damaged or destroyed 154 ground combat targets, 1 ship, 46 regime static aircraft on the ground, 

and a total of 137 surface-to-air and anti-aircraft artillery systems. Additionally, operations have prevented Qadhafi’s forces from achieving their strategic objectives. 

Taken together, these factors will have a negative impact on the morale of Qadhafi’s 

forces. 

14. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, can you confirm reports that opposition 

forces in eastern Libya have been effectively cut off from reliable means of communications? 

644 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Although they do not have a robust communications capability, opposition forces in eastern Libya have been and continue to communicate 

with each other and internationally. 

CYBERSECURITY

15. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, General Alexander recently told Congress 

that he would give the military a C in its ability to defend DOD networks. Do you 

agree with his assessment and if so, what must be done in the near-term to improve 

network defense? 

General KEHLER. While progress has been made, I agree there is much more to 

do to improve network defense. With over 3,500 different DOD networks in over 88 

countries, the challenge is vast. Our most fundamental networks were not designed 

or built to work together and be managed as a single enterprise. We’ve begun to 

overcome this challenge by developing methods to gain full situational awareness 

into our ‘‘friendly cyberspace,’’ and U.S. Cyber Command was recently issued unambiguous defensive configuration management authority. He has a team at Fort 

Meade working to address the inherent vulnerabilities in our current configuration, 

a pilot program, seeking to fuse many large data sets that support defense of DOD 

information networks by building a distributed data sharing architecture that is 

global in scope. The program will use powerful analytics to provide operational commanders and network defenders with situational awareness to include indications 

and warning. Additionally, DOD has also recently embraced a major cybersecurity 

strategy calling for a more dynamic, agile, and informed defense—a major change 

from the relatively reactive and static defenses of the past. We have positive momentum, and the operational shift in culture has begun. 

BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE TUBES

16. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, according to recent press reports, the Navy 

recently rejected the recommendation of STRATCOM to design the next generation 

ballistic missile submarine (SSBN(X)) with 20 missile tubes, instead opting for only 

16 per boat. What was the basis for the Navy’s decision of 16 tubes? 

General KEHLER. A 20 missile tube configuration would provide some additional 

flexibility at the margins, but the planned 16 missile tube configuration on the 12 

Ohio Replacement SSBNs provides sufficient operational flexibility and responsiveness to meet the Nation’s survivable strategic deterrence requirements across a 

range of scenarios. STRATCOM is working closely with the Navy to ensure these 

platforms have the inherent flexibility and capability to be an effective strategic 

asset throughout a 50-year service period. The Navy’s decision to proceed with a 16 

tube design reflects a balance between capability and affordability. 

17. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, aside from cost, which is reduced significantly at 16 tubes per submarine, in what ways will such a decision impact the 

overall nuclear force structure and the associated flexibility of the Commander of 

STRATCOM? 

General KEHLER. A 16 missile tube configuration provides sufficient operational 

flexibility and responsiveness to meet the Nation’s survivable strategic deterrence 

requirements across a range of scenarios. From a broader perspective, the Ohio Replacement tube decision is one factor in shaping our nuclear deterrent forces. For 

example, the total number of launchers; the size, capabilities, and posture of each 

Triad leg; and the ability to adjust acquisition programs are also considerations. The 

strategic environment, national policy and guidance, and capabilities of Triad systems will ultimately determine the overall nuclear force structure. 

BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE LIFE OF HULL REACTOR

18. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, I understand that the current milestone and 

decision point for determining the technical feasibility for developing a life of hull 

reactor for SSBN(X) is in February 2012. If it is determined that a life of hull reactor for the SSBN(X) is not possible, how will that impact the overall number of 

boats required to meet STRATCOM requirements? In other words, would additional 

boats be required to compensate for refueling? 

General KEHLER. It is essential the NNSA receive full funding to support reactor 

plant design efforts for the Ohio Replacement SSBN. Insufficient funding increases 

risk for program delays that could impact scheduled delivery and the Navy’s ability 

to meet strategic deterrent requirements. Should reactor performance impact the 

645 

Navy’s ability to meet deployment needs, we would then re-assess how best to meet 

our overall requirements. 

MODERNIZATION AFFORDABILITY

19. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) set forth 

a broad vision that must not be viewed outside of the realm of affordability. The 

cost alone for modernizing both the nuclear weapons complex and the triad are substantial. As we move to reduce the size of our nuclear stockpile, this modernization 

effort becomes all the more important. Factoring in the cost of missile defense and 

non-nuclear prompt global strike capability—both essential and critical, but also 

costly, programs—the overall budget requirement calls for steady increases for the 

foreseeable future. The same DOD budget which Secretary Gates recently stated 

will experience, at most, long-term growth of 1 percent a year after inflation. What 

is the short-term and long-term affordability of implementing the NPR? 

General KEHLER. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget submission fully supports NPR objectives. Funding for long-term sustainment and modernization of nuclear forces and weapons infrastructure will require a sustained commitment from 

multiple administrations. 

20. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, do you intend to advocate for a new ICBM 

as a replacement for the current system that reaches the end of its service life in 

the 2030 timeframe? 

General KEHLER. Yes. STRATCOM will continue to advocate for a safe, secure, 

and effective ICBM deterrent force through 2030. We are working closely with the 

Air Force to identify options to meet the Nation’s future land-based strategic deterrence requirements beyond 2030 as part of the overall Triad of capabilities. 

21. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, when should budgets begin to reflect the 

steady increases suggested in the NPR? 

General KEHLER. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget reflects funding increases to meet NPR objectives. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request continues this trend. 

22. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, what are the implications for the strategic 

deterrent if we don’t modernize the triad or find we cannot afford to? 

General KEHLER. The NPR concluded that, under New START treaty, the United 

States will retain a triad of submarine launched ballistic missiles, ICBMs, and 

heavy bombers. It is essential that we continue to press forward with sustainment 

and modernization of our nuclear forces in order to ensure that they are safe, secure, effective, and to ensure that those forces provide a credible deterrent. Failure 

to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile and associated nuclear weapons infrastructure could undermine the credibility of our deterrent and put at risk our ability 

to maintain a strategic and technical hedge. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

23. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, as a result of a second consecutive test failure of the Ground-based Interceptor (GBI), the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has 

ordered a halt on delivery of completed interceptor kill vehicles. What is the current 

status of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the system responsible for defense of the Homeland? 

General KEHLER. I remain confident that the currently deployed GMD system, as 

part of a layered defense, is protecting our Homeland today from a limited ICBM 

attack. The recent test failures concern a follow-on to the system on alert today. We 

are working closely with MDA and a team of experts from across industry, academia, and the government on root causes and the path to resuming flight tests. 

24. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, what additional investment is necessary to 

correct these issues? 

General KEHLER. Certainly anomalies discovered during developmental testing 

will require additional funding to improve baseline performance. It is premature, 

however, at this point to estimate future investment needs until the MDA’s ongoing 

Failure Review Board has reached its conclusions and recommendations. We remain 

actively engaged in the board’s progress. 

646 

IRANIAN MISSILE DEVELOPMENT

25. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, according to press reports, earlier this 

month Iran launched a new rocket and space capsule into orbit. How do advances 

in Iran’s space program influence its ICBM development program? 

General KEHLER. Space launch vehicle and ICBM design and technology generally 

share a high degree of commonality. While different mission requirements lead to 

different technical choices, it is more cost effective for Iran to use as much common 

design and technology as possible when considering the limited scope and scale of 

their production. Key technologies such as guidance systems and rocket engines 

used in space applications are easily adaptable to ballistic missiles. 

The international community has stringent export controls on components that 

could be used for ballistic missiles, but Iran can potentially circumvent these by 

using components for its space program and then transferring the technology to an 

ICBM program. 

Iran has ambitious ballistic missile and space launch development programs. The 

2009 test of the Safir, a multi-stage space launch vehicle, successfully placed a satellite in orbit. The Safir probably could achieve intermediate-range ballistic missile 

(IRBM) range (3,000–5,500KM) if used as a ballistic missile. In February 2010, Iran 

displayed a new rocket engine design that Tehran claimed was for the future 

Simorgh, a larger space launch vehicle. This technology could be used for ICBMclass vehicles. 

NUCLEAR AND INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE PROGRAMS IN NORTH KOREA AND

IRAN

26. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, earlier this year during his trip to China, 

Secretary Gates publically stated that North Korean nuclear and ICBM programs 

are becoming a direct threat to the United States and forecasted that North Korea 

would achieve development of an ICBM within 5 years. While this assessment is 

not new, to what extent is North Korea and Iran on the verge of posing a direct 

threat to the U.S. Homeland? 

General KEHLER. Previous Intelligence Community assessments of the threats 

from North Korea and Iran have been fairly accurate and have prevented surprise. 

In recent months both countries have displayed technological advances that demonstrate continued interest in and progress toward achieving an ICBM capability. 

North Korea, building on experience gained in two Taepo Dong space launch vehicle 

tests, is ahead of Iran in the development of an ICBM capability. Where either 

country is in the weaponization of warheads-conventional or unconventional-that 

can be delivered by an ICBM is an open question. We will continue to closely monitor any ICBM or nuclear program progress these countries make with the Intelligence Community, as STRATCOM provides advice regarding U.S. missile defense 

capabilities designed to address them. 

27. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, according to an unclassified DOD report on 

Iran sent to Congress in April 2010, Iran with ‘‘sufficient foreign assistance . . . could 

probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching 

the United States by 2015.’’ Given the well-known existence of collaboration between North Korea and Iran, do you agree that estimates on Iran’s timeline for 

ICBM development must take into account North Korean advancements? 

General KEHLER. The unclassified report did not specifically address North Korean assistance to Iran but assessed that without foreign assistance Iranian ICBM 

development would be slowed. As you mentioned, the fact of North Korean assistance to Iranian ballistic missile development programs has been documented-although the extent of that assistance or any other foreign help is not as clear. Any 

technology transfer between rogue states represents reason for concern, and 

STRATCOM remains engaged with the Intelligence Community to assess the level 

and impact of any foreign support to Iran. 

28. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, do you currently see any evidence of technology transfer between Iran and North Korea? 

General KEHLER. Yes. North Korean ballistic missiles have been proliferated to 

Iran in the past. I defer to the Intelligence Community for an assessment of the full 

scope of technology transfer between these two countries. 

647 

LIGHTSQUARED

29. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn recently 

voiced significant concerns to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the FCC’s provisional authorization of LightSquared’s new 

wireless broadband proposal and the potential for interference with GPS signals. 

Secretary Lynn states that there is a ‘‘strong potential for interference to these critical National Security Systems’’ and that DOD strongly recommends that the FCC 

defer final action until proper interference analysis and mitigation studies can be 

conducted. Do you agree and share the concerns raised by Secretary Lynn? 

General KEHLER. Yes. I agree and share the concerns raised by Deputy Secretary 

of Defense Lynn in his 25 March 2011 letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski. 

As global providers of the GPS service, protecting GPS is essential to defense, 

civil, and commercial entities. I also concur that a comprehensive study of all potential interference to GPS is needed, especially with the increased potential for interference by LightSquared to GPS receivers. It is crucial that all pertinent technical 

and operational information is exchanged to ensure effective mitigation of interference solutions. 

The Air Force is currently conducting formal tests on a variety of military and 

commercial receivers using the actual LightSquared transmitters, filters, and antennas. We need to conduct a complete analysis of the issue and adjudicate the various 

technical viewpoints to ensure we avoid unintended consequences to this critical national utility. A final report on the test results is due to the FCC on 15 June 2011. 

30. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, what are the national security implications 

of LightSquared’s proposal? 

General KEHLER. Any interference or potential interference to GPS is a national 

security concern. GPS is a critical national infrastructure asset and is used in military, commercial, and civil applications, such as public safety, aviation, transportation, agriculture, forestry, engineering, construction, utilities, disaster management, scientific research, and land management. The actual impact of LightSquared 

signals on GPS receivers depends on how GPS is being used and the user’s proximity to one or more of the LightSquared transmitters. The full aspects to our military systems and the subsequent impacts to our national security will have to be 

provided in a classified forum once a full analysis has been accomplished. 

FUNDING FOR THE MODERNIZATION OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX

31. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, I am concerned by the fact that both the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees did not meet the President’s full fiscal year 2011 request for the NNSA in either version of the full-year DOD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011. Despite the commitment made during debate of 

the New START treaty for the long-term modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, the House cut the fiscal year 2011 request by $312 million and the Senate cut 

the request by $185 million. This failure to recognize the national security importance of NNSA funding, in my opinion, is very troubling. Do you share similar concerns? 

General KEHLER. Yes, I share your concerns. The President’s fiscal year 2011 and 

2012 budget for NNSA activities are critical to maintain a credible, safe, secure, and 

effective nuclear deterrent. 

32. Senator MCCAIN. General Kehler, do you agree that sustained support for the 

modernization of the nuclear weapons complex is a national security priority? 

General KEHLER. Yes. As the President stated, we must maintain a safe, secure, 

and effective stockpile as long as nuclear weapons exist. These investments support 

the modernization of national capabilities necessary to sustain the stockpile, dismantle retired weapons, and support nonproliferation initiatives. 

PHASED ADAPTIVE APPROACH TO MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE

33. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, what is the current status for deployment 

of Phase 1 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) for missile defense? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The USS Monterrey has arrived in theater as the first missile 

defense asset deployed in support of the EPAA. As the initial element, the 

Monterrey will lay EPAA’s foundation by providing a better understanding of missile 

defense needs in the region. This Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ship brings 

BMD sensor, weapon, and command and control capabilities to Europe and can reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00653 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
648 

spond to regional ballistic missile threats. EUCOM is actively supporting significant 

interagency efforts led by the Department of State (DOS) to place an AN/TPY–2 

radar in Southeast Europe. 

34. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, does EUCOM foresee any obstacles for 

meeting full deployment of Phase 1 by the end of the year? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The USS Monterrey is already in theater, laying the foundation to make Phase 1 operational. This ship represents the first asset deployed 

under the EPAA as well as the intercept capability planned for Phase 1. To enhance 

this capability, which is already in theater, EUCOM is fully supporting DOS’s basing negotiations for the AN/TPY–2 radar and is working closely with the Joint Staff, 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, and U.S. Army Europe to ensure deployment can 

occur as soon as possible once negotiations are complete. 

35. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Stavridis, regarding a critical element of Phase 1, 

what is the current status of basing negotiations for the forward-based radar in 

Southern Europe? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. EUCOM is fully supporting DOS’s negotiations and engagement to deploy the AN/TPY–2 radar to Southern Europe. These DOS-led negotiations are continuing, as is EUCOM planning within DOD for the eventual deployment. DOS is the best source of information for status on the progress of those negotiations. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

NUCLEAR FORCE LEVEL

36. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, during the New START treaty hearings, 

when asked by Senator Feingold whether the New START treaty allowed the 

United States ‘‘to maintain a nuclear arsenal that is more than is needed—that is 

more than is needed to guarantee an adequate deterrent’’ General O’Reilly said: 

Sir, I do not agree that it is more than is needed. I think the arsenal that we 

have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent. And I say this in light 

of—when we talk about the non-deployed portion of the arsenal, it is sized to be 

able to allow us to hedge against both technical failures in the current deployed arsenal and any geopolitical concerns that might—changes in the geopolitical environment that might have caused us to need more weapons deployed. 

Do you agree with General O’Reilly? 

General KEHLER. Yes. The stockpile under the New START treaty is appropriately 

sized to meet our deterrence requirements and manage risk associated with our 

aging systems and infrastructure. A recapitalized nuclear infrastructure could also 

support potential reductions in the future non-deployed stockpile. 

HEDGING

37. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, the updated 1251 plan report and the 

NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) suggest a plan to 

unilaterally reduce the stockpile hedge, such that the Nation will have fewer than 

3,500 total weapons, well below the 5,113 we possessed at the end of 2009. Is there 

a formal DOD agreement to this reduction? 

General KEHLER. DOD and NNSA agree on projected stockpile quantities through 

fiscal year 2024. While the updated 1251 Report does not address the number of 

stockpile weapons, the SSMP projects a reduction of non-deployed hedge weapons 

based on a variety of factors to include planned LEPs and greater commonality. Reductions in the stockpile are reviewed annually by an interagency (DOD/Department of Energy (DOE)) process to project strategic deterrence requirements and 

manage risk. 

38. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, if so, at what time are reductions planned, 

what are the documents with the planning requirements, and what are the planned 

reductions by weapon type? 

General KEHLER. Completion of critical stockpile sustainment activities and restoration of NNSA’s production infrastructure could enable future reductions in the 

quantity of nondeployed warheads currently held to mitigate weapon and infrastructure risk. The administration’s infrastructure recapitalization and stockpile 

sustainment plans, if adequately funded, should enable stockpile reductions in the 

649 

late 2020s. Planned reductions, timing, and requirements by weapon type are included in NNSA’s SSMP. 

39. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, if there is not a plan to reduce this portion 

of the stockpile, will the hedge be fully maintained, including life extension, or will 

these 1,500 to 2,000 weapons be retained without maintenance? 

General KEHLER. The required readiness level for nondeployed hedge weapons is 

determined on a system-by-system basis and reviewed annually. Weapons are retained in the appropriate readiness category to respond to a technical failure or 

other uncertainties. All weapons undergo surveillance and are maintained in accordance with DOD requirements. 

40. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what weapon types will be retained and 

what are the current lifetime estimates for those weapons? 

General KEHLER. In April 2011, the NNSA provided an updated SSMP to Congress. The classified Annex B, Table B–11, ‘‘Stockpile Refurbishment Plans and 

Schedules,’’ details retention and sustainment plans for all systems through 2030. 

Together with the 2010 NPR Report and the Section 1251 Report, the SSMP details 

the activities necessary to retain weapons for delivery systems affirmed in the NPR 

and ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile over the upcoming decades. 

41. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, on December 6, 2010, General Cartwright 

stated that the cost to maintain additional warheads, above 3,500, would be tens 

of millions of dollars per year. As this does not appear to cover the cost of a LEP, 

is this merely the cost of replacing limited-life components? Is it more than that, 

or is it the cost to store weapons that are not held ready? 

General KEHLER. Yes, the cost of maintaining additional weapons above 3,500 is 

largely for the periodic replacement of limited life components. The required surveillance and storage for these weapons does not significantly contribute to the cost. 

42. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, do you agree with General Cartwright that 

cost is not a significant factor in maintaining the technical and strategic hedge? 

General KEHLER. Yes. The majority of costs are incurred during the development 

and testing conducted during LEPs. The procurement and annual sustainment costs 

associated with nondeployed (i.e. technical/strategic hedge) weapons are not significant when compared to the LEPs required to sustain our deployed forces and the 

potential risks these weapons are meant to mitigate. 

43. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, do you support these reductions to the 

hedge? If so, under what conditions? 

General KEHLER. Hedge requirements are evaluated as part of the annual review 

of the stockpile. Reductions in our nondeployed hedge may be appropriate based on 

completion of critical warhead LEPs, nuclear weapons complex modernization, and 

an assessment of the future global security environment. In the near-term, I support 

the retention of nondeployed warheads as a cost effective risk management approach to ensure our nuclear deterrent remains credible. 

44. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what are the assumptions that must be met 

prior to the reductions of the nondeployed stockpile? 

General KEHLER. The assumption is a continued commitment for investments in 

our platforms, stockpile, and infrastructure. Specifically, implementation of the 

SSMP, commitment to critical LEPs to ensure confidence in the performance of our 

deployed platforms and weapons; and a modernized, responsive infrastructure capable of responding to technological and geopolitical surprise. 

45. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, is it contingent on: 

a. The NNSA infrastructure and completion of the Uranium Processing Facility 

and the Chemistry and Materials Research Replacement facility? 

b. The demonstration of modernized warhead production? 

c. Negotiated arms reductions that might trade U.S. nondeployed warheads for 

Russian tactical nuclear weapons? 

General KEHLER. A demonstrated, modern, responsive infrastructure with plutonium and uranium capabilities is necessary to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent 

and hedge against technological and geopolitical surprise at lower stockpile levels. 

In addition, future arms reductions, with appropriate verification, may lower the 

risk of geopolitical surprise and enable reductions in our non-deployed stockpile. 

650 

46. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what are the safeguards to protect the hedge 

should any of the above assumptions not be realized? 

General KEHLER. The ‘‘safeguard’’ is the interagency process completed annually 

to review the stockpile and recommend its composition to the President. My military 

advice will be based on an assessment of the resilience and flexibility of the deterrent and our ability to respond to surprise. 

47. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, in the past, has the United States maintained some nuclear weapons solely for the purpose of having leverage in future 

arms control negotiations? 

General KEHLER. No, the United States developed, fielded, and maintained nuclear weapons to meet national security needs. 

48. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what is the schedule for the total retirement 

of the nuclear sea launched cruise missile force; does this retirement change the requirements for strategic forces, the assurances to allies, or the targeting and warhead requirements? 

General KEHLER. In accordance with the 2010 NPR, the United States will retire 

the nuclear-equipped sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM–N). The Navy is developing a plan to retire TLAM–N this year. The deterrence and assurance roles of 

TLAM–N can be adequately substituted by other U.S. forces and the U.S. remains 

committed to providing a credible extended deterrence posture and capabilities. 

PRESIDENTIAL GUIDANCE AND TARGETING

49. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, please describe the process for developing 

the targeting requirements and doctrine of employment of our nuclear weapons, 

from the President’s guidance to you. What is required to change targeting requirements, Presidential Decision alone and what is the mechanism for military feedback 

on security stability following a change in guidance? 

General KEHLER. [Deleted]. 

50. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, has the process started to modify presidential guidance on the employment of nuclear forces and what activities are underway at STRATCOM to support this work? 

General KEHLER. My understanding is that the process to modify presidential nuclear employment guidance based on the results of the 2010 NPR is underway. We 

stand ready to support the administration’s efforts to update nuclear planning guidance with our unique perspective as the combatant command principally charged 

with this mission. Upon the Secretary of Defense’s request, we will evaluate any potential changes in guidance and, if needed, will recommend force and resource allocation adjustments after our own review and analysis. 

51. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what is STRATCOM doing currently to implement the April 2010 NPR? 

General KEHLER. STRATCOM continues to align our command’s priorities, plans, 

and requirements to reflect both NPR and the New START treaty guidelines. We 

are working with the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

and Service chiefs to set conditions for the effective implementation of NPR guidance and the New START treaty limits. 

52. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, how many planners are there at 

STRATCOM today doing deterrence analysis, targeting analysis, model development, analysis validation, etc.? 

General KEHLER. Considerable effort and resources are dedicated to performing 

STRATCOM’s deterrence mission. There are approximately 254 personnel performing these tasks. 

53. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what is the pedigree of the tools used for 

this analysis? 

General KEHLER. We use a number of analytic and planning tools to conduct our 

global strike planning analysis, and each has its own pedigree. Most of the tools we 

use today were introduced in the 1990s; however, the first version of the Probability 

of Damage Calculator was introduced in 1976. Despite the different origins and introduction dates, all of our analytic tools undergo modernization, verification, and 

validation. Additionally, they are accredited for their intended application, and that 

accreditation is approved at the general officer level. 

651 

54. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, have models been modernized or updated? 

General KEHLER. Yes. Our model developers continuously update and typically 

improve the models and typically provide an updated version once per year. We are 

looking to upgrade our primary planning and command and control tools as part of 

the project to replace the STRATCOM command complex at Offutt Air Force Base, 

NE. 

55. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what is the role of the national labs in this 

process? 

General KEHLER. The national labs are not involved in the nuclear strike planning process. Their primary role is identifying adjustments that can be made in the 

weapons and their technology to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile. However, on request the national labs do provide supporting analyses on a 

number of nuclear-related issues. These analyses can contribute indirectly to our 

planning. 

56. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what other agencies participate in this work? 

General KEHLER. In addition to STRATCOM, the NNSA and agencies within the 

Intelligence Community are all significant participants in this endeavor. 

57. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, are these agencies active in activities related 

to the 2010 NPR or to potential presidential guidance changes? 

General KEHLER. Yes. The Intelligence Community, DOE, and NNSA were all involved in activities related to the NPR. I would expect similar involvement as needed during follow-on work to implement the NPR via presidential guidance. 

58. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, would you characterize the current nuclear 

deterrence relationship with Russia as stable? 

General KEHLER. Yes. 

59. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, are there incentives for either side to strike 

first in a crisis or incentives for either side to build-up nuclear forces? 

General KEHLER. In my opinion, due to both sides’ extensive nuclear arsenals, neither nation would gain a decisive strategic advantage by conducting a first strike. 

Mutual ratification of the New START treaty indicates to me that today neither nation perceives an incentive to build up their strategic nuclear forces. On the contrary, both nations apparently see advantage in reductions in their forces. 

60. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, if the deterrence relationship is stable, what 

would the incentive be to seek further reductions in the strategic nuclear forces? 

General KEHLER. Recognizing U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), the NPR states that the United States will meet its commitment under Article VI of the NNPT to pursue nuclear disarmament and that it will 

make demonstrable progress over the next 5 to 10 years. The NPR further states 

that the United States will: (a) reduce the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and (b) maintain strategic deterrence and stability at lower 

nuclear force levels. By reducing the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons and demonstrating that we are meeting our NNPT obligations, we can put ourselves in a 

much better position to persuade our allies and partners to adopt measures needed 

to reinvigorate the nonproliferation regime. 

61. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what are the potential risks of reduction of 

U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level of 500? 

General KEHLER. Answering this question would require analysis we have not 

conducted. However, rather than examining the implications of specific force levels, 

I believe it is necessary first to identify what our nuclear strategy ought to be, and 

then determine what forces we require to implement it. Of course, the Nation’s nuclear strategy takes into account far more than just employment guidance. 

62. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what is your view of deterrence and has it 

changed in the past 5 years? 

General KEHLER. Deterrence is about achieving decisive influence over a potential 

adversary’s decisionmaking regarding conducting an attack on the U.S or our allies 

and partners. Achieving this requires an understanding of a potential adversary 

leadership’s values, objectives, perceived alternative courses of action, and their perceptions of U.S. potential will and capabilities. Nuclear forces play a unique role in 

providing us the capability to influence adversary decision-making regarding attacking the U.S. or our allies and partners. 

652 

63. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, how will it be changed if we do not get control of the illicit nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea? 

General KEHLER. While the overall concepts of deterrence do not change, our deterrence strategies would have to account for the impact of these programs. For example, in the case of nuclear armed regional states like Iran and North Korea, other 

U.S. capabilities like conventional forces and missile defenses play a deterrence role 

in addition to our ability to hold targets at risk with nuclear weapons. 

64. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, can you provide your unclassified views 

about what China’s robust nuclear modernization program will mean for the sizing 

of the future U.S. nuclear force? 

General KEHLER. The sizing of the U.S. nuclear force is dependent on fulfilling 

the national security strategy and employment guidance. STRATCOM receives nuclear employment guidance in three forms: Presidential, Secretary of Defense, and 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff level guidance; each level of guidance articulates the President’s intent in more detail. Our current nuclear deterrent posture 

provides the President with a range of employment options. It accounts for China 

and their modernization programs and will continue to do so. 

65. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what about potential cuts to allied nuclear 

programs? 

General KEHLER. Allied nuclear program cuts could affect our extended deterrence 

policies, but the degree and manner of potential changes would vary given U.S. policies, allied policies, and the situation. 

Our nuclear-armed allies contribute to the deterrence of attack by potential adversaries by complicating their calculations. Whether cuts to allied nuclear programs 

would affect U.S. force sizing is again a function of what our nuclear strategy is, 

and the role, if any, that allied nuclear forces play in that strategy. 

2008 NUCLEAR DETERRENCE SKILLS REPORT

66. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, below are excerpts from the 2008 Nuclear 

Deterrence Skills Report by the Defense Science Board (DSB) that highlight declining capabilities to effectively assess the effect of policy decisions on U.S. national 

security, including evaluation of foreign plans and capabilities, weapons effects, and 

targeting: 

• ‘‘Hence, thought specifically addressing nuclear deterrence and its requirements has become defocused and has been shifted to ever-lower levels 

in the national security establishment over time.’’ 

• ‘‘It is estimated that fewer than 5 percent of those once responsible for 

assessing the damage effectiveness of ICBM targeting remain available.’’ 

• ‘‘There does not appear to be any study or assessment sponsored by DOD 

or the National Intelligence Community (NIC) that specifically addresses 

the potential roles of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.’’ 

• ‘‘The dedicated internal capability to provide battle damage assessment 

[in STRATCOM] no longer exists. The overall assessment capability of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for determining targets requiring a nuclear 

weapon response in support of STRATCOM appears thin.’’ 

• ‘‘For the strategic nuclear deterrence mission, nuclear reconnaissance 

planning is not adequate.’’ 

• ‘‘Commander, STRATCOM, should strengthen competence to identify consequences of targeting actions (battle damage assessments).’’ 

Do you concur with the 2008 DSB Nuclear Deterrence Skills Report stating that 

‘‘thought specifically addressing nuclear deterrence and its requirements has become 

defocused and has been shifted to ever-lower levels in the national security establishment over time’’? 

General KEHLER. Clearly, there was a period where one could conclude DOD did 

not place adequate emphasis on the nuclear enterprise. The deficiencies are well 

documented. I believe all organizations associated with the nuclear enterprise are 

working aggressively to restore confidence, inculcate perfection as the standard, and 

are making substantial progress. At STRATCOM, we reestablished rigor and oversight on the nuclear enterprise through the standup of the Deputy Director of Nuclear Operations, observation of all nuclear-related inspections, and creation of a 

Nuclear Enterprise Council process. Additionally, our Strategic Deterrence Assessment Lab (SDAL), annual deterrence symposium, and the NPR have reinvigorated 

the emphasis and dialogue on strategic deterrence. Much work remains, but I am 

confident we are heading in the right direction and there is commitment in the adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00658 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
653 

ministration to ensuring a safe, secure, and effective deterrent-credible to our adversaries and assuring our allies. 

67. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, has STRATCOM addressed the DSB recommendation to strengthen competence to identify consequences of targeting actions 

and battle damage assessments? If not, why not and what more is required? 

General KEHLER. STRATCOM, with our Service and Agency partners, has taken 

positive measures to dedicate an internal capability to provide battle damage assessment, strengthen support from DIA, and clarify our overall Reconnaissance in Support of Nuclear Operations (RISNO) process. Since 2009, multiple global exercises 

included generation of forces, readiness evaluations, and targeting actions on a scale 

not accomplished in over a decade. Finally, we secured additional manpower to revitalize RISNO within STRATCOM to continue improving our procedures. 

68. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, please detail the other steps taken by 

STRATCOM to address the findings of the 2008 DSB report. 

General KEHLER. STRATCOM efforts to strengthen the Nation’s nuclear enterprise include: the standup of the Deputy Director of Nuclear Operations; observation 

of all nuclear-related inspections by the STRATCOM Inspector General; the establishment of the Nuclear Enterprise Council and Board; the creation of the SDAL; 

and an annual Strategic Deterrence Symposium. In every additional staff area, 

STRATCOM refocused resources to strengthen the Nation’s nuclear deterrent and 

emphasize the nuclear mission. 

2010 NUCLEAR WEAPONS EFFECTS NATIONAL ENTERPRISE REPORT

69. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, the 2010 Nuclear Weapons Effects National 

Enterprise report of the DSB highlights problems in the nuclear weapons effects 

skill-set. In addition to the need to determine survivability of the U.S. nuclear and 

conventional forces in the event of an attack, these analysis capabilities are required 

for accurate targeting planning. The DSB stated, ‘‘A near ‘perfect storm’ is brewing—one in which the threat of nuclear use against U.S. forces is growing at the 

same time that our Nation’s understanding of if/how we can operate in such environments has all but disappeared.’’ What actions has STRATCOM taken to address 

the findings of the 2010 DSB report on the Nuclear Weapons Effects National Enterprise and has there been an increase in funding for weapons effects studies? 

General KEHLER. STRATCOM continues to advocate for nuclear survivability 

standards, modeling, and simulation capabilities through the Nuclear Weapons 

Council and the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). 

The administration’s commitment to recapitalizing the NNSA’s nuclear weapons enterprise in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget and fiscal year 2012 budget submission will maintain core competencies while improving our scientific understanding and nuclear weapon effects modeling capabilities. 

DELIVERY PLATFORM MODERNIZATION

70. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what is the current schedule for delivery 

platform modernization throughout the triad? Specifically, is the Long-Range Strike 

Option (LRSO) cruise missile schedule being accelerated? If so, why? 

General KEHLER. All Triad delivery platforms are undergoing sustainment and 

modernization programs. The DOD plans to replace the current Ohio-class SSBNs 

with Ohio Replacement SSBNs—the first of which enters strategic service in 2029. 

An ICBM Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) will begin in 2013 to determine requirements options to ensure a land based deterrent force through 2030 and beyond. Additionally, the Air Force plans to retain its bomber fleet through 2040 with planned 

upgrades and fleet life extensions. A new nuclear-capable penetrating bomber is in 

early development. 

The LRSO cruise missile schedule has not been determined. The Air Force is preparing to start the AoA this summer to determine requirements and cost options. 

The DOD’s initial planning assumption projects fielding a new missile in the mid2020s. 

71. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, has there been an alignment of that schedule with the warhead life extension development? 

General KEHLER. No. However, the upcoming AoAs study will determine warhead 

options for the LRSO cruise missile. 

654 

72. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, will the next generation bomber be nuclear 

certified beginning with its deployment? If that decision hasn’t been made yet, 

please detail who will be involved in making that decision, what the process and 

timeline for that decision is, and what you understand to be the factors involved 

in that decision, e.g., what assumptions would be involved in a decision for that 

bomber not to be nuclear certified from its initial deployment? 

General KEHLER. The decision on when to certify the new penetrating bomber for 

nuclear operations will be primarily based on replacement plans for the airlaunched cruise missile, B–2 survivability and sustainment, and B–52 retirement. 

The confidence in our air leg of the Triad will be continuously assessed to ensure 

the new bomber’s timely nuclear certification. We are engaged with the Air Force, 

Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure all factors associated with this future decision are considered. 

73. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what factors or assumptions will be involved 

for you to support the bomber not being nuclear certified from its initial deployment? 

General KEHLER. No decision has been made on nuclear certification timing. I am 

working closely with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to ensure bomber capabilities 

are available to support strategic deterrence requirements. 

74. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what steps has STRATCOM taken to define 

the requirements of modernized delivery platforms? If no steps have been taken, 

when will the requirements be defined? 

General KEHLER. STRATCOM is engaged in DOD’s requirements processes to define future capabilities to support STRATCOM’s strategic deterrence and global 

strike responsibilities. We have identified requirements, for example, on the Ohio 

Replacement and the new bomber. These required capabilities are identified 

through mission-driven assessments conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Services, and STRATCOM. The Department’s acquisition 

processes provide the force structure and capabilities required to meet 

STRATCOM’s current and planned future needs. 

75. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, was an assessment of potential adversary capabilities made prior to the requirement definition? 

General KEHLER. Yes, STRATCOM and the Services work with our Intelligence 

Community partners to assess the potential future operational environment as part 

of the AoA and Material Solution Analysis phase in the JCIDS process. 

76. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, do these assessments consider potential conditions at the end of life for the new systems? 

General KEHLER. Yes, requirements for new strategic delivery systems are developed using the best Intelligence Community assessments available of the potential 

operational environment for the projected life of the system. However, due to the 

difficulty in predicting potential conditions decades in the future, the attributes of 

flexibility and adaptability enable systems to endure unforeseen changes in the 

operational environment and maintain mission effectiveness. 

77. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, please describe how STRATCOM utilizes the 

reliability assessments of the systems in the triad? 

General KEHLER. STRATCOM uses reliability assessments to ensure credible deterrent plans and effective weapon employment options. Additionally, weapon system reliability is a key indicator in assessing confidence to meet mission requirements and forms a basis for sustainment and modernization decisions. 

78. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, is there a reliability assessment for the command and control infrastructure? 

General KEHLER. There are several command and control related reliability and 

readiness assessment activities conducted by the Joint Staff, STRATCOM and the 

Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS) Support Staff (NSS). The Joint Staff 

conducts periodic strategic and theater assessments of the overall nuclear command, 

control and communications systems and architecture for its ability to meet defined 

Nuclear Technical Performance Criteria. STRATCOM assesses readiness on an ongoing basis through the Defense Readiness Reporting System with focus on the 

readiness of all operational capabilities required to execute the Command’s assigned 

mission essential functions. The annual Integrated Nuclear Survivability Report assesses the survivability of critical command and control facilities and assets. Additionally, the Command conducts continuing evaluation program assessments for 

655 

both its command and control assets as well as its weapon systems. Finally, under 

my responsibilities as the Director of the NSS, an annual report is prepared for the 

Secretary of Defense, as NCCS Executive Agent, to advise the President on status 

of overall management and execution of responsibilities directed by National Security Presidential Directive-28, United States Nuclear Weapons Command and Control, Safety, and Security. 

79. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, how do the Services provide updated reliability assessments? 

General KEHLER. We task the Services to provide annual capability assessments 

on each weapon system employed in the Triad. In response to this task, the Services 

provide annual planning factor reports which include updated reliability assessments for each weapon system. Service testing accomplished in support of these reports seeks to conduct end-to-end, stockpile-to-target assessments under the most 

operationally realistic conditions possible. Our planners apply this data during the 

nuclear planning process. 

80. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, is there any sort of process along the lines 

of the annual assessments of our nuclear weapons by the lab directors? 

General KEHLER. The Services conduct annual, end-to-end nuclear weapons system tests to provide STRATCOM planners with realistic estimates of weapon system 

capabilities. The Services evaluate the data at the end of each test cycle and report 

updated weapon system capability assessments to STRATCOM. The Services’ assessments include those completed by the national labs. We host an annual conference, attended by DOD and DOE subject matter experts, to review and validate 

these assessments. 

81. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, do reductions in the stockpile required by 

the New START treaty increase the need for reliable delivery systems and weapons? 

General KEHLER. We have always set the highest reliability standards for the nuclear deterrent. As we continue to reduce our force and stockpile levels, a higher 

premium is placed on maintaining confidence in the reliability of our systems 

through comprehensive surveillance, testing, and sustainment programs. 

82. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, will reliability requirements change, and 

given the age of delivery systems and weapons, are there additional risks that can 

occur as the stockpile size is reduced? 

General KEHLER. No, our reliability requirements will not change; we set a very 

high reliability standard for each system today. As our nuclear deterrent ages, our 

level of effort to maintain those standards increases. As our stockpile becomes 

smaller, it places a higher premium on maintaining confidence in the reliability of 

our systems through comprehensive surveillance, testing, and sustainment programs. 

GROUND-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE

83. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, what actions and/or investments do you believe are necessary to ensure the GMD is a reliable and operationally effective system to protect the U.S. Homeland against evolving threats? 

General KEHLER. We are finalizing STRATCOM’s Global BMD Assessment which 

confirms our continued confidence in the GMD system, as part of a layered defense 

strategy, protecting the Homeland from a limited ICBM attack. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget and fiscal year 2012 budget submission provide the right investment to further advance our capability across interceptors, sensors, and command and control. We work closely with the MDA and Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Policy to ensure we have an adequate hedge strategy should these 

acquisition efforts experience delays or an emerging threat materialize sooner than 

predicted. 

84. Senator INHOFE. General Kehler, under the fiscal year 2011 CR, MDA is 

spending $324 million less than it anticipated in fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 

2012 budget request reduces the GMD program by $185 million. How are these reductions impacting GMD operations, reliability, and any modernization activities? 

General KEHLER. MDA has a plan for absorbing the impact of the fiscal year 2011 

continuing resolution which provides the right balance between capability and risk. 

We expect to see completion of missile field 2, Fort Greely power plant, power distribution and other upgrades thru fiscal year 2012. There will be some slip of manuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00661 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
656 

facturing GBIs number 31 through number 44 and software builds, as well as delays 

in flight testing. 

MISSILE DEFENSE—SM–3 AND AEGIS

85. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis and General Kehler, what is your current 

level of confidence in being able to deploy the Standard Missile-3 (SM–3) block IIA 

by 2018 and the SM–3 IIB by 2020? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. EUCOM is actively working with the Joint Staff, the MDA, 

and our allies and partners, and will be ready to deploy the SM–3 block IIA and 

SM–3 block II B once the development testing and fielding are complete. 

General KEHLER. I am confident that the MDA will meet the deployment 

timelines for both the SM–3 Block IIA and Block IIB. The SM–3 Block IIA—a cooperative development program with the Japanese—has undergone component ground 

testing in preparation for its first intercept test in 2015 and is on track for 2018 

deployment. For the SM–3 Block IIB, MDA has completed system concept review 

and solicited three competitive concept definition contracts. One industry team will 

be selected in 2013 to complete development and begin flight testing in 2016. MDA 

is allocating more time for SM–3 Block IIB development than other similar missile 

defense interceptors to ensure low development risk, and is on track for a 2020 deployment. 

86. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis and General Kehler, even with the updated version of the SM–3 missile, deploying seven Aegis ships in European waters 

could provide only patchwork protection. Permanently stationing these ships in European waters would require more than the 18 Aegis ships in our inventory. Do we 

have enough Aegis ships to not only protect Europe from an Iranian threat but also 

have Aegis ships deployed around the globe? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. EUCOM has been working with our service components and 

the Joint Staff to define our requirements for missile defense capabilities using the 

Global Force Management (GFM) process. At this time, we are satisfied with how 

this process is being managed and understand the difficult choices that are made 

with regards to missile defense assets, such as Aegis. With regard to how allocated 

Aegis Missile Defense platforms are best sourced, the Navy is best suited to provide 

a more detailed answer. 

General KEHLER. Today’s inventory of 22 Aegis BMD modified ships is adequate 

to complete EPAA Phase I deployment. By end of fiscal year 2011, inventory will 

be 24 Aegis ships. Current modification plans reflect 38 Aegis BMD ships in total. 

The PAA strategy applies to all geographic combatant command area of responsibility (AOR). It requires we maintain a flexible pool of rapidly deployable BMD capabilities to surge into a threatened area of responsibilities based on strategic indications and warning during an emerging crisis, while maintaining steady-state defenses in other areas of responsibility. Aegis ships form the bulk of this deployable 

pool, but are also a multi-mission platform, conducting other missions than BMD. 

By themselves, Aegis provides only one layer of BMD, and is not intended to ensure 

complete defense against all threats in all theaters. Other systems, such as, Aegis 

Ashore, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and NATO members’ BMD assets are 

part of the overall strategy. 

U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND FORCE STRUCTURE

87. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis, if the number of U.S. troops stationed in 

EUCOM’s AOR is reduced, could EUCOM still carry out its building partnership capacity mission in Europe and still provide substantial rotational troops to an overseas contingency operation? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. Depending on the scope and timing of any reductions, 

EUCOM should to be able to continue to support its building partner capacity (BPC) 

mission, as well as provide support for overseas contingency operations. With the 

anticipated drawdown in Afghanistan, the reduced global demand signal for forces 

assigned to EUCOM should enhance our capability to focus even more on BPC activities in the near future. 

88. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis, at what troop level does conducting both 

of these missions become impossible? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The answer to your question depends on many factors. Currently, it is difficult to pinpoint an exact troop level at which EUCOM’s ability to 

support the building partnership capacity mission and provide support to overseas 

657 

contingency operations would become impossible. Further analysis, beginning with 

a specific mission EUCOM is tasked to support and focused more on capabilities 

than numbers, would be required if additional EUCOM force reductions were proposed in order to assess the point at which we would experience mission failure. 

89. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis, will DOD continue to retain four Brigade 

Combat Teams (BCT) in Europe? If not, what has changed and why? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As of today, DOD has not announced its final decision on European force posture. I do believe we will hear that announcement soon and I am 

confident that my voice was heard in the Department’s deliberations on this matter. 

Post-Hearing Note: On April 8, 2011, DOD announced that it will retain three 

BCTs in Europe to maintain a flexible and rapidly deployable ground force to fulfill 

U.S. commitments to NATO, engage effectively with our allies and partners, and 

meet the broad range of 21st century challenges. The three BCTs remaining in Europe after 2015, complemented by other capabilities, will enhance and rebalance 

U.S. force posture in Europe to make it more capable, more effective, and better 

aligned with current and future security challenges. This decision was based on the 

administration’s review of global posture, consultations with our allies, and the findings of NATO’s New Strategic Concept. 

90. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis, do you support any changes? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I strongly support the Department’s position on force 

structure in Europe. I have been involved in the decision-making process and am 

confident that my voice has been heard on this. I believe the announcement on this 

issue will be made very soon. 

Post-Hearing Note: I do support the changes recently announced by DOD. The 

three BCTs remaining in Europe after 2015 offer capabilities that enable the 

EUCOM to build partner capacity and meet interoperability objectives while supporting the full range of military operations, including collective defense of our 

NATO allies under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. This BCT mix will be complemented by other capability enhancements, including the forward deployment of 

Aegis ships, land-based missile defense systems in Poland and Romania as part of 

the EPAA, the forward stationing of special operations aircraft, and a permanent 

aviation detachment in Poland. Taken together, these measures will enhance and 

rebalance the U.S. force posture in Europe to make it more capable, more effective, 

and better aligned with current and future security challenges. 

GEORGIA

91. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis, what is the EUCOM relationship with 

Georgia? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. EUCOM has a robust and enduring relationship with Georgia 

which continues to strengthen as we promote Georgia’s defense transformation 

along Euro-Atlantic lines. To support this goal, EUCOM executes a wide-array of 

defense cooperation activities that support Georgia’s defense reform, Euro-Atlantic 

integration, and expeditionary capabilities. The objective of U.S. assistance is to 

help Georgia develop its defense capabilities and advance its NATO integration 

goals, as well as provide training and assistance to their expeditionary forces in support of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The new 

Georgian defense leadership has embraced the U.S. concept of an emphasis on training and education as the path for long-term improvement of its military capabilities. 

We also support Georgia through policy initiatives such as the U.S.-Georgia Charter 

on Strategic Partnership and the NATO–Georgia Commission. This partnership is 

essential to Georgia’s security and regional stability. 

92. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis, what is the current status of Russian 

forces in Georgia? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Russia currently has forces stationed in the Georgian regions 

of Abkhazia and South Ossetia contrary to the August 2008 ceasefire brokered by 

French President Sarkozy. 

The Russian Government announced after the 2008 conflict that it would expand 

its permanent military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, areas which it recognized in August 2008 as independent states. In April 2009, bilateral agreements 

between Russia and the de facto separatist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia 

agreed to long-term basing rights. New Russian bases in both territories were constructed in 2010 which continue to be fortified by the Russian military. 

658 

93. Senator INHOFE. Admiral Stavridis, what is the status of Georgia’s request for 

the United States to provide weapons, such as small arms and Claymore mines, 

which I believe has been in DOS since 2008? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. For the status of those specific requests I would have to defer 

to my DOS colleagues. However, at EUCOM, we continue to strengthen our military 

relationship with Georgia and remain fully committed in supporting Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our priority for security cooperation to Georgia remains to assist in the training and equipping of Georgia’s military units which deploy and fight without caveats alongside the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan’s 

Helmand Province. 

We are also committed to providing comprehensive defense assistance to Georgia 

in the areas of doctrine, personnel management, education, and training to support 

defense reform and modernization. This approach supports Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic 

aspirations as well as security and stability in the region. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER

NATO AND AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

94. Senator WICKER. Admiral Stavridis, on March 3, President Obama publicly 

stated that Qadhafi must go. American credibility and resolve, American traits that 

are consistently evaluated by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the North Koreans, are already on the line. I am concerned that America’s credibility abroad will be damaged 

if coalition efforts fall short of both protecting civilians and decisively facilitating regime change. I am concerned that the lack of clear consensus in Brussels on decisive 

next steps on Libya may lead our competitors or future adversaries to determine 

that the best way to limit NATO’s effectiveness is to play the interests of member 

countries against each other. 

This is a distressing thought given each member of NATO has its own unique geopolitical, economic, and energy interests. As such, what is your assessment of where 

the situation in Libya stands as a test case for NATO’s effectiveness and relevancy 

in a post-September 11 world? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. First, I would like to state that there is indeed consensus 

within NATO on the operations in Libya. Within 5 days of the passage of UNSCR 

1973, the NAC reached consensus on taking the lead of the arms embargo mission. 

Within 1 week of UNSCR 1973 passage, the NAC adopted the no-fly zone mission 

by consensus. Finally, in only 10 days, the NAC agreed to take the lead of the entire 

mission, including protection of civilians and civilian populated areas. 

NATO has already been extremely effective in Operation Unified Protector. There 

are currently 20 NATO nations (plus three partner nations) actively supporting this 

operation and all agree with its execution. It is also worth noting that NATO is conducting this operation in addition to its other ongoing operations around the world, 

including Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and counter-piracy operations. This is a 

clear demonstration of NATO’s effectiveness and relevancy in a post 9/11 world. 

95. Senator WICKER. Admiral Stavridis, the United States has faced tremendous 

difficulty in the past rallying consensus and participation by our NATO allies in Afghanistan. Collective action is inherently complex and consensus-building often results in delayed military action. How difficult will it be to achieve consensus at 

NATO on next steps in Libya since President Obama has opted to let NATO allies 

take the lead on Libya policy? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. NATO has acted very quickly in response to the crisis in 

Libya. Within 5 days of the passage of UNSCR 1973, the NAC reached consensus 

on taking the lead of the arms embargo mission. Within 1 week of UNSCR 1973 

passage, the NAC adopted the no-fly zone mission by consensus. Finally, in only 10 

days, the NAC agreed to take the lead of the entire mission, including protection 

of civilians and civilian populated areas. 

96. Senator WICKER. Admiral Stavridis, I understand that NATO currently has 

operational command of the no-fly zone over Libya but it is still unclear how NATO 

will define the scope of efforts to protect civilians on the ground. What policy and 

operational organizations within NATO are tasked with establishing clear rules of 

engagement for our pilots and warfighters with regard to attacking Qadhafi elements on the ground? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. SHAPE has produced the rules of engagement as part of the 

various operation plans it has produced. These were endorsed by the NAC before 

659 

execution of the mission. The subordinate Headquarters plan and execute their missions within the direction and guidance of these operation plans. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

LIBYA

97. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, on March 28, Vice Admiral Gortney 

briefed the media that the United States has flown roughly half of all strike sorties 

in Libya, performed nearly 80 percent of all air refueling, almost 75 percent of aerial 

surveillance hours, and 100 percent of all electronic warfare missions. What proportion of strike and combat support sorties (refueling, intelligence surveillance, and 

reconnaissance, etc.) does the United States expect to continue flying after the transition to NATO command? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. As the President has said, the United States will begin to 

draw down its participation in the Libyan operations as NATO takes the lead on 

this mission. So I do expect to see a decrease in the percentage of sorties being 

flown by the U.S. However, the exact amount of support provided by any country 

to a NATO mission is ultimately a national decision. In the case of the United 

States, it is a question best addressed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

98. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, after command is passed to NATO, can 

the coalition maintain an effective no-fly zone and execute its humanitarian mission 

without the United States providing the vast majority of aircraft, ships, personnel, 

and funding? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes, I am confident that NATO and other partner nations 

have the capacity to execute the mission mandated by the UNSCR 1973 without the 

United States providing the vast majority of aircraft, ships, personnel, and funding. 

99. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, on March 20, Admiral Mullen appeared 

on Meet the Press and, when asked, confirmed what we all know to be true, that 

we are at war with Libya. Curiously, the White House and other administration officials, in briefings the following week to congressional offices, maintained that the 

United States is not at war. From your vantage point, is the United States at war 

with Libya? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. From my perspective, the United States is conducting combat 

and support operations under NATO command in limited military operations, aimed 

at achieving the three-fold mission defined in UNSCRs 1970 and 1973—enforce the 

arms embargo, enforce the no-fly zone, and protect the citizens of Libya. 

100. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, in a March 28 address on Libya, President Obama repeated his policy that Muammar Qadhafi needs to step down. In your 

assessment, if Qadhafi holds on to power, does that increase the likelihood that our 

involvement in Libya will become more protracted? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. NATO’s Operation Unified Protector exists to execute the 

three-part mission outlined in the UNSCR 1973 to enforce an arms embargo and 

no-fly zone, and protect civilians and civilian populated areas. This mission exists 

independent of who is in power in Libya. I can tell you that the operation has a 

programmed 90-day assessment at which point we will evaluate how we are progressing in each mission area. 

JOINT INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE MODEL FOR USE IN EUROPE

101. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, your prepared testimony highlights 

EUCOM’s counter-trafficking efforts. In your former role as commander of U.S. 

Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), you oversaw the work of Joint Interagency Task 

Force-South (JIATF-South), which is based in Key West and plays a lead role to 

counter trafficking from Latin America. Now that you are at EUCOM, it is my understanding that a similar entity has been created there, the Joint Interagency 

Counter-Trafficking Center-Europe (JICTC-Europe), based on the same concept as 

SOUTHCOM’s JIATF-South. It is clear that the information sharing fostered by 

JIATF-South and related agencies has greatly increased America’s ability to combat 

illegal trafficking of all kinds. Please comment on the overall significance of your 

JICTC-Europe initiative. 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. EUCOM’s JICTC will support U.S interagency efforts to 

counter illicit trafficking and terrorism and assist focus nations in building self-sufficient counter-trafficking and counterterrorism skills, competencies, and capacity. 

660 

The JICTC—our forum for facilitating this effort—is still in its early stages. It 

was at its initial operational capability stage as of mid-August 2010. JICTC coordinates its efforts with U.S. Government interagency representatives assigned to 

EUCOM Headquarters, as well as interagency representatives in Washington, DC. 

Our efforts to communicate the roles and mission of the JICTC have included oneon-one office calls, engagements, and briefings with key leaders across the U.S. Government and with the U.S. Embassy Country Teams in Europe. Additionally, we are 

educating our interagency partners regarding the Defense Department’s countertrafficking capabilities that can be leveraged to support their activities in the region. 

Unlike JIATF-South, the JICTC does not have a detect and monitor role, nor the 

ability to actively coordinate an interdiction. 

102. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, more broadly, do you think the Federal 

Government should follow suit and adapt the innovative JIATF model elsewhere 

within the U.S. Government? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. In my experience, most problem sets require interagency cooperation. The Joint Interagency Task Force model has proven very effective in addressing its stated problem sets. That particular model may not work for all missions. However, it is an example of how an appropriate interagency framework can 

be built to facilitate close, continuous, and increasingly necessary whole-of-government solutions and coordination for complex problems, such as the pernicious and 

widespread effects of global illicit trafficking. 

103. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, along the southwest border of the 

United States we suffer greatly from the inability of Federal, State, and local agencies from effectively and efficiently cooperating and sharing information. As a result, 

illegal narcotics and aliens continue to flow into the United States through the porous U.S.-Mexico border. What lessons learned in EUCOM’s counter-trafficking operations could be effectively applied through a similar U.S. Government effort along 

the U.S.-Mexico border? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Our experience in EUCOM is that the problem must be addressed both in the border areas as well as the broader areas through which the 

illicit trafficking occurs (the transit zone). As an example of how we approach this 

problem in EUCOM, we work with the Balkan nations to develop capacities to disrupt trafficking organizations and improve border management along the ingress 

route for heroin from Afghanistan. We also work with international detection and 

monitoring centers, such as the Maritime Analysis and Operations Center for Narcotics in Lisbon and the Center for Combating Drugs in the Mediterranean, to address the transit vector of cocaine from South America. I have established the Joint 

Interagency Counter Trafficking Center to improve coordination and information 

sharing with our interagency partners and to assist nations that lie along these border areas and transit zone through which the threat of illicit trafficking continues 

to pose a threat to our allies and partners in Europe, as well as the United States. 

Through the work of the JICTC, we are better able to make our expertise and experience more accessible to them. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

104. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, the EPAA strategy implemented by the 

Obama Administration calls for a missile defense system that can be adapted to provide better protection against emerging threats. You note in your written statement 

that ‘‘there is an existing and expanding threat from ballistic missiles to EUCOM’s 

area of focus,’’ and that EUCOM is working with the MDA to ensure that the infrastructure in Europe will be ready for each phase of the EPAA. There is little disagreement that Iran has acquired ballistic missiles from other countries and has developed other ballistic missiles indigenously. Regardless of their state of development, the Iranian regime’s desire to pursue acquisition of weapons capable of reaching Europe and Israel is alarming. What is the exact status of the implementation 

of the EPAA throughout the EUCOM AOR? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. This is an issue which occupies a great deal of our attention 

in the EUCOM theater, and EUCOM is working with our partners in the DOS, 

MDA, Services, and components commands to ensure that we can implement and 

operationalize the EPAA. 

For Phase 1, the USS Monterrey is already in theater laying the foundation to 

make Phase 1 operational. This ship represents the first asset deployed under the 

EPAA as well as the intercept capability planned for Phase 1. To enhance this capability, which is already in theater, EUCOM is fully supporting DOS’s basing negoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00666 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
661 

tiations for the AN/TPY–2 radar, and is working closely with the Joint Staff, Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, and U.S. Army Europe to ensure that deployment can 

occur as soon as possible once negotiations are complete. 

For Phase 2, EUCOM is fully supporting negotiations led by DOS to establish basing and agreements necessary for the Aegis Ashore site in Romania, and working 

closely with the Navy and MDA as this development program continues. 

For Phase 3, EUCOM is working with our key ally, Poland, to further define 

terms and conditions and lay the groundwork for the successful construction of an 

Aegis Ashore facility in that country. 

In addition, EUCOM and our component commands have begun working with our 

NATO counterparts in developing the procedures and defining the systems we will 

use to cooperate in achieving the goals of the Lisbon Summit. 

105. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, at this time, how confident are you of 

our ability to protect Israel from ballistic missile attack originating in a nearby 

country such as Iran? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The cooperation we have with Israel in this regard is strong, 

and I believe it will continue. I had a chance to see a missile defense exercise a year 

ago, and I am going to another missile defense exercise this summer. This is a capability on which EUCOM and the Israeli Defense Forces work very closely. 

106. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, the administration is maintaining the 

two-stage version of the GBI for deployment to Europe as a hedge against technical 

failure of the SM–3 IIA and IIB missiles. Do you support this hedging strategy? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes. The hedging strategy outlined in the BMD Review Report is a prudent risk management strategy to respond to changes in the threat as 

well as development delays. 

107. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, when do you believe the administration 

will need to make a decision to deploy the two-stage GBI to Europe in order to 

counter a long-range Iranian threat to Europe and the United States? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The United States has the capability to intercept a limited 

ballistic missile strike against the homeland already. In addition, the MDA was 

given direction in the BMD Review and has programmed funding to continue development of the two-stage GBI as a hedge against an accelerated threat, or if the SM– 

3 development was delayed. EUCOM and all agencies tasked with monitoring threat 

development are keeping a close eye on emerging technologies and how they are 

being used by our potential adversaries. In addition to maintaining vigilance, 

EUCOM is actively working with the MDA, DOD, and the Services to ensure that 

the hedging strategies in place provide the United States with the capability to 

counter threats should they emerge more rapidly than currently anticipated. 

108. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, a critical component of the administration’s plans for the first phase of its missile defense effort in Europe is the basing 

of an Army-Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance-2 forward based in Turkey by 

the end of this year, yet the Turkish Government has yet to agree to this deployment. What is the likelihood the Turkish Government will agree to host this radar 

and what is the plan if Turkey declines or delays such a decision indefinitely? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. A final decision on the location of the AN/TPY–2 in Southeast 

Europe is still pending. EUCOM is supporting DOS-led negotiations and interagency discussions. EUCOM and our Service component command, U.S. Army Europe, are working within DOD to plan for any eventual deployment decision, which 

we will then execute. 

109. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, the second phase of the EPAA calls for 

the deployment of the SM–3 block IB missile in Romania by 2015, yet the first flight 

intercept test of the IB missile has been delayed by at least a few months. Likewise, 

the EPAA schedule calls for deployment of the IIB missile in Poland by 2018. The 

IIB version of the SM–3 missile provides protection for all of Europe against longrange missiles from Iran. In light of what you know about the growing threat posed 

by Iran, what is your assessment of the strategic risks associated with a delay in 

deployment of the IB missile in Romania by 2015, and the IIB missile in Poland 

by 2018? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. The key for the Romania deployment is finalizing the negotiations and building the Aegis Ashore site. This is proceeding apace and my staff is 

very heavily engaged in supporting the negotiations, led by DOS that would allow 

the United States to base Aegis Ashore in Romania. If the SM–3 Block 1B missile 

662 

is delayed, the site can still be operated with the SM–3 Block 1 missiles available 

today. 

ARMY COMBAT BRIGADES IN EUROPE

110. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, the Pentagon reportedly intends to decide in the near future how many Army BCTs to keep in Europe, which could be 

as many as four or as few as two. Meanwhile, since 2002, two Germany based BCTs 

have essentially been in limbo while the Pentagon debates their fate. It now appears 

unlikely that these units, which had been scheduled to return to the United States 

by 2013, will meet that deadline. I wonder if our soldiers there receive the same 

high quality training that they would receive stateside at a post such as Fort Bliss, 

TX, where training opportunities are unparalleled due to its vast ranges and whose 

conditions accurately simulate those faced by soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 

your view, is delaying the return of these Army units from Europe the right course 

of action, given that our European allies have their own highly capable militaries? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Yes to both questions. We have proven our mission readiness 

and training capacity during multiple brigade rotations over the past 8 years from 

numerous locations throughout Germany to include Grafenwoehr, Baumholder, 

Ansbach, and Schweinfurt. The brigade at Baumholder and the brigade being consolidated at Grafenwoehr both have immediate access to two of the largest and best 

training areas in Europe. These two locations offer training, deployment, and quality of life capabilities comparable to facilities anywhere in the United States. 

Grafenwoehr has firing ranges immediately available for the use of live fire, urban 

training, simulation, unexploded ordnance, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) detection lanes and more. Soldiers in Europe have the added benefit of continuous opportunities to train with soldiers from allied and partner nations. These opportunities have proven invaluable in building coalition partnerships with both NATO and 

non-NATO countries, and enhancing unit interoperability which remains critical for 

our forces operating in Afghanistan and the unknown battlefields of tomorrow. 

Training and exercising in Europe also offers unique professional development for 

our future leaders. This same multi-national experience in coalition operations is 

unavailable to U.S.-based units who are scheduled to deploy to conduct periodic rotations at forward locations. 

Keeping three BCTs in Europe contributes significantly to preserving the credibility of the U.S. commitment to NATO and the defense of our allies in Europe, particularly in light of the renewed emphasis placed on collective defense, crisis response, and promoting international stability in NATO’s New Strategic Concept. European confidence in the U.S. commitment is essential to our leadership of the 

NATO Alliance as we continue to encourage substantive allied support for out-ofarea operations and hedges against future uncertainty in a cost effective manner. 

Maintaining a broad range of ground force capabilities, consistent with a three BCT 

structure in Europe, will reassure our allies of America’s continued commitment to 

Article 5, maintain U.S. leadership in NATO with the ability to shape the transformation of allied forces, and support U.S. objectives in countering threats emanating within and on the periphery of Europe. 

111. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Stavridis, why are the previously mentioned Army 

BCTs still permanently stationed in Europe, and when will the Army bring them 

home? 

Admiral STAVRIDIS. Consistent with the principles outlined in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the National Security Strategy, and the NATO New Strategic 

Concept, DOD conducted an assessment of its defense posture in Europe to ensure 

a balance of forces that will meet U.S. enduring commitment to NATO’s Article 5, 

ensure a credible deterrent against all forms of aggression, and also maintain a robust capacity to strengthen allied and partner capacity for coalition operations. The 

Department will announce the outcome of these reviews very soon. 

Post-Hearing Note: On April 8, 2011, DOD announced that it will retain three 

BCTs in Europe to maintain a flexible and rapidly deployable ground force to fulfill 

U.S. commitments to NATO, engage effectively with allies and partners, and meet 

the broad range of 21st century challenges. These three BCTs remaining in Europe 

after 2015, complemented by other capabilities, will enhance and rebalance U.S. 

force posture in Europe to make it more capable, more effective, and better aligned 

with current and future security challenges. 

[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(663) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room SD– 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman), presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Nelson, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Blumenthal, 

McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Brown, Portman, and Ayotte. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Jason W. Maroney, 

counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; and William 

K. Sutey, professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; John W. 

Heath, Jr., minority investigative counsel; Daniel A. Lerner, professional staff member; Michael J. Sistak, research assistant; and 

Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel. 

Staff assistants present: Christine G. Lang, Brian F. Sebold, and 

Breon N. Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Ann Premer, 

assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Gordon Peterson, assistant to 

Senator Webb; Casey Howard, assistant to Senator Udall; Lindsay 

Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Chad Kreikemeier, assistant to Senator Shaheen; Jeremy Bratt, assistant to Senator 

Blumenthal; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; 

Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde Taylor IV, 

assistant to Senator Chambliss; Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; and Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator Ayotte. 

664 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

The committee today welcomes Secretary of the Army John 

McHugh, and Chief of Staff of the Army, General George Casey, 

Jr., for our hearing on the Army’s fiscal year 2012 budget request 

and current posture. 

This hearing marks the fourth and final appearance before this 

committee for General Casey as the Army’s 36th Chief of Staff. In 

a few short days, he’ll relinquish leadership of the Army and bring 

to a close his 41 years of dedicated and honorable uniformed service to our Nation. 

General Casey’s career has touched nearly every major military 

event of the last 4 decades, and his leadership has helped shape 

our military posture in the struggles that we face today. He and 

his wife, Sheila’s, devotion to soldiers and their families, including 

the family programs that he has initiated, have resulted in improvements in Army quality of life that contribute to the force’s resilience and readiness. For this, and for much more, we are grateful. 

The Army that General Casey and Secretary McHugh will describe for us is as great today as it has ever been; combat-tested 

and proven, having met the challenges of the last decade with courage, determination, and professionalism. The Army remains, however, stretched by nearly 10 years of continuous combat, and must 

deal with many enduring and new challenges that will be no less 

daunting and will likely require similar sacrifice. 

Let me open with a challenge that I don’t believe the Army, or 

any of our Services, should have to endure. The Department of Defense (DOD), as with all Federal agencies, continues to operate 

under a Continuing Resolution (CR) that expires on April 8. If the 

current CR is extended for the whole year, then funding shortfalls 

will hurt all of the Army’s operation, maintenance, construction, 

and investment accounts. Programs to improve facilities and take 

better care of wounded warriors’ and soldiers’ families could be delayed. Tough decisions made by the Army over the last year to cancel poor performing or unnecessary weapons systems and instead 

increase investment in recapitalization, upgrade, and reset programs will stall. We should take up and pass a fiscal year 2011 Defense appropriations bill. It’s the right thing to do for our troops 

and our country. 

Despite the difficulty of managing resources under a CR, the 

Army continues to meet the demand for trained and ready forces 

in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The drawdown 

of U.S. forces in Iraq has begun, but nearly 40,000 American troops 

will remain there until the conclusion of our complete withdrawal 

by this December. 

The Army provides over 60,000 troops to operations in Afghanistan. Hard fighting will continue, even as we and our allies continue to build the Afghan security forces so that they may take 

more and more responsibility for their own security. We know that 

our troops deploying to Afghanistan or Iraq have the highest priority for resources to ensure that they are trained and ready before 

they go, to make sure they have what they need when they get 

there. But, this drives the Army to make near-term tradeoffs 

665 

among its many other resource needs. We’re interested to hear 

from our witnesses how they’re managing the challenges of CRs 

and what risks confront the Army if a regular appropriations bill 

is not enacted. 

As resilient, adaptable, trained, and ready as our soldiers are 

today for their missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the future beyond 

these operations holds real questions about the purpose, size, and 

structure of the Army. In a speech to cadets at the U.S. Military 

Academy last month, Secretary of Defense Gates argued that it is 

unlikely that the Nation will commit large land forces to future 

conflicts, and that the Army must ‘‘confront the reality that the 

most plausible high-end scenarios for the U.S. military will be primarily naval and air engagements.’’ Secretary Gates cautioned 

that, in a strategic environment where we are unlikely to fight an 

enemy employing large armored formations, the Army will find it 

difficult to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy armored 

brigades. 

At about the same time, General Casey seemed to go in a different direction when he said he expects that, at the end of the 

next 10 years, the Army will still have 50,000 to 100,000 soldiers 

deployed in combat. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral 

Mullen, said that, for planning purposes, DOD assumes 6 to 10 

combat brigades will likely be deployed. 

We look forward to hearing our witnesses’ views on these perspectives and how they may shape the Army’s plans and priorities 

for the coming years. 

Pressure to cut spending in general is being felt throughout the 

government and DOD. DOD’s efficiencies initiatives is intended to 

take funds away from less important or inefficient programs or activities and to put them to higher current and future modernization 

priorities. The Army’s share of the efficiencies initiatives is $28 billion over fiscal years 2012 through 2016, which the Army plans to 

achieve through weapons systems cancellations, construction 

delays, and organization realignments and consolidations. We’re interested to hear Secretary McHugh’s and General Casey’s assessments of the efficiencies initiatives, its potential impact on the 

Army, and what actions they intend to take, if any, to ensure that 

the projected savings are realized. 

It seems like only yesterday that we were concerned with growing our ground forces as quickly as possible, both to meet the demands of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to relieve some 

of the rotational pressures on soldiers and their families. People 

are the most important and precious asset throughout the Armed 

Forces. Dialing up or down the size of the Army is never easy, nor 

inexpensive. However, the Army needs to begin planning for the 

end strength reductions announced by Secretary Gates in January. 

Under General Casey’s leadership, the Army has made restoring 

balance a guiding theme and objective of significant effort and investment. Balance, as we understand it, seeks to increase the 

amount of time at home, resetting and training for other contingencies, relative to the amount of time deployed for operations in 

Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere. More time at home station for 

training is critical to the Army’s efforts to rebuild its strategic 

666 

depth, the desired readiness in the nondeployed force, such that it 

is capable of responding to any unforeseen contingency. 

Although the Army continues to meet the demand for 

counterinsurgency and support operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

and around the world, and despite the amazing resilience of our 

troops and their families, the Army remains stressed in many 

ways. Given the planned Army drawdown, budget pressures, and 

force demands for operations in Afghanistan, we continue to face 

substantial risk, should we need the Army to respond to another 

contingency. We’d be interested to hear General Casey’s report on 

the Army’s progress towards restoring balance this year, and his 

assessment of Army readiness for unforeseen contingencies. 

The Army needs to continue to rationalize and stabilize its nearand long-range modernization strategies and programs. In general, 

major Army modernization efforts have not been successful over 

the past decade or more. A recent study of Army modernization 

notes that, since 2004, the Army has spent from $3.3 billion to $3.8 

billion per year to develop weapons systems that ultimately were 

canceled. 

Over the last 2 years, at the direction of Secretary McHugh and 

under the leadership of Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General 

Peter Chiarelli, and Under Secretary of the Army, Dr. Joseph 

Westphal, the Army has worked diligently through an objective and 

detailed series of capability portfolio reviews that has started it on 

a path towards achieving rational, stable, and affordable Army 

modernization strategies and programs. As a result of this analytical process, the Army has canceled less relevant, overambitious, 

redundant, or unaffordable weapons systems. 

But, the Army is not out of the woods yet with its major acquisition programs. There are still significant challenges ahead with the 

management and funding of its modernization priorities, including 

development of a new ground combat vehicle. We’re interested to 

hear our witnesses’ assessments of the Army’s review process, and 

how they plan to sustain the momentum achieved over the last 2 

years. 

Finally, no two leaders in the Army have cared more or worked 

more tirelessly than Secretary McHugh and General Casey in dealing with the human cost to soldiers and their families of the pressures and consequences of an Army in continuous combat for 10 

years. A noteworthy priority of General Casey over his 4 years as 

Chief of Staff has been finding ways to mitigate the stress of multiple combat rotations and long separations on soldiers and their 

families. DOD and the Army set a goal that soldiers and units 

should have twice as much time at home as they would deployed, 

and that Army families would enjoy greater stability and less 

stress. 

Wounded soldiers deserve, and are getting, the highest priority 

from the Army for support services, healing and recuperation, rehabilitation, evaluation for return to duty, successful transition from 

Active Duty, if required, and continuing support beyond retirement 

or discharge. The Army has established many new programs for 

the improved care of our wounded soldiers and their families. Despite the efforts of everyone, heartbreaking incidents of suicide continue. The committee is interested to hear Secretary McHugh’s and 

667 

General Casey’s updates and assessments of the Army’s efforts in 

these areas, as well. 

The Nation could not be more proud of our Army, its soldiers, 

and their families. The most important thing we can do to thank 

them for their service and sacrifice is ensure that they have what 

they need, when they need it, to do what we ask them to do. So 

Congress needs to pass a fiscal year 2011 Defense appropriation. 

General Casey, thank you again for your leadership and for the 

service and sacrifices of your family in supporting you over all 

these years. 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary McHugh and General Casey, welcome back to the committee. 

Secretary McHugh, I believe this is your second appearance at 

our annual Army posture hearing. Thank you for your continued 

leadership. 

General Casey, this will be your last appearance at our annual 

posture hearing, and you’ve spent the last 41 years in uniform, including nearly 4 years as Chief of Staff. Thank you for your years 

of service to our country. We all appreciate the many sacrifices that 

you and your family have made over the past decades. 

Today, our Army is still at war. For almost 10 years, our soldiers 

have engaged ruthless and determined enemies on a worldwide 

battlefield. Our soldiers have fought exceptionally well and at great 

personal cost to themselves and to their families. Our soldiers 

turned the tide in Iraq 4 years ago. They’re doing so again in Afghanistan. Their singular focus has been to bring the wars in Iraq 

and Afghanistan to a successful conclusion. Our focus, first and 

foremost, should be on winning those wars. I would like to hear 

from you how the Army directly provides those warfighters with 

the tools they need to win the current fight, and what resources the 

Army will need in the future. 

But, as our soldiers are engaged in conflict abroad, our Nation 

faces a formidable financial crisis at home, a crisis that can’t be ignored. The fact is, we are mortgaging our children’s futures. As 

such, we must be vigilant to both provide the resources for our 

warfighters to succeed at the missions we’ve tasked them with and 

be good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars. 

Secretary Gates’ efficiencies initiatives is a step, I believe, in the 

right direction. I’d like to hear how the Army has supported the 

Secretary’s efficiencies drive. 

I’d also like to hear about what other programs, service contracts, or other organizations you believe could be reduced or eliminated, going forward, without hurting the war effort. 

Success on the battlefield does not come without a cost. Equipment returning from Iraq will need to be repaired and recapitalized. Depleted stocks of Reserve and Guard equipment will need to 

be reconstituted and modernized. Most importantly, returning soldiers will need increased time to rest and recover before their next 

phase of training. I’d like to hear what steps you’ve taken to relieve 

the stress on both men and materiel, especially as Army end 

668 

strength declines. I’d like to also know how you intend to pay for 

it. 

I would note, however, that despite the strain on the force, recruitment and retention remain historically high. This fact stands 

as a testament to the patriotism and resiliency of our servicemembers in the Army. 

As we have witnessed in recent weeks, the global security environment remains anything but predictable. The Army needs a clear 

vision for the roles and missions it will have to undertake in the 

future. 

In his speech to the cadets about what their future in the Army 

would look like, Secretary Gates expressed his predictions. He discounted the likelihood of another large land campaign like Iraq and 

Afghanistan, and forecast an Army, in coming years, that would 

most likely engage in short-duration, low-intensity operations. He 

also warned that the Army would have difficulty justifying the cost 

of its large, heavy formations. I’m interested in your views for the 

future of the Army and whether or not you share Secretary Gates’ 

views. 

The Army must also tailor a force today to meet its vision for the 

future. Through the capabilities portfolio review process, the Army 

has made recent strides to eliminate acquisition programs that 

failed to deliver increased capabilities at a reasonable cost and in 

a reasonable amount of time. 

That said, I continue to be concerned by the Army’s seeming inability to successfully manage its major defense acquisition programs. A recent study noted that, between 1990 and 2010, the 

Army terminated 22 major acquisition programs. The same study 

suggested that the Army has wasted between $3.3 and $3.8 billion 

in research and development (R&D) funds per year, every year 

since 2004, on programs that produced few tangible results. With 

this study’s background, I was shocked to learn that the Army had 

asked for another $407 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget to 

continue developing the Medium Extended Air Defense System 

(MEADS) when you have decided to cancel the program and never 

field the system. 

Let me be very clear. This kind of business-as-usual approach 

should be stopped. I expect that the Army will substantially improve its program management of other larger acquisitions, such as 

the ground combat vehicle. I’d like to hear how you intend to improve the management and oversight of the major Army acquisition 

programs so that something like MEADS doesn’t happen again. 

I also, Mr. Secretary, have been very troubled by recent reports 

concerning these heinous acts that were committed in Afghanistan 

by Army units. It’s not the U.S. Army. We all know that. But, we 

also know how the actions of a few can affect the reputation of the 

many. So, I hope that you could discuss that issue a little bit with 

us this morning. It makes all of us grieve beyond words, not because there are occasional rogue elements within our military, but 

the damage it does to the finest institutions in America. I would 

appreciate your comments this morning about that, and what actions can possibly be taken. 

669 

It’s our job to remind the American people of the outstanding 

service and courage and sacrifice that’s being made by our men and 

women in the Army every single day. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

Secretary McHugh. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE 

ARMY 

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the 

committee, it’s really wonderful to be back here in the halls of Congress again, and have the opportunity to be reminded of how lucky 

we are, as a Nation, to have such a body in Congress—in the 

House and the Senate—and particularly, although I’m somewhat 

prejudiced, a committee such as this, where, through all of the political turmoil and challenges of the moment, a body of men and 

women can come together and have one common cause; doing the 

right thing by our men and women in uniform. I want to particularly thank each of you for your steadfast support in that endeavor. 

Our 1.1 million soldiers and 279,000 civilians and their families are 

in your debt and very grateful for your leadership and the leadership of a Congress, and this committee particularly, that allows us 

to continue to field the greatest force for good the world has ever 

seen, in my judgment, the U.S. Army. 

Today, we are an Army that continues, as has been noted in the 

opening comments of the chairman and the ranking member, at the 

forefront of combat, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and security assistance operations in nearly 80 nations on the face of this 

planet. 

In Iraq, our soldiers and civilians began one of the largest and 

most complex logistical operations in our Nation’s history. As we 

continue to draw down our forces to meet the December 31, 2011, 

deadline, we’ve already closed or transferred over 80 percent of the 

bases we once operated to Iraqi authorities. We’ve reduced the 

number of U.S. personnel by over 75,000, and redeployed more 

than 26,000 vehicles. Having visited Iraq very recently, I can tell 

you, firsthand, the enormity of the retrograde operations, and yet, 

the exceptionally high morale of our remaining forces as they continue to advise, assist, and train Iraqis to support that burgeoning 

democracy. 

Simultaneously with drawdown operations in Iraq, the Army has 

surged an additional 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan to defeat the 

al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency. This surge 

enabled our soldiers and our Afghan partners to seize multiple 

sanctuaries in the traditional insurgent heartland of southern Afghanistan. Additionally, during this past year, our forces have 

trained 109,000 Afghan National Army soldiers, as well as 41,000 

Afghan National Police. Overseas contingency operations (OCO) are 

just one part of what your Army does. 

Our soldiers and civilians from all Army components remain 

committed to protecting our Homeland, not only from the threat of 

enemies who would harm us, but also from the ravages of natural 

and manmade disasters. From National Guard soldiers assisting 

670 

with drug enforcement and border security, to the Army Corps of 

Engineers responding to the catastrophic oilspill in the Gulf of 

Mexico, the Army has been there to support local, State, and Federal partners in saving, protecting, and caring for our citizens. 

Yet, our challenges have not been reserved simply for combat, 

border protection, or disaster relief. For, just as our soldiers and civilians conducted multiple operations here and around the world, 

the Army simultaneously continued its far-reaching efforts to modernize their equipment, transform units, and complete the unprecedented consolidations required under the recent Base Realignment 

and Closure program. 

As the Army continues to fight global terrorists and regional insurgents, we must be ever mindful of the future and the enemies 

it may bring; hybrid threats and hostile state actors, to name just 

two. It’s vital, therefore, that we have a modernization program, 

one that provides our soldiers with the full array of equipment necessary to maintain a decisive advantage over the enemies we’re 

fighting today, as well as deter and defeat tomorrow’s threats, at 

a price we can afford. 

Our fiscal year 2012 budget request is critical to achieving this 

goal by supporting the extraordinary strides being made in the 

Army’s state-of-the-art network, tactical wheeled vehicle, and combat vehicle modernization programs. Regarding the network, we’re requesting $974 million in procure- ment and $298 million in R&D for the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T), which will become the cornerstone of our 

battlefield communications system. This budget also contains $2.1 

billion in procurement for joint and combat communications systems, including the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). As we look to modernize our vehicle fleets, we’re asking for $1.5 billion for tactical wheeled vehicle modernization, and over $1 billion to support vital R&D for combat vehicle modernization, including $884 million for the ground combat vehicle and $156 million for 

the modernization of the Stryker, Bradley, and Abrams platforms. 

Along with advances in equipment, the Army is seeking new 

methods to use and secure our scarce energy resources. Clearly, future operations will depend on our ability to reduce dependency, increase efficiency, and use more renewable or alternative sources of 

energy. We have made strides in this area, and we need, and we 

will do, more. 

The Army has established a senior energy council, appointed a 

senior energy executive, and adopted a comprehensive strategy for 

energy security. Based on this strategy, we are developing more efficient generators and power distribution platforms, factoring in 

fuel costs as part of equipment modernizations, and developing a 

net-zero approach to holistically address our installations’ energy, 

water, and waste needs. 

Moreover, we’re changing how we do business by undertaking 

comprehensive efforts to reform our procurement methods. In May 

2010, the Chief and I commissioned an unprecedented Blue Ribbon 

Review of the Army’s acquisitions systems from cradle to grave. As 

you noted, Senator McCain, we have a great deal of room for improvement. That panel provided us some 72 recommendations. We 

are currently analyzing the insightful report, and we’ll use it as a 

671 

guide over the next 2 years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Army acquisition process. 

But, we haven’t stopped there. To ensure that we purchase the 

right equipment to meet the needs of our soldiers, we instituted, 

as has been noted by both the chairman and the ranking member, 

a series of capability portfolio reviews to examine all existing Army 

requirements and transfer those programs that we found to be redundant, didn’t work, or which were just too expensive. These 

broadbased reviews have already helped us to identify key gaps 

and unnecessary redundancies, while promoting good stewardship 

of our Nation’s resources. We will continue those reviews as a permanent part of our fiscal responsibility program. 

We remain committed to using every effort to obtain the right 

systems, supplies, and services at the right time and in the most 

cost-effective, streamlined manner possible. Our soldiers and our 

taxpayers deserve no less. We look forward to working closely with 

this committee as we continue to implement these sweeping 

changes. 

Throughout it all, as this committee knows so very well, at its 

heart, the Army is people. Although our soldiers and civilians are 

better trained, led, and equipped, and more capable than ever before, as has been noted, our forces are clearly stretched and our 

personnel are strained from a decade of war. This is evidenced by 

yet another year of discouraging rates of suicide and high-risk behavior, not only among members of the regular Army, but the Reserve components, as well. 

In response, under the direct supervision of Vice Chief of Staff, 

General Pete Chiarelli, the Army completed an unprecedented 15- 

month study to better understand suicide and related actions 

amongst our soldiers. In July, we published the first-ever health 

promotion, risk reduction, and suicide prevention report. It was a 

very candid, very open, honest, and, at times, stark study and assessment designed to assist our leaders in recognizing and reducing 

high-risk behavior, as well as the stigma associated with behavioral healthcare. The lessons from this holistic review have been infused into every level of command and incorporated throughout our 

efforts to strengthen the resiliency of our soldiers, families, and civilians. 

Moreover, our fiscal year 2012 budget request provides $1.7 billion to fund vital soldier and family programs to provide a full 

range of essential services, to include the Army campaign for 

health promotion, risk reduction, and suicide prevention, as well as 

sexual harassment, assault response and prevention, and comprehensive soldier fitness programs. 

Caring for our families and our personnel has to go beyond mental, physical, and emotional health. We’re also committed to protecting their safety, both at home and abroad, from internal and 

external threats. As part of our continuing efforts to learn and 

adapt from the Fort Hood shooting, the Army has instituted a 

number of key programs to enhance awareness, reporting, prevention, and response to such threats. For example, we’ve implemented iWatch and iSalute programs to improve our ability to detect and mitigate high-risk behavior indicative of insider threat. To 

enhance interoperability with local, regional, and Federal agencies, 

672 

we have also fully implemented the National Incident Management 

System by 2014. We fielded the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

eGuardian system, and require all installations to have emergency 

management equipment, such as E911 and mass warning notification systems. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss if I didn’t echo for a moment the comments that you made very aptly as to the continuing 

challenges provided by the CR. I could provide an entire list of 

those things that we have been unable to do, and the planning that 

we have been unable to conclude through that. If you’d care to 

speak about it in specifics, I’d look forward to it. But, suffice it to 

say, every day that passes without that issue being resolved 

mounts the challenges that we face. 

I should say, given where we are at the moment, and the upcoming expiration of the CR, the only thing I can imagine worse than 

a year-long CR would be a government shutdown, in terms of what 

it would mean in providing for our soldiers. I was here for the shutdown in 1995. Most everyone on this committee understands what 

happened then. I can tell you, from the Army perspective and the 

military perspective, there was some luck in that the implementation of the shutdown didn’t affect pay to soldiers. I doubt we’d be 

that lucky this time. 

The fact of the matter is, and it’s not well understood, that if we 

lapse over a payroll in a government shutdown, soldiers won’t be 

paid. They won’t be paid if they’re at Fort Bragg, Fort Lewis, Fort 

Carson, or Fort Drum. They won’t be paid if they’re at Bagram, Afghanistan, Iraq, or wherever. We will not have the authority. 

So, I say that only as a matter of encouragement to those of you 

on this committee who have been our champions in this effort. Certainly, to the extent we can provide you any kind of information 

that can carry forward, we are more than willing and, in fact, appreciative of the opportunity. 

With that, I’d yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. McHugh and General Casey 

follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH AND GEN GEORGE W. 

CASEY, JR., USA 

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade, America’s Army has been challenged and prevailed in some 

of the most daunting tasks in the history of our military. Soldiers from the Active 

Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve demonstrate indelible spirit, sacrifice, and sheer determination in protecting our national interests and supporting 

our friends and allies around the world. 

In the coming years, our top priorities will be to maintain our combat edge while 

we reconstitute the force for other missions and build resilience in our people. The 

Army has made significant progress in restoring balance through the four imperatives we identified in 2007—sustain, prepare, reset, and transform. We are on track 

to achieve a sustainable deployment tempo for our forces and restore balance to the 

Army beginning in fiscal year 2012. We successfully completed combat operations 

in Iraq, transitioning from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn while 

executing one of the largest wartime retrogrades in the Nation’s history. Operation 

New Dawn marks the beginning of a new mission for our Army while demonstrating 

our ongoing commitment to the Government and people of Iraq. Concurrently, we 

surged soldiers to Afghanistan in support of a new strategic direction in this vital 

theater. Even with all we have done, there is still much work to do. 

The war is not over yet, and we remain in an era of persistent conflict facing an 

uncertain and increasingly complex strategic environment. Hybrid threats made up 

673 

of conventional, irregular, criminal and terrorist capabilities will continue to test 

our forces. These threats will avoid our strengths and attack us asymmetrically. 

Therefore, we must continue to organize our formations, update our doctrine and 

prepare our forces for the full spectrum of operations. 

Additionally we remain aware of the difficult economic conditions at home. These 

conditions will drive our efforts to transform our generating force into an innovative 

and adaptive organization. We must adapt our institutions to effectively generate 

trained and ready forces for Full Spectrum Operations, while seeking ways to improve efficiency and reduce overhead expenditures that demonstrate wise stewardship of our taxpayers’ dollars. With the continued support of the American people 

and Congress, we remain committed to the readiness and well being of our soldiers, 

civilians, and family members. As the Strength of the Nation, the American soldier 

is the centerpiece of everything we do. 

WHERE WE HAVE BEEN

For nearly a decade, the Army has been operating at an exhausting pace. High 

operational demands have stressed our ability to supply trained and ready forces 

during most of this period. The result was an Army out of balance, lacking strategic 

flexibility to respond to other contingencies and lacking the ability to sustain the 

All-Volunteer Force. This past year, the Army continued to make great strides toward restoring balance to the force. 

The drawdown in Iraq and change of mission from Operation Iraqi Freedom to 

Operation New Dawn on September 1, 2010 represented a significant accomplishment made possible by the extraordinary determination, hard work and sacrifice of 

American soldiers, their families, and the civilian workforce. During Operation New 

Dawn, the remaining 50,000 U.S. servicemembers serving in Iraq will conduct stability operations focused on advising, assisting and training Iraqi security forces, all 

while engineering the responsible drawdown of combat forces in one of the largest 

and most complex logistical operations in history. The Army closed or transferred 

over 80 percent of the bases to Iraqi authorities, reduced the number of U.S. personnel by over 75,000 and redeployed more than 26,000 vehicles. 

Concurrently, we implemented the President’s direction to surge an additional 

30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan to defeat the al Qaeda terrorist network and the 

Taliban insurgency. This surge enabled our soldiers and our Afghan partners to 

take back insurgent sanctuaries in the traditional insurgent Taliban heartland of 

southern Afghanistan. Additionally, during this past year our forces have trained 

109,000 Afghan National Army soldiers, as well as 41,000 Afghan National Police. 

As a result, we are beginning to see an improvement in Afghan National Security 

Force capability. 

Last year, the Army responded to three major natural and environmental disasters while continuing to support homeland defense. The Army provided humanitarian relief in response to the devastating earthquake in Haiti, the summer floods 

in Pakistan and the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, our 

National Guard soldiers were sent to the Nation’s southern border to help control 

increased illegal activity. They assisted Federal law enforcement agencies responsible for drug enforcement and the security of our borders. 

During this past year the Army continued to increase its knowledge and understanding of Full Spectrum Operations. Last October, the Army conducted the first 

full spectrum rotation against a hybrid threat at the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, LA. This was the first time in 5 years that we have been able to 

conduct a training rotation focused on anything other than operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. As we continue to build dwell and increase the time soldiers have at 

home, more units will conduct full spectrum training rotations at the Combat Training Centers increasing our ability to hedge against the unexpected and restoring 

strategic flexibility to the force. 

Though we remain heavily engaged, the Army is regaining balance. We are starting to be able to breathe again. We must continue efforts to fully restore balance 

while maintaining the momentum we have achieved over the past 4 years. The strategic environment continues to be complex, and the stakes are too high to become 

complacent or underprepared. 

RESTORING BALANCING

Restoring Balance 

Through the continued support of Congress and the American people, we will lessen the stress on America’s Army by focusing on the imperatives we established 4 

years ago. We must continue to sustain the Army’s soldiers, families, and civilians; 

674 

prepare forces for success in the current conflicts; reset returning units; and transform the Army to meet the demands of the second decade of the 21st century. 

Sustain 

Our first imperative is to sustain our All-Volunteer Force. We must reduce the 

stress on soldiers, families, and civilians who have borne the hardship of 91⁄2 years 

of conflict. In addition to addressing this high level of stress, the Army invests time, 

energy and resources into quality of life programs. We must continue to inculcate 

resilience in the force, providing soldiers, families, and civilians the skill sets necessary to deal with adversity. 

Goals 

The most important component required to restore balance within our Army is to 

increase the time between deployments, known as dwell time. A study completed 

in 2009 confirmed what we already intuitively knew: Soldiers require at least 2 to 

3 years to fully recover, both mentally and physically, from the rigors of a 1 year 

combat deployment. Training and schooling necessary for a professional soldier to 

sustain warrior and leader skills are also very important. With these critical considerations, our interim objective is to achieve and then maintain a dwell time of at 

least 2 years at home for every year deployed for the Active component soldier and 

4 years at home for every year mobilized for the Reserve component soldier. In 2011 

we will examine the cost and benefits of increasing dwell to 1:3 and 1:5 respectively 

with a 9 month boots-on-the-ground policy. 

In addition to increasing dwell time, the Army must continue to recruit and retain 

quality soldiers and civilians from diverse backgrounds. People are our most important resource, and to sustain an All-Volunteer Force it is essential to attract those 

with an aptitude for learning and then retain them as they develop the tactical, 

technical and leadership skills the Army needs. To grow and develop the Army’s future leadership, we need appropriate incentives to encourage sufficient numbers of 

high quality personnel to continue to serve beyond their initial term of service. 

Another important consideration is the health of the force. We must provide our 

Soldiers and Civilians, as well as their families, the best possible care, support and 

services by establishing a cohesive holistic Army-wide strategy to synchronize and 

integrate programs, processes and governance. There are myriad programs available 

to accomplish this, such as Army Family Action Plan, the Army Family Covenant 

and other community covenants. Our focus is on improving access to and predictability of services. We will enhance support for the wounded, families of the fallen, 

victims of sexual assault and those with mental health issues. Our effort to build 

an entire spectrum of wellness—physical, emotional, social, family and spiritual— 

will support achieving Army strategic outcomes of readiness, recruitment, and retention. The Army is also building resilience in the force by addressing the cumulative effects of 91⁄2 years of war. We have designed a comprehensive approach that 

puts mental fitness on the same level as physical fitness by establishing a Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, developing Master Resiliency Trainers and implementing a campaign for Health Promotion and Risk Reduction. The Army has 

a requisite duty to provide world class health care for our wounded, ill, or injured 

warriors and to successfully transition these soldiers and their families back to the 

Army or civilian life. This is coordinated through the Warrior Care and Transition 

Program and ably led by well resourced Warrior Transition Units. Our final and 

most solemn responsibility is to respect and honor the sacrifice of our fallen comrades by continuing to support the needs of their families. 

Progress 

• Achieved 101 percent of recruiting goals for 2010, exceeding both numeric 

goals and quality benchmarks for new recruits. Over 98 percent of recruits had 

high school diplomas, the highest percentage since 1992. 

• Exceeded reenlistment goals: 114 percent for the Active component and 106 

percent for the Reserve component. 

• Decreased accidents and mishaps in several key categories, to include: 

• Off-duty fatalities down by 20 percent 

• On-duty critical accidents down by 13 percent 

• Army combat vehicle accidents down by 37 percent 

• Manned aircraft accidents down by 16 percent 

• Expanded Survivor Outreach Services to over 26,000 family members, providing unified support and advocacy, and enhancing survivor benefits for the 

families of our soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. 

• Graduated more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians from the Master Resilience 

Trainer course. 

675 

• Surpassed 1 million soldiers, civilians, and family members who have completed the Army’s Global Assessment Tool to begin their personal assessment 

and resilience training. 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Highlights for Sustain 

• Provides $1.7 billion to fund vital soldier and family programs to provide a 

full range of essential services to include the Army Campaign for Heath Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention; Sexual Harassment/Assault 

Response and Prevention; and Comprehensive Soldier Fitness. In addition, this 

funding supports family services including welfare and recreation, youth services and child care, Survivor Outreach Services and education and employment 

opportunities for family members. 

• Provides soldiers with a 1.6 percent military basic pay raise, a 3.4 percent 

basic allowance for subsistence increase, and a 3.1 percent basic allowance for 

housing increase. 

• Continues to fund the Residential Communities Initiatives program which 

provides quality, sustainable residential communities for soldiers and their families living on-post and continues to offset out-of-pocket housing expenses for 

those residing off-post. 

Prepare 

Properly preparing our soldiers for combat against a ruthless and dedicated 

enemy is critical to mission success. To do so, we must provide the appropriate 

equipment and training to each Soldier and ensure units are appropriately manned. 

Our generating force must continuously adapt—tailoring force packages and quickly 

readjusting training, manning and equipping—to ensure units have the tools necessary to succeed in any conflict. At the same time, we are aggressively pursuing 

efficiency initiatives designed to reduce duplication, overhead and excess as well as 

to instill a culture of savings and restraint. 

Goals 

The Army identified four key goals necessary to adequately prepare the force for 

today’s strategic environment. The first was to responsibly grow the Army. The congressionally-approved growth of the Army was completed ahead of schedule in 2009. 

However, after a decade of persistent conflict, a number of other factors— 

nondeployable soldiers, temporary requirements in various headquarters and transition teams, our wounded warriors, elimination of stop-loss—has impacted our ability 

to adequately man units for deployment. As a result, the Secretary of Defense approved an additional Temporary End Strength of 22,000 soldiers, 7,000 of whom 

were integrated in 2010. The Army will return to the congressionally-approved Active component end strength of 547,400 by the end of fiscal year 2013. The second 

key goal addressed training. The Army will continue its commitment to leader, individual and collective training in order to remain mentally, physically, and emotionally agile against a highly decentralized and adaptive foe. The third key goal is to 

provide the Army with effective equipment in a timely and efficient manner. We 

must implement a new materiel management approach to ensure a timely availability of equipment that not only protects our soldiers and maintains our technological edge, but does so prudently. 

The final and most critical goal is to fully embrace our rotational readiness 

model—a process we call Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN). ARFORGEN will 

allow a steady, predictable flow of trained and ready forces to meet the Nation’s 

needs across the full spectrum of conflict. Drawing from both Active and Reserve 

components, the ARFORGEN process allows us to consistently generate 1 corps 

headquarters, 5 division headquarters, 20 brigade combat teams, and 90,000 enabler 

soldiers (i.e., combat support and combat service support). When the current demand comes down, it will allow us to build and maintain the ability to surge 1 corps 

headquarters, 3 division headquarters, 10 brigade combat teams, and 40,000 enabler 

soldiers as a hedge against contingencies. ARFORGEN also allows a predictable and 

sustainable dwell time for soldiers. We are currently working to better align the 

generating force activities and business processes that support ARFORGEN. 

Progress 

• Trained and deployed 7 division headquarters, 16 brigade combat teams, 

4 combat aviation brigades, and 8 multi-functional/functional brigades for 

deployments to Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom in 

2010. 

• Increased Army inventory of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles 

to 20,000 vehicles. 

676 

• Deployed more than 4,300 Army civilians to Iraq and Afghanistan to support operations in both theaters. 

• Discontinued the Stop Loss program; last soldiers affected by the policy 

will leave active duty in early 2011. 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Highlights for Prepare 

• Supports a permanent, All-Volunteer Force end strength of 547,400 for 

the Active component, 358,200 for the National Guard, and 205,000 for the 

Army Reserve in the base budget. Provides for a 22,000 temporary increase 

in the Active component in the Overseas Contingency Operations request 

(14,600 end strength on 30 September 2012). 

• Includes $2.1 billion in procurement for Joint and Combat Communications Systems, including the Joint Tactical Radio System, and an additional 

$1.5 billion in Tactical Wheeled Vehicle modernization funding. 

• Provides over $5.6 billion for the Army to implement training strategies 

in support of Full Spectrum Operations, designed to prepare units for any 

mission along the spectrum of conflict, i.e., to perform the fundamental aspects of offense, defense, and stability operations against hybrid threats in 

contemporary operational environments. 

• Invests $1.5 billion in 71 UH–60M/HH–60M Black Hawk Helicopters—a 

critical step in modernizing the utility helicopter fleet. Provides a digitized 

cockpit, new engine for improved lift and range, and wide-chord rotor 

blades. 

• Devotes $1.4 billion to procure 32 new and 15 remanufactured CH–47F 

Chinook Helicopters with a new airframe, Common Avionics Architecture 

System, digital cockpit and a digital advanced flight control system, as well 

as an additional $1.04 billion to modernize the AH–64 Apache. 

Reset 

In order to ensure a quality force and a level of readiness necessary for the complex range of future missions, we must continue to reset our units’ soldiers, families, 

and equipment. This is especially critical given the tempo of deployments. It is a 

process that must continue for 2 to 3 years after the end of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Goals 

In order to achieve our reset goals, we continue every effort to revitalize soldiers 

and families by allowing them an opportunity to reestablish, nurture and strengthen 

personal relationships immediately following a deployment. This includes a review 

of our procedures for demobilization of Reserve component soldiers. We strive to 

make this post-deployment period as predictable and stable as possible. The Army 

also seeks to repair, replace, and recapitalize equipment. As we continue the responsible drawdown in Iraq while simultaneously building up capability to complete our 

mission in Afghanistan, it is critical that we efficiently replace all equipment that 

has been destroyed, and that we repair or recapitalize equipment impacted by extreme environmental conditions or combat operations. We will achieve this by 

adapting the production and manufacturing processes in our arsenals and depots, 

sustaining existing efficiencies, improving collaboration and eliminating 

redundancies in materiel management and distribution. This will save the Army 

money in equipment costs and lessen the strain on the supply lines into and out 

of combat theaters. We finished the reset pilot program which was designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the reset process, and we will continue to 

apply lessons learned. As we drawdown in Iraq and eventually in Afghanistan, we 

will continue to focus on retraining soldiers, units, and leaders in order to effectively 

reset the force. Too often over the last 91⁄2 years, the Army had to prioritize deployment over certain education and training opportunities for soldiers. Given the uncertain strategic environment we face in the future, it is critical that the Army focus 

on education and leader development as well as provide soldiers, units, and leaders 

training for full spectrum operations. 

Progress 

• Sponsored over 2,600 Strong Bonds events designed to strengthen Army 

families with over 160,000 soldiers and family members participating 

• Completed the reset of 29 brigades’ worth of equipment, and continued 

the reset of 13 more. 

• Distributed 1.3 million pieces of equipment, closed or transferred 418 

bases, drew down 16 Supply Support Activities and redeployed over 76,000 

U.S. military, civilian and coalition personnel—all in support of the responsible drawdown of forces from Iraq. 

677 

• Deployed Army aircraft with Condition Based Maintenance plus (CBM+) 

technologies into combat theaters. CBM+ is a proactive maintenance capability that uses sensor-based health indications to predict failure in advance 

of the event providing the ability to take appropriate preventive measures. 

A cost-benefit analysis for CBM+ indicated that it has a Benefit-to-Investment Ratio of 1.2:1 given a 10 year operations period. 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Highlights for Reset 

• Provides $4.4 billion to reset Army equipment through the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request. 

• Continues to support training and sustainment of Army forces including 

individual skills and leader training; combined arms training toward full 

spectrum operations; and adaptable, phased training based on the 

ARFORGEN process. 

Transform 

In order to provide combatant commanders with tailored, strategically responsive 

forces that can dominate across the spectrum of conflict in an uncertain threat environment, the Army continues to transform our operating force by building versatile, 

agile units capable of adapting to changing environments. We continue to convert 

brigades to more deployable, tailorable, and versatile modular organizations while 

rebalancing our skills to better prepare for the future. This process not only positions us to win today’s conflicts, but it also sets the conditions for future success. 

To support the operating force, our generating force must become a force driven 

by innovation, able to adapt quickly and field what our soldiers and their families 

will require. We must transform the business systems of our generating force by developing a fully integrated management system, improving the ARFORGEN process, 

adopting an enterprise approach and reforming the requirements and resource processes that synchronize materiel distribution, training, and staffing. Transformation 

of the generating force is key to our ability to effectively manage, generate, and sustain a balanced Army for the 21st century. 

Goals 

Our plan identifies five goals necessary for effective transformation. The first is 

completing our modular reorganization. Our plan calls for converting all Army brigades from Cold War formations to more deployable, tailorable and versatile modular formations. Our reorganized units have proven themselves extremely powerful 

and effective on today’s battlefields. The second goal involves accelerated fielding of 

proven, advanced technologies as part of our modernization of the force. The Army 

will develop and field versatile, affordable, survivable and networked equipment to 

ensure our Soldiers maintain a decisive advantage over any enemy they confront. 

In the Information Age, the Army must be networked at all times to enable collaboration with joint, combined, coalition, and other mission partners to ensure our soldiers have a decisive advantage. Third, we must institutionalize the investment in 

our Reserve component and obtain assured and predictable access to them, so that 

the Army can achieve the strategic flexibility and operational depth required to respond to emerging contingencies across the spectrum of conflict. We are systematically building and sustaining readiness while increasing predictability for Reserve 

component soldiers, families, employers, and communities through the ARFORGEN 

process. We must modify Army policies and update congressional authorizations in 

order to fully realize the potential of an operationalized Reserve component and capitalize on their significant combat experience. The fourth goal is the restationing of 

forces and families around the world based on the Base Realignment and Closure 

statutes. The Army is in the final year of this complex and detailed 5 year effort 

that has created improved work and training facilities for our soldiers and civilians 

as well as new or improved housing, medical, and child care facilities for our families. The last aspect of transformation is soldier and leader development, which is 

an important factor in maintaining the profession of arms. Today’s Army has a tremendous amount of combat experience that must be augmented with continued professional education and broadening opportunities in order to develop agile and 

adaptive military and civilian leaders who are able to operate effectively in joint, 

interagency, intergovernmental, and multi-national environments. 

Progress 

• Reached 98 percent completion of the modular conversion of the Army. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget will support completion of this process. 

• Restored nearly a brigade combat team’s worth of equipment and its entire sustainment package in the Army Pre-Positioned Stocks program for 

the first time since 2002, greatly enhancing the Army’s strategic flexibility. 

678 

• Provided identity management capabilities for the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and other U.S. Government and international partners through the 

DOD Automated Biometric Identification System. The nearly 1.3 million biometric entries enabled latent identification of approximately 700 Improvised Explosive Device (IED) events, 1,200 IED-related watch list hits, and 

775 high-value individual captures in 2010. 

• Issued soldiers in the 10th Mountain Division and 101st Airborne Division the Soldier Plate Carrier System—a lightweight vest that provides ballistic protection equal to the Improved Outer Tactical Vest in a standalone 

capacity while reducing the soldier’s load, enhancing comfort, and optimizing mobility. 

• Fielded 20 million Enhanced Performance Rounds, providing our soldiers 

with leap-ahead performance over the previous 5.56mm round. The Enhanced Performance Round provides excellent performance against soft targets, has an exposed penetrator that is larger and sharper to penetrate 

hard targets and is more effective at extended ranges. The round is also 

lead-free. 

• Educated over 300 General Officers and Senior Civilian Leaders in business transformation concepts and management practices through the Army 

Strategic Leadership Development Program. 

• Disposed of over 24,000 acres and closed 3 Active installations and 5 U.S. 

Army Reserve Centers and is on course to complete Base Realignment and 

Closure in fiscal year 2011. 

• Supported DOD in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High 

Yield Explosives (CBRN) Consequence Management support required for a 

deliberate or inadvertent CBRN incident by transforming the CBRN Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF) to a new response force 

within the CBRN Consequence Management Enterprise. The CBRN Consequence Management Enterprise consists of 1 Defense CBRN Response 

Force, 2 Command and Control CBRN Response Elements, 10 Homeland 

Response Forces, 17 CBRN Enhanced Response Force Packages, and 57 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Highlights for Transform 

• Provides $974 million in procurement and $298 million in continued Research Development Test and Evaluation of the Warfighter Information 

Network-Tactical which will become the cornerstone tactical communications system by providing a single integrating framework for the Army’s 

battlefield networks. 

• Provides $1.04 billion in support of the Army’s Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy including $884 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle 

and $156 million for the modernization of the Stryker, Bradley, and 

Abrams combat vehicles. 

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

As America enters the second decade of the 21st century, the Army faces a broad 

array of challenges. First and foremost, we must succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq 

and continue to combat violent extremist movements such as al Qaeda and other 

terrorist organizations. We must also prepare for future national security challenges 

that range across the spectrum of conflict. All of this must be accomplished within 

the context of challenging global economic conditions. 

Global Trends 

Global trends will continue to shape the international environment. Although 

such trends pose both dilemmas and opportunities, their collective impact will increase security challenges and frame the conflicts that will confront the United 

States and our allies. 

Globalization has spread prosperity around the globe and will continue to reduce 

barriers to trade, finance and economic growth. However, it will also continue to exacerbate tensions between the wealthy and the poor. Almost 85 percent of the 

world’s wealth is held by 10 percent of the population while only 1 percent of the 

global wealth is shared by the bottom 50 percent of the world’s population. This disparity can create populations that are vulnerable to radicalization. 

Globalization is made possible through significant technological advances that 

benefit people around the world. Unfortunately, the same technology that facilitates 

an interconnected world is also used by extremist groups to proliferate their ideology and foment terrorism. Additionally, there are an increasing number of foreign 

government-sponsored cyber programs, politically motivated individuals, non-state 

679 

actors and criminals who are capable of initiating potentially debilitating attacks on 

the electronic infrastructure of our Nation and allies. 

Population growth in the developing world creates new markets, but the accompanying youth bulge can create a population of unemployed, disenfranchised individuals susceptible to extremist teachings that threaten stability and security. Furthermore, the bulk of the population growth is expected to occur in urban areas. Future military operations are more likely to occur in densely populated urban terrain—among the people rather than around them. 

The demand for resources such as water, energy and food will increase competition and the propensity for conflict. Even as countries develop more efficient uses 

of natural resources, some countries, particularly those with burgeoning middle 

classes, will exacerbate demands on already scarce resources. 

Proliferation and failing states continue to be the two trends of greatest concern. 

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction increases the potential for destabilizing 

catastrophic attacks. Meanwhile, failed or failing states that lack the capacity or 

will to maintain territorial control can provide safe havens for terrorist groups to 

plan and export terror. The merging of these two trends is particularly worrisome: 

failing states that offer safe haven to terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups already seek weapons of mass destruction and will use them against western interests given the opportunity. 

Persistent Conflict 

Persistent conflict has characterized the environment in which the Army has operated over the last 91⁄2 years. This protracted confrontation among state, non-state, 

and individual actors, using violence to further their ideological and political goals, 

will likely continue well into the second decade of the 21st century. As a result, our 

commitments in the future will be more frequent and continuous. Conflicts will 

arise unpredictably, vary in intensity and scope and will be less susceptible to traditional means of conflict resolution. Concurrently, the Army’s soldiers and civilians 

will respond to natural disasters and humanitarian emergencies in support of civil 

authorities both at home and abroad. The Nation will continue to rely upon the 

Army to be ready to conduct a wide range of operations from humanitarian and civil 

support to counterinsurgency to general war. 

Violent extremism in various forms will continue to constitute the most likely and 

immediate threat around the world. A more dangerous threat will come from emergent hybrid adversaries who combine the agility and flexibility of being an irregular 

and decentralized enemy with the power and technology of a nation state. These security challenges, in whatever form they are manifested, constitute the threat that 

the Army and our Nation will face for the foreseeable future. Our Army must remain alert to changes in this volatile environment and build the agility to anticipate 

and respond to change by maintaining our combat edge. 

THE NEXT DECADE

The Nation continues to be faced with persistent and ruthless foes that maintain 

a clear intent to attack us on our soil. Entering the future under these conditions, 

the Army remains a resilient but stretched force—one that has performed superbly 

while simultaneously transforming in the midst of a war. The high demand we have 

seen in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely recede over the next few years, but other 

demands will surely arise. Our soldiers and civilians will have more time at home, 

and that will necessitate a different type of leadership at our garrisons between deployments. Given this future, the Army’s challenge in the second decade of the century is to maintain our combat edge while we reconstitute the force, and build resilience for the long haul. 

Maintaining Our Combat Edge 

Beginning in 2012 we anticipate having about as many BCTs available that are 

not earmarked for Iraq and Afghanistan as we will have of those deploying. It will 

be imperative that we remain focused on tough, demanding training at home station 

and at our training centers to ensure that our soldiers and units sustain their combat edge. This training must be accomplished at an appropriate tempo and while 

meeting the unique challenges associated with increased time at home. Those units 

who are not deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan will undergo full spectrum training 

and be available to combatant commanders for security cooperation engagements, 

exercises and other regional requirements as well as fulfilling our requirements for 

a Global Response Force and the CBRNE Consequence Management Response 

Force. To do this, the Army will need to revitalize home station and leader development programs. We must continue to challenge our young, combat-seasoned leaders 

who will lead our Army into the second decade of this century and beyond. 

680 

Another aspect of maintaining our combat edge involves codifying our experience 

and lessons learned. Institutionally, we must refine our doctrine and warfighting 

concepts. While our understanding of Full Spectrum Operations has matured, we 

must continue to clarify how we define and how we conduct Full Spectrum Operations across the spectrum of conflict from stable peace to general war. As units 

have more time at home, we will train against the wider range of threats and in 

a broader range of environments. We will use these experiences to drive the continued adaptation of the Army. 

Reconstituting the Force 

The Army must reconstitute the force, ensuring excellence in core competencies 

while building new capabilities to support an uncertain and complex future operating environment. Reconstitution requires not only completely resetting redeploying units, but also continuous adaptation of our forces as we move forward in 

a period of continuous and fundamental change. While the Army has almost finished transforming to modular formations and balancing the force, we continue to 

integrate the lessons learned from 91⁄2 years at war with our expectations of the future. The Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) commenced an indepth study of our force mix and force design to ensure that we have the right capabilities in the right numbers in the right organizations for the future. We are committed to continually transforming our force to retain the flexibility and versatility 

it will need for the uncertain future environment. 

Another area that will require continual adaption is our mix of Active and Reserve component forces. The Nation has been at a state of national emergency for 

91⁄2 years. As a result, the Army has had continuous access to the Reserve component through partial mobilization. The Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

have performed magnificently, and the relationship between components is better 

than it has ever been. Our soldiers have fought together and bled together, and 

more than ever, we are one Army—a Total Force. Our Nation cannot lose the enormous gains we have made. 

Transforming the Reserve component into an enduring operational force provides 

a historic opportunity for the Army to achieve the most cost effective use of the entire force. To that end, the Army recently completed a study of what the future role 

of our Reserve component should be in an era of persistent conflict in which continuous deployment is the norm. The steady, consistent and recurring demand for Reserve capabilities during this decade has posed significant challenges for a force organized and resourced as a Strategic Reserve. In response, the Army recast its Reserve Forces from the part-time Strategic Reserve role to a fully integrated and critical part of an operational, expeditionary Army. We are seeking changes to achieve 

affordable, predictable and assured access to the Reserve component for the full 

range of assignments in the homeland and abroad. One thing is certain across every 

echelon of this Army; we cannot relegate the Army National Guard and Army Reserve back to a Strategic Reserve. The security of the Nation can ill afford a Reserve 

Force that is undermanned, underequipped, or at insufficient levels of training and 

readiness. 

The other significant element of reconstitution—modernization—is designed to 

give our soldiers a decisive advantage in every fight. The goal of our modernization 

strategy is to develop a versatile mix of tailorable and networked organizations that 

operate on a rotational cycle. This enables us to routinely provide combatant commanders trained and ready forces to operate across the spectrum of conflict. This 

involves developing and fielding new capabilities while modernizing and recapitalizing old capabilities. Our top two modernization initiatives will be to develop, test 

and field the network and to field a new Ground Combat Vehicle in 7 years. 

Throughout this process, our industrial base will continue to identify and adopt improved business practices and maximize efficiencies to repair, overhaul, produce, 

and manufacture in support of modernization and recapitalization efforts. 

Building Resilience 

As we look toward the next decade, we must also build resilience in our people. 

The last 91⁄2 years have taken a physical, mental, and emotional toll on our soldiers, 

civilians, and family members. No one has been immune to the impacts of war. This 

decade of experience, combined with the reality that our Nation is in a protracted 

struggle, underscores how important it is that we take advantage of our time at 

home to strengthen our force for the challenges ahead, even as we continue to deal 

with the continuing impacts of war. Although off-duty, high risk behavior is a continuing challenge, we have made significant progress in the last 10 years in reducing accidental fatalities. This highlights the resilience of our force as our soldiers 

find healthier ways to handle the stresses of Army life. In addition to the Army 

681 

Safety Program, last year the Army began two efforts designed to strengthen our 

soldiers, families, and civilians for the challenges ahead: Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and the Army Campaign for Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide 

Prevention. We will institutionalize the best of both of these programs into the force 

over the next year. 

The Network 

The last 91⁄2 years of war have demonstrated that the network is essential to a 

21st century, expeditionary Army. Networked organizations provide an awareness 

and understanding required by leaders who must act decisively at all points along 

the spectrum of conflict, and by soldiers on the ground who are executing the mission. The network is also essential for planning and operating with Joint, coalition 

and interagency partners. The network, therefore, is the Army’s number one modernization effort. 

The Army’s portion of the DOD network, LandWarNet, must be able to provide 

soldiers, civilians, and mission partners the information they need, when they need 

it and in any environment—from the garrison to the tactical edge. To do so, it must 

be a completely integrated and interoperable network, from the highest to the lowest echelon, forming a true enterprise network. The Army is pursuing critical initiatives to build this enterprise capability, including an enterprise email, calendarsharing and ID management service (through a partnership with the Defense Information Systems Agency), data center consolidation and Active Directory consolidation. These initiatives will increase warfighting effectiveness, improve network security, save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 5 years and reduce infrastructure. Additionally, the Army is transforming business systems information 

technology to better support our business operations and strategic leader decisionmaking. 

The Army is also changing the way it supplies network systems and capabilities 

to operational units by using an incremental approach to modernization. By aligning 

the delivery of new technology with the ARFORGEN process as it becomes available, we ensure the integration of network capability across our combat formations. 

This ‘‘capability set’’ approach will field enhanced performance in a more timely and 

efficient manner. 

Ground Combat Vehicle 

To operate in austere conditions against a lethal, adaptive enemy, our soldiers 

need a fighting vehicle that is capable of full spectrum operations with better levels 

of protection than our current vehicles. To meet that need, the Army is focused on 

developing a versatile ground combat vehicle that will meet an array of anticipated 

future requirements and see its first delivery in 7 years. It will provide the needed 

protection against a variety of threats, including that of Improvised Explosive Devices, and deliver soldiers to the fight under armor. Even with the significant capabilities that a new ground combat vehicle will provide, it comprises only one element 

of the Army’s overall combat vehicle modernization strategy. Our strategy also addresses improvements to vehicles like the Paladin howitzer and Stryker combat vehicles, integration of the MRAP into our formations and prudent divestment of obsolete systems. 

STRATEGIC CROSSROADS

Our Nation and its Army are positioned at a unique point in history. This is not 

quite like any other year. We must now consider the hard-won lessons of recent 

combat experience, current and anticipated resource constraints and the uncertainty 

of the future. The decisions we make will have far reaching and long lasting implications. This calls for deliberate and thoughtful choices and actions as we determine 

where to best invest our Nation’s precious resources. 

Transforming the Generating Force 

Over the course of the past decade, the operational Army has evolved dramatically. The need for change was driven by a fundamental reality: daily contact with 

a decentralized, adaptive, creative and deadly enemy. The Army’s generating force, 

which prepares, trains, educates and supports Army forces worldwide, is also working to rapidly address the demands placed on the organization by both the current 

and future operating environments. It has performed magnificently to produce 

trained and ready forces, even while seeking to adapt institutional business processes. 

Furthermore, the Army is working to provide ‘‘readiness at best value’’ in order 

to help us live within the constraints imposed by the national and international economic situation. In short, the need to reform the Army’s institutional management 

682 

processes and develop an Integrated Management System, while continuing to meet 

combatant commander requirements, has never been more urgent. Thus, to enhance 

organizational adaptive capacity, while wisely stewarding our resources, the Army 

initiated a number of efforts along three primary business transformation objectives: 

establish an enterprise mindset and approach; adapt institutional processes to align 

with ARFORGEN; and reform the requirements and resource process. 

To enable business transformation and foster an enterprise approach, we established the Office of Business Transformation and developed enterprise functions 

that are facilitated by teams of leaders who focus on the domains of Human Capital, 

Readiness, Materiel and Services and Infrastructure. At the most strategic level, we 

established the Army Enterprise Board to provide a forum for Army senior leaders 

to address organizational strategic choices and tradeoffs. Additionally, we established our Business Systems Information Technology Executive Steering Group to 

facilitate an enterprise approach to information technology investments. 

We are working collaboratively to reform our requirements and resourcing process 

in order to create an organizationally aligned set of capabilities. As part of that effort, we have initiated an Army Acquisition Review. This review will provide a blueprint for actions over the next 2 years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 

of the Army acquisition processes. We’ve also commissioned a short-term task force 

to analyze costs, establish credible benchmarks and help us better understand not 

only where our investment dollars go, but also what we get in return. We are developing a systematic approach to the Army’s business processes that will ensure that 

innovative ideas and efficiencies influence future budgets. 

Furthermore, we instituted a portfolio review process that is bringing discipline 

to our acquisition programs by evaluating and realigning requirements with the reality of today and what we will need in years to come. This Capability Portfolio Review process is providing an overarching detailed analysis and set of recommendations to revalidate, modify or terminate each of our requirements, including research 

and development, procurement and sustainment accounts. These reviews are helping us identify gaps and unnecessary redundancies, while ensuring good stewardship of our Nation’s resources. We are building a foundation that will identify savings, manage strategic risks, maximize flexibility and posture us even more effectively for the future. 

Civilian Workforce Transformation 

There are approximately 279,000 civilians in the Army. Adding the Army Corps 

of Engineers and personnel supported by nonappropriated funds, the number exceeds 335,000 civilians. That is about 23 percent of our total Army force. Army civilians live and work in communities throughout our 50 States and U.S. Territories 

and overseas theaters of operation. They comprise 60 percent of our generating 

force. 

This generating force performs many of the essential tasks that support 

ARFORGEN so our soldiers can concentrate on their missions. Army civilians have 

deployed and stood in support of our soldiers during the most dangerous and difficult periods of conflict. In fact, over 4,300 civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan 

in 2010. The Nation’s ability to sustain the All-Volunteer Force will be difficult and 

challenged if we do not prioritize development and investment in our most important institutional asset, our people. Now, as never before, we increasingly call upon 

our Civilian Corps to assume greater levels of responsibility and accountability at 

organizations throughout the Army, and we must invest in them accordingly. The 

goal is to become a generating force driven by innovation, able to adapt quickly and 

to field what our Soldiers and their families will require. Therefore, the Army has 

embarked upon a Civilian Workforce Transformation initiative to pursue five lines 

of effort. 

First, we will integrate requirements determination, allocation and resourcing 

processes that identify the civilian workforce capabilities. Second, we will improve 

civilian workforce lifecycle strategy, planning and operations to enhance mission effectiveness. Third, we will establish an integrated management system to support 

civilian human capital decisionmaking. Fourth, we will deliberately develop Army 

civilian leaders. Fifth, we will reform the civilian hiring process. By the end of 2011, 

the Army will implement a comprehensive competency-based Civilian Leadership 

Development Program and fully implement the Civilian Talent Management Program. These programs will ensure that employees and management understand 

what is required for success, with realistic career paths and developmental opportunities to achieve success. 

The pay-off for this program is four-fold. For civilians, the transformation will provide an outline for success with the appropriate training and development opportunities to facilitate the achievement of their career goals within the Army. For ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00688 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
683 

manders, the Civilian Workforce Transformation will provide the right workforce 

with the right training and development for the current and future mission requirements. For the Army, it will provide a predictable and rational method to articulate 

requirements and make decisions about resourcing in a fluid environment. Finally, 

for the Nation, the transformation will provide the investment in human capital required to effectively manage the institutional Army now and in the future. 

STEWARDSHIP, INNOVATION, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Fiscal Stewardship 

We take our responsibility to serve as good stewards of the financial resources the 

Nation has entrusted to our care very seriously, and we are taking action to improve 

our ability to manage those resources effectively. 

To help our leaders and managers make better resource-informed decisions, we 

have placed renewed emphasis on cost management throughout the Army. At all 

levels, from installation to Army Headquarters, we have implemented training and 

professional development programs to give our people improved cost management 

skills and a greater understanding of the cost implications of their decisions. Training programs include a graduate-level Cost Management Certificate Course for carefully selected mid-level analysts, professional development courses for general officers and members of the Senior Executive Service, training incorporated into existing courses throughout the Army’s formal schooling system and hands-on training 

in cost-benefit analysis. These programs have reached over 2,700 soldiers and civilians, and training continues. 

In addition to providing training and professional development, we must give our 

people the essential tools that will enable them to carry out their cost management 

responsibilities. Toward this end, we have fielded the General Fund Enterprise 

Business System (GFEBS) to more than 11,000 users at 14 major installations. As 

reported by the Government Accountability Office, GFEBS development is on schedule and on budget. Much more than an accounting system, GFEBS is the Army’s 

new business system. It gives managers a greatly improved capability to manage 

the cost, schedule and performance of their programs and, at the same time, is the 

centerpiece in our progress toward full auditability of our financial statements 

Energy Security and Sustainability 

Energy security and sustainability are operationally necessary, financially prudent and are key considerations for Army installations, weapon systems and contingency operations. Energy security means that the Army retains access to energy and 

can continue to operate when catastrophe strikes and energy supplies are disrupted, 

cut off or just plain difficult to secure. To remain operationally relevant and viable, 

the Army must reduce its dependency on energy, increase energy efficiency, and implement renewable and alternate sources of energy. 

The Army has established a Senior Energy Council, appointed a Senior Energy 

Executive, created an Energy Security Office, and adopted a comprehensive energy 

security strategy. This strategy will not only lead to energy cost savings but help 

create a more sustainable force with increased endurance, resilience, and force protection. We will enhance our stewardship of our Nation’s energy resources and less 

dependent upon foreign sources of fuel. The Army’s logistical tail of the Operational 

Energy pipeline is a handicap that must be overcome through technological advances. We must leverage technology to improve our agility and flexibility against 

an irregular and decentralized enemy. 

On Army installations, we are developing a holistic approach, called Net Zero, to 

address energy, water, and waste. Net Zero is a force multiplier enabling the Army 

to appropriately steward available resources, manage costs and provide our soldiers, 

families, and civilians with a sustainable future. In an era of persistent conflict, 

with a mission of stabilizing war-torn nations, a true stabilizing factor can be that 

of appropriate resource management. The Net Zero plan ensures that sustainable 

practices will be instilled and managed throughout the appropriate levels of the 

Army, while also maximizing operational capability, resource availability, and wellbeing. 

We have taken a significant step by incorporating all fuel costs throughout the 

lifecycle of the equipment as we analyze various alternatives for modernization programs such as the next ground combat vehicle, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and 

the Armed Aerial Scout. This approach enables us to make informed decisions about 

various alternatives and define energy efficiency performance parameters in capability documents for our program managers and original equipment manufacturers. 

Of course, not all solutions will involve big pieces of equipment or new vehicles. We 

are also pursuing technologies on a much smaller scale, such as spray foam tent 

684 

insulation and shower water recycle systems—investments from which direct energy 

savings pay off in a matter of months. 

We are also working on more efficient generators and power distribution. Development of hardware, software and controls to perform micro-grid implementation is 

underway for buildings at the Field Artillery Training Center at Fort Sill, OK. This 

technology also has potential for use in a deployed operational environment. The 

Army is preparing to field ‘‘smart grid’’ capabilities for tactical command posts and 

forward operating base camps that will enable generators to support the larger grid 

instead of a single end user. As they become scalable and deployable, renewable energy technologies can also be integrated into these smart grids. 

THE PROFESSION OF ARMS

The last 91⁄2 years of conflict have had significant impacts on the Army, its soldiers, families, and civilians. Many of these are well documented and are being addressed. There remain, however, other consequences that we seek to understand. 

We will examine the impacts of war on our profession of arms and take a hard look 

at ourselves—how have we changed as individuals, as professionals and as a profession. 

The Army is more than a job; it is a profession. It is a vocation composed of experts in the ethical application of land combat power serving under civilian authority and entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and interests of the 

American people. The level of responsibility is like no other profession—our soldiers 

are entrusted to apply lethal force ethically and only when necessary. Also, unlike 

other professions, the profession of arms is practiced in the chaotic and deadly 

machinations of war. Along with that awesome responsibility comes both individual 

and organizational accountability, which we seek to examine as parts of our Profession of Arms. 

The American Professional Soldier is an expert and a volunteer, certified in the 

Profession of Arms and bonded with comrades in a shared identity and culture of 

sacrifice and service to the Nation and Constitution. The Soldier adheres to the 

highest ethical standards and is a steward of the future of the profession. Contrasting this are state, non-state and individual actors who operate outside generally accepted moral and ethical boundaries. Because of this, the Army has received tremendous support from the American people and their elected representatives. We are forever grateful for that support, and we do not take it for granted. 

We understand that this generous support is predicated on the Army’s continued 

professionalism, guided by our Army creeds, our service oaths and the Army values 

that anchor our conduct (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, 

and Personal Courage). 

In order to examine the impacts of our current experience on the Profession of 

Arms, the Army will continue a discussion at all levels in which we will ask ourselves three fundamental questions: 

• What does it mean for the Army to be a Profession of Arms? • What does it mean to be a professional soldier? • After 9 years of war, how are we as individual professionals and as a profession meeting these aspirations? 

The dialogue will help inform our understanding on what it means to be a professional soldier in an era of persistent conflict. 

CONCLUSION

The professionalism, dedicated service, and sacrifice of our All-Volunteer Force 

are hallmarks of the Army—the Strength of our Nation. Soldiers, their families, and 

Army civilians continue to faithfully serve our country as we prevail in one of the 

most challenging times in our Nation’s history. 

The Army is achieving its goals to restore balance in fiscal year 2011. We will 

be transitioning to a period where we must reconstitute the force for other missions; 

build resilience in our soldiers, families, and civilians and diligently maintain our 

combat edge. We are modernizing the force for the future by developing and fielding 

versatile, affordable, survivable, and networked equipment to ensure soldiers maintain a decisive advantage over any enemy they might face. 

We are responding to the lessons our operating force learned and the changes it 

made over the past 91⁄2 years by adapting the institutional Army to effectively and 

efficiently generate trained and ready forces for full spectrum operations. The sector 

of the Army that trains and equips our soldiers, the generating force, must be driven by innovation and be able to adapt quickly and field what our soldiers and their 

families will require. We must continue to improve efficiency and reduce overhead 

expenditures as good stewards of our Nation’s valuable resources. We recognize that 

685 

institutional change is not only about saving money, and efficiencies are not simply 

about improving the bottom line. Institutional change is about doing things better, 

doing them smarter and taking full advantage of the progress, technology, knowledge, and experience that we have available to us. 

With the trust and confidence of the American public and the support of Congress 

with appropriate resources, America’s Army will remain the Strength of the Nation. 


331ful1.eps
686 


331ful3.eps
687 


331ful4.eps
688 


331ful5.eps
689 


331ful6.eps
690 


331ful7.eps
691 


331ful8.eps
692 


331ful9.eps
693 


331ful10.eps
694 


331ful11.eps
695 


331ful12.eps
696 


331ful13.eps
697 


331ful14.eps
698 


331ful15.eps
699 


331ful16.eps
700 


331ful17.eps
701 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Secretary McHugh. 

General Casey. 

STATEMENT OF GEN GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, CHIEF OF 

STAFF OF THE ARMY 

General CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

members of the committee. 

First, I appreciate your comments about this being my final hearing. But, this being Washington, I’ve learned that nothing’s final. 

I was told by the House Armed Services Committee chairman, that 

that would be my last hearing, and they managed to squeeze one 


331ful18.eps
702 

in next week. I say that just to state a fact, not to encourage this 

committee to top them. [Laughter.] 

Chairman LEVIN. We welcome the reminder, General. [Laughter.] 

General CASEY. Yes. Thank you. 

Also, before I start, I’d like to introduce three guests that represent important segments of our Army family here. On the left is 

Ruth Stonesifer. Her son, Christopher, was killed in a helicopter 

crash along the Afghan-Pakistan border in 2001. She has committed herself to helping other survivors, most recently as the 

president of the Gold Star Mothers. 

Thank you, Ruth. 

Sitting next to her is Sergeant Joel Dulashanti. Sergeant 

Dulashanti was wounded in 2007 in Afghanistan by a sniper and 

lost his leg. He spent the last 4 years here in the Washington area 

rehabilitating himself. For 2 of those years, he’s worked in the 

Army legislative liaison office. Now, the good news for Joel is, he’s 

getting a pardon this summer, and he will go to Fort Benning, 

Georgia, to become an instructor in our airborne school. 

Lastly, to his right is First Sergeant Damien Anderson. First 

Sergeant Anderson is a two-tour veteran of Iraq. He is a master 

resilience trainer. He recently completed a 10-day course at the 

University of Pennsylvania to give him the skills to help our soldiers be more resilient. 

So, I’d just ask that you welcome them. 

Chairman LEVIN. We do, in fact, welcome them. We thank them 

very much for their service. 

Ms. Stonesifer, thank you for what you’re doing, and for your 

son’s service and sacrifice. 

I know I’m speaking for all of us on the committee when I say 

we are grateful to all of you and your families. 

General CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

For the last 4 years, you’ve heard me say that the Army was out 

of balance, that we were so weighed down by our current demands 

in Iraq and Afghanistan that we knew we couldn’t do the things 

that we needed to do to sustain this All-Volunteer Force and to prepare ourselves to do other things. Today, thanks in large measure 

to the support of this committee, I can tell you that we’ve made 

great progress toward the goals we set for ourselves in 2007. As an 

Army, we’re starting to breathe again. We’re emerging from a decade of war and transformation with a well-equipped combat-seasoned total force that, while still stretched by the demands and lingering effects of a decade at war, is able to begin preparing for the 

challenges of the second decade of the 21st century. 

Let me just give you a quick update on some of the progress. 

First, we’ve completed both the permanent end strength increase 

that was directed by President Bush in 2007, and the temporary 

end strength increase of 22,000, authorized by Secretary Gates in 

2009. This allowed us to meet the plus-up in Afghanistan before we 

were out of Iraq without having to increase the deployed time for 

our soldiers. 

Second, our growth plus the drawdown in Iraq have enabled us 

to significantly improve dwell, the time that the solders spend at 

home between deployment. This a critical component of sustaining 

an All-Volunteer Force in a protracted conflict. For the better part 

703 

of 5 years, we were returning soldiers to combat with just 1 year 

at home. We knew that wasn’t sustainable, and we’ve been working 

to bring the dwell to 2 years at home as quickly as possible. 

I can tell you that, beginning the 1st of October this year, given 

what we know about projected demands, our Active units will deploy with an expectation of 2 years at home, and our Reserve component soldiers will deploy with an expectation of 4 years at home. 

That’s a huge milestone for us. We’ll continue to work to our longterm goal of 3 years at home between combat deployments. 

Third, this year, we will also largely complete the largest organizational transformation of the Army since World War II. We’ll finish the modular conversion of all but a handful of our 300 brigades, 

and finish rebalancing soldiers away from Cold War skills to skills 

more relevant and necessary today, to the tune of about 160,000 

soldiers. 

Taken together, today we have a fundamentally different Army 

than we had on September 11, 2001. We had a great Army then. 

Today, we are a more versatile and experienced force. 

Fourth, to enhance this versatility, we have developed a fundamentally different way of building readiness to provide trained 

and ready forces to combatant commanders, the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model. It’s an output-based readiness model 

that fully integrates the Guard and Reserve, that brings the kind 

of predictability we need to sustain our All-Volunteer Force, and 

that allows us to build the readiness we need to both meet current 

demands and hedge against unexpected contingencies. ARFORGEN 

is also a more effective and more efficient way of building the readiness we need when we need it. 

So, after a decade of very hard work, we have a force that’s the 

right size, that’s organized into versatile, modular organizations, 

that’s operating on a predictable rotational cycle, and that is beginning to have sufficient time at home to train for the full range of 

missions, and to recover from a decade at war. That would not 

have been possible without your support and the support of the 

American people. So, thank you. 

This fiscal year 2012 budget marks a transition point for us in 

which we can begin shifting our focus away from restoring balance 

to sustaining the balance that we, together, have so painstakingly 

restored to this force. Sustaining that balance is particularly critical now, because this war is not over. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget that we’re presenting today enables 

us to do three things: to maintain our combat edge; to reset and 

reconstitute our force; and to build resilience into this force for the 

second decade. I’d like to say a few words about each of these. But, 

in short, the budget, as submitted, enables us to sustain the balance that we have, together, restored to this great Army. I do remain concerned about the outcome of the 2011 budget and its corresponding impact on this year’s budget. 

So, just a few words about each of the three elements. 

First of all, maintaining our combat edge. It’s critically important 

that we maintain the edge that we’ve honed over a decade at war, 

because I believe we are in a period of persistent conflict and also 

one of continuous and fundamental change. That change is driven 

by rapid technological advances and adaptive enemies. Critical to 

704 

our ability to maintain this combat edge will be an affordable modernization strategy that provides the equipment to our soldiers to 

give them a decisive advantage over any enemy that they face. 

This budget lays out such a program. I’d just like to highlight 

two key areas. 

No matter where our soldiers are, no matter what type of environment they’re operating in, they need to know where they are, 

they need to know where their buddies are, and they need to know 

where the enemy is; and when they shoot at them, they need to 

strike the enemy with precision. They also need protective mobility. 

This budget contains funding that will begin fielding some of the 

key elements of the network that will enable our soldiers in any 

environment. These include the JTRS and the WIN–T. The budget 

also includes funding for a new ground combat vehicle that provides protection against improvised explosive devices, that has the 

capacity to carry a nine-man squad, that is capable of operating 

across the spectrum of operations, and that can be developed in 7 

years. 

Maintaining our combat edge also requires training for the full 

spectrum of operations. This training is conducted at both a home 

station and at our combat training centers. It will be critical to ensuring we sustain our combat experience and restore the ability to 

deploy rapidly for the full range of missions. It will require moving 

operations and maintenance (O&M) dollars from the OCO budget 

to the base budget over the next several years. 

It’s also important that we consolidate the gains that we’ve made 

in our Reserve components. If you think about it, half of our 

guardsmen and reservists are combat veterans. I’ve never seen the 

relationship between the Active component and the Reserve component better than it is now. We are working together to establish 

an effective paradigm that allows us to leverage the substantial investments and experience of our Reserve components. 

The second major point is reconstituting the force. I see two elements to this. One is the continuous resetting of forces returning 

from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have over 110,000 soldiers deployed 

today, and they and their replacements and their equipment will 

need to be reset over time. Reset isn’t a one-time shot. It’s a process that’s necessary for every returning unit and will require sustained funding for 2 to 3 years after we’re out of Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that we reconstitute the force fully and restore readiness to next-to-deploy forces. We haven’t had that ability for 5 or 

6 years, so it’s important that we restore that ability. 

Third, and finally, is building resiliency into this force for the 

long haul. We’ve been at war for almost a decade. The cumulative 

effects of that war are still with us and will be with us for a while. 

This budget contains fundings for programs like the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness health promotion, risk-reduction, suicide prevention, the Army Family Covenant, survivor outreach services, 

and sexual assault prevention, that will allow us to continue to 

build resilience into this force. We remain, as I know you do, fully 

committed to the well-being of our soldiers, families, and civilians. 

So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I’d like to leave the committee 

with two thoughts as I complete 40 years of service to this great 

country. 

705 

First, we’re at a key transition point, as we move from a decade 

of war and transformation to a decade of sustaining a force at war 

in a period of declining resources. Together, we have built a great 

Army. But, it’s an Army still stretched and recovering from the last 

decade of war as it continues to prosecute a war in two theaters. 

It took us a decade to get to where we are today. We recognize 

that the country is in a difficult financial position, and we have and 

we will continue to work hard to use the resources that you provide 

us as effectively and as efficiently as possible. But, we are at war, 

and this war is not over. So, we need to proceed with caution, because the last thing any of us wants to do is to create a hollow 

Army while we’re fighting a war. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of this committee for your enduring support of our Army. You visited our 

troops and their families in their homes and in war, you’ve helped 

us bury our dead, and you’ve seen, firsthand, through all the 

change, hardship, and demands of war, what has remained constant is the courage, the selfless service, and the sacrifice of our 

soldiers, families, and civilians. I couldn’t be prouder to have worn 

this uniform for the past 40 years and to have served alongside the 

great men and women of this Army. I am humbled and particularly 

proud to have led them in this last decade. It’s been the greatest 

honor of my career. 

So, thank you very much for everything you’ve done for your 

Army. I look forward to taking your questions. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you so much, General Casey. We again 

want to express our gratitude. Each member of this committee has 

seen your dedication and your commitment during all these years, 

and we really appreciate that, and are grateful for that. 

Let’s try 7-minute rounds this morning. It’ll be a lot tighter this 

afternoon, by the way, I would indicate to everybody. We were able 

to get Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen this afternoon for a 

limited period of time particularly because of Secretary Gates’s 

schedule. We want to alert everybody to hone down those questions, because we’re going to have to have a much more limited period for each of us this afternoon. 

Senator McCain and I both referred to a speech that Secretary 

Gates made at West Point last month, when he said that it’s unlikely that the Nation will commit large land forces to future conflicts, that the Army needs to confront the reality that the most 

plausible high-end scenarios for the U.S. military will be primarily 

naval and air engagements, and that, ‘‘The Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy 

formations.’’ 

Let me start with you, General, because you’ve already spoken 

out it seems with quite a different approach. So, let me ask you to 

react, if you would, to Secretary Gates’s comments. 

General CASEY. I don’t necessarily disagree with Secretary 

Gates’s comment, Senator. I took the West Point speech as Secretary Gates causing us to look forward, to look beyond where we 

are today. I can tell you that we have already reduced the size of 

our armored formations by 40 percent. We’ve reduced the supporting artillery formations by almost 60 percent, and the supVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00711 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
706 

porting sustainment formations by 60 percent. So, we have already 

taken a big chunk out of our armored formations. 

About 6 months ago, we began a complete review of all of our 

force structure, looking at: Do we have the right types of forces, the 

right mix of forces, and the right mix between the Active component and the Guard and Reserve? We are just wrapping that up. 

We did it purposefully because the work that we did, that has driven the modular reorganization of the Army, was great work, but it 

was done in 2003. We all know we’ve learned a heck of a lot in the 

last 8 years. We wanted to make sure that we were appropriately 

applying those lessons. So, we are looking at whether or not we 

have the right mix. 

But, I would tell you, Senator, the thing that I believe we have 

to move away from, as a Department, is, for 60 years, the central 

organizing principle of DOD and the Army has been conventional 

war. We were designed to build the systems to prosecute conventional war. We’re not doing that now. I believe the central organizing principle needs to shift to versatility, and that we need to 

structure our forces so that we have a versatile mix of heavy, light, 

Stryker, and enabling forces so that we can put together force 

packages for a wide range of contingencies that are going to face 

us. I think we all accept the fact that the uncertainty and the complexity of the environment we’re operating in today is certainly 

greater than I’ve experienced in my 40-year career. 

So, we’re looking hard at versatility, and we’re making sure that 

we have the right mix of forces to give us that versatility. 

Chairman LEVIN. Part of that versatility would be the importance of the Army’s doctrine on the new advise-and-assist brigades, 

which have played a critical role in the last few years in terms of 

the transition to full Iraqi security responsibility and, I’m sure, 

playing an important role in Afghanistan, as well. 

Now, building the security forces of foreign forces has traditionally been a Special Operations Forces (SOF) mission. But, both in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, general purpose forces have been performing 

this mission for some time in the form of these advise-and-assist 

brigades. Let me just ask both of you, very quickly, do you support 

the role of general purpose forces as advise-and-assist brigades in 

Iraq and Afghanistan? General? 

General CASEY. I do support that, Senator. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. 

General CASEY. It’s the reality that we’re doing it. 

Chairman LEVIN. Secretary McHugh? 

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, sir, I do, fully. I just visited one of the six we 

have in Afghanistan, General Dave Perkins, and they’re doing magnificent work. I think we’re fully structured and have the resources 

to do it, and do it very well. 

General CASEY. If I could just follow up, Senator, I support it, 

but I don’t necessarily think we need specialized formations to do 

it. As you see what we’ve done with the advise-and-assist brigades, 

we have adapted a modular brigade and given them some additional folks and have been able to do that. That’s the versatility 

that I think we need to sustain. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I agree with that. 

707 

Chairman LEVIN. I think you made reference to the need for energy efficiencies, Mr. Secretary, and you made quite a point of it, 

and I couldn’t agree with you more. But, the situation is that, when 

it comes to actually implementing those efficiencies, you have a 

long way to go too as you mentioned about some other aspect. 

The Marine Corps made a point about this issue when they deployed an infantry company to Afghanistan that was equipped with 

renewable power systems to recharge batteries and electronics and 

provide energy-efficient lighting. The fuel used for that company of 

the Marine Corps in Afghanistan has decreased 90 percent. Two 

patrol bases now operate entirely upon renewable energy. Lightweight solar panels are rolled up and carried in the troops’ 

rucksacks. This allows combat patrols to maneuver in the mountains of Afghanistan for weeks without a battery resupply. 

Now, the Marine Corps is actually using technologies that were 

developed by the Army. It seems as though the actual deployment 

of those technologies is not happening as quickly in the Army. Or 

is it? Have they just made a better point of publicly talking about 

how the actual deployment and implementation is advancing? 

Mr. MCHUGH. I should say, we’re delighted to help our Marine 

Corps brethren do better. They actually gave us, the Army, credit 

for that, and we appreciate their openness. 

I do think that this is a multifaceted problem. I don’t want to underestimate the need for the Army to do better. We need to. I said 

that in my opening statement, and I promise you we will. However, 

I have a letter that I signed out this week coming back to you. You 

asked those very important and, I think, very apt questions. We, 

in fact, have deployed a good number of the systems cited in your 

letter that the Marine Corps has deployed as well. Our public relations (PR) effort, apparently, was not what it should be. In fact, I 

had a meeting just last week with the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Installations, Environment, and Energy, Ms. Hammock, 

to try to ensure that we keep this panel, Congress, and the public, 

better informed as to what we’re doing. 

We call that program the REPS program. We have 100 fielded 

right now. We’re working hard to field more. It’s a great success. 

We actually think we can refine it and do even better. We have 

micro-grids out there as well. The micro-grid program is basically 

focused amongst our SOF. They seem to be positioned best to use 

them. 

You noted, Mr. Chairman, in your letter that part of the challenge for the Army is the size of force. The Marine Corps is configured in a way that, in some instances, allows them to use our 

equipment more effectively or more broad-basedly. 

I think it’s important to note, we just—I believe, a few weeks 

ago—opened a technology village in Bagram, and we’re using that 

as a basing platform to bring in these new technologies, many of 

which were mentioned in your letter, by the Marine Corps, and to 

deploy them theaterwide to make sure that we’re doing that. We 

feel very confident about our ability to do better. The fact that we 

have challenged our forward operating bases (FOB) and our combat 

outposts to reduce their energy consumption by 30 to 60 percent, 

which is a pretty big number when you’re at war. 

708 

So, I promise you, we’re going to do better in informing this committee, Congress, and the American people as to what we’re doing. 

Having said that, I can talk about a whole bunch of programs. 

We have 126 renewable projects across our post camps and stations. Some of the things we’re doing in solar and voltaic processing 

systems, micro-grids, et cetera. We have a ways to go. Of all the 

Services, I would candidly admit we’re the most challenged. But, 

we’re working it very hard. 

Chairman LEVIN. That’s an important news story, and a goodnews story. We are glad to hear it. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thank you, General Casey, and thanks to the individuals 

you brought with you for their continued service. 

General Casey, what is your estimate of the effectiveness of the 

30,000-soldier surge into Afghanistan? 

General CASEY. Senator, I believe it has been effective. It has 

been particularly effective in the areas where we have put them in. 

As General Petraeus has said, it has halted the Taliban momentum 

and begun to restore our momentum in the areas where we’ve put 

them in. So, I believe it has had its intended effect at the tactical 

level. 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you overall optimistic about the future of 

our involvement in Afghanistan, General? 

General CASEY. I am, Senator. I believe it’s going to take a while; 

but, after my experience in Iraq, I know that these things take a 

while. If we stick this out, I believe that we will ultimately be successful in delivering an Afghan Government that is seen as represented by its people and has security forces that can keep al 

Qaeda out and maintain domestic order. But, it’s going to take a 

while. 

Senator MCCAIN. There is a commitment to begin some withdrawals the middle of this year, I believe in July. Do you have an 

estimate or idea of how large that withdrawal should be? 

General CASEY. I do not, Senator. That’s something that’s going 

to be done in theater. 

Senator MCCAIN. So, your estimate of the situation on the 

ground doesn’t give you an idea or thoughts as to how large our 

withdrawal should be? 

General CASEY. No, Senator. I wouldn’t want to second-guess 

General Petraeus on that. He’s much closer to it. But, my broad 

sense is that it will likely start relatively small. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you talk to us a little bit about the situation with these pictures that have come to light. I don’t have to 

describe it to you. 

Go ahead. 

General CASEY. We share your distress. The pictures are reprehensible. They are not indicative of the conduct of the million soldiers that have deployed in combat in the last decade. 

Senator MCCAIN. What actions that are being taken? 

General CASEY. Twelve of those soldiers are pending court-martial charges now. There have been some convictions already. Five 

of the soldiers have been charged with murder, one convicted. We 

believe we are pursuing this to the full extent of the law. 

709 

I think you should also know that the Secretary directed a look 

at the chain of command above those soldiers, and that investigation is coming to a conclusion. 

Senator MCCAIN. So, there will be some command responsibility 

here. 

Mr. MCHUGH. That would be an assumption, Senator. I really 

don’t have the granularity on what the investigation will show. 

But, I think the important part is, we are looking very hard at it. 

I think there are some serious questions as to the culpability and 

responsibilities of overseeing a unit that was engaged in this kind 

of activity. We’ll take that wherever the facts and the truth lead 

us. 

I do get, frankly, distressed when I read reports that I think are, 

at best, premature, perhaps somewhat irresponsible, that the Army 

is just going to hold a few lower-ranking soldiers, in this case, responsible, that we’re not even looking at higher command. That’s 

simply untrue. 

I can’t tell you who may be charged with what. But, we are absolutely looking at the higher chain of command. It’s just the reality, 

Senator, when you have an absolutely heinous case such as this, 

it starts at the ground level and works its way up. That is what 

we’re doing. 

The Chief and I are going to take a brief, I believe next week, 

on just the very fact that you brought up. A lot of people have compared this situation to Abu Ghraib. I would tell you, in some ways, 

it’s worse. Abu Ghraib didn’t go to the extent that some of these 

acts did. But, I think it’s an unfair comparison. This was not something the Army was lying back and ignoring. By the time Der Spiegel published the first round of articles, we were well into the convictions. 

No one finds this more distasteful, more harmful, than a soldier 

in theater, because it makes their job harder and more dangerous, 

and they detest it as much as we do. We’re going to go wherever 

the truth and the path takes us. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That’s a very strong 

and helpful statement. We continue to be puzzled and, frankly, 

stunned that something like this could happen. Once you reach 

some conclusions, we’d appreciate it, if you’d come over and tell us. 

I never thought a My Lai-type thing would ever happen again. So, 

I think members of the committee, as well as all Americans, would 

be interested in how something like this could happen. Obviously, 

you’ll be taking steps to make sure that nothing like this ever is 

repeated. 

General Casey, since I have you for the last time, in your opinion, how useful would it be for Congress to pass an authorization 

for the use of military force for Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya? 

General CASEY. That’s an interesting question, Senator. I’d ask 

you to hold that question until this afternoon. I think you have the 

right people to answer that. 

Senator MCCAIN. You don’t want to—— 

General CASEY. I don’t want to set up the Chairman and the Secretary. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you. 

710 

I hope this MEADS issue, Mr. Secretary, will be resolved. Maybe 

you could say a few words about that as I conclude my questioning. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I will, Senator. I will tell you the optics of it, from 

far enough away, are puzzling. I think you’re looking at this as 

most logical people would: why would the Army, over 2 years, 

spend some $800-plus million so we could withdraw the program 

in 2014 instead of withdrawing right now? I asked that very question. 

Senator, the Army is the Executive Agent here. The program was 

negotiated above the Army and continues as an international cooperative agreement amongst the United States, Italy, and Germany. 

The reason for the extension and the request this year, which 

would be followed by a second request in 2013, is that to withdraw 

now brings penalties. You can’t do the assessment as to the exact 

amount of penalties until it’s actually executed and certain negotiations are finalized. But, it’s likely the termination cost in 2012 

would be in excess of $800 million as well. So, it was the thought 

that we will spend an equal amount of money until 2014. The 

international agreement allows partners to withdraw at that time. 

The good news about the $800 million that would be spent getting 

us to 2014 is, it does allow us to take away whatever technology 

capability package is available. 

This has been an underperforming program. It’s been around 

since the mid-1990s. It’s about 15 years old. The agreement phase 

we’re in right now was created and agreed to in 1996. It’s rarely 

met the thresholds of development that was desired to be. So, I 

think the right decision is to get out. But, given the fact we spend 

$800 million now to get out, and we’ll have nothing, let’s spend 

$800 million to get out later. It also helps us to work more cooperatively with our two important allies and walk away with some kind 

of technical package. It makes more sense. 

Senator MCCAIN. The only thing that I don’t think taxpayers understand, and I don’t either, is why we would have a situation 

where termination costs would cost the taxpayers as much as to 

continue. As you said, it’s been a troubled program since the 1990s. 

Why would we enter into such a situation, where it would cost us 

just as much to terminate it—and it’s being terminated because of 

nonperformance—as it does for us to continue? When we go out 

and we buy a product, and the product doesn’t meet the specifications or the schedule or the contract provisions, then we terminate 

it, we don’t pay them any money. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to look at this kind of arrangement, that 

it costs us more to terminate a bad program than it does to continue it. 

I don’t know if you have any answer to that, General. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I wasn’t around in 2006. It wasn’t an Army-negotiated agreement. I suspect at the time there were high hopes. 

Whatever the cause, it never materialized. 

Chairman LEVIN. Why don’t we ask whoever did negotiate the 

agreement. Who was it? What department? Was it the Department 

of State? 

Mr. MCHUGH. I’m sure there was multi-agency involvement. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’ll ask our staff to give us a report on the 

history of this program, and how is it that that kind of language 

711 

gets into a contract, as Senator McCain has requested. We’ll find 

out what agencies were involved, and get a staff report on the history of that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, thank you for your continuing service. 

General Casey, thanks so much for your 40 years of extraordinary service. It’s been a real pleasure for me to get to know you 

personally over the last several years. I think you have every reason to feel real pride as you leave the service of the Army and the 

country, in not only the quality of your leadership but what you’ve 

presided over. In your time, both in Iraq and then, of course, as 

Chief of the Army, the Army has faced, I think, some of its greatest 

challenges ever, and also had some of its greatest successes ever. 

I think this will be seen as one of the great periods in the great 

history of the U.S. Army. Part of it is exactly what you said a while 

ago, which is that this was a conventional Army trained for conventional warfare that suddenly faced the most unconventional kind of 

warfare and made a transition—admittedly it took a little time— 

that was remarkable and has been successful and has now brought 

us to a period of historic accomplishment, I think, in Iraq, which 

I believe is part of the reason why the uprisings are occurring in 

the Arab world today. Somebody in Lebanon said to Senator 

McCain and me—we were there about a month ago—once that 

statue of Saddam was pulled down in Baghdad, not only people in 

Iraq, but throughout the Arab world, began to lose their fear of 

their dictatorial leaders and began to believe that they had the capacity to change their lives. Of course, you presided in your time 

as Chief over the surge in Iraq, and now the surge in Afghanistan, 

and over a remarkable generation of Army troops. I can’t thank 

you enough for that. 

I wanted to ask you in the nature of an exit interview when you 

come to the moment of transition with General Dempsey, what are 

you going to say to him that you most hope he protects in the next 

period of time in the Army? Then, what are you going to say is unfinished business that you want him to make sure he finishes? 

General CASEY. Oh, that’s great. I’m making those notes as we 

speak here, Senator. 

I’m going to tell Marty I think his greatest challenge will be to 

preserve the gains that we, together, have built over the last decade. You know what’s happening with the budget. You know about 

the end strength reduction that is on the table, albeit conditionsbased, on the withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

End strength is a key factor for the Army. We have to have the 

right size Army that can meet our commitments at a 1-year-out/2- 

years-back cycle. That’s a new dimension that we haven’t had to 

deal with before. But, it also has to be the right size so we can afford to equip it, to train it, and to sustain the soldiers and families. 

Finding the right size so that we can have a balanced force, still 

meet the demands, and do it at a sustainable deployment tempo, 

that’s the art that he’s going to have to take on here to move the 

Army forward. 

712 

I believe the biggest thing that he needs to protect is the dwell. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General CASEY. I can’t overstate the fact that we are still dealing 

with the impact of 10 years at war. We’ve had over 100,000 soldiers 

diagnosed with traumatic brain injury. Fortunately, 95-plus percent is mild or moderate. We’ve had over 45,000 soldiers diagnosed 

with post-traumatic stress, and 29,000 soldiers wounded. There is 

something that has to be done and sustained. 

The other thing I’d mention—and Ruth Stonesifer is over here— 

we’ve lost, just in the Army, over 4,300 soldiers, leaving over 

20,000 family members. 

All of that needs to be dealt with and taken care of. He can’t take 

his eye off that ball, and he needs to stay focused on the dwell. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate the answer. 

Let me ask you a followup question about the dwell time, because you’ve helped to educate a lot of us on the importance of this 

question. Obviously, dwell time is a result of a lot of different variables. What’s the demand on the Army? How many troops do we 

have in Afghanistan, for instance? How many troops do we have in 

the Army? You’re right that Secretary Gates has proposed a reduction in the end strength, as of 2015, but conditions-based. 

I’ve been wondering whether there would be value in Congress, 

by legislation, requiring a certification for the attainment or a 

sustainment of a satisfactory dwell ratio before any end strength 

cuts are enacted. Obviously, we will look and see, what are the demands in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world? The 

dwell-time ratio has been so significant; I think you’ve made that 

case; I wonder if we should establish a formal certification process. 

General CASEY. I’d have to think about that, Senator. My initial 

reaction would be that anytime Congress puts another constraint, 

it limits flexibility. I believe that we have drawn a new baseline 

now and we can’t knowingly accept an end strength that would 

cause us to do less than that. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General CASEY. We could do it for short periods of time in an 

emergency, but I don’t think we should accept an end strength that 

would allow us to do less than 2 years at home. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Two years at home for 1 year in battle; and, 

for the Guard and Reserve, I know your aim was 5 years at home, 

but 4 is a good standard. 

General CASEY. I think it is. It’s interesting what the Guard and 

Reserve leadership is telling us now. They think 5 years at home 

is too long, because it’s easier to lose that combat edge over a 6- 

year cycle, and that 4 is feeling about right to them. It’s the right 

balance between maintaining their skills and maintaining their 

jobs and their families. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

I want to ask you if you would just speak a little bit about the 

kinds of acquisition program difficulties the Army has had over 

time. I was particularly surprised when the ground combat vehicle 

competition was canceled and then restarted. I just want to ask 

you generally, what do you take away from the experience you’ve 

had, particularly in your time as Chief of the Army? Again, what 

713 

would you say to those who follow you about how to get this acquisition process to run better this time? 

General CASEY. Thank you, Senator. I will tell you that I personally learned an awful lot from the Future Combat Systems (FCS) 

program. One of the first things I learned was that anything that 

takes longer than two chiefs’ tenures to do won’t work. What I 

found I had to do is, I had to reeducate myself and the Army about 

the program when I returned from Iraq. It had gotten off and 

adrift. 

The second big thing that I’ve learned is that we, the Army, tend 

to overreach. We want the best for our soldiers, so we go out there 

and think we can deliver on technology that’s just not ready to deliver. I think the FCS is a good example of that. We tried to press 

too hard and rely on technology that just wasn’t ready. Then the 

integration problems just were insurmountable. 

The other thing that the Secretary and I both realized was that, 

over the last 2 decades, we’ve allowed our acquisition skills and our 

professional acquisition corps to atrophy. That’s why the Secretary 

charged this study to look at ourselves. We asked Mr. Decker and 

retired General Wagner to give us a soup-to-nuts look. That’s the 

report that Senator McCain quoted about our lack of success in the 

acquisition process. 

We’re using this report, much like we use the Gansler Report on 

contracting, as a springboard to improve our process. But, it’s going 

to take some time. 

We’ve learned an awful lot, and we’re trying to adapt it, because, 

as Senator McCain said, we recognize that resources are going 

down, and we have to use the ones that you give us efficiently. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Senator, may I add a word there? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Please. 

Mr. MCHUGH. The ground combat vehicle request for proposal 

(RFP) cancellation surprised a lot of people. I would respectfully 

suggest that it was actually a good-news story, because what we 

found, as we went forward with the initial RFP was that we were 

recreating the very pitfalls that the Chief just outlined, with respect to the FCS. The original RFP contained over 990 core requirements, many of which had heavily dependent requirements 

upon immature technologies, just as the FCS did. We said, ‘‘Well, 

here we go again.’’ So, we pulled back the RFP. The acquisition experts, including Dr. Ash Carter in DOD, sat down and brought that 

down to 162 core requirements, put it back out, injected competition, let the industry know that we encouraged commercial off-theshelf technology, allowed for biodegradable fuels and hybrid engine 

development to be part of that, and allowed the tier-two requirements to be traded for cost. I think it showed we’ve, at least for 

the moment, learned a lot of very important lessons, particularly 

out of FCS, but in a lot of other programs that have failed over the 

last decade. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good enough. Thank you. Thank you both. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

714 

If I had more than 7 minutes, I would elaborate a little bit on 

the great job that both of you have done; you, General Casey, the 

personal attention you’ve always given me in responses; you’re 

really hands-on. In fact, I say this about your whole team. Under 

Secretary Westphal has been very helpful. You just have a very responsive group there. General Casey, I just want to thank you for 

all that you have done, personally, for me and our relationship. 

It’s been an interesting discussion on the FCS because frankly, 

I don’t agree with any of that stuff, but I’m a little closer to where 

you guys are now. We worked through this thing. One of the areas 

that we really needed work on, of course, was our non-line-of-sight 

(NLOS) cannon capability. Right now, the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM), as I understand, is taking that portion of the FCS 

role and is on schedule, and it will continue to be on schedule. 

Would both of you agree with that position? 

Mr. MCHUGH. I certainly would. I would tell you, however, that 

is a program that is jeopardized by a CR. But we feel that we’re 

going to be able to maintain the milestone C coming up for June 

2013. We’re going to work hard to make sure that happens because, as you noted, that is our cannon capability for the near future. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I am very familiar with that. Do you agree 

with his comment on that, General Casey, in terms of the significance of the PIM program, as well as where it is on track? 

General CASEY. I do, exactly. 

Senator INHOFE. Then getting on to some of the other areas of 

the FCS. In looking at the budget briefing that we had, ‘‘The 

Army’s combat vehicle modernization strategy represents a holistic 

approach to the development of the ground combat vehicle replacement of the M–113 family of vehicles and the incremental modernizations of the Bradley, Abrams, Paladin, and Stryker.’’ So, 

we’re still looking down the road to getting to where we thought 

we were getting with the FCS. Is that an accurate way of characterizing it? 

General CASEY. If you think about where we started with the 

Bradley and the Abrams, we started back in the late 1960s, early 

1970s, and the frames for both of those vehicles are pretty much 

how they were back in the late 1960s or early 1970s, but they’re 

different vehicles. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

General CASEY. What we’re looking for with a ground combat vehicle is a new baseline. After 50 years, we need a new baseline to 

go forward and modify and adapt. That’s the only way I can see 

credibly going forward: use existing technologies that are 40 to 50 

years better than we started, build a new base, and then continue 

to update it as technology matures. That is the strategy. 

Senator INHOFE. I think I agree that that’s where we are today. 

But, I was sitting next to you on the House Armed Services Committee when they canceled the Crusader. Senator McCain talked 

about termination costs. We know, when we shift in the middle of 

the stream, there are going to be costs. But, I just hope that we 

are around to be able to make sure that we continue. 

Let me just mention one success story from my observation and 

have you comment on it, because it didn’t just happen, somebody 

715 

had to make it happen. I look at our deployment of our National 

Guard. We’ll have 3,200 redeploying over there. The last time they 

deployed, I think, was the first part of 2009, and I had the opportunity to really be there. In looking at this deployment this time, 

it’s going much smoother than it did before. I know you’ve heard 

this from other people. I’m not sure who’s accountable for it. Just 

comment on that and also the Yellow Ribbon Program, in terms of 

these deployments, on our Guard. 

General CASEY. As I mentioned in my opening statement, Senator, the improvements in the Guard and Reserve have been huge. 

Probably back in 2008, we studied the deployment of five National 

Guard combat brigades, and we learned an awful lot. The Guard 

and Reserve took those lessons and applied them to how they’d 

man the units, to how they make sure that when the people show 

up they’re medically ready. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

General CASEY. We’ve made great improvements to the training. 

I give credit to the Guard and Reserve leadership for taking on 

these challenges and learning from them. Because, what we’re 

doing with the Guard and Reserve today is fundamentally different 

than we set them up to do earlier in this decade. It’s not a Strategic Reserve. It’s an operational augmentation to this Active 

Force. That’s how we’ve been using them and they’ve made great 

improvements in their process. 

Senator INHOFE. It’s not going unnoticed, because, just at the 

troop level and all the way up to Bud Wyatt; I know he’s been very 

active in this thing, too. I applaud you guys for getting that done. 

I would say this to you, Secretary McHugh, that you’re faced 

with what’s on fire today. You can’t really look into the future. Senator McCain made a statement, I think he was quoting Secretary 

Gates’ statement at West Point when he talked about the probability of fighting against the large mechanized formations of the 

future, and all that. What he didn’t say was what Secretary Gates 

said later in that speech. He said, ‘‘However, our predictions about 

future conflict had a perfect record. We’ve never been right.’’ I remember my last year in the House Armed Services Committee, I 

think I was seated next to you, we had someone testify in 1994 

that in 10 years we’d no longer need ground troops. So, do you 

spend much time looking into the future? I say this to you, Secretary McHugh. Because it’s hard to do; we have so many problems 

today. But, how do you view that? Are you looking to try to determine what our needs are going to be 10 years from now? 

Mr. MCHUGH. I’d like to be imperfect and maybe get one right. 

We do. I think it has value. Whether it’s on the Army side, in trying to envision the next battlefield to help, through the U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), prepare our soldiers 

for the unknown, or whether it’s through the so-called large group 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Quadrennial Defense Review and other planning documents, I think it’s responsible to sit down and do that. 

But, having said that, it’s a challenge that we’ve rarely been able 

to hit a home run upon. I think that’s why the Chief’s earlier comments as to the direction of the Army are so very important. What 

we’re trying to do is array ourselves into combat formations and 

716 

Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) that provide us the greatest amount 

of flexibility so that wherever that army that we’re going to have 

to face arises, we’re able to put the right forces with the right 

equipment on the ground to do the job effectively and efficiently, 

as they’ve always done. 

The other thing the Chief and I have started to work on—and 

I’m looking forward to working with General Dempsey, because 

he’s coming out of command at TRADOC—is that what we also 

need to do is ensure we have a training and education system that 

prepares the soldiers of tomorrow to have the kind of flexibility, the 

leadership, the great judgment, and the comfort level in an environment of uncertainty that the soldiers of today have gotten in 

combat. Secretary Gates mentioned this, and I think it’s the most 

important part of his speech, and it got lost in some of the other 

discussions and comments he made, we have to ensure when we 

bring these young, amazing soldiers back, we’re providing them a 

training environment that challenges them and lets them feel fulfilled and, hopefully, trains them to be as good as the trained and 

experienced force of today is. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense. We’re making every effort you are. But, what I said about looking into the future is not just the Army. We have the same problems in the other 

Services. 

My time has expired. But, I would hope that, as we try to do a 

better job here and get this budget thing under control, that you 

continue with your progress at the Knowledged-Based Organization 

Military Training Center. We were over there during New Year’s. 

I’m just most impressed with the progress that’s been made there. 

It’s a great program. I hope it can continue. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and General 

Casey. 

I, too, want to thank you, General, for your extraordinary service 

to the Nation and to the Army, and to your unwavering support for 

the soldiers that you lead and the example you’ve set for them. 

Thank you very much. 

One of your contributions, among many, will be the effort underway for the Profession of Arms to look seriously at what it means 

to be a professional soldier, both an officer and a noncommissioned 

officer (NCO). I know General Dempsey has instituted a survey. 

It’s part of it. But, in your final appearance here before the committee, can you give us some ideas of what you’d like to see accomplished, not only in the survey, what’s your concept of the Profession of Arms at the moment? 

General CASEY. Senator, we came up with this notion last year. 

We asked ourselves what has been the impact of a decade at war 

on the Army as an institution and on our leaders and soldiers as 

individuals? Because intuitively we felt you’re not at war for 10 

years without having some significant impacts and changes. We 

wanted to get out ahead of what was going on within the Army, 

because we all know our culture’s changed, but we’re not exactly 

sure how it’s changed. So, we launched on this track. 

717 

The Secretary and I kicked it off in October at our annual conference. General Dempsey has had the mission to basically bring 

it into effect. He has started with a white paper, which is pretty 

good. It’s a little academic. But, it causes you to go back and think 

about the things that underpin a strong institution. So, we’re having that dialogue at all of our advanced courses, staff colleges, war 

colleges, and across the Army at our divisions. The survey is intended to get a little more than anecdotal evidence about how our 

culture has changed. 

What I hope to get out of this is an assessment of where we are 

and how we’ve changed, but I think we’re going to get inputs that 

will allow us to update, for example, our efficiency reports. Are the 

values that we have historically valued, are they still the right 

ones? So, things like that will also come out of this. I think it’ll 

make us a better Army as we go forward. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, do you have any comments? Because you’re a big 

part of this, also. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I totally concur with what the Chief said. We 

know one thing for certain: we’ve changed over the last 10 years. 

We need to understand how that change has occurred, and most 

importantly, what we need to do to manage it and to form it in a 

way that gives us validity as what we are, an institution in combat 

arms and professionals. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

One of the issues that came up in our hearing with the Supreme 

Allied Commander in Europe and the U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) Commander is the issue of the cyber dimension of warfare. It’s been amazing, the kind of deployment of technologies, both in the military realm and civilian realm, that pose 

potential threats. It also had me stop and think about the dependency—and this might go in terms of the culture—that soldiers have 

on systems that, when we started our military careers, didn’t exist. 

To the extent that we have to have as redundancy some of the old 

skills, like reading a compass and figuring out on a map where the 

heck we are, which was always a challenge to me, are you beginning to cope with integrating these new technologies, but continuing to have old skills as a fallback? Because there’s a scenario 

in which nothing’s working. Now the enemy has the advantage because they never had this stuff in the first place. Are we prepared 

for that concept? 

General CASEY. I think, Senator, what you’re going to see is that 

as we have more time at home to spend training against hybrid 

threats, rather than just preparing for Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re 

going to exercise that capability more than we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. We all share the same concern, particularly those of us 

who wandered around lost like you did as a lieutenant. So, we’re 

going to see that play out. 

One of the real challenges we’ve had is because the growth of information technology has been so rapid, we’re trying to keep 

enough structure in the program so that we don’t waste resources, 

but, at the same time, allow individual initiatives to leverage the 

technologies. The Vice Chief has recently completed an effort that 

has clearly spelled out the division of labor within the Army for 

718 

who’s responsible for doing which part of the information technology effort. I think it’s going to help us out as we go forward. 

Senator REED. Mr. Secretary, your comments there? 

Mr. MCHUGH. There are some things that we’ve looked at that 

we would have to talk about in a closed session. I would just say, 

your question is very well-placed. The last thing we need to forget 

is the enemy has a vote. If he can endure in a certain environment 

where we can’t, we’ve caused a real potential for catastrophe. 

So, while I think we’re absolutely headed in the right direction 

with our network systems and with our reliance upon making each 

soldier an independent, wired-in communication device, we have to 

make sure that, for whatever reason, either by some failure of technology or by covert or overt action of an enemy, those are taken 

away, that we can still prevail. 

As the Chief said, I think the opportunity to better ensure that 

is as we come back to home station and we can get back to a more 

full-spectrum training scenario. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Circling back a bit to just one final point about the Profession of 

Arms, and for the record, I’m just probably establishing what 

you’re already doing. We’re also talking to the families, to the 

spouses, and to the children about the Profession of Arms because 

they’ve always been a great part of the Army. But, even more so, 

in my recollection, and going back 2 or 3 decades, is that part of 

this conscious effort, too, as to what they expect out of the profession, what they contribute? 

General CASEY. I’m going to give you credit for that, Senator. 

Right now, it’s not. But, I think it’s a great insight. I think it’s 

something we’ll add to it. 

Thank you. 

Senator REED. I know when to quit, when I’m ahead. 

So, congratulations, General Casey. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your great service. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. 

Certainly, Mr. Secretary and General Casey, thank you for appearing once again. 

Obviously, General Casey, I know you’re retiring soon and coming to a really good State, Massachusetts. I appreciate that. Have 

fun in your retirement. I want to say that you positioned our Army 

and its families in a good place during incredibly challenging circumstances. So, I want to thank you for that. I’ve enjoyed personally getting to know you. I appreciate the many times that you’ve 

come to the office or answered questions. You and your staff have 

been exceedingly professional. You have a couple of good men right 

behind you, working and watching your back. So, I appreciate that. 

That being said, sir, I want to follow up a little bit on the 

MEADS program. We had a hearing the other day on that program. I have to be honest with you, the fact that we’re paying that 

amount of money basically to stop a program, I find amazing. 

When we’re talking about billions of dollars of overruns, and I got 

so frustrated in the hearing, I actually had to leave, because I was 

719 

afraid of what would appear on YouTube. When I asked, ‘‘Well, 

what are we getting for our 14 years and the billions of dollars?’’ 

He said, ‘‘Well, we’re getting some really good technology. We’re 

getting some interesting things.’’ I said, ‘‘Well, like what? You 

know, is it new?’’ He says, ‘‘Yeah, it’s new.’’ ‘‘Well, but what?’’ 

What, tangibly, could we benefit, after spending that amount of 

money, that we couldn’t make up with the amazing businesses we 

have in the United States? 

So, my first question is: are there serious negotiations with Italy 

and Germany to try to mitigate the damages and not pay the full 

$800 million? Or what? 

Mr. MCHUGH. There are constant communications. As I said earlier, the Army is not the birth parent of this program. 

Senator BROWN. No, I get it. 

Mr. MCHUGH. We are the Executive Agent. 

Senator BROWN. I was zeroing right in, believe me, on the other 

appropriate folks. 

Mr. MCHUGH. We signed the checks. The Army very strongly endorsed the termination, largely for the reasons that you state. But, 

for whatever reason, when this program was reconfigured—I believe it was in 2006—amongst the United States, Italy, and Germany, that was the agreement, that they would go through what 

has been called proof-of-concept. As best I can tell, that’s really a 

calendar date, not any substantive moment in development. Any 

withdrawal before that was apportioned according to each country’s 

contributions over the life of the program. 

I mentioned earlier, we really don’t know to the dollar and cent 

what a withdrawal cost would be. If someone does, I’m not aware 

of it. Reasonable calculations are that it would be somewhere north 

of $800 million. In part, that would have to be negotiated. 

My understanding is, our two partners are not at this moment 

interested in early termination. So, that left our people with the 

choice of, do we pay the $800 million-plus withdrawal, whatever it 

may be, or do we spend what will probably be a similar amount 

through 2014, which is the magical proof-of-concept calendar date? 

That would provide some goodwill with our two partners, which I 

think we could all agree has some value. I’m not sure what the 

pricetag of that would be. But, it would also give us a technology 

package. 

I can’t sit here, Senator, and tell you what that technology package will be comprised of. 

Senator BROWN. Neither could the previous person. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, but I’m not telling you how whiz-bang great 

it will be. [Laughter.] 

Senator BROWN. No, listen. I’m not throwing any blame. I guess 

my message is, first of all, let’s not do contracts like this again. It 

just makes no sense, especially when we’re relying on other countries to do things for us or with us. In this instance, along the way, 

the alarm bells should have gone off every year as it got further 

and further behind. When we’re talking 14 years by the time we 

get it done, the technology is virtually obsolete. We’re doing the 

same thing already. We don’t know it. So, that’s my only comment 

on that. 

720 

I’d like to shift gears for a minute. I’m wondering, do you have 

a plan to compete for the new version of the M–9 semiautomatic 

pistol or do you plan to buy more Berettas? The reason I ask, the 

industry has invested a lot of money in preparing for competition. 

But there’s still a lot of confusion. I’m wondering if either one of 

you can comment on that. 

General CASEY. Senator, replacing the M–9 is not one of our top 

procurement priorities. As we’re going back now and looking 

through how to allocate our procurement assets, that’s not one of 

our top priorities. It’s not something that we’re actively seeking 

right now. 

Senator BROWN. How about the M–4 carbine competition? How 

is that going? 

Mr. MCHUGH. We haven’t put it to competition, as yet. As I’m 

sure you’re aware, Senator, we have a two-phased M–4 program. 

One is the improvement program of the existing. We’re working 

with industry to try to incrementally build in new improvements 

while we are going through RFP development. We hope to put the 

RFP on the street for the next generation very soon. We consider 

that a requirement, and we fully intend to go forward. 

Senator BROWN. General Casey, I know that your top modernization priority is to build the network that reflects the requirements 

of today’s force and future threats. Can you comment on how important the WIN–T communications program is for the Army? 

When will that program be in the hands of soldiers? 

General CASEY. WIN–T is the backbone of the whole network. It 

provides us the broadband wide-area coverage. WIN–T Increment 

1 will finish fielding this year. WIN–T Increment 2 will begin fielding next year. The whole network—the JTRS and elements of 

WIN–T Increment 2, are going to start to come together over the 

course of fiscal year 2012. That’s a huge milestone for us. 

Senator BROWN. I’ve been to Natick Labs a bunch of times; I see 

the technology of everything that’s going on. I’m concerned a little 

bit about getting so technology-centric that we actually get away 

from the basics. You know, basic soldier skills. I’m hoping that’s 

still going to be a priority. 

General CASEY. I think we’ll still be able to soldier when this is 

all over, Senator. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for your leadership of this committee. 

I want to add my welcome to Secretary McHugh, and thank you 

for your distinguished leadership; and also, General Casey, for your 

4 decades of service to our country, and your incredible commitment to the Army and to our Nation. We are really grateful for all 

of that. I want to say that it has been an honor working with you 

on issues related to the Army and our national security. 

I also want to thank the men and women of the Army, civilian 

and military, Active, Guard, and Reserve, and their families, for all 

that they do. 

Secretary McHugh, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission noted that the Services have not yet found a way to continuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00726 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
721 

ously develop leaders who are as diverse as our country. Secretary 

McHugh, what are your thoughts on the study? Can you talk about 

what the Army currently does, as well as any future plans to increase diversity? 

Mr. MCHUGH. I think the study made some excellent points. In 

baseline recruiting, we’re actually doing pretty well, in terms of the 

various segments of our population we’re bringing in. Across the 

board, while we’re slightly challenged in a few of the categories, 

we’re pretty much where we need to be, and we want to make sure 

we sustain that. 

Where I think we have to work very hard is, as the study pointed 

out, promoting officers up through the ranks who represent that 

same level of diversity. We have some absolutely incredible minority officers—and if I started naming them, I’d make someone angry 

that I forgot them—but, great leaders who have performed magnificently in the highest echelons of our Army and the highest echelons of our joint assignments as well. We need to work with them 

to provide a pathway by which we can promote more effectively 

and bring officers through. 

I’m speaking now from my days on the West Point Board, I think 

Congress can be enormously helpful in going out and actively utilizing their full allocation of nominations to the U.S. Military Academy in promoting young minority soldiers. I don’t think anybody on 

this committee would be so challenged, but without naming names, 

there are a broad array of Members in both houses who don’t take 

advantage of that. While the Reserve Office Training Corps (ROTC) 

and other officer accessions programs are important, and we try to 

reach out and inform minority student populations of the great opportunities they provide, obviously, West Point is our number-one 

generator of officers and leaders of tomorrow. To see those billets 

go unfilled is crushing. You could help us to spread that message. 

We have a long way to go in making sure that our officer development program produces more minority representation. That’s 

pretty much in line with the study’s findings. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. 

General Casey, upon completing deployments and returning to 

the civilian world, many in the Guard and Reserve are experiencing problems which were not previously diagnosed. You did 

mention how the Guard has helped itself in readiness. My question 

is: what happens after they have the impact of action? We know 

that sometimes post-traumatic stress disorder and other effects do 

not immediately surface. In your opinion, what can be done to better assess and treat these returning soldiers as they transition 

back from their deployments? 

General CASEY. That’s a great question, Senator, because what 

we see is, when the guardsman and reservist goes home and goes 

off Active Duty, his security blanket, his support network that has 

sustained him or her through combat, evaporates. It’s a much more 

difficult challenge than it is for the Active Forces, who stay with 

their organizations. 

I would tell you that we have tried to come at this a couple of 

ways. One, is by the post-deployment assessments and reassessments, to keep coming back to that. Two, is by increasing the counselors, behavioral health counselors, that are available to our 

722 

guardsmen and reservists, especially in dispersed locations. Three, 

is the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program that Sergeant Anderson represents. One of the things we did with this program was 

to put the assessment online so any guardsman and reservist, in 

the privacy of their own home, can go online, take the assessment, 

and get an assessment of where they stand in the five key areas 

of fitness: physical, emotional, social, spiritual, and family. If they 

perceive a problem in one of those areas, then it allows them to 

connect, online, to self-help modules. There are about five self-help 

modules in each of those areas. So in the privacy of their own 

home, they can go in and get pointers on how to do this, and then 

contact the master resilience trainer back at their unit. 

The Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program is designed to help 

our soldiers not get in the dark place to begin with, and to build 

the resilience to take them forward. 

So, those are the things, the primary elements that we’re working on here. As I said, it is a much tougher nut to crack than with 

the Active Forces. But, the Guard and Reserve are working it very 

hard. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

General Casey, you’ve witnessed many changes in the Army over 

the course of your career. General, beyond dwell time and resets, 

what are the biggest challenges facing the Army over the next 5 

or 10 years? 

General CASEY. Senator, I really believe it’s maintaining the 

right size and capable force in a period of declining resources. That 

is going to be my successor’s greatest challenge, to find the right 

balance between the resources that are available and the size of 

the force to meet the demands at an appropriate deployment 

tempo. That’s why I worry, because our track record on this isn’t 

good. If you look back through our history, as the wars end, the 

budgets come down, and we incrementally slice the resources available. 

I called Shy Meyer, who was my predecessor in the 1980s, who 

came to Congress and said the Army was hollow. He did that 8 

years after the last combat battalion left Vietnam, because of 8 

years of slicing. What I worry about is the resources are coming 

down, we know that, but we have to proceed carefully; otherwise, 

8 years from now, we’ll turn around and look over our shoulders 

and say, ‘‘What the heck happened to the Army?’’ That, I think, is 

the greatest challenge for all of us. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to share everyone’s comments, General Casey, for your 

distinguished service to our country. I don’t think we can commend 

you enough for what you’ve done and the leadership that you’ve 

provided to our brave men and women. 

Secretary McHugh, thank you very much for your service. 

I also wanted to say thank you to Ms. Stonesifer, for your sacrifice and for what you are doing for our country, as well as our 

723 

wounded warrior, Joel, who’s with us here today. We’re all grateful 

for what you’re doing on our behalf. 

I wanted to follow up, General Casey and Secretary McHugh, as 

well, on the question that Senator Akaka had asked you about our 

Guard and Reserves. One of the concerns that I have is, we’ve seen 

disturbingly high rates of unemployment and suicide rates; in particular, with the Guard and Reserve, because we’ve used them as 

an operational force, and there are unique challenges, when they 

come home, because those types of support systems that may be in 

the Active Duty, on a base setting, aren’t there for when they come 

home from a deployment. 

I know, General Casey, you described some of the program that 

you’ve put in place, called the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program. I have to say, I commend you for doing that, but I don’t 

think it’s enough. Because, if you think about the problems that 

our guardsmen and reservists face, to ask them to come home in 

a situation where they need that direct support, to conduct an online system, we’re going to be missing people. 

One thing that I wanted to point out is, in New Hampshire, we 

have a Deployment Cycle Support Program that is a public-private 

partnership that has been quite successful. In fact, we’ve kept 

metrics of it. It has served, since 2007, 800 families and over 4,000 

individuals. One of the things that was very inspiring for me about 

this program is, this week I received word that the life of a New 

Hampshire National Guard soldier who was on the verge of suicide 

was saved, due to the proactive predeployment intervention of this 

Deployment Cycle Support Program and a care coordinator who 

reached out affirmatively to prevent a suicide. 

So, I would say to you, this is a very strong track record and, 

I think, a model for what we should be doing. I know that there 

are several other States that also have these types of pilot programs. 

Senator Shaheen and I have written to you, Secretary McHugh, 

about this program, as well as Chairman Mullen. 

What we got back, basically, is a commendation for the program, 

but that in June it will likely end unless we get some commitment 

for resources for it. 

So, my question to both of you is: have you had a chance to look 

at this program? What do you think of it? I think this is a pilot 

we should be looking at across the country. I’m obviously committed to seeing this through for our National Guard men and 

women who are serving overseas right now and coming home from 

deployments. Across the country, as we use the Guard and Reserve 

as an operational force, we need to make sure those systems are 

in place so that we’re preventing suicides, reducing homelessness, 

unemployment, and getting them the things that they deserve, 

given the service that they’ve given for us. So, if the both of you 

would comment on that, I’d deeply appreciate it. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I’d be happy to start off, Senator. First of all, I’m 

thinking back now on exactly how I worded my response. I hope 

I didn’t give the impression that there’s somehow no value in New 

Hampshire’s program. In fact, it’s unquestionably a national leader. 

Senator AYOTTE. No, you did not give that impression. 

724 

Mr. MCHUGH. Okay. Good. 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to be clear. 

Mr. MCHUGH. It still wasn’t very helpful. The fact of the matter 

is, both from a CR perspective, but more real is the PB–12, it 

wasn’t an issue when it was drawn up, and it is just not resourced. 

Overall, we do have to work harder, as the Chief said earlier, as 

to how we can reach out to Guard and Reserve people who go back 

and don’t have, traditionally, the kind of support and proximity to 

a big base, where you have all the kind of behavioral healthcare 

specialists, where you have access to a wide range of things that 

Guard and Reserves in rural communities that are predominantly 

found in New Hampshire or back in my northern New York old 

congressional district don’t have, as well. 

So, I promise you, we’re going to continue to work those. Part of 

the thing we want to look at is the effort that you gave. But, our 

funding opportunities are set by the budget cycles, and that won’t 

present itself for some time. 

You’ve mentioned some of the stresses that they feel. We tend to 

forget about that. At least when the full-time Army comes back, 

they generally continue to have a job; they’re still in the Army. 

But, our guardsmen and reservists often go back to the current 

pressures of the economy that are certainly felt by the Active component and their families. But, the fact of having a job is a great 

relief to them. 

I believe you’re involved in the Hire a Hero Program, to some degree. Anything that can be done privately to provide jobs for these 

great redeploying soldiers is a terrific effort. 

So, I promise you, we’re going to continue to work it. But, we do 

have some funding-cycle challenges. 

Senator AYOTTE. I very much appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I 

would like to work with you on it, because I think it has to be a 

public-private partnership. There are those in the private sector 

that will join with us so that we can maximize resources to make 

sure that those services are there in a cost-effective manner. So, I 

would very much look forward to working with both of you on that. 

Obviously, we wish General Casey would continue. But, Secretary 

McHugh, I very much look forward to working with you, and certainly your successor, General Casey, on this issue which I think 

is so important if we’re going to continue to have the Guard operate as an operational force, as you’ve described it, which I anticipate will continue. 

As a followup to that, there has been a recent announcement, a 

DOD proposal, to look at how the Guard and Reserve are used, and 

to come up with a hybrid-type proposal. I don’t know a lot about 

the proposal. I understand it’s a new proposal, and wondered if you 

could describe for us what that would entail and what we would 

envision. As I understand it, it’s a proposal to look at having some 

reservists stay in longer than the traditional time they would 

serve, or to have longer-type requirements to maintain in the Reserves. 

General CASEY. I’m not familiar with the specifics of the approach that you describe, Senator, but I can tell you what we’re 

doing, because, it’s clear to us that none of us wants to go back to 

having the Guard and Reserve going back to a Strategic Reserve. 

725 

We have too much money invested in them over the last decade, 

and they have too much experience. 

So, the question is: can we design a system that builds the readiness we need when we need it and, at the same time, sustains the 

experience of the Guard and Reserve over time? Starting October 

1 of this year, we will actually have as many brigades available 

and not deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan as we do. So, we’ll start 

having guardsmen and reservists who could be available, but they 

may not deploy. So, the question we’ve asked ourselves is: what’s 

the appropriate level of readiness to bring those guardsmen and reservists to? It’s about cost as well. We’re working to figure out 

which portions of the Guard and Reserve can get ready quickly, because of the nature of their skills. We might want to have more of 

those and less of the Guard and Reserves that have complicated 

skills that require integration across a number of functions. 

This is the process I described in my opening testimony. But, it’s 

something I think has great promise. But, again, none of us wants 

to see the Guard and Reserve to go back to being just a Strategic 

Reserve. It took us a decade to get them where they are today. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, General Casey, and also 

Secretary McHugh. 

As we go forward in looking at how the Guard and Reserve are 

being used, I do hope that we will seek strong input from the leaders of the Guard and Reserve, as well, as we make those decisions. 

General CASEY. They are fully integrated into this. 

Mr. MCHUGH. They’re an integral part of our planning process. 

We wouldn’t even begin to think about doing it without them. 

Senator AYOTTE. We deeply appreciate that. 

Thank you so much for answering my questions today. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Good morning, gentlemen. Terrific to have you 

here. 

I have, of course, some questions, but let me first start with some 

acknowledgments. It’s been an exciting and important week for all 

of us in Colorado, and I wanted to highlight the reasons why. 

Secretary McHugh, I received your letter this week regarding the 

Army’s plans for the Pinon Canyon maneuver site in Colorado. I 

want to thank you for your response and tell you that I sincerely 

believe that your assurances are exactly what Fort Carson soldiers 

and the southern Colorado’s ranching community need to move forward. Our soldiers need to conduct tough, realistic training that 

will keep them safe in combat. Our ranchers need to be able to develop their property and work their land. I know that your explanation of the Army’s intent will make it easier for all those needs 

to be met. I’m grateful for your leadership. 

Mr. MCHUGH. It might be described as lack of plans, not plans. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, we’ll make sure the record shows that. 

Then I want to thank you both publicly for the great news about 

the addition of a combat aviation brigade (CAB) at Fort Carson. 

This, no doubt, will be a great benefit to the 4th Infantry Division 

(ID), and to Colorado. 

I want to trumpet the 4th ID. It’s an incredible organization, has 

some of the finest leaders in the Army. The CAB will make them 

726 

even stronger. I’m looking forward, as I know thousands of Coloradans are, to welcoming all these new soldiers to the best hometown in the Army. 

Then, General Casey, I want to join with everybody here on the 

committee and all on the House Armed Services Committee, for 

also the great privilege of serving with and thanking you. It’s been 

an honor to work with you. The Nation owes you and your family 

a tremendous debt. Your sacrifice and devotion to duty are truly 

inspirational. 

I’ll never forget first meeting you in Baghdad and the way in 

which you carried yourself, briefed us, and gave us a chance to see 

what was happening, at a particularly tough time. You stayed the 

course and set the stage for the successes that we now have in 

Iraq. So, I want to extend my personal gratitude to you. 

Then I want to follow up and start with a question. General 

Casey, I want to speak to something that you have great passion 

for, which is dwell time for soldiers. I want to make sure I help 

you reach your goal of providing 2 years at home for every year 

that a soldier is deployed. While we move towards that goal, I 

know we are doing everything we can to improve suicide prevention programs for our troops. Fort Carson has recently seen some 

very promising numbers that have included some significant reductions in their suicide rate. I know you’re stalwart in saying one suicide is one too many. But, I know there are some lessons to be 

learned from what we’re seeing at Fort Carson, and would welcome 

your sharing those with us. 

Then a follow-on would be, I know we have this Mobile Behavioral Health Team on post. Is the Army considering adding programs like that at other posts? 

General CASEY. The answer to the last one is yes, Senator. In 

fact, we’ve been rotating behavioral health providers around the 

Army to the different posts as part of the deployment life cycle, as 

the other Senator talked about here earlier. So, I think you’re going 

to continue to see that. We’re really forced to that, because there’s 

still not enough behavioral health providers available across the 

country. That is a way that we’re maintaining those skills. 

We’ve devoted a lot of effort to suicide prevention, going back 

several years. One of the first things we did, back in 2007, was to 

launch a campaign to reduce the stigma of getting help for behavioral health issues and for depression. We’ve started to make a 

dent. We just recently completed an annual Army survey where 

two-thirds of the sergeants and above said that they believed their 

chain of command would support them if they got behavioral 

healthcare. That’s a huge, huge change for us. There’s still reservations, and we have more work to do. 

The other thing, I think, that has helped us in suicide prevention 

is the great work that our Vice Chief did, sponsoring that 15-month 

study that was a hard, candid look at us. There were some warts 

that we needed to fix. But, I believe that openness and willingness 

to address the issue has really helped us and is starting to turn 

the tide. Last year, in 2010, we had a slight downturn. We’re not 

declaring victory yet. But, that’s a significant look. 

Now, we’ve had a significant upturn in National Guard suicides. 

I will say, the Guard has really jumped on that. They’ve produced 

727 

their own campaign plan. They’ve hired suicide prevention coordinators in every State. They’re putting in hotlines and reaction 

teams. There’s a reaction team in Indiana, I’m told, that has already reacted to over 300 cases. So, everybody is moving on that. 

The other thing that’s helped is, the Vice Chief holds periodic 

video teleconferences with all the senior subordinate leaders in the 

Army. They share different techniques that they’re doing among 

the different installations. So, we’re getting good cross-leveling of 

good ideas. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I have just a couple of additions. We support 90 

behavioral healthcare studies and analysis within the Army. In 

fact, since 2007, we’ve increased our money and our dedication to 

those efforts by 83 percent. 

Probably the most important study we do is a 5-year longitudinal study, a $50 million study, conducted by the Institute of Mental 

Health, that is groundbreaking in its scope. It’s groundbreaking in 

the latitude it has in access to medical files of virtually every man 

and woman in uniform. We’re very hopeful it can bring the kind 

of medical breakthroughs that we’ve seen in other areas, like taking aspirin a day for heart attacks, et cetera. I can’t tell you what 

the great victory is now, but we’re cooperating fully, and very excited about that. 

The frustrating thing for me is that, 8 months ago, we had a behavioral healthcare specialist requirement of about 4,200. We were 

at about 3,800 at that time. I checked back about 5 months later. 

I said, ‘‘How many behavioral healthcare specialists do we have on 

board?’’ They told me 4,400. I said, ‘‘So, we’re 200 above our requirement.’’ Well, no. The requirement has gone up to 5,800. Now 

I check back and that requirement has grown again to 6,100. It’s 

frustrating chasing the ever-increasing goal. But, it’s an important 

development, because it shows us we’re deadly serious about providing the numbers that we need. We’re preparing to send two behavioral healthcare specialists and two technicians with every brigade that deploys into theater. We’re providing behavioral 

healthcare specialists and access to the most remote FOBs in Afghanistan. To always be in competition for that next specialist is 

a very frustrating chase. But, we’re going to stay in that chase and 

continue until we can declare that victory that is eluding us to this 

point. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for all those updates. My time has expired, but I did want to make two additional short comments. 

General Casey, again, I want to acknowledge that your leadership has let other leaders emerge, as well. They’re leaders in their 

own right, they didn’t need to emerge in the way I suggested. But, 

General Chiarelli, General Graham, who served with such distinction at Fort Carson, and General Hamm, have all, in their own 

ways, led in this important fight, as well. 

Second, the civilian world has been touched increasingly by suicides; my own family, for example. There are parallel undertakings 

in our society, writ large, to understand this and prevent this 

wherever we can. 

Finally, General Casey, I’ll continue to sing your praises, and I’ll 

probably also continue to ask you questions whenever I can, even 

after April 11th, because you will, no doubt, be called upon to conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00733 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
728 

tinue to comment and provide insight and provide leadership. So, 

again, thank you. It’s been a privilege for me to get to know you. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

I would follow up with Senator Udall’s comments, General Casey, 

how much I appreciate your leadership, how much I have observed 

you commit yourself to service to the men and women in uniform. 

I visited you several times when you were in Iraq during a very 

difficult time. You’ve made it one of your priorities to focus on the 

quality of life of the men and women in the Army. I think you’ve 

made great progress in that. I know you appreciate the partnership 

your wife has given to that effort. 

Maybe I’ll ask you. Tell me how you feel about your efforts, in 

terms of quality of life, deployment times, how that’s impacted the 

Army during your leadership. Also, perhaps you would share with 

us contributions that your wife and your family have made to the 

U.S. military. I think it would be healthy for us to appreciate the 

kind of leadership you and your family have given to the country. 

General CASEY. Thanks, Senator. I would tell you, I believe that 

the efforts that we have made with the families are a critical component of us arriving where we are today, after a decade at war. 

When I first got here, 4 years ago, my wife and I hit the road and 

went around, all across the Army, all around the world, visiting 

soldiers and families. What I took away from that was that the 

families were the most brittle part of the force. We’d just announced 15-month deployments. They were really strapped. 

I still remember, to this day, talking to a group of family members at Fort Bragg. This woman stood up and said, ‘‘General, we 

need some help. I’m a family readiness group leader. The first one’s 

hard. The second one’s harder. The third deployment is harder 

than the first two. We need some help.’’ It was at that point that 

I came back and said we need to put paid family readiness group 

assistants in every family readiness group. We invested $170 million for it, and did it quickly. They saw it. By that October, the Secretary and I put together the Army Family Covenant, where we 

committed ourselves to supporting the families in five key areas. 

Then we doubled the amount of money that we put toward soldier 

and family programs. We’ve sustained that over time. It took us 

about a year to get legs under that Army Family Covenant, but the 

families started to see the impact of it. Frankly, they saw that the 

country cared about their sacrifices. 

So, I personally believe that the efforts that were made by the 

families and supported by this committee have been a huge element in our ability to come out of this decade here in a fairly balanced fashion. I’m very proud of that. 

My wife, Sheila, has been a driving force and a voice for families. 

She speaks very, very practically with all the family readiness 

group leaders as we travel around. She’s been able to energize support across the country, and I give her great credit for that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Secretary McHugh, thank you for your leadership. I believe you’re doing a great job. I enjoyed serving with you 

on the West Point Board. I know how committed you are to the 

729 

Army and to the men and women who serve our country. I think 

President Obama should be commended for giving you the opportunity to serve in this important position. I think he chose wisely, 

and I’m proud of that. 

Both of you probably know, and have indicated, that we have a 

debt problem in America. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has 

said that debt represents the greatest threat to our national security. Frankly, that’s accurate. Forty cents of every dollar we spend 

today is borrowed. The plans that we see, even with the President’s 

budget, do not change the unsustainable course that we are on. Just for example, interest on our debt last year was around $200 

billion. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just completed its 

analysis of the President’s 10-year budget; and in the 10th year, 

CBO projects that interest on the debt will amount to $900 billion; 

more than Medicare, more than the Defense budget. This is why 

people are saying we’re on an unsustainable course. 

Being on the Senate Budget Committee as ranking Republican 

and having to deal with these numbers, I’ll tell you what question 

I get most often from the news reporters—probably Senator Levin 

gets it, too—which is, ‘‘Well, is DOD immune? You’re a big Defense 

hawk. Are you willing to acknowledge that DOD is going to take 

cuts, too?’’ I have to say, ‘‘Yes, DOD is not immune. It’s going to 

have to tighten its belt, also.’’ I think Secretary Gates has led on 

that in a number of ways. 

But, I share your concern, General Casey, that we could make 

some mistakes as we extract ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan, 

as we draw down our forces and seek to get our financial house in 

order. I appreciate your leadership and your planning and your 

thinking so that what we do to contain cost is smart and the best 

way to go about it. We have no dollar to waste. We should not 

make cuts that are counterproductive, that end up costing us more 

than if we hadn’t made them. That would make no sense at all. 

One of the issues that I’m a bit concerned about is our strength 

of our deployments in Europe, and whether or not we can afford 

that, and whether or not we should continue that. There is a 

March 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled, 

‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue Plans.’’ That’s a 

pretty good title for a report, Secretary McHugh, that sounds like 

some of our titles. 

Mr. MCHUGH. They could have saved a few words in the title. 

Senator SESSIONS. Anyway, it has a good motive, and it stated 

that DOD plans to reduce forces in Europe are being reconsidered. 

DOD recently held up the planned return of two Army brigades 

from Germany, pending an announcement of the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Strategic Concept, as well as the results of ongoing U.S. assessments of the Global Defense Posture. 

GAO showed that leaving these two brigades in Europe could cost 

DOD between $1 billion and $2 billion over 10 years, compared to 

bringing them back to the United States. 

I would also say, those of us who are concerned about jobs and 

the health of the American economy, we have to all be aware that 

when that money is spent in the United States, it creates economic 

activity in the United States. When it’s spent in a foreign county, 

730 

it’s a wealth transfer. It’s a drain on the economic growth potential 

of the country. 

So, I would ask you, what about this? 

I do note that a number of years ago, I led a congressional delegation to Europe to participate in briefings over how these 

drawdowns would occur. I was very supportive of it. It came about 

the same time we were doing base realignment and closure in the 

United States. It made a lot of sense to us. We told foreign leaders, 

and they seemed to acknowledge that we were going to be drawing 

down. 

In terms of this one particular item, are we changing our plans 

to draw down in Europe and in other places around the world? Can 

we do that? Should we change the plans that are out there? 

Mr. MCHUGH. I can’t tell you we are changing, because I can’t 

tell you what the plans are. I can tell you that what you cited as 

the analysis process and our interaction with NATO is absolutely 

correct. From the Army’s side, we have four BCTs there. I think 

GAO tended to simplify the analysis a little bit, and it’s probably 

a matter of timing, but they tended to overlook some of the things 

that the Army has done. It costs us about $465 million just to base 

the military construction (MILCON) to bring a BCT back. 

I don’t know as they calculated what it meant for training rotations, where you want to partner up with your NATO allies to train 

as you will go to war. That has to occur in one way or another. Either we pay to get our troops to Europe or we assist our allies to 

bring their troops over here for that kind of training. I know they 

couldn’t have possibly made a value judgment on the efficacy of 

having troops available, geographically, as we’re seeing them begun 

to be utilized in Libya. Of course, that’s more than an Army issue. 

It involves naval posture and the laydown of our air assets. 

So, it’s a big issue. 

Senator SESSIONS. Wasn’t there a plan to draw down two of the 

four brigades? 

Mr. MCHUGH. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. Is that being reevaluated? 

Mr. MCHUGH. It is being evaluated. 

Senator SESSIONS. Reevaluated. A decision was made to 

bring—— 

Mr. MCHUGH. I can’t speak as to how the first decision was 

made. I assume they did evaluate it. In that context, yes, annually 

is being reevaluated. It’s being discussed with our partners. That’s 

not an Army decision to make, and it’s not an Army announcement. 

Senator SESSIONS. Doesn’t the budget call for MILCON in Germany? 

Mr. MCHUGH. Our MILCON budget does nothing but sustain 

what will be, under any circumstance, legacy forces. We do not put 

any MILCON against those two brigades. 

I should note, as well, in Germany alone, we’ve already closed 90 

Army facilities. We have plans to close another 30. That, just in 

sustainment, saves us about $265 million a year. That’s already 

done. 

Senator SESSIONS. That was inevitable as result of the Soviet 

Union’s collapse. But, regardless, I just want to tell you, I think 

that Congress is going to be looking hard at that. You’re going to 

731 

have to make some tough decisions. If you can save any money by 

bringing those brigades home, they ought to be brought home, in 

my opinion, mainly for an economic benefit to the United States. 

We just have a tough time. 

General Casey, I think we’ve had cooperation from our European 

allies. We’re happy to have that. Military men and women in uniform always go out of their way to thank them. But, they haven’t 

been that reliable. The Germans didn’t even support the no-fly zone 

in Libya. They don’t allow their soldiers to fire their weapons. I 

know they have troops in Afghanistan, and we’re supposed to say 

we’re thankful, and we are thankful, but, really, give me a break. 

I think we have to ask more of our European allies. The Japanese are paying 40 percent of our Navy and base supports in Japan 

when we deploy our military there. We’re not having the same kind 

of support out of Europe. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, to both of our gentlemen here today, for your testimony. 

Secretary McHugh, thanks for your service in the House, but 

thank you so much for your service in this new position. 

General Casey, 40 years, we’re so honored with your service. I 

really appreciate the time to have gotten to know you. Thank you 

so much. 

I’m interested in the status of the ongoing investigation of the 

sudden infant deaths that have taken place at Fort Bragg in North 

Carolina. I’m very concerned about this situation. I want to ensure 

that the Army produces a comprehensive and timely report that 

gets to the bottom of this issue and provides answers for our families at Fort Bragg. 

This is an issue of family readiness. We don’t want soldiers from 

Fort Bragg to worry about the safety of their families when they’re 

deployed. The well-being, safety, and health of our military, and especially our families and their members, is my top priority. I know 

this is something that the Army is looking at closely. I also understand that the Army is working on its own investigation to follow 

a report issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) in February. 

Can you share with me the status of the Army’s investigation 

and the projected timeline to complete this report? What will the 

report discuss? To what extent will the Army utilize the CPSC’s report in your analysis? 

Mr. MCHUGH. First of all, Senator, we deeply appreciate both 

your interest and your support. I assure you, our concern is equal 

to yours and many others of the Fort Bragg community. It is incredibly frustrating to see the loss of 12 infants, 2 of whom perished while living in the same house, and not be able to find the 

answer. 

The Army scientific analysis actually started off this process. We 

brought what we thought was every available resource to bear and 

came up negative, with no answers beyond what the medical diagnoses were, with respect to the infants who had been lost. 

732 

The CPSC that you mentioned is the most trusted Federal agency to look at these kinds of analysis. We’re very hopeful that their 

comprehensive look would help us better understand what might 

be at play here, whether it was environmental; there is a lot of talk 

about Chinese wallboard. We recently had a death of an infant who 

did not live in a home that had been refurbished with this Chinese 

wallboard, so that would rule that out, by specifics. But, there was 

no scientific analysis they did that showed any environmental 

issues; no ground, no pesticide, nothing they could identify that 

might in any way demonstrably add to the circumstance and result 

in infant deaths. 

As a third measure, I directed what we call an epidemilogical 

consultation study, which is, in essence, a specialized team, and 

they’re a very comprehensive, multidisciplinary team, with chemists, with environmental specialists, with architects. They look at 

the baseline data and do their own analysis. They have begun that 

work. I expect we’ll have a final report from them in the relatively 

near future. 

Now, I don’t have any information on their feedback, but I’ve not 

heard anything that would suggest they have found a definitive answer. If we knew that, I assure you, we’d be working on it right 

now. 

When you look at this statistically; and I don’t like to do that, 

because we’re not talking about statistics, we’re talking about three 

children. I can only imagine the grief of their families. But when 

you look at it statistically, the infant mortality rate amongst the 

Fort Bragg community is actually below that of the surrounding 

Cumberland County, I believe. 

Senator HAGAN. Right. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I’m not sure what that tells us. It doesn’t solve the 

mystery. It doesn’t solve the cluster issue. 

I can tell you this. When we run out of things to do, if someone 

thinks of something else we can do, please let us know. We don’t 

want to leave any stone unturned. But, quite honestly, from a scientific analysis perspective, we’re getting to the end of what we 

know to be the available investigatory tools. 

There was an article recently in a newspaper, where the implication was that we didn’t do a particular test, a so-called chamber 

analysis. First of all, the industry experts with whom we have spoken said that’s not the gold standard test. The one CPSC did is the 

gold standard test. But, in fact, the Army, in its original testing, 

did do a chamber test. So, we’ve done that, as well. We’ve asked 

the publisher of the magazine to correct that. I’m not sure if they 

have or they haven’t. But, I want to assure you, we did that chamber test. 

Senator HAGAN. I was not aware of that aspect. 

Mr. MCHUGH. It’s a recent development. I wasn’t aware, either. 

I said, if we hadn’t done it, we’re going to. They came back and 

have shown that we have. 

But, if there’s something we haven’t done, we need to know about 

it. I promise you, we’ll continue to work with you at every possible 

opportunity. If there’s an answer out there, we sure as heck want 

to find it. 

733 

Senator HAGAN. Secretary McHugh, thank you so much. I can 

tell that you’re very concerned about this, too. Obviously, it is a 

family readiness issue. All of these families, when this happens 

again, as it has done recently, it raises the concern and the question and the issue of the what-ifs. So, I appreciate the earnestness 

with which you have replied, and the seriousness that you’re taking on this issue. 

We certainly are awaiting the results of this new report. I really 

appreciate the fact that you have looked into this and looked at 

that other, that chamber analysis, that that’s been done, too. I 

think that’s positive. Thank you. 

General Casey, as you reflected in your prepared statement, successful implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a 

matter of professionalism, leadership, and respect. I understand 

that last week you spoke with Army units about their opinions on 

how the training program implemented last month was going. How 

are these units adapting to the training? Is the training well received and successful? 

General CASEY. Thank you, Senator. I did, I went up to Fort 

Riley, KS, and I met with different levels of the leadership. I talked 

to a group of soldiers. I talked to a group of company-grade officers, 

NCOs, and then to a group of battalion and brigade officers and 

NCOs. 

The things I took away were the following: first, the training is 

simple, and it’s effective, and it’s starting to break down the misconceptions that the soldiers had in their minds. That was played 

back, frankly, by every level. So, I think that’s a very positive 

thing. 

The second big takeaway for me, though, was, until a leader has 

to deal with it, or a soldier is confronted with it, it’s an intellectual 

discussion. So, what I took away was, this is the start of the process. We’re still doing equal opportunity and race relations, and still 

doing gender-bias training, so we’re going to be doing this for a 

while. We have directed that, for our fiscal year 2012 sexual assault and harassment training, it be prepared in a gender-neutral 

way. That’s how we intend to go forward. 

Those are the two main things that I took away. The third thing 

I would tell you is, the main concerns are not surprising. Billeting. 

Basically, if they find they have to live with a gay/lesbian soldier. 

I emphasized to the commanders that we’re not going to have segregated billets, but the commanders do have discretion to adjust 

the billets to suit people’s needs and benefits. People understand 

that benefits aren’t going to change substantially unless the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed. But, they’re very apprehensive 

about the fact that they perceive that might happen. 

Then, the last thing I’d say is, there still is a lot of concern 

among the very religious element of our population. They’re wrestling harder with this, I would think, than the others. 

So, those were the four big takeaways from my visit. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Hagan. Thank 

you for raising that issue with the General. 

Senator Shaheen. 

734 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary McHugh and General Casey, thank you both very 

much for being here, and for all that you do to ensure that our men 

and women in the military are prepared to serve every day. 

I know that my colleague, Senator Ayotte, has already had a 

chance to ask you about something that we’re very concerned about 

in New Hampshire. One of the benefits of having two of us from 

the same State on the committee is that we can double-team you. 

So, I do want to reemphasize what she had to say about the New 

Hampshire National Guard’s Full Cycle Deployment Program, and 

I appreciated your remarks, Secretary McHugh, about it being a 

national leader. 

You may already know this, but the data that they have collected 

on the program is very impressive, because what they found is that 

the military members involved in New Hampshire’s Full Cycle Deployment Program are eight times more likely to be treated for previously untreated mental health issues. They’re four times more 

likely to stay married. They’re four times more likely to stay in the 

military. They’re five times less likely to be homeless. So, clearly, 

it has had a huge success rate. I think, most importantly, the program has a suicide prevention component that means that every 

single returning Guard member who is considered at risk of suicide 

is in an active prevention program. I know you pointed out that you’re requesting $1.7 billion to fund 

soldier and family programs. I just wondered if you had considered 

whether there was any component of that that might be used as 

a grant program to really help some of these State initiatives that 

have been very successful. 

General CASEY. The short answer is, I had not considered any of 

that $1.7 billion going to grant programs. But, a portion of that 

$1.7 billion does go to the guardsmen and reservists for their family support, family readiness programs, and for suicide prevention 

programs. That is not strictly for the Active Force. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

General CASEY. It is for the total force. 

I really appreciate the initiative that the State has taken on this, 

and especially the public-private partnership nature of it. It’s important in two ways, that the private partnership allows you to do 

things that we can’t necessarily do. But, and this is one of the main 

reasons why I think we have to continue to find the best way to 

use the Guard and Reserve, because it ties the population to what 

we’re doing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

General CASEY. When they’re actually contributing, I think it’s a 

huge statement. Our soldiers see that. It sends a signal to them 

that the American public appreciates what they’re doing, and that’s 

priceless. 

So, I had not considered a grant program. It’s something we certainly can take on board and think about. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I would urge you to think about that, given 

that there are State initiatives, not just in New Hampshire, but in 

other States around the country, that may use the unique circumstances in those States to develop programs that are directed 

at those unique circumstances that may address some of those 

735 

needs in a way that’s different and, in some cases, I hesitate to say, 

better, but than some of the national initiatives. 

I know you’re aware that this program had been funded through 

congressionally directed spending, and, given the changed circumstances in Congress, that’s not going to be available any more. 

It’s one of those things that I think we should still be funding 

through congressionally directed spending. But, since I’m not in the 

majority on that, I understand that that’s changed. Hopefully we 

can find a way to deal with these kinds of successes, even though 

we’re not able to do that sort of earmarking. 

I also wanted to just express what I know others here have said 

about the MEADS program, and just urge, again, that the administration and you all look at how we can get our international partners to help us cooperate to address the issues that have been 

raised with that program. 

Finally, one of the other areas that I’ve been very concerned 

about is what’s happening with R&D and with the new development of the engineers and the scientists and the mathematicians 

that the military’s going to need for the future. In New Hampshire, 

we have a very strong defense industry. We have the Army Corps’ 

Cold Region Lab. As you all know, so much of the innovation and 

the technological advances in the country have come from the R&D 

that the military has done. DOD employs about 67 percent of all 

Federal scientists and engineers, and 90 percent of all Federal mechanical engineers, which is an extraordinary number. Unfortunately, the average age of our DOD engineers is 53. 

So, what are we doing, given the current personnel and hiring 

freezes, to ensure that we’re attracting the new engineers and 

mathematicians and scientists that we’re going to need for the future? Are you confident that we’re able to bring in the people that 

we need? 

Mr. MCHUGH. I wished I could say I was. But, this is an area 

of incredible challenge, not just for the U.S. military for the Nation, 

as I know you’re aware. Our access to that pool becomes more and 

more difficult with each passing year. It’s much more than that 

now, but the Military Academy at West Point was, at one time, totally an engineer school. We have a little license on those young 

people when they graduate, and we try to make good use of them. 

Similarly, through the ROTC program, we’re looking very carefully 

to make sure that we’re sustaining programs on campuses where 

those kinds of students tend to come from. 

But, I think the challenge for us, particularly, is in the civilian 

area. We are bound by certain pay bands that, many times, are not 

competitive with the outside sector. That becomes more and more 

true as supply-and-demand realities come to bear, as well. 

We want to use every available resource and opportunity, but, 

like the Nation as a whole, this is an area of great challenge right 

now that’s only going to become more difficult. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. My time is up. But, notwithstanding the concern that everyone here has expressed, and I know 

we all understand about the debt and deficit situation of the country, this is an area where I think we would be very interested in 

working on what else we need to do to make sure that we’re trainVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00741 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
736 

ing the future scientists and mathematicians that we need for the 

country. Thank you for your response. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First, to General Casey, as everyone has said here, thank you 

very much for your service and what you have done for our country, but also the work in the last 2 years with our office. I just 

want to say, personally, thank you for that. 

Also, I’d take this moment, only because sitting behind you is one 

of our former fellows, Lieutenant Colonel Jim DeLapp, and I know 

he’s going off to command. I hope the year he spent with us did 

not cause any problems for his advancement, but I’m hoping it enhanced his opportunities. We were very pleased. The Fellows program is a fantastic program that I hope every Senator takes advantage of, because it really does bring some incredible talent to our 

offices. Hopefully, we don’t spin them the wrong way, and that they 

can continue to have forward advancement after they finish with 

us. 

General CASEY. Actually, we’re very satisfied with the program, 

too. It’s what we call a broadening experience for our young leaders. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

General CASEY. It’s very productive for us, as well. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. 

Mr. Secretary, as we’ve had a conversation over the last couple 

of days, another thank you in regards to this 16th Aviation Combat 

Brigade. Thank you for all the work you’ve done there, even though 

we had a split with Washington, I think, at the end, it is a statement by the Army, how Alaska fits into the global picture of national defense. I can tell you, the folks in Fairbanks were very 

happy to hear the news in regards to the continued stationing of 

a significant portion of those assets there in Alaska, for both of 

you. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the conversations we’ve had over 

the last year, and tolerating those conversations from our office. I 

greatly appreciate that. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I appreciated the input. One of the very first Hill 

visits I had, when I became Secretary, was to your office. You were 

very gracious in seeing me. You pressed that issue early and, I 

should say, often. I thank you for that kind of engagement. It does 

help us to focus on what we need to focus upon; that is, the strategic location, the value of what happens up around Fort Wainwright in the great State of Alaska. I think it was a good decision. 

I appreciate your support in that. We’re looking forward to a good, 

long, happy future in the great State of Alaska. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. Thank you very much. 

I want to add a little bit to what Senator Shaheen said. We introduced a piece of legislation on science, technology, engineering, and 

math (STEM), but it made me think of an idea, and I just want 

to put this to you. I’m wondering if there’s a value, as we look at 

DOD authorization, if we need to look at on-school bases, and 

maybe, some specialized program regarding STEM. Obviously 

they’re all military dependents going to those schools, and the high 

likelihood is, there’s a higher percentage that are dependents that 

737 

will go on to military service. Maybe there’s a value to look at those 

and see if there’s a way to incentivize, within those schools that are 

on base, the STEM education. 

I think it’s worth exploring, because I agree 100 percent with 

Senator Shaheen that this a huge gap. Like you said, it’s not just 

in the military, it is nationally. We are so far behind. But, in our 

military infrastructure, maybe there’s a way to enhance the educational opportunities that we do have for our young people who 

are dependents of military personnel, and STEM is a great opportunity. 

I don’t know if you have any quick comments on that. 

Mr. MCHUGH. We firmly commit ourselves to looking at every option and every potential avenue to help expand this pool and to 

help put more young people in the programs that’ll produce the engineers that we, as a military and the Nation as a whole are going 

to need. So, we’ll take a look at that. I don’t want to sit here now 

and tell you that’s an idea that can absolutely work. But, it’s certainly an idea that we will take a look at. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s all I’m asking, because it just jogged me, 

as I’m sitting here and listening, there’s maybe something to merge 

there. 

General CASEY. Let me, if I could, just chime in here. 

Senator BEGICH. Sure. 

General CASEY. It’s also something that lends itself to public-private partnership. 

Senator BEGICH. Absolutely. 

General CASEY. Getting the industries involved in the school, I 

think, is a high payoff. 

We recently started five pilot programs with the National Association of State Boards of Education and Junior ROTC. We just 

kicked it off with Secretary Duncan in Kentucky a couple of weeks 

ago. What we tried to do is get the National Association of State 

Boards, so there’s a local commitment to the program, a cadet 

corps, like Junior ROTC, that puts the values and the civics and 

the physical aspects to it, and then to match that with business, 

putting in things that drive math and science skills. I think that 

has a lot of promise. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s great to hear that. I’d be anxious, as you 

explore it and see if there’s some additional work we can do. I 

think that’s a great initiative. 

Mr. Secretary, you know one of the subjects I’m going to bring 

up is Fairbanks housing. I’m sure you’re prepared for this, but it’s 

the 801 housing. The GAO report talked about how to deal with 

the inventory, and maybe not depleting, but consider additional 

leases or long-term leases. In Alaska specifically, we have the 

Birchwood property, which expires in 2018, a private-sector development, and you know a lot about it. 

But, I guess, with not knowing the total footprint, and I know 

there’s been some discussion of some new developments that might 

be on that property, I’m going to continue to push that. In order 

for that good public-sector/private-sector partnership that’s there 

and an important tax base for our Fairbanks community and, I 

think, a quality housing project that can and should provide housing for the military. What is the status? What is the long-term outVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00743 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
738 

look, in regards to that lease? I actually meant to talk to you about 

this on the phone, but I was so happy about the other news, I 

didn’t want to go down another path. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I appreciate the question. As you may be aware, 

we’ve notified your office, but you’re busy. I visited there, personally in an effort to try to have a full and most complete understanding of that. Very frankly, what we try to do is provide the 

local commander a lot of leeway, because he is the one who’s in 

charge of helping to plot the future of that base and obviously is 

a person who’s most concerned about its future viability. After 

housing analysis, looking at available equal-value, equal-quality 

residences throughout the outside-the-gate community, looking at 

pricing and looking at the condition of homes and, most importantly, looking at the property upon which those 801 housing lease 

units sit, as one of the few pieces of land where permafrost on the 

base does not exist, where they can actually go in and use it to create the kinds of facilities that we feel very strongly are necessary 

to ensure the future liability of the base itself. We have notified the 

leaseholder that our intent is not to renew the lease past the upcoming termination date, and that his requirements under the 

lease are known to him, and expected that he’ll follow through. 

Senator BEGICH. As yesterday was a good-news day, today is not 

a good-news day when I hear that, and here’s why. Our bases are 

not measured in hundreds of acres in Alaska, they’re measured in 

thousands of acres. Fairbanks has a high percentage of permafrost 

and various elements; and Alaska is known to build on anything, 

everywhere. So, I understand that they have a plan, which we 

learned about recently, but no long-term funding for it. The type 

of facility they’re thinking about on there is difficult, not only in 

these times, but in past times, to get resources for. I’ll be very 

frank with you, I’m concerned about the plan that showed up, after 

a year of discussion, and has a pricetag of over $220-plus million. 

It’s a small percentage of land that the proprietors of the property 

indicated that they would utilize and upgrade to the level that the 

military wanted, as well as provide the pricing that they want, at 

any point, at any time. I’m a little disturbed, just to be frank with 

you, because of how it’s evolved. 

I agree with you, the local commander shifts out every 2 years. 

When I was Mayor, I went through four different commanders in 

Anchorage. So, I’m concerned. I just want to stress that with you 

greatly here. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I appreciate that, Senator. I can’t sit here right 

now and tell you what the Future Years Defense Program is for 

that particular plan, but I promise you, we’ll take a look at it, and 

we’ll try to get you a better laydown as to what we see is the way 

forward. 

I’m not an engineer, I don’t play one on TV, but our engineers 

have said that, while it’s true, you can construct on permafrost. Obviously, Alaska’s a pretty good example of that. It adds pretty dramatically to the cost, et cetera, et cetera. This was always the way 

forward. The terms of this lease are not a surprise to anyone. 

Senator BEGICH. No, I understand that. 

Mr. MCHUGH. We are concerned, as well, while having units is 

one thing, many of the units no longer meet the minimal standards 

739 

of size that we have in the Army. I don’t want to treat you unfairly 

and give you pieces here and there. I promise you, we’ll get back 

to you with a more complete answer. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

In reference to the question about Birchwood being built on permafrost, the Fairbanks area is considered to be in a discontinuous permafrost area, meaning that depending on the location, the land may or may not have permafrost. There are some 

visual key indicators where the probability of permafrost is much higher. Two of 

those indicators are, areas where nothing but black spruce trees are growing and 

north facing slopes. An examination of Fort Wainwright’s historic photo archive 

shows the entire northern portion of Birchwood (north of Swanson Loop) was completely cleared of permafrost prior to 1956 and was used primarily as a pipe laydown yard and open-air storage. The area of Birchwood south of Swanson Loop had 

not been stripped, but had been significantly cleared prior to 1956. 

Although Fort Wainwright has a land area of over 1 million acres, the cantonment 

area is significantly less. The main cantonment area consists of approximately 

13,408 acres. Additionally, once on the cantonment area, developable land is significantly reduced due to acreage for the airfield, flight restriction zones, range areas, 

wetlands, historic districts, and areas where there is no utility infrastructure. 

The Birchwood site is the last piece of significant developable land in the cantonment area at Fort Wainwright. The land at the Birchwood site has been master 

planned for specific facility types that will require replacement in the out years once 

the Birchwood housing is demolished in 2018 by the developer in accordance with 

the provisions of the ground-lease. The development of the long-range installation 

real property master plan takes into consideration the installation’s long-term development strategy. The redevelopment of the Birchwood site into a community area 

remains the long-term plan as a means to recapitalize existing facilities. The shortrange component of the master plan integrates real property master planning into 

the Army’s budgetary and operational planning processes. Given that the Birchwood 

site is encumbered, the earliest opportunity to begin construction is 2019. Project 

submissions for consideration into the fiscal years 2015 to 2019 Future Years Defense Plan will begin in 2013. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Any other questions? [No response.] 

If not, we thank you both. Thank you again, especially General 

Casey, for 4 decades-plus. Thank you for bringing your guests this 

morning. We honor them as well as we honor you. 

Secretary McHugh, thank you for your great service, as well. 

We’ll stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR E. BENJAMIN NELSON

MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM

1. Senator NELSON. Secretary McHugh, the Department of Defense (DOD) has decided to modify the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) with Germany 

and Italy because of cost overruns and schedule delays. As I understand it, DOD 

plans to continue the development program to a proof-of-concept stage, within the 

time limit and funding limit provided in the tri-national program agreement; meaning there is about $800 million to go. The other two options considered, but rejected, 

were to terminate the program, or to increase the funding by more than $1 billion 

and increase the schedule by at least 30 months. If we terminate the program unilaterally, I understand we would be liable for all termination costs, which could be 

as much as $845 million. I want to understand the most cost-effective and beneficial 

way forward. If we proceed with the proof-of-concept program, as proposed, what do 

we get for the $800 million, and how does it benefit our security? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Proceeding with the proof-of-concept program allows the 

United States to complete our current commitments under the international Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This course of action enables the MEADS partners to harvest technology and design know-how from our investments to date, and 

740 

would place the Design and Development (D&D) program on stable footing should 

Germany and/or Italy wish to continue a MEADS development and production effort 

after the current MOU funding is expended. Terminating the program now, just 

after successful completion of the MEADS Critical Design Review, would force the 

nations to devote significant funding to contract termination costs instead of using 

this funding to bring MEADS development to a viable level of maturity. Terminating now would also increase risk of civil litigation costs. The remaining efforts 

that will bring the MOU to completion allow the United States to gain as much intellectual capital as possible to help inform future investments and development 

while assisting the partners to be more capable of addressing defense challenges in 

the future. 

2. Senator NELSON. Secretary McHugh, I understand that if the three nations 

were to agree jointly to terminate MEADS—rather than proceeding with the proofof-concept program—all three would share in the termination costs. Have the three 

nations discussed or considered the option of termination on a cost-shared basis? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Department senior leadership has explored mutual termination with Italy and Germany, and they have clearly stated they have no interest 

in pursuing this course of action. Thus, there has been no detailed discussion by the 

three partner nations about executing a mutual termination. 

3. Senator NELSON. Secretary McHugh, if that were to happen, what would be the 

cost to the United States? 

Secretary MCHUGH. To date, the NATO program office has not requested a contract termination proposal to detail all costs, and there is no indication that such 

a termination will be requested by any of the three countries. Should there be a mutual termination, there are several points that must be considered to calculate the 

total liability. Termination costs would be driven by existing obligations like long 

lead item procurements and orders, targets, test and integration infrastructure, and 

other support costs (lease, support contractors, et cetera). Recent estimates of U.S. 

costs in a mutual termination scenario are on the order of $300 million. 

4. Senator NELSON. Secretary McHugh, have the three nations made a decision 

yet on the way forward and, if so, what is that decision? If not, what is the path 

going forward for reaching a decision? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes. The United States has decided that the best course of 

action is to continue the D&D phase by providing funding up to the agreed MOU 

cost ceiling of $4 billion (in 2004 dollars). We proposed to our MEADS partners that 

we focus remaining activities on implementing a proof-of-concept effort with the remaining MOU funds. This will provide a meaningful capability for Germany and 

Italy and a possible future option for the United States. Consistent with the current 

MOU cost ceiling, this refocused proof-of-concept D&D program will end by 2014. 

This course of action enables the MEADS partners to harvest technology from our 

large investment to date, and would place the D&D program on stable footing 

should Germany and/or Italy wish to continue a MEADS development and production effort after the current MOU funding is expended. Terminating the program 

now, just after successful completion of the MEADS Critical Design Review, would 

force the nations to devote significant funding to contractor termination costs instead of using this funding to bring MEADS development to a viable level of maturity. At the most recent MEADS Board of Directors meeting, both Germany and 

Italy supported pursuing the proof-of-concept. 

5. Senator NELSON. Secretary McHugh, is there any other option you are aware 

of that would give us the best security result for the least cost? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army is developing plans to integrate Patriot components into the Integrated Air and Missile Defense network, mitigating MEADS 

shortfalls, and allowing the United States to employ more flexible and effective task 

force configurations. Additional upgrades will enhance Patriot against evolving 

threats, leveraging the additional range and lethality afforded by the missile segment enhancement missile. Enhancements and continued sustainment/modernization will keep Patriot relevant and ready beyond 2025. 

741 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

LANGUAGE SKILLS AND CULTURAL AWARENESS

6. Senator SHAHEEN. General Casey, combatant commanders are increasingly 

identifying requirements for incoming units to be equipped with measurable language skills and cultural awareness before deploying to theater. Could you comment 

of the importance the Army attaches to these capabilities and any initiatives the 

Service is planning in its 2012 budget? 

General CASEY. We recognize the tactical and strategic value of cultural training 

and culturally-based language training for full spectrum operations. The Army has 

mandated language and cultural familiarization for every deploying soldier plus 

more extensive language proficiency training requirements for select personnel at 

the platoon level. We continue to refine language and culture training requirements 

to meet future demands. 

In November 2009, the Commander, International Security Assistance Force 

(ISAF) stated all soldiers deploying to the Afghan theater should be trained in the 

Dari language to enable rapport building with Afghan civilians and Afghan security 

forces. 

In 2010, the Army instituted a training campaign to meet ISAF guidance with the 

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) as the main effort 

for training soldiers. The Army established General Purpose Force Language Training Detachments (LTD) at Forts Carson, Campbell, and Drum, and at Schofield Barracks. After 16 weeks of training, soldiers who achieve a certain level of proficiency 

are designated Language Enabled. 

The Army approved $6 million in Overseas Contingency Operations funding for 

the initial establishment of LTDs in fiscal year 2010. The Office of the Secretary 

of Defense approved $29.38 million in LTD expansion funding for fiscal year 2011. 

In fiscal year 2012, LTD funding increases to $32.39 million. 

In July 2010, the Army published standards requiring one soldier per deploying 

platoon to train to a minimum standard in the appropriate strategic language at 

an LTD or via an 80- to 100-hour distributed learning (DL) platform called Head 

Start 2. Pre-deployment guidance also established the Rapport Program as a broader training requirement for all deploying soldiers. Rapport is a web-based DL platform available in Dari, Pashtu, and Iraqi Arabic. Both Rapport and Head Start 2 

are funded through DLIFLC’s training development budget. 

In addition to culturally-based language training initiatives, Army Training and 

Doctrine Command implemented a strategy to increase its cultural content in Professional Military Education. The effort will continue to mature in fiscal year 2012 

as the Army develops greater understanding of specific knowledge requirements for 

each career series. 

NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS

7. Senator SHAHEEN. Secretary McHugh, since the onset of the conflicts in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the Army has procured large numbers of night vision goggle systems to meet evolving requirements associated with combat and counter-terror operations. A limited number of companies are capable of producing this technology and 

to meet these urgent needs, industrial base capacity had to be expanded accordingly. 

Do you anticipate that night vision systems will remain critical capabilities into the 

foreseeable future? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes, we anticipate that night vision systems will remain critical to enabling the soldier to dominate the night in full spectrum warfare. They 

have been a significant combat multiplier for situational awareness, lethality, and 

force protection. 

8. Senator SHAHEEN. Secretary McHugh, what concerns do you have regarding the 

Army’s ability to maintain night vision goggle production capacity and core competencies as the Army leadership confronts future funding reductions and reduced 

procurements? 

Secretary MCHUGH. In 2005, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) authorized investment of $80 million to rapidly expand Image 

Intensifier (I2) tube production capacity to meet increased wartime demand for the 

Army and the Marine Corps. In 2009, the Army completed procuring its passive 

viewing systems and the Marine Corps is close to doing the same. Army production 

deliveries are on schedule to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2012. Current 

estimates indicate that fiscal years 2013 to 2017 I2 quantities are <50 percent of 

peak production and other night vision technologies are also experiencing reduction 

742 

in demand. These changes in demand raise concerns about cost, workforce reductions, and capability. Industrial base capability is important, and we, in coordination with OSD and the other Services, will continue to look at options to meet future 

challenges. 

9. Senator SHAHEEN. Secretary McHugh, how does the Army plan to address these 

concerns? 

Secretary MCHUGH. To date, the Army’s Program Management Office responsible 

for soldier-borne sensors and lasers is developing courses of action to mitigate 

sustainment rate concerns. They are also the lead of a multi-Service working group 

developing a recommended draw-down plan for DOD approval by the end of the calendar year. 

10. Senator SHAHEEN. Secretary McHugh, what steps do you believe need to be 

taken in order to preserve an economical, competitive framework for night vision 

tube production? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I think we all recognize that the current rates of production 

for night vision devices is at its peak due to our present day operations tempo. The 

Army will continue to maintain a transparent dialog with industry partners regarding production rates and also cooperatively develop ideas to minimize the impact of 

downsizing future requirements. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM

11. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary McHugh, I was informed that operational testing (OT) to support an initial production decision for several thousand radios is 

scheduled within approximately 2 months after the government developmental testing (DT) for the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Manpack system. Given past 

problematic developmental testing results for this system that required extensive 

modifications, is it realistic to believe that the time between DT and OT is sufficient 

for a major acquisition program? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes, it is realistic to believe the time between DT and OT 

is sufficient for the JTRS program. The hardware design is stable and the remaining testing involves the software. The JTRS Handheld, Manpack, Small Form Fit 

(HMS) program conducted a Network Excursion (a DT event) in March 2011 demonstrating improved situational awareness and small unit effectiveness using the 

Army’s network. The Network Excursion also assessed the JTRS radios and waveform’s ability to support tactical data requirements. The excursion demonstrated integration between HMS Manpack, Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, and 

Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below. The Network Excursion also successfully demonstrated connecting the dismounted force to the Global Information 

Grid. 

The HMS Manpack will participate in a series of DT and OT test events to build 

program decision data and confidence over the next 7 months. The decision data accumulated through these Test-Analyze-Fix series of DT events will ultimately support a decision whether to proceed with procurement under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) at a production decision brief yet to be scheduled. 

The HMS Manpack is currently undergoing a formal DT event at Fort Huachuca, 

AZ. It will be further tested in the Army’s Network Integration Exercise (NIE) (an 

additional DT event) scheduled June-July fiscal year 2011, the Network Integration 

Rehearsal (NIR) (an additional DT event) scheduled October fiscal year 2012, and 

the Rifleman Radio Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) (an additional 

OT event) scheduled November fiscal year 2012. 

These five test efforts will result in metrics and decision data accumulation, to 

support independent assessment of the capability provided by the HMS Manpack for 

the warfighter. In addition, the tests will also provide DOD the data necessary for 

any further acquisitions regarding the HMS Manpack. 

12. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary McHugh, does it make sense to support the entire programmatic request for the development and production in fiscal year 2012? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes, fiscal year 2012 funding allows DOD to finalize the design of the Ground Mobile Radio, Handheld Manpack Small Form Fit and the Multi 

User Objective System satellite communications waveform. Fiscal year 2012 funding 

also supports the addition of critical communications waveforms to the entire JTRS 

family of systems, development and integration of a JTRS capability for the Shadow 

743 

Unmanned Aircraft System, as well as completion of testing to support LRIP. Fiscal 

year 2012 funding procures sufficient quantities for LRIP with follow-on delivery to 

eight Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) in fiscal year 2013. A reduction in fiscal year 2012 funding would result in a corresponding reduction in funds available 

for procurement of any commercially developed network modernization alternatives. 

MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM

13. Senator GILLIBRAND. Secretary McHugh, hearing a number of questions today 

about the MEADS program, I would like to understand what specific national security goals for the United States and our allies were to be served by the program, 

how a cancelation of the program will address those goals, and what will be the cost 

to DOD of the alternatives to fielding MEADS? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Both Patriot and MEADS were designed to deter and defeat 

the growing Tactical Ballistic Missile and Cruise Missile threat to U.S. forces and 

to our allies. The Army will work to improve Patriot to mitigate the cancellation 

of MEADS. We expect funding requirements for that effort will be determined within the next year. Near-term improvements to Patriot will not only afford greater 

protection for our warfighters, but will enable 11 key allies to improve their defenses as well through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS

SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT

14. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the number of 

service men and women experiencing significant financial problems with their mortgage companies and banks is unfortunately well known. While the operational 

tempo (OPTEMPO) of our Armed Forces will hopefully decrease following the withdrawal of our combat forces from Iraq, the OPTEMPO will likely still remain high 

and we will continue to rely on our Reserve components to meet operational requirements for the foreseeable future. With this in mind and if private lenders continue 

to willfully violate or negligently ignore the provisions of the Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act (SCRA), what adjustments do you believe may be necessary to that Act 

to protect the interests of our service men and women? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. While the SCRA provides many statutory 

protections designed to mitigate some of the hardships inherent in transitioning 

onto Active Duty, the unscrupulous and otherwise illegal acts of certain lenders still 

harm our servicemembers and their families despite the Congress’ best efforts to 

protect servicemembers from such conduct. Fortunately, Congress recently took 

steps to strengthen SCRA enforcement through the passage of the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010. This provided for civil enforcement by the Attorney General in certain circumstances and increased civil penalties in cases where the violator engaged 

in a pattern or practice of violating the SCRA or engaged in conduct which raised 

an issue of significant public importance. The Veterans’ Benefit Act also provided 

servicemembers the ability to seek the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs when they prevail in a private cause of action to enforce the SCRA’s 

protections. 

We recommend the SCRA be amended to provide both increased criminal penalties for its willful or negligent violation as well as the inclusion of significant civil 

penalties for all violations, not just those involving a pattern or practice of such violations. Absent increased penalties for its violation, SCRA noncompliance may be 

seen by some lenders to be a calculated business risk that they are willing to take, 

given the potential for increased profits with little perceived downside. 

UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT

15. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects millions of 

people, largely National Guard and Reserve members, as they transition between 

their Federal duties and civilian employment. The Act is intended to eliminate or 

minimize civilian employment disadvantages resulting from service in the Reserve 

components and protect the rights of those members when they deploy. Since September 11, 2001, over 500,000 citizen soldiers have been mobilized to fight the war 

on terrorism. Many American soldiers have served more than one tour of duty and 

may be required to serve more. 

744 

Additionally, the need for American troops in other parts of the world and at 

home continues, whether for conflict management or in response to natural disasters. While some would argue that it is statistically reasonable for the number of 

employment discrimination complaints filed by service men and women during this 

time period to have increased—based on the number of deployments—the data 

needed to make such a judgment remains incomplete. 

Furthermore, data from a 2004 DOD survey showed that at least 72 percent of 

National Guard and Reserve members with USERRA problems never sought assistance for their problems, raising questions as to whether complaint numbers alone 

can fully explain USERRA compliance or employer support. Finally, the time it 

takes to process USERRA complaints, while somewhat improved, remains unacceptable when you are speaking in terms of whether or not a veteran and/or his family 

will lose their home due to a negligent or willfully mistaken foreclosure action. 

In light of these factors, do you see the need for any changes to USERRA to address these issues or provide additional protection to our Guard and Reserve members? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. Since September 11, 2001, more than 

800,000 members of the Reserve component (RC) have been called to Active Duty 

in support of our Nation. This includes more than 197,000 Army Reserve members. 

While there have been a handful of high profile USERRA related cases brought by 

RC servicemembers against employers during this time, statistics demonstrate that 

these situations are not representative of the experience of our reservists and national guardsmen. 

In an effort to ensure that reservists are fully informed of both their rights and 

their responsibilities under the USERRA law, units are briefed on a regular basis. 

This includes briefings which occur immediately before and after mobilization. reservists are also provided with information regarding the resources and services 

available to them, including those available through DOD’s Employer Support of the 

Guard and Reserve organization should the servicemember believe that their employer has violated USERRA. 

The vast majority of the employers of our citizen-soldiers have been very supportive of their employees’ military service. We urge caution with respect to placing 

increased legislative requirements upon our Nation’s employers; it is important that 

employers are encouraged to hire Reserve soldiers. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

CARBINE COMPETITION

16. Senator GRAHAM. Secretary McHugh, in today’s budgetary climate our need 

to cut back and control spending while maintaining defense capabilities is increasingly important. Given this, before you decided to begin the new carbine competition, what type of analysis of alternatives (AOA) did you conduct to examine existing capabilities? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army waived the AOA because the combat development 

leadership felt it was not required to support the Individual Carbine (IC) program. 

The program will execute a commercial off-the-shelf/nondevelopmental items system 

competition. At the end of the competition, the Army will conduct a Business Case 

Analysis (BCA) on fielding the winning carbine versus maintaining the current carbine. The BCA will use data collected during the test and evaluation of the IC candidates. Key Performance Parameters and Key Systems Attributes in the IC Capability Development Document were baselined on the current M4 carbine capability 

as directed by the Army Requirements Oversight Counsel. Therefore an AOA would 

not produce relevant information in support of the program. 

17. Senator GRAHAM. Secretary McHugh, did the Army conduct an AOA? If not, 

please provide me with the documentation your office approved in granting a waiver 

for this critical step in the acquisition process. 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Individual Carbine action office forwarded a request to 

waive the AOA to the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) as part of the request for 

a Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Review. I have included both the request 

for the waiver and the AAE’s approval of that request in his Acquisition Decision 

Memorandum from the MDD Review. 

18. Senator GRAHAM. Secretary McHugh, in December 2010, Program Executive 

Office (PEO) Soldier through Picatinny Arsenal, received an unsolicited proposal to 

obtain the Combat Assault Rifle (CAR)—formerly the Special Operations Combat 

745 

Assault Rifle (SCAR)—Technical Data Package (TDP). This package would provide 

taxpayers a savings of $30+ million associated with the carbine competition, and 

minimized acquisition timelines since the CAR has already completed 6 years of research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), and fired over 3 million rounds 

of ammunition. In fact, the SCAR is already deployed in combat where one Special 

Operations soldier stated, ‘‘the result of the SCAR–H rollout had a catastrophic effect on the enemy and their morale.’’ By the Army owning the TDP, similar to how 

the Army owns the M4 TDP, the Army would be able to have a full and open competition on continued development and manufacturing of an already competed and 

tested solution. Ultimately, this would save taxpayers millions of dollars and provide our soldiers with a solution sooner rather than much later. Why did the Army 

fail to seriously consider this opportunity and instead chose to begin another carbine 

competition, essentially duplicating what has already been done for the past 7 

years? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Secretary of the Army Geren directed a full and open competition for a new carbine by memorandum, dated October 2, 2008. On October 14, 

2008, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009 stated that: ‘‘If the small arms capabilities 

based assessments by the Army identifies gaps in small arms capabilities and the 

Secretary of the Army determines that a new individual weapon is required to address such gaps, the Secretary shall procure the new individual weapon using full 

and open competition. Full and open competition is described in Section 143 as competition among all responsible manufacturers that: 

(A) is open to all developmental item solutions and non-developmental item solutions; and 

(B) provides for the award of a contract based on selection criteria that reflect the 

key performance parameters and attributes identified in a service requirements document approved by the Army.’’ 

Procuring new weapons with the TDP for SCAR would not meet the requirements 

by law. 

19. Senator GRAHAM. Secretary McHugh, what assurances can you give me that 

the results of the new carbine competition will consider true best value, that is a 

competitive procurement cost coupled with due consideration of the total life cycle 

cost of the new carbine, rather than simply awarding the contract to the lowest bidder? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The IC procurement strategy is being conducted as a full and 

open competition to ensure that the soldier receives the best overall weapon at the 

best value to the taxpayer. Full and open competition permits the Army to pursue 

all commercially available advances in small arms capabilities. IC candidates will 

be evaluated against a number of factors, including accuracy, reliability/durability, 

fielding, manufacturing capability, and operational and supportability impacts, in 

addition to cost. At the latter stages of the competition, a Limited User Evaluation 

will be conducted in order to obtain user assessment of the system. At the end of 

the competition, a formal business case analysis will be conducted to consider the 

performance, life-cycle cost, and terms and conditions of the selected system compared to the current carbine. The activities described above are all intended to 

achieve the best value. 

M240 PRODUCTION

20. Senator GRAHAM. General Casey, what is the status of the Army’s M240 production, for both the M240B and M240L? 

General CASEY. M240B: There are two producers of the M240B, Fabrique 

Nationale Manufacturing Inc. (FNMI) and Colt Defense. FNMI will complete Army 

deliveries in May 2011. Colt Defense is providing First Article Test (FAT) weapons 

in April; given a successful FAT, production deliveries will begin in July 2011 and 

will run through July 2012. This will complete the Army’s buy of M240Bs. 

M240L: FNMI is currently the only producer of the M240L and will complete delivery of the 4,500 LRIP weapons by October 2011. The Army is looking at options 

to pursue a sole source bridge contract with FNMI to maintain production of the 

M240L while a competitive contract can be competed and awarded. 

21. Senator GRAHAM. General Casey, are you aware of the potential year-long 

break in production and associated costs that might occur beginning as soon as this 

year due to the Army’s contracting process and the unique technical M240L manufacturing requirements? 

746 

General CASEY. The Army is aware of this potential break and is considering options to avoid a break in production, to include awarding a bridge contract to maintain deliveries until a competitive production contract is awarded. 

22. Senator GRAHAM. General Casey, what is the Army doing to address this 

break in production and the possible increase in overall procurement cost of the system that has resulted from this acquisition decision? 

General CASEY. The Army is considering options to avoid a break in production, 

to include the option of a bridge contract with FNMI that will mitigate the impact 

of a break by allowing FNMI to continue production of the M240L until a competitive award can be made. We anticipate cost savings as a result of a competitive production award. 

23. Senator GRAHAM. General Casey, in order to lighten the soldier’s load and provide him with the best machine gun possible, have you considered replacing M240B 

models with L models on a one-for-one basis as the Bs are withdrawn from service, 

sent back to depot for refurbishment, and then reserved for FMS? This would provide the Armed Forces with a follow-on medium machine gun that is as reliable, 

lighter, and more compact than the current M240B. Please comment on this. 

General CASEY. Yes, in reviewing the basis of issue for the M240L, consideration 

was given to replacing all of the weapons versus select weapons within the formation. Priority was given to replacing all of the dismounted weapons within the formation. Availability of titanium, cost, and production time were all considered in determining the final basis of issue. The same short barrel and collapsible butt stock 

is being developed for both the M240L and M240B. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

ARMY ACQUISITION REFORM

24. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, according to the final report of the 2010 

Army Acquisition Review, from 1990 to 2010, the Army terminated 22 Major Defense Acquisition Programs of record before completion. The report notes that, 

‘‘Every year since 1996, the Army has spent more than $1 billion annually on programs that were ultimately cancelled.’’ Since 2004, $3.3 billion to $3.8 billion per 

year (35 percent to 45 percent) of the Army’s RDT&E funding has been lost to cancelled programs. In my view, this represents extremely poor stewardship of taxpayers’ dollars. What are the primary factors in the Army acquisition process that 

have caused these program cancellations, and what is your department doing to end 

this decade-long trend of sunk costs on weapon systems that will never be deployed? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army Acquisition Review Panel submitted its report in 

February 2011. It included 76 recommendations in 4 broad areas that extend across 

various Army organizations. Those broad areas address requirements generation, 

risk management, organizational alignment, and resources. I have directed the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA(ALT)) 

to assess those recommendations. The ASA(ALT) will provide specific recommendations for implementation of those portions of the report which are judged to improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the Army’s acquisition process. That initial assessment is due to me in April. Following that, I will determine the path forward on 

implementation of the recommendations. 

25. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force, 

Rapid Fielding Initiatives, and Rapid Acquisition Processes, which bypass the 

Army’s current acquisition process, have been successful in developing, modifying, 

and fielding important and critically needed capabilities for our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, who face ever-changing enemy threats. One recommendation by the 

Army Acquisition Review to make the Army’s acquisition process timelier is to institutionalize rapid acquisition in the Army’s policy guidelines and to amend AR 71– 

9 to support rapid acquisition in response to requests from combatant commands 

during quiescent periods. What are your plans to implement this recommendation? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army Acquisition Review Panel submitted its report in 

February 2011. It included 76 recommendations in four broad areas that extend 

across various Army organizations. Those broad areas address requirements generation, risk management, organizational alignment, and resources. I have directed the 

ASA(ALT) to assess those recommendations. The ASA(ALT) will provide specific recommendations for implementation of those portions of the report which are judged 

to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Army’s acquisition process. That 

747 

initial assessment is due to me in April. Following that will determine the path forward on implementation of the recommendations. 

ELLINGTON FIELD

26. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base is 

strategically located in Houston, TX, where it can address national security requirements for the Gulf Region and the Nation. In recent years, Ellington Field has 

evolved into a joint installation that hosts the Texas Air and Army National Guard; 

Army, Navy, and Marine Corps Reserve units; and the U.S. Coast Guard. Personnel 

levels at Ellington Field have grown exponentially—from 1,500 in 2008 to more than 

6,000 in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, as host to Department of Homeland Security 

and National Aeronautics and Space Administration components, Ellington Field 

serves as a successful representative model of DOD joint forces basing and interagency installation planning. Given this confluence and emergence of multiple missions and growth, as well as Ellington Field’s strategic capabilities, how does the 

Army plan to take full advantage of this installation and leverage its many 

strengths? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Ellington Field is located in Houston, TX, near the Gulf coast. 

About 2,000 acres of the original Ellington Air Force Base were transferred to the 

City of Houston in the 1970s, and is currently managed by the Houston Airport System. 

The Air Force retained a small portion of Ellington Field and permitted some of 

this land to the Army, which in turn licensed 20 acres to State of Texas. The Texas 

Army National Guard uses the 20 acres for training and currently maintains two 

Readiness Centers and an aviation unit headquarters. 

The Army does not have any plans to expand current activities on Ellington Field 

at this time. 

FORT HOOD

27. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, construction on a new medical center at 

Fort Hood is expected to be completed in September 2015 to replace the Carl R. 

Darnell Army Medical Center, which is 33 percent undersized. This hospital will 

support 140,000 enrolled beneficiaries, including 50,000 Active Duty soldiers. Fort 

Hood soldiers and their families currently make over 15,000 trips each year to medical centers over 150 miles away for specialty care in certain pathologies. What additional specialties and services does the Army plan to offer at Fort Hood’s new medical center? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The new 947,000 square foot Carl R. Darnall Army Medical 

Center will be 60 percent larger than the existing facility and will provide increased 

access to care by using space more efficiently, leveraging new healthcare delivery 

technologies, and centralizing healthcare services. The new facility will specifically 

address Fort Hood’s most pressing health service needs in the areas of behavioral 

health, medical/surgical specialty clinics, and pediatric primary care. Expansion of 

existing services and the addition of new military funded specialties are not currently programmed for the new facility. 

Fewer than 2 percent of all tertiary care referrals from the medical center leave 

the Central Texas medical community. Improvements in telemedicine technology in 

the new medical center will expand capability for local treatment with the assistance of distant military tertiary care centers. Additionally, the Fort Hood medical 

community will continue to increase local care capability in the areas of oncology 

and other hard to find medical subspecialties through academic and research partnerships. 

28. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, construction of the new Fort Hood medical center was funded through unobligated stimulus funds. H.R. 1, the Housepassed fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution, includes a provision that would require the rescission of all unobligated stimulus funds. It is my understanding that 

$106 million of these funds remains to be obligated for the new medical center, but 

that it cannot be done for another year. What impact would such a rescission have 

on the construction and scheduled completion of the Fort Hood medical center? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Rescinding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) funds would require reducing the project and put project completion at risk. 

As of the February 2011 financial reports, $97.6 million in unobligated ARRA funds 

remain for the Fort Hood hospital replacement project. DOD has obligated as much 

of the funds for the Fort Hood project that it can at this time while ensuring good 

748 

stewardship of available resources and complying with the law. The remaining unobligated balance is required to complete the project. A typical construction project 

includes estimates for design, contingency costs arising during construction, and 

procurement for particular categories of equipment. These funds are intended to remain available throughout the life of the construction project and are essential for 

successful completion, especially for large, complex hospital buildings. 

29. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, Fort Hood has long been a source of 

pride for Texans and all Americans, having deployed more troops to Afghanistan 

and Iraq than any other installation. As you know, the tragic terrorist attack that 

occurred at Fort Hood on November 4, 2009, took place in a facility that is being 

used as a temporary soldier deployment processing center. It is my understanding 

that U.S. Army Installation Command has failed to include the replacement soldier 

deployment processing center in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for Fort 

Hood. Continuing to utilize the makeshift facility where 13 soldiers were killed and 

many more wounded is not appropriate. Why was the replacement facility not included in the FYDP for Fort Hood? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Following the November 2009 shootings and mass casualty 

incident, Fort Hood developed a Military Construction (MILCON) project estimated 

at $19 million to replace the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center (SRP). This 

project competed for funds in the supplemental process but did not make the final 

list for fiscal year 2010 funding. It remains as a Fort Hood priority and has been 

submitted to compete in fiscal years 2013 to 2017 MILCON Program. 

30. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, what steps will the Army take to rectify 

this situation? 

Secretary MCHUGH. This project remains a priority for Fort Hood and for the 

Army. While program requirements continue to exceed available funding, the Army 

will consider this project for inclusion in the fiscal years 2013 to 2017 MILCON Program. 

31. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, as part of the DOD efficiencies initiatives, the Army has reduced funding for MILCON by $1.5 billion. It is my understanding that of those cuts, $360 million (45 percent) were projects in the fiscal 

years 2012 to 2016 FYDP at Fort Hood. Why was Fort Hood not consulted on the 

mission impacts of these cuts? 

Secretary MCHUGH. In developing the MILCON program, the Army seeks universal participation from all stakeholders, including those at installation and garrison levels who have first-hand knowledge of local conditions. During the course of 

the fiscal years 2012 to 2016 program development, the Army responded to an accelerated DOD initiative to reduce overall spending, by reducing $1.4 billion across the 

5-year MILCON program. These decisions were vetted on an accelerated schedule 

with Army commands and components. The decision to retain or to defer a project 

was based on how well it supported established Army MILCON priorities as well 

as the priorities of the sponsoring command or component. 

32. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, please explain the rationale or the process that led to this shortsighted decision. 

Secretary MCHUGH. The hypothetical $360 million Fort Hood reduction assumes 

that Army senior leadership and the Office of the Secretary of Defense would have 

approved these projects in the draft and pre-decisional version of the FYDP from 

which the $1.4 billion reduction was taken. The Army protected the following priorities from decrements: 

(a) projects supporting key leader initiatives such as transformation and barracks 

buy out; 

(b) known stationing actions; 

(c) projects that would pose a high risk to readiness if not competed as scheduled. 

The result of this review was that two Fort Hood projects in last year’s fiscal year 

2011 to 2015 FYDP totaling $138 million were deferred from the FYDP. Three new, 

previously unprogrammed projects, totaling almost $222 million at Fort Hood did 

not compete successfully in the fiscal years 2012 to 2016 FYDP. All projects deferred 

from previous programs or budget positions will be reconsidered during the development of the fiscal years 2013 to 2017 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) 

should sponsoring commands submit for consideration. 

749 

M–16/M–4 REPLACEMENT

33. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, the M–4 carbine, part of the M–16 family 

of weapons, is the Army’s primary individual combat weapon for infantry units. The 

Army’s plan to replace the M–16 family of weapons began in 1994, and as late as 

2005, it was reported that the Army was about to approve the acquisition of a new 

assault rifle to replace the M–16 and M–4—a decision that was allegedly cancelled 

due to acquisition and bureaucratic conflicts. It is my understanding that the Army 

issued a draft request for proposal (RFP) on January 31, 2011, for a new individual 

carbine, with a formal solicitation for the competition scheduled for release in May. 

Why is this taking so long? 

General CASEY. In order for the Army to develop and field a new weapon system, 

there must be a Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System approved 

requirement. The Individual Carbine Capability Development Document was approved in August 2010. Since approval of the requirement, the Soldier Weapons office has been actively managing the IC program and released a draft RFP for industry comment, held a Pre-Solicitation Conference to discuss the solicitation with industry, and is scheduled to release the final RFP in the third quarter of fiscal year 

2011. The timeframe for these events has been set to afford industry enough time 

to comment on the draft RFP and help ensure that the final RFP accurately reflects 

the Army’s requirements and evaluation factors. With 38 industry members participating in this process, the sheer volume of input has required extra time. 

34. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, what is the Army’s exact timeline for competition, selection, and fielding of a replacement for the M–16 and M–4? 

General CASEY. The IC competition is currently underway. The exact timeline is 

dependent on many factors, the most important being the number of vendors that 

submit candidate weapon systems. 

However, as presented at the Pre-Solicitation Conference held in Crystal City, Arlington, VA, on 30 March 2011, the expected timeline for the IC is as follows: 

• Draft RFP: 31 Jan 2011 (released) • Revised Draft RFP: 28 Mar 2011 (released) • Pre-Solicitation Conference: 30 Mar 2011 at the Double Tree Hotel in 

Crystal City, VA 

• Final RFP: Third Quarter 2011 • Phase I Evaluation: Fourth Quarter 2011—First Quarter 2012 • Phase II Evaluation: First Quarter 2012—Fourth Quarter 2012 • Contract Award(s): First Quarter 2013 • Down-select Evaluation: First Quarter 2013—Third Quarter 2013 • Milestone C/LRIP: Fourth Quarter 2013 • First Unit Equipped: Fourth Quarter 2014 

35. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, in the interim, will the Army plan to continue its procurement of the M–16 and M–4, or will the Army consider newer and 

better weapons available right now on the commercial market? 

General CASEY. The Army has met its acquisition objective for the M16 rifle and 

officially concluded the production phase of the program on May 12, 2004. Final 

Army delivery occurred in January 2005. The Army has not met its acquisition objective for the M4 carbine at this time and is planning a competitive M4 carbine 

contract award in fiscal year 2012. We are planning on procuring an additional 

24,000 M4A1 carbines to fulfill Secretary Geren’s direction provided in an October 

2, 2008, memorandum. This will complete the Army Acquisition Objective and maintain the industrial base during the improved carbine competition. The Army continues to include M16 rifle and M4 carbine requirements in its contracts for other 

services and FMS. 

Consideration of newer and better weapons available in the commercial market 

is being addressed by the IC program. Selection and qualification of small caliber 

weapons for the Army is a very extensive and thorough process as evidenced by the 

scope of the IC program. 

COMBAT IDENTIFICATION

36. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, our military suffered a tragic 24 percent 

fratricide casualty rate in the 1991 Gulf War. In the 20 years since, Congress has 

provided substantial research and development funding to DOD in an effort to reduce fratricide casualties in present and future conflicts. Yet to date, no dedicated 

combat identification technology has been fielded. Please provide an update on the 

Army’s combat identification program. 

750 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army believes in a comprehensive approach to combat 

identification that focuses not only on materiel solutions, but embodies all of the elements of Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities. 

From a materiel perspective, the Army has invested over $5 billion in improved 

situational awareness systems including Blue Force Tracking, Second Generation 

Forward Looking Infrared Radar, Joint Combat Identification Marking System, 

Mounted Soldier System, Air Warrior, Nett-Warrior, and improved thermal sights. 

The Army’s combat identification program will complete procurement and fielding 

of 7,224 Joint Combat Identification Marking Systems in 2013. Additionally, the 

Joint Cooperative Target Identification—Ground program is currently conducting an 

AOA with expected completion in third quarter 2011. 

37. Senator CORNYN. Secretary McHugh, please detail and explain the POM funding allocated to complete development and begin the fielding of a dedicated combat 

identification technology solution. 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army is currently in the process of developing its POM 

for fiscal years 2013 to 2017 and is determining the appropriate level of funding required for the combat identification program. 

ARMY END STRENGTH

38. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, over the past 10 years, the Army has increased its Active Duty end strength in order to meet current and future operational 

requirements. However, as part of his cost-saving initiatives, Secretary Gates has 

proposed reductions to the Army’s Active Duty end strength of 22,000 soldiers by 

2014, followed by an additional 27,000 soldiers beginning in 2015. Over the last 40 

years, the Army has conducted two major post-conflict end-strength reductions, first 

after the Vietnam war and then again after Operation Desert Storm. Given that we 

live in what you, Secretary McHugh, and some other senior military leaders refer 

to as an era of persistent conflict, how risky is it to reduce our Army’s end strength 

so soon? 

General CASEY. We are in the process of conducting deliberate analysis to determine how and when to implement directed reductions. The Army’s deliberate and 

responsible draw-down plans will take into consideration operational demands, unit 

readiness, and those actions necessary to sustain the All-Volunteer Force. The plan 

will need to proceed at a pace necessary to ensure mission success and retain flexibility to adjust the end strength, if necessary, in response to unforeseen demands. 

Current assumptions about future demand for Army forces are critical to assessing 

potential implications associated with both end strength and force structure adjustments. The Army assumes that the drawdown in Iraq will continue and that it will 

be completed by 31 December 2011. The Army also assumes that forces in Afghanistan will be drawn down in accordance with current administration policy. Finally, 

while we cannot predict with certainty when and where crises may occur, we do anticipate that in an era of persistent conflict Army forces will continue to be required 

for a variety of missions. However, the Army does not anticipate that near-term future demands will reach a level of commitment seen in recent years. As the bootson-the-ground to dwell-time ratio (BOG:Dwell) is largely a function of demand, we 

expect BOG:Dwell ratios will continue to improve. The Army will continue to ensure 

accomplishment of its assigned missions, improve operational readiness to meet future demands, and care for the well-being of its soldiers and their families. 

39. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, as you know, extended deployments and the 

high OPTEMPO have put a substantial strain on our All-Volunteer Army, resulting 

in high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, as 

well as other health issues within the force. The Army’s increase in Active Duty end 

strength was designed, in part, to mitigate these effects and allow for soldiers to 

have longer periods of dwell-time between deployments. If conditions on the ground 

in Afghanistan do not allow for the administration’s planned drawdown of U.S. 

troops by 2014, will the reduction of 22,000 soldiers to the Army’s Active Duty end 

strength have a negative impact on the quality, resiliency, and overall well-being 

of our force? 

General CASEY. The 22,000 temporary end-strength increase has been an integral 

part of the Army’s ability to meet the manning requirements of deploying units. The 

planned reduction is based on the assumption that the demand for Army forces will 

decline by the end of 2013. If that assumption proves to be inaccurate, the Army 

751 

will reevaluate its ability to meet the new demand and engage with the Secretary 

of Defense to determine the appropriate mitigation strategy. 

Concerning quality and resiliency of the force, the Army will continue its efforts 

to retain soldiers with the greatest potential to serve and align them with our leadership development strategy. The Army’s deliberate and responsible drawdown 

plans will take into consideration operational demands, individual and unit readiness, and sustainment of the All-Volunteer Force. 

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION POLICIES

40. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, current Army policy requires relatively frequent Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves for most soldiers and their families. At a time when each of the Military Services is being pressured to find ways 

to stretch each and every dollar and improve its fiscal stewardship, a thoughtful and 

sensible revision of the Army’s PCS policies could potentially save millions of dollars 

annually, which the Army could use to meet other requirements. Requiring PCS 

moves every 5 or 6 years—instead of every 2 or 3—would also reduce the strain on 

military families; certainly a worthy goal. In so doing, you would enable many military spouses to pursue their own careers without facing frequent relocations, and 

you would ease the stress that frequent moves and school relocations put on military children. Do you see any potential for the Army to rethink its current PCS policies to cut unnecessary expenses and improve the quality of life for military families? If so, how would these policies have to be reformed to accomplish this? 

General CASEY. As a general rule, the Army does not require soldiers to move 

simply because they have remained at one location for a set number of years. Overseas moves are an exception, by OSD policy. They have established specific tour 

lengths based on environmental conditions in the overseas locations. 

Two-thirds of all Army PCS moves result from accessions, separations, and professional development. The remaining third are used to distribute soldiers internal to 

the Army. They are used to maintain an acceptable match of skills and grades in 

units to meet operational requirements. Over the past 10 years the requirements 

for moves has accelerated by the need to meet the demands of filling deploying 

units. As demand for Army units decreases, we will work to increase the time on 

station for soldiers and families while maintaining the critical match of skills and 

grades across the Army. 

ARMY COMBAT BRIGADES IN EUROPE

41. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, DOD reportedly intends to decide in the near 

future how many Army BCTs to keep in Europe, which could be as many as four 

or as few as two. Meanwhile, since 2002, two Germany-based BCTs have essentially 

been in limbo while DOD debates their fate. It now appears unlikely that these 

units, which had been scheduled to return to the United States by 2013, will meet 

that deadline. It should be considered that our soldiers in Europe may not be afforded the same high quality training opportunities they would otherwise receive 

stateside at a post such as Fort Bliss, TX, where training opportunities are unparalleled due to its vast ranges and whose conditions accurately simulate those faced 

by soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. In your view, is delaying the return of these 

Army units from Europe the right course of action, given that our European allies 

have their own highly capable militaries? 

General CASEY. DOD is currently reviewing the disposition of forces in Europe 

and the Army has been a part of that process. The National Security Strategy and 

the Quadrennial Defense Review affirm the importance of investing in the capacity 

of strong and capable foreign friends and allies. These efforts further U.S. objectives 

of securing a peaceful and cooperative international order. The U.S. forces in Europe 

represent our enduring commitment to the defense of Europe specified in the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Article 5, ensuring a credible deterrent 

against all forms of aggression, and providing a robust capability to build allied and 

partner capacity for coalition operations such as in Afghanistan. It must also be 

noted that the majority of troop contributing nations supporting ISAF, NATO’s largest and most complex out-of-area operation, come from NATO members. The relationships needed to support these types of operations can only be developed through 

long-term, sustained relationships. In addition to providing forces and directly supporting war efforts, U.S. Army Europe sustains key training capacity for the U.S. 

military, NATO and our allies at the world class Joint Maneuver Training Center 

at Grafenwoehr/Hohenfels, Germany. 

752 

42. Senator CORNYN. General Casey, why are these Army BCTs still permanently 

stationed in Europe, and when will the Army bring them home? 

General CASEY. The Office of Secretary of Defense is currently reviewing the disposition of forces in Europe and the Army has been a part of that process. An Army 

review is underway to analyze and determine the appropriate force structure and 

posture to support our Nation’s interests. As a result of pending decisions and ongoing analysis, the U.S. posture in Europe will be more capable, more effective, and 

better-aligned with current and future security challenges. The stated purpose of 

Army forces in Europe is to assure our allies and partners of our commitment to 

NATO, build their capacity to support out-of-area operations, and ensure regional 

stability. 

[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(753) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. SOUTHERN 

COMMAND 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room SD– 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman), presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Blumenthal, McCain, Chambliss, Brown, 

Ayotte, and Cornyn. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Jason W. Maroney, 

counsel; and Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; Daniel A. 

Lerner, professional staff member; and Michael J. Sistak, research 

assistant. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Kathleen A. 

Kulenkampff, and Christine G. Lang. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Gordon Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Casey 

Howard, assistant to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Laurie Rubiner and Ethan Saxon, assistants to Senator Blumenthal; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; 

Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator Ayotte; and Dave Hanke, assistant to Senator Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

We’re pleased to have two distinguished military leaders with us 

today to talk about security in our hemisphere: General Doug Fraser, Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM); and 

754 

Admiral Sandy Winnefeld, Commander of U.S. Northern Command 

(NORTHCOM) and Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). 

We welcome you both. We want to start by thanking you both for 

your distinguished service to our Nation, and ask you to also give 

our thanks to the men and women who serve with you for their 

tireless service and for the numerous contributions that they all 

make to our Nation’s security. We also offer our gratitude to your 

families and the families of all of the personnel, since they share 

in the sacrifices of that service and because their support is so 

critically important to our success. 

General Fraser, President Obama recently traveled to the 

SOUTHCOM area of responsibility (AOR), and this trip was the 

President’s second trip to Latin America. His decision to travel to 

SOUTHCOM despite the beginning of international military efforts 

in Libya is a testament to the strategic importance of the nation 

states that are located in your AOR. 

The three countries that the President visited—Brazil, Chile, and 

El Salvador—highlighted the spectrum of issues that your command confronts each day. In Brazil, President Obama found a rapidly emerging global partner with shared values both in terms of 

economics and security. Brazil is the world’s seventh largest economy and a key trade partner in the hemisphere. In terms of security, their military has played an important role in supporting 

United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping missions with 2,200 troops, 

military observers, and police officers on three continents. Its contributions to the U.N. effort in Haiti are particularly important as 

that nation struggles to rebuild. 

In Chile, the President visited a country that has made the transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. Chile, as well as Colombia and Mexico, is sharing its expertise in security with nations in 

Central America where transnational criminal organizations (TCO) 

have produced havoc on the people of the region. 

In El Salvador, the President visited a nation suffering from the 

scourge of drug cartels, predominantly from Mexico, but also from 

Colombia. The United States has been increasingly engaged in 

Mexico and Central America in terms of security and fighting 

criminal organizations trafficking in drugs, arms, money, and people. As additional resources and attention have been brought to 

bear in Mexico, some of the cartels have moved into Central America. As a result of this shift, both the administration and the Mexican government are focusing more on Central America, how to bolster these governments, and how to have a regional approach to security as, General Fraser, you note in your opening statement. 

However, General, you are in a complicated position, as no one 

has to tell you. The solutions needed to address the issues associated with the drug cartels and broader illicit trafficking issues primarily require the action of civilian law enforcement agencies, not 

the military. However, in many cases it is the military that has the 

capabilities and resources required to confront the drug cartels. 

So our committee looks forward to hearing you describe how 

SOUTHCOM is addressing this complex environment and how this 

committee can assist you in this important endeavor. 

755 

NORTHCOM is responsible for the defense of the Homeland and 

for providing defense support to civil authorities in response to domestic natural or manmade disasters. Admiral Winnefeld is also 

dual-hatted as the Commander of NORAD, which has the mission 

to provide aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime 

warning for North America. 

The NORTHCOM AOR consists of all of North America, including Mexico. Given the high level of violence in Mexico, especially 

related to drug trafficking and the flow of money and guns from 

our country into Mexico, we’d like to hear you assess, Admiral, the 

current situation and the cooperation between our two militaries to 

help defeat the criminal organizations. 

As part of the mission of providing defense support to civil authorities, NORTHCOM must work closely and cooperatively with 

other Federal agencies and with all the States on plans and coordination for emergency response to domestic disasters. Admiral 

Winnefeld has been working with the State Governors and the National Guard forces to improve their combined capabilities. 

One of the initiatives underway is a concept called ‘‘Dual Status 

Command,’’ which is intended to allow State and Federal military 

forces to work together to support a governor’s needs for disaster 

assistance, and we’ll be interested to hear more about that effort. 

NORTHCOM is also the combatant command (COCOM) responsible for the operation of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, the GMD system, to defend the Homeland against the threat 

of a limited ballistic missile attack from nations such as North 

Korea and Iran. The GMD system has had two consecutive flight 

test failures, most recently in December, and we look forward to 

hearing Admiral Winnefeld’s views on what we need to do to make 

the system work reliably and effectively, including adequate testing 

and system enhancement. 

There has been discussion of the administration’s hedge strategy 

for missile defense of the Homeland in case the future threat of 

North Korean or potential Iranian long-range missiles emerges 

more rapidly or in greater numbers than now expected or if the development of the Standard Missile 3 Block IIB interceptor has technical problems or delays. One component of that hedge strategy has 

been the continued testing and assessment of the two-stage 

ground-based interceptor. However, there are numerous other 

hedge options under way or under consideration, including extra 

silos planned at Fort Greely, AK. So we’d be interested to know, 

Admiral, what your views are on appropriate hedging strategies. 

Again, we thank you both for appearing here this morning and 

we look forward to your testimony. I call on Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to join you 

in welcoming our witnesses today and extend my appreciation to 

Admiral Winnefeld and General Fraser for their many years of distinguished service to our Nation. I’d also like to recognize the service and sacrifice of the many selfless men and women serving 

under your commands. 

While the recent events across the Middle East and North Africa 

have consumed the attention of Congress and the Nation, we 

756 

shouldn’t ignore the complex set of security challenges and opportunities that reside just across our borders. TCOs continue to 

wreak havoc throughout Central and South America with ruthless 

tenacity. They exploit weaknesses in local and national security 

forces, bribe government officials, and move easily across porous 

borders. Flush with cash, these groups also have shown an ability 

to leverage technology and quickly adapt existing detection capabilities, as evidenced recently by the discovery of fully submersible 

mini-submarines in Ecuador and Colombia. 

I have recently been to both Central and South America, as well 

as just a week ago toured the Arizona-Mexico border, and I can attest firsthand that we must remain ever vigilant to problems in our 

hemisphere. 

In SOUTHCOM’s AOR, we have seen a marked increase in foreign nations attempting to influence the region, including some 

that cause me great concern. According to your testimony, General 

Fraser, Iran has nearly doubled the number of embassies in the region in the last decade and the Chinese involvement in our hemisphere has continued to grow in dramatic fashion. 

In NORTHCOM’s AOR, Mexico, under the determined leadership 

of President Calderon, has shown remarkable courage in its fight 

against the cartels. But this fight has not come without significant 

costs. Since 2006 nearly 35,000 Mexicans have lost their lives as 

a result of drug-related violence. To put that in perspective, during 

that same period of time, 21,000 Afghan civilians have lost their 

lives. 

Such tragic loss of innocent civilian lives underscores the necessity of continued U.S. support to our partners that leverages their 

courage with our technology, sustained commitment, and complementing efforts on our side of the border. These organized criminal 

gangs operating across international borders threaten not only our 

neighbors to the south, but also American citizens. Despite what 

some in the administration have claimed, violence along the southern border continues to rage unabated and, though we’ve made 

gains in securing our border, it’s not yet secure. 

The situation requires further investment within the United 

States, including personnel, technology, and information-sharing 

between Federal, State, and local authorities, as well as with our 

neighbors, which helped in apprehending those responsible for the 

killing of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. 

I’m interested in how forces under NORTHCOM are working 

with their law enforcement counterparts along the border and what 

can be done to improve and expand. 

I’m pleased that both of you are testifying jointly before the committee today. Given that many of the topics we will address today 

span both of your AORs, a close partnership and robust coordination between your commands will obviously prove to be fundamental to your success. 

I thank you both for being with us today and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Admiral, I think we’ll start with you. 

757 

STATEMENT OF ADM JAMES A. WINNEFELD, JR., USN, COMMANDER, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND AND COMMANDER, 

NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the Armed Services Committee: Thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. If I may, I’d 

also like to thank you both for your kind remarks regarding the 

men and women who work for us. Many of them are probably listening right now and your remarks speak directly to them. So 

thank you for your comments. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I’m also delighted to be alongside my close 

friend and partner, General Doug Fraser. In the Western Hemisphere we work very closely together and it’s delightful to be able 

to appear with him. 

As Commander of NORTHCOM, responsible for defense of the 

United States and in the case of NORAD for the air defense of 

North America, it’s my privilege to work with the talented team of 

men and women executing a uniquely diverse set of Homeland defense, civil support, and theater security cooperation missions. Our 

daily efforts include countering terrorism and TCOs, preparing to 

support our Federal and State partners in the wake of a natural 

or manmade disaster, air defense against both internal and external threats, maritime and ballistic missile defense, and of course, 

a growing focus on the Arctic. 

I’d like to highlight two of these areas in advance of our discussion this morning. First, the tragic events in Japan over the last 

several weeks only highlight the importance of being prepared to 

respond to disasters, including those providing no notice, such as 

earthquakes, and those involving accidental or intentional release 

of harmful substances, such as, in Japan’s case, radionuclides. 

NORTHCOM plays a key role in our Nation’s response to these 

disasters, principally in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) role as the lead Federal agency, but ultimately providing support to the affected States by bringing either 

additional capacity or specialized capabilities to bear that our partners may lack. 

Time is our enemy in these disasters and we search every day 

for ways to become more agile in responding to the needs of our 

partners. 

We also stress our supporting role, and I’m pleased to be able to 

report that, as Senator Levin mentioned, we’ve made considerable 

strides over the past year in achieving unity of command and control of State and Federal military forces during a disaster. 

I can also report that NORTHCOM’s relationship with the National Guard, which is such a capable partner and on whom I rely 

so much for my mission accomplishment in several key areas, is superb. 

The second area I’d like to highlight is NORTHCOM’s support for 

the ongoing struggle to disrupt and dismantle the TCOs that are 

having such corrosive effects inside our hemisphere. We’re working 

hard to both support law enforcement agencies within the United 

States and, in conjunction with SOUTHCOM, to support the efforts 

of our partner nations. 

758 

Presidents Obama and Calderon have underscored our shared responsibilities as nations: on the U.S. side of the border, to reduce 

drug consumption and illicit flows of arms and money; and on the 

Mexican side of the border, to interdict drugs going north and to 

strengthen the rule of law so that criminals are put in jail and kept 

there. 

The Mexican Government, as you pointed out, has displayed exemplary moral, physical, and political courage in undertaking this 

important struggle, because they know this is about the future of 

Mexico, and I take my hat off to them for that fact. The Mexican 

military has been asked by its civilian leadership to join with Mexican law enforcement agencies to support this struggle in the right 

way, respectful of Mexico’s democratic ideals and the nation’s commitment to the rule of law. 

It’s been a difficult struggle. As Senator McCain pointed out, 

since December 2006, 35,000 Mexicans have lost their lives in 

TCO-related violence. The criminality extends far beyond drugs to 

extortion, robbery, kidnapping, and trafficking of persons. I salute 

Mexico’s police and security forces for their courage, skill, and determination, and for the progress they have made in building institutions like the Federal police and in taking down over two dozen 

of the most wanted criminals in their country, progress for which 

they do not always get the credit they deserve. 

Today, the Mexican military is confronting concurrent challenges: 

how to counter a sophisticated, unconventional threat by integrating intelligence and operations; how to work jointly with each 

other and with their interagency partners; and how to fully inculcate respect for human rights into everything they do. 

We know this is hard work because we’ve been down the same 

road and in some ways we’re still on the same road. So I tell my 

Mexican partners that we don’t know it all, we’ve made our own 

mistakes along the way, and we seek the kind of engagement that 

helps them benefit from our experiences. But while I always want 

to do more to help our friends in Mexico, I want to state publicly 

and very clearly that the first and most important principle we observe in this struggle is respect for Mexican sovereignty. We have 

much to offer, but Mexico is always in the lead in Mexico. 

The Mexican Government has a strategy to combat organized 

crime. They have defined with us a substantive framework to guide 

our cooperation and have invited us to work with them to support 

their efforts. But again, they are always in the lead in their own 

country. 

If together we can maintain our resolve, if we can be responsive 

to their requests, if we can work effectively together to support 

their operational progress, and if we can continue to make progress 

on our own side of the border, then together we stand a good 

chance of carrying the day against the TCOs. If not, the corrosive 

effects of the TCOs will continue to pose a danger within both of 

our countries. 

I want to thank you, the members, and also your superb committee staff for your steadfast support for our men and women, 

both in uniform and in civilian clothes, who work hard on these 

and many other difficult problems each and every day. 

759 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Winnefeld follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM JAMES A. WINNEFELD, JR., USN 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the missions and focus areas 

of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense 

Command (NORAD). Let me begin by saying how impressed I am by the talented 

cadre of professionals—from the Active and Reserve components of all Services of 

the U.S. military, Department of Defense civilians, our Canadian partners, and representatives from 68 different civilian organizations—who work in and about my 

headquarters in Colorado Springs each and every day. It is truly humbling to work 

with such a great team. 

I’m also very encouraged by the strong partnership we have with the National 

Guard; they are essential to operational success across the full spectrum of our missions. We have over 40 full-time National Guard positions in NORTHCOM, including my Deputy Commander, Lieutenant General Frank Grass, from the Missouri 

Army National Guard, and on any given day, the number of guardsmen in our headquarters is around 100. The Army National Guard provides the bulk of personnel 

for air defense capabilities protecting our Nation’s capital. In addition, they provide 

all of the manning at our Ground-Based Interceptor sites in support of missile defense. They are also currently developing additional capabilities to take on a much 

larger role in support of consequence management in the aftermath of a chemical, 

biological, radiological or nuclear attack. Finally, the Air National Guard provides 

the majority of NORAD’s operational force for Air Sovereignty Alert missions. Simply said, we could not do our missions without the National Guard, and I’m very 

pleased with the positive trajectory of our relationship. 

We in North America face a changing world that presents us with many challenges. These include violent extremists, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rogue nations, traditional competitor states, transnational criminal organizations, insecurity within the global commons, economic distress, natural disasters, 

emerging infectious diseases, and the effects of climate change. Each of these challenges poses a potential threat to the United States, Canada, and our regional partners and is pertinent to the missions of NORTHCOM and NORAD. Fortunately, we 

also enjoy great strengths and are presented with opportunities born of our Nations’ 

ideals, ideas, and resources and those of our partners. Today I will describe how we 

plan to capitalize on these opportunities to overcome the challenges we face. 

The mission statements for NORTHCOM and NORAD reflect the language in the 

Unified Command Plan and the NORAD Agreement. 

NORTHCOM Mission: U.S. Northern Command conducts homeland defense, civil 

support, and security cooperation to defend and secure the United States and its 

interests. 

NORAD Mission: North American Aerospace Defense Command conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning in the defense of North 

America. 

Accomplishing these missions demands a diverse array of disciplines and activities within my headquarters. Accordingly, and in order to assist me in allocating 

my two commands’ time and resources, I have grouped our activities into the following eight focus areas: 

COUNTERTERRORISM AND FORCE PROTECTION

Because violent extremists present a threat that currently exhibits both the capability and the intent to attack our Nation, Counterterrorism and Force Protection 

continue to be a vital focus area for NORTHCOM and NORAD. 

Within the confines of our borders, current laws, policies, and democratic traditions and practices properly restrict most counterterrorism activities to civil authorities. As a result, NORTHCOM’s principal role is to synchronize joint force protection 

and ensure military infrastructure across our area of responsibility is properly postured to mitigate and prevent potential terrorist attacks. However, we are fully 

aligned within the Federal Government’s counterterrorism network and play a supporting role—assisting with information sharing and remaining prepared to supply 

military-unique capabilities or to enhance civilian capacity when directed by the 

President or Secretary of Defense. 

To help prevent acts of terrorism, we are working to improve information sharing 

to better position ourselves to preemptively detect and protect against these threats, 

760 

particularly in regard to our military bases and other infrastructure. We are fully 

implementing the relevant recommendations of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, and have made progress over the last 

year in our ability to rapidly disseminate threat information to DOD installations 

when required. In the wake of a terrorist event, we are prepared to support civil 

authorities, as directed, to assist in mitigating the consequences. 

COUNTERING TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS

The United States and Mexico—and many of our other Western Hemisphere partners—are confronting serious security and public health challenges driven by 

transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) responsible for illicit trafficking of 

drugs, human beings, money, and weapons. 

The facts are daunting. Over 34,000 Mexicans have lost their lives in the last 4 

years, including a dozen mayors in 2010. Murder, kidnapping, extortion, and other 

crimes have intimidated large segments of the Mexican populace, primarily, but not 

exclusively, along our shared border. In some areas, the TCOs have muzzled the 

media and chased away businesses. 

Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the border, the Drug Enforcement Administration 

estimates that Mexican TCOs operate in over 230 U.S. cities. Each year illicit drugrelated deaths number in the thousands, and treatment center admissions and 

emergency treatment facility visits both exceed a million. The annual direct cost for 

treatment, prevention, interdiction, and local law enforcement of drug abuse exceeds 

$52 billion. These and other consequences of drug abuse, including lost productivity, 

the impact on the criminal justice system, and the environmental impact resulting 

from the production of illicit drugs are estimated to cost our Nation nearly $181 billion annually. 

The TCOs are vicious, well-financed and heavily armed, due in no small part to 

cash and weapons smuggled across our southern border. They have diversified their 

businesses and are increasingly sophisticated in their methods. By fighting one another and the government for the impunity to pursue their illicit trade, the TCOs 

are confronting Mexico with a complex, but not unprecedented, blend of trafficking 

activities and challenging security problems. I am profoundly impressed by the determination and courage of the Mexican Government, the various Mexican security 

forces, and the Mexican people in taking on this challenge. They know this is about 

the long-term future of their country. 

The complex challenges associated with defeating the TCOs and the abundant opportunities for progress all underscore the vital importance of our close relationship 

with Mexico. In my 10 months as the Commander of NORTHCOM, I have observed 

the Mexican security forces work with increasing effectiveness against the TCOs, 

gradually achieving success in unraveling these organized crime networks. The 

Mexican Army and Navy have been drawn into this struggle due to the severe 

threat it poses to Mexico’s security and prosperity, and are working hard to overcome several important challenges. First, they must operate under the legal restrictions to which any democratic nation’s military must adhere when operating within 

its own territory. Second, they are temporarily transforming from a traditional force 

to one that can be called upon to confront threats from domestic criminal enterprises. Third, they are working hard to build interagency teamwork, with budding 

indications of success. Finally, and despite a very information-savvy adversary, they 

are determined to respect human rights during their operations, and have been 

eager to gain insights from our own hard-earned lessons in this area. None of these 

challenges are foreign to our own military. The fact that many of the families of 

these security forces reside in the same areas where TCO violence is greatest only 

heightens the respect we have for our Mexican partners. 

In keeping with U.S. Government policy and the law, we are working closely with 

the country team in Mexico City and other key stakeholders to assist the Mexican 

Government in defeating the TCOs. Building on the momentum established by our 

civilian leadership, the Mexican and U.S. militaries have forged a cooperative relationship based upon mutual respect, professionalism, and reciprocity. With all our 

partners, we have stressed the many dimensions of the solution—including building 

strong and resilient communities, forming more robust judicial institutions, establishing a 21st century border, and directly disrupting the TCOs themselves. Regarding the latter, we are working with our Mexican military partners to enhance their 

materiel capability and capacity, as well as sharing our own operational insights. 

In so doing, we carefully emphasize the sovereignty, dignity, and capability of a 

proud Mexican nation, which recently celebrated 200 years of independence. 

Another important partner in this effort is the Western Hemisphere Institute for 

Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), which provides an effective mechanism to build 

761 

relationships with militaries throughout the hemisphere and to influence a positive 

trajectory on human rights. In June and December, I participated in the WHINSEC 

Board of Visitors meetings, and I have been impressed by the quality of WHINSEC’s 

faculty and students and the foundation of respect for human rights upon which its 

various curricula rest. In fiscal year 2010, there were 108 Mexican students at 

WHINSEC and I would like to see that number grow. Moreover, it is an important 

message both to and from Mexico that WHINSEC’s assistant commandant is a 

Mexican officer. 

NORTHCOM also provides a considerable amount of support to our interagency 

partners operating on the U.S. side of the border. Such support includes construction of personnel barriers, roads, and bridges; air and ground transportation; intelligence support; and training in and fusion of intelligence and operations. We have 

begun to combine the intelligence assets at Joint Task Force-North in El Paso, 

Texas with the interagency El Paso Intelligence Center to enable greater unity of 

effort. We are working closely with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to share 

some of our lessons learned from 10 years of countering a different irregular threat 

overseas, including a close partnership in CBP’s Tucson Sector. Additionally, over 

the past year we employed multiple sensors, including radar, forward-looking infrared, as well as manned and unmanned aerial surveillance in support of the U.S. 

Border Patrol’s counternarcotics operations on both the northern and southern borders. 

In support of our northern border, last year Joint Task Force-North dedicated 22 

percent of its available resources to supporting law enforcement agencies in securing 

the northern border. Our support in this region included eight operational missions 

that provided aerial reconnaissance, ground-based radar, and ground-based sensor 

support; eight mobile training teams that taught targeting and intelligence courses; 

and one intelligence analyst who provided intelligence expertise. 

From a southern border perspective, recently the aerial reconnaissance support 

we provided under existing counterdrug authorities assisted in the apprehension of 

the suspected killers of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. From November 2010 

to January 2011, this platform assisted in the interdiction of 17,000 pounds of marijuana. 

DEFENSE SUPPORT OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

The complexity of our Nation’s response to natural and man-made disasters presents ample challenges and opportunities for improvement. We can respond relatively quickly to events with available DOD capability—when called upon by civil 

authorities. We are looking for ways to eliminate barriers to speed, enhance cooperation with our mission partners, and lean forward with Governors and the National 

Guard to advance understanding and teamwork. 

With our National Guard partners, we are successfully exploring new ways to 

close an historical gap in philosophy regarding command and control of Federal 

forces operating in support of a state in the wake of a disaster. Over the past year, 

together we made significant progress on an initiative, supported by the Secretary 

of Defense and the Council of Governors, to prepare ‘‘dual status commanders’’ to 

achieve true unity of effort between state and Federal military forces in response 

to a natural or manmade Stafford Act incident or Economy Act event. This initiative 

is transforming the way we do business together. I look forward to the next National Level Exercise this spring, in which we will have the opportunity to thoroughly examine the progress we have made over the last year in unity of effort 

using a New Madrid Seismic Zone earthquake scenario. 

As a signal of our deepening relationship, NORTHCOM for the first time hosted 

Adjutants General from 54 U.S. States and territories attending the National Guard 

Bureau Senior Leader Conference in October 2010. The conference focused on improving understanding, fostering relationships, and furthering collaboration between 

NORTHCOM and the National Guard. 

In addition, I have had the honor of participating in two Council of Governors 

meetings. The bipartisan Council of Governors was directed by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and established by President 

Obama by Executive order on 11 January 2010 to advise the Secretary of Defense, 

Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council 

on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions. These meetings have proved to be a key forum for progress in ensuring unity of effort in responding quickly in the event of disasters or other emergencies that affect the 

American people. 

As a combatant commander, I am a strong advocate for the Reserve component. 

I firmly believe our Nation needs a strong and well-equipped Guard and Reserve 

762 

Force. As such, I urge Congress to fully fund the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget 

request for Reserve and National Guard capabilities for both Federal and non-Federal roles. 

We continue to tighten our already-close relationship with the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with 

frequent senior leader exchanges and planning efforts. I also recently directed establishment within my staff of a cadre of Regional Desk Officers charged with working 

with the Defense Coordinating Officers associated with each FEMA Region, as well 

as a host of other partners, to bring better understanding and coordination of disaster planning between my headquarters and the various State and Federal agencies. 

Finally, we are closely examining the role NORTHCOM would play in response 

to a cyber attack in order to synchronize our efforts with U.S. Strategic Command 

and U.S. Cyber Command. We view our role as assisting the lead Federal agency 

in mitigating the physical effects of such an event, while staying close to our partners working in the cyber domain. 

CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, OR NUCLEAR CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT

Managing the aftermath of a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear 

(CBRN) event would be exceptionally challenging due to the potential scope of an 

event, the specialized skills required, and the general lack of knowledge among our 

population of the relative hazards associated with such an incident. NORTHCOM 

has a key leadership role in ensuring our Nation is prepared to succeed in this mission area. The Quadrennial Defense Review directed a transition to a CBRN Consequence Management Enterprise with more responsibility resident within the National Guard, more lifesaving capability, and faster response times. I am convinced 

this is the right path for this capability, which will be in high demand if such an 

event ever occurs. NORTHCOM and our ground component command, U.S. Army 

North, are working closely with the National Guard Bureau and the Joint Staff to 

assist in making the new enterprise operational. The first two State Homeland Response Forces and the Federal Defense CBRN Response Force will stand up this fiscal year. While we collectively have much work to do to bring this project to fruition, 

I am pleased to report that together with our partners we have leveraged excellent 

teamwork across the board in this effort, and are committed to ensuring a smooth 

transition from existing to planned capability in this area. 

MARITIME WARNING AND CONTROL

We remain concerned with potential threats in the maritime environment— 

whether presented by nation-states, extremists, or a natural event. Moreover, opportunities abound for shared awareness and control and much remains to be done to 

both clarify and energize NORAD’s mission area of Maritime Warning. 

One of our key projects this year is to strengthen our day-to-day maritime 

componency relationships for NORTHCOM and NORAD to enable improved planning, maritime domain awareness, training, theater security cooperation, and execution of homeland defense and security operations—and to do so without requiring 

additional investment. 

AEROSPACE WARNING AND CONTROL

This continually evolving mission is NORAD’s central focus, and it maintains the 

same importance to the United States and Canada that it has for over 52 years. 

It’s a real privilege to have 122 Canadians in my headquarters as part of a team 

that reflects the overall vitality of the relationship between our two nations. 

We continue to challenge our assumptions in this arena to ensure we are accounting for potential changes in threats before they occur, while offering our two nations 

our best thinking on how to execute this mission as efficiently as possible. 

We view this problem as a spectrum of potential threats with varying capabilities 

and intentions. Despite recent improvements in U.S.-Russian relations that reflect 

a dramatically reduced likelihood of conflict, we maintain our vigilance regarding 

the high-end threat to the United States and Canada because of enduring and continually improving Russian capability. However, our principal concern remains potential extremist intent to again use civil aircraft, ranging from commercial airliners 

to general aviation aircraft to ultra-lights, as a means for employing terrorist tactics. While we have made tremendous progress in our efforts to ensure a September 

11-type of event can never occur again, the threat continues to search for ways to 

exploit potential vulnerabilities. Accordingly, we search every day for new ways to 

improve our tactics, techniques, procedures, and technical capability to enable us to 

execute the detect-assess-engage sequence as effectively as possible. 

763 

To do so, we need the right capability in the right place at the right time. We 

are analyzing our future Air Sovereignty Alert requirements and sharing this analysis with the leadership of the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard. We are 

focusing our analytical effort on exactly what our Air Sovereignty Alert force is intended to protect, against what types of threats, under what conditions, and at what 

cost. As part of this effort, we are identifying capability gaps to the Joint Staff and 

the Services that we believe are required to defend against an evolving threat and 

contributing to an examination of means by which some of these gaps, which remain 

classified, might be filled. In addition, we are preparing a Report to Congress on 

the Air Sovereignty Alert mission as directed by section 333 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2011. 

We also need to ensure we have the right capacity to execute the Air Sovereignty 

Alert mission—not too much and not too little. Given the recently announced slip 

in the F–35 program, NORAD is working closely with and counting on the Air Force 

to ensure we have adequate resources to sustain our mission. This is critical because seven of our Air Sovereignty Alert sites fly older model F–16s, which are currently scheduled to reach the end of their service life between 2020 and 2023. 

Another area we are watching closely is the pace of wind farm development. Increases in the number of wind farms raise the likelihood that radar signals vital 

to our ability to protect the national airspace will be obstructed. We believe enabling 

the construction of alternative energy sources and conducting our national air defense mission are not mutually exclusive as long as we exercise due diligence in assessing the impact of potential projects. To this end, we have developed a more mature process for evaluating the impact of wind farms on national security. Multidepartmental cooperation is required to develop the policy, technical solutions, and 

future surveillance infrastructure that will provide both national security and renewable energy at the same time. 

We are also fostering a more collaborative relationship with the Russian Federation. In August 2010, NORAD and the Russian Federation completed an historic 

first—a cooperative 3-day, live-fly exercise designed to establish clear communication processes that would allow our two forces to work together during a real crisis. 

The exercise, Vigilant Eagle, was an international air terrorism scenario exercised 

over the Pacific Ocean consisting of forces from the United States and Russia responding to the simulated hijacking of a B–757 en route to and from the Far East. 

The exercise scenario created a situation that required both the Russian Air Force 

and NORAD to launch or divert fighter aircraft to investigate and follow a hijacked 

airliner, with a focus on shadowing and coordinated hand-off of monitored aircraft 

between fighters of our two nations. This exercise was an overwhelming success and 

has helped create an environment for further cooperative efforts. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

Several nations are developing the capacity to target North America with ballistic 

missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction in the belief those weapons 

will give them more freedom of action. Thus far, the United States is pacing the 

threat, but a lack of certainty of threat intentions and capabilities demands vigilance and agility. We focus on three imperatives in order to perform our missile defense mission: 

• Execute the ballistic missile defense mission with precision using the existing Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) fleet located at Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, CA and Fort Greely, AK 

• Develop realistic training simulations and constantly train as we intend 

to fight 

• Assist the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and U.S. Strategic Command 

as they continue concurrent research and development activities to improve 

capability 

I have gained increased confidence in the existing ballistic missile defense system’s ability—including our sensors, weapons systems, and highly trained operators—to defend against current limited threats. Nonetheless, I would like to see a 

more robust and redundant architecture for sensor and command and control nodes. 

It is critical that we continue to ensure our sensor network provides adequate warning and targeting information, that we test the entire system to verify its reliability 

and validate ongoing improvements, and that we remain vigilant to ensure our capabilities remain ahead of the evolving threat. Accordingly, I fully support the Department’s recent decision to keep the GBI production line open until at least 2016, 

as well as consideration to procure additional GBIs in light of recent flight test results. 

764 

As we continue to monitor other nations’ advancements in their long-range missile 

programs, I am optimistic the administration’s Phased Adaptive Approach to Ballistic Missile Defense will add another layer of defense for the homeland if future 

conceptual programs envisioned to support this approach materialize and mature. 

In the meantime, MDA has begun to demonstrate a two-stage GBI capability that 

I believe could contribute to U.S. homeland defense if a more mature threat appears 

more rapidly than we had originally projected. 

I remain alert to our ability to defend the Nation against the potential future 

threat of cruise missiles and other less conventional forms of air attack from off our 

coasts. This is a complex problem space that is defined by: the spectrum of capabilities and intentions of potential threats; our ability to generate indications that these 

capabilities or intentions might be changing; and the costs, timelines, and capabilities of varying levels of potential defensive postures. Presently, we are aware of no 

threat possessing both capability and intent to conduct such an attack. However, we 

must remain vigilant and prepared to adjust our posture should a threat combination emerge that changes this equation. Clearly, a strong deterrence posture is one 

of our most important hedges against such a threat. NORTHCOM and NORAD are 

drafting a Report to Congress on this issue as directed by the House Report to Accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (House Report 111–491). 

THE ARCTIC

The geopolitical importance of the Arctic has never been greater, because as far 

as we know, the natural environment in the Arctic in civilized times has never 

changed faster. Up to 25 percent of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil and natural gas deposits may lie beneath the Arctic ice cap. While most experts believe it 

will be some time before commercial Arctic shipping routes through the Northwest 

Passage and the Northern Sea Route see a significant increase in volume, some 

countries and commercial interests are actively testing the waters and making plans 

to increase their activity. We have seen a marked increase in Arctic ecotourism, and 

its attendant safety concerns, including the grounding of a cruise ship in the Northwest Passage last summer. 

Because these changes involve a complex mosaic of issues, challenges, and opportunities, and because a peaceful Arctic is central to the continued safety and security of the United States, I have elevated the Arctic to the status of a key focus area. 

We are crafting a Commander’s Estimate on the Arctic for use within DOD, and 

my commands are examining how we can best support our interagency partners in 

this region with search and rescue assets, humanitarian assistance, disaster response capabilities, and support to law enforcement. We are also working hand-inhand with Canada Command as a vital partner to produce a concept of operations 

regarding how we would partner in the Arctic to ensure our efforts are coordinated 

and that we pursue complementary rather than redundant capabilities in accordance with our respective national direction. 

Regarding capabilities, we are maturing our understanding of our gaps in this 

unique environment. We face shortcomings in all-domain awareness, communications, infrastructure (to include a deepwater port), mobility (to include adequate national icebreaking capability), search and rescue enabling capabilities, Arctic Ocean 

charting, and the ability to observe and forecast Arctic environmental change. 

The good news is that cooperation is on the rise in the Arctic, and we must continue that trajectory using the array of mechanisms available to us, such as the Arctic Council, the International Maritime Organization, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I would like to add my voice to those of the Secretary 

of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Chief of Naval Operations 

in urging the Senate to ratify the latter. Becoming party to the Convention would 

protect and advance U.S. interests in the Arctic by bolstering our national security, 

securing U.S. rights over extensive marine areas, and giving the United States a 

seat at the table when our vital interests are at stake—without abdicating any sovereignty. 

CONCLUSION

It is a privilege to be the military commander charged with the diverse array of 

missions to protect our vital interests in our homeland, whether deterring or defeating a direct attack, or supporting civil authorities in disrupting and defeating TCOs, 

or supporting other civil authorities in responding to disasters. 

You have a great team in NORTHCOM and NORAD—Americans and Canadians 

serving side-by-side. We are proud to serve together and as we do, we remember 

the vital importance to both the United States and Canada of the NORAD partnerVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00770 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
765 

ship, as well as the broad spectrum of missions demanded of NORTHCOM. We 

pledge to you—the U.S. Congress and the American and Canadian people—to give 

each one our best effort. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral, thank you so much. 

General Fraser. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. DOUGLAS M. FRASER, USAF, 

COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

General FRASER. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the committee: I also want to thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today and to discuss 

SOUTHCOM’s accomplishments and our efforts in Latin America 

and the Caribbean. I’m also very pleased to share this table with 

my good friend and counterpart from NORTHCOM, Admiral Sandy 

Winnefeld. As Senator McCain mentioned, we do have a very close 

cooperation that we work on a very routine basis, not only personally between the two of us, but our staffs, and that continues to 

grow very diligently. We work that very carefully, and that is to 

say that we work to make sure there is no disconnect and there 

is no seam in the conduct of U.S. forces within the Western Hemisphere across our borders. 

Over the past year, SOUTHCOM worked in close collaboration 

with other U.S. Federal agencies and our international partners to 

respond to natural disasters, like the earthquakes in Haiti and 

Chile, and to address the ongoing threats to regional security. This 

year, with the continued support of Congress, we will promote our 

U.S. national and regional security interests through enduring 

partnerships. 

SOUTHCOM engages with our military partners in the region to 

accomplish three broad goals: to defend the United States; to help 

maintain security and stability within the region; and to build enduring military-to-military partnerships. These partnerships, 

formed through routine education, training, and military exercises, 

are the focus of our daily engagement activities. 

Using this foundation, SOUTHCOM then focuses on two immediate challenges. First: natural disasters, like those we witnessed 

last year; and second: evolving threats posed by TCOs and the illicit activities they pursue. 

Hurricanes impact the northern part of our region every year. To 

help mitigate the impact of these storms, we help build emergency 

operations centers and warehouses for relief supplies that our partners can use to direct their respective domestic responses to natural diasters. We remain prepared to conduct disaster relief operations whenever needed and whenever requested. 

In regards to TCOs, we are working closely with our interagency 

and international partners to address this challenge. TCOs engage 

in illicit trafficking of drugs, arms, money, and people across porous borders throughout the region, as we mentioned earlier into 

the United States, but also abroad, into Africa and into Europe. 

They do not respect national sovereignty, laws, governments, or 

human life, and the violence they use in conducting their illicit activities presents a significant security challenge in the region. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in Central America, which is 

besieged by gangs and TCOs who conduct illicit trafficking with 

766 

near impunity and are causing unprecedented levels of violence. 

The northern triangle of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras is 

the deadliest zone in the world outside of active war zones. 

To address this problem, the newly formed Central American Citizen Security Partnership, announced recently by President 

Obama, supports the multilateral efforts of Central American nations and builds upon existing U.S. interagency efforts. In addition, 

it leverages the capabilities of partners such as Canada, Colombia, 

and Mexico in Central America. SOUTHCOM will support this effort. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to thank this committee for 

your support in funding the construction of our new headquarters 

in Miami. This state-of-the-art building enhances our internal and 

external collaboration, improves our ability to conduct interagency 

operations, and raises the quality of life for our assigned personnel. 

On behalf of the men and women of SOUTHCOM, I want to thank 

you. 

I’d also like to thank this committee and your very diligent staff 

for your continued support to our men and women in uniform. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Fraser follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. DOUGLAS M. FRASER, USAF 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the committee: 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss U.S. Southern 

Command’s accomplishments and future efforts in Central and South America and 

the Caribbean. Over the past year, we worked in close collaboration with U.S. Government agencies and our partner nations to respond to the unprecedented natural 

disaster in Haiti and to the ongoing threats to regional security. This year, with the 

support of Congress, we will build on our accomplishments and continue to foster 

close cooperation and engagement throughout the region. We will also continue to 

evolve as a joint and interagency organization that promotes U.S. national and regional security interests through enduring partnerships. 

These partnerships are not only enduring; they are essential. U.S. Southern Command envisions sustaining a shared partnership for the Americas; all nations working together to address problems of mutual concern. Under this vision, each exercise, program, and operation we conduct in the region augments the training of our 

joint forces, improves our ability to work with partner armed forces, and enhances 

the capabilities of our partners to confront regional security challenges. In addition, 

our programs directly integrate with and support other U.S. Government agencies’ 

efforts to enhance citizen safety, democratic governance, and economic prosperity. 

We also continuously coordinate our programs with other U.S. Government departments and agencies. Our response to the January 12, 2010 earthquake in Haiti 

demonstrated the effectiveness of these efforts. 

Before continuing, I would like to thank Congress for funding the construction of 

U.S. Southern Command’s new headquarters in Miami. This state-of-the-art building ensures that we are fully prepared to accomplish our mission: we are ready to 

conduct joint and combined fullspectrum military operations and to support wholeof-government efforts to enhance regional security and cooperation. The new headquarters enhances internal and external collaboration, improves our ability to conduct operations, and raises quality of life for assigned personnel. Our integrated, 

interagency headquarters significantly enhances our collaborative approach in working to achieve our strategic objectives in the region. 

REGIONAL CONTEXT

Positive Trends 

Latin America and the Caribbean are comprised of a multitude of cultures, languages, heritages, and histories. The United States is connected to this region by 

more than physical proximity; increasing travel and trade ensure our countries reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00772 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
767 

i U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. 2009 Market Profile: 

Central America. 2009 Market Profile: South America. 2009 Market Profile: Caribbean, and 

2009 U.S. Resident Travel Abroad. From 2002–2009, travel from the AOR to the United States 

increased by 32 percent and from the United States to the AOR by 41 percent. ii Hornbeck, J.F. (2010). U.S. Latin America Trade: Recent Trends and Policy Issues. Congressional Research Services: June 25, 2010. iiiThe Economic Commission for Latin America (2010). Preliminary Overview of the Economies 

of Latin America and the Caribbean 2010. Available online at: http://www.eclac.org/cgibin/ 

getProd.asp?xml=/prensa/noticias/comunicados/9/41979/P41979.xml&xsl=/prensa/tpl-i/ 

p6f.xsl&base=/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl ivThe Economic Commission for Latin America (2010). Social Panorama of Latin America 

2010. Santiago, Chile: November 2010. v United Nations Development Programme. 2010 Human Development Report. Available online at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR—2010—EN—Complete—reprint.pdf vi International Labour Office (2009). Bolsa Familia in Brazil: Context, Concept and Impact. 

Geneva: 2009. viiMDS (Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate a` Fome) (2009). Programas de 

Transferencia Condicionada de Renda: o caso do Bolsa Familia. Presentation made in the Employment and Social Policies Committee of the ILO Governing Body, March (Geneva). Cited in 

ILO Report (referenced above). 1 Brazil’s 2010 Gini coefficient=0.55 

viii Instituto de Pesquisa Econo ́mica Aplicada. 2008. PNAD 2007: Primeiras Ana ́lises:Pobreza 

e mudanςa social. Comunicado da Presidencia. N0 9, Sept. (Brasilia, IPEA). ixWorld Bank (2004). Shanghai Poverty Conference: Case Study Summary (Chile). Available 

online at: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/reducingpoverty/case/24/summary/ 

Chile%20Summary.pdf xThe Economic Commission for Latin America (2010). Social Panorama of Latin America 

2010. Santiago, Chile: November 2010. xi Ibid. 2 According to the Latinobarometro 2010: regionally, 15 percent of respondents support an authoritarian system; 23 percent did not know or were indifferent. In comparison, the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID)-sponsored AmericasBarometer survey by the Latin 

American Public Opinion Project indicates 70 percent support for democracy in countries surveyed in 2010 (www.lapopsurveys.org). xiiLatinobaro ́metro Corporation (2010). Latinobarometro Annual Report: 2010. Santiago,Chile. 

Available online at: www.latinobarometro.org 

main connected culturally, socially, and economically.i We are also connected by 

many shared values and a commitment to democratic ideals. The majority of countries throughout the region seek to consolidate the democratic, security, and economic progress achieved in recent years. U.S. Southern Command endeavors to support our partner nations in these efforts through enduring engagement and continued collaboration. 

The region’s recent history is characterized by sustained economic growth that 

benefits Latin America, the Caribbean, and the United States. Over the past 12 

years, U.S. trade with countries in the region grew at a faster rate than with China 

or the European Union. Although trade with Latin American and Caribbean economies still makes up a small percentage of overall U.S. trading activity (8.3 percent 

of all U.S. trading activity in 2009), this share grew by 15.3 percent over the past 

14 years.ii Economic indicators throughout the region have been generally positive: 

growth rates averaged 3.4 percent per year over the past decade and regional GDP 

grew 6 percent in 2010,iii due in large part to strong economies in South America. 

This significant economic growth has allowed some of our regional partners to invest in social and educational programs designed to alleviate poverty and reduce inequality. Both poverty and extreme poverty in the region fell by 3 percent from 2009 

to 2010.iv Income inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean is exhibiting some 

signs of lowering, thanks in part to targeted social investments.v In 2003, the Brazilian Government launched ‘‘Bolsa Familia,’’ which provides income support to poor 

families. In return, families commit to keeping their children in school and taking 

them for regular health checks.vi As of 2008, Bolsa Familia has reached 46 million 

people vii and has contributed to the improvement of income distribution in Brazil, 

resulting in the lowest levels of income inequality in the country’s recent history.1 viii

Chile’s strong economic performance in the past decade has permitted the government to invest heavily in hospitals, housing, education and pension reform.ix Between 1990 and 2000, poverty rates were reduced from 40 percent of the population 

to 20 percent; the 2009 poverty figure is currently 11.5 percent.x,xi

Sustained economic growth and positive social developments have been nurtured 

by a strong regional commitment to democracy. In the past decade, there have been 

numerous free and fair national elections resulting in peaceful transfers of power. 

Across the region, more than 60 percent of people surveyed prefer democratic governance to any other political system.2, xii Regional militaries have also made great 

768 

xiii Council on Foreign Relations (2008). Latin America and the United States: New Directions 

for a New Reality. Independent Task Force Report No. 60. xiv Azevedo, V. (2009). Social mobility in Latin America: a review of existing evidence. Interamerican Development Bank: Washington, DC. xv Reaching the untouchables. The Economist. March 11, 2010. http://www.economist.com/ 

node/15663302?story—id=15663302 xviThe Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Crime Threat Assessment. U. N. Office of 

Drug Control. 2010. xvii Congressional Research Service, Trafficking in Persons in Latin America and the Caribbean, October 16, 2009 xviii Casas-Zamora, Kevin (2010). Paying Attention to Central Americas Drug Trafficking Crisis. The Brookings Institute: October 27, 2010. Available online: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1027—central—america—drugs—casaszamora.aspx 

strides improving professionalism, subordinating to civilian rule and respecting 

human rights. 

Challenges to Regional Security 

Despite these positive economic, social, and political gains, several threats to security and stability in the region remain. Natural disasters wreak havoc and create 

humanitarian crises; social exclusion and poverty remain pervasive; and threats to 

democratic consolidation persist. The Americas, our common home, is vulnerable to 

many forms of natural disasters: hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, and floods are 

regular occurrences. Although the region was largely spared from the ravages of 

hurricanes this past year, it was devastated by two major earthquakes and experienced significant flooding. Inevitably, the region will be impacted by additional natural disasters in the coming year. 

While improving in some countries, poverty remains an ongoing challenge, particularly in Central America.xiii In many countries, poverty is difficult to reduce because of restraints on social mobility due to race and social class.xiv This social stagnation creates openings for criminal organizations to recruit new members who see 

crime as an opportunity for socioeconomic advancement. Positive change in social 

mobility is slowly occurring, but not at a rate that will significantly reduce the influence of criminal organizations in the short term. 

While many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean continue consolidating 

their democracies, some governments have hollowed out democratic institutions and 

eroded constitutional checks and balances—the key ingredients essential for a functioning democratic system. These undemocratic measures go against the shared values of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Though the Department of State and 

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are the lead agencies in 

supporting democracy and good governance initiatives to address such measures, 

U.S. Southern Command engages with the Armed Forces in the region to promote 

professionalization, respect for human rights, and subordination to democraticallyelected governments. 

While natural disasters, social inequalities, and undemocratic tendencies undermine regional stability, threats to citizen safety and border security represent broad 

concerns across the region. Weak institutions, inadequate support for the rule of law 

and lack of independent judiciaries limits accountability for corrupt government officials, business leaders, and criminals. In too many countries, less than 5 percent 

of all violent crimes are prosecuted.xv Widespread impunity undermines state institutions and provides safe haven for Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) 

to operate in an environment of lawlessness. An estimated $100 billion per year in 

illicit goods—drugs, weapons, counterfeit products—and an estimated 100,000 humans are trafficked through porous borders throughout the region.xvi, xvii

Violence is an inherent aspect of illicit activity; it is no coincidence that the countries in Latin America with the highest rates of violence are besieged by TCOs and 

criminal gangs. TCOs and supporting criminal elements exploit weak institutions 

and corrupt officials to conduct their illicit operations with impunity. As a result, 

insecurity is a fact of life for many of the citizens in the region. In recent years, 

the Central American corridor has seen a dramatic increase in illicit trafficking and 

brutal violence and is now the most violent region in the world outside of active war 

zones.xviii This is due, in part, to success in stemming illicit trafficking elsewhere 

in the region, which has pushed their activities into Central America. According to 

the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, homicides in Latin America and the 

Caribbean increased from 19.9 per 100,000 people in 2003 to 32.6 per 100,000 peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00774 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
769 

xix, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2007). Crime and Development in Central 

America: Caught in the Crossfire. Geneva: May 2007; International Crisis Group (2008). Latin 

America Drugs I: Losing the Fight. Latin America Report No. 25, March 14, 2008. 3 Comparing homicide rates puts the magnitude and deterioration of citizen insecurity in 

Latin America into perspective: in 2010, the homicide rate in Afghanistan was 8.6 per 100,000; 

13.7 in Iraq; 71.0 in El Salvador; and 77.0 in Honduras. Sources (multiple): United Nations Mission to Afghanistan; Iraq Body Count; and National Civilian Police figures. 4 At least 12 in 2010. 

xx Arnson, C. and Davidow, J., eds. (2011). China, Latin America, and the United States: The 

New Triangle. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Washington, DC. xxiPomfret, J. (2010). China invests heavily in Brazil, elsewhere in pursuit of political heft. 

Washington Post: July 26, 2010, section A01. xxii Associated Foreign Press. China investment in Peru tops in Latin America: Official. April 

22, 2010. 5For example, Peru’s purchase of eight Russian-made helicopters in July 2010 to conduct 

counter illicit trafficking operations. xxiii Bancroft-Hinchey, T. (2010). Russian Arms Sales Overtake United States in Latin America. Published September 9, 2010. Available online: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/09– 

02–2010/112127-russian—arms—sales-0/# 

ple in 2008 (the U.S. murder rate is 5.0 per 100,000 people).xix,3 Much of the violence related to TCOs is connected to the protection of trafficking routes and internal power struggles, but the criminality associated with the illegal drug trade and 

TCO activities increases the level of related crimes, including kidnapping, murder, 

money laundering, and firearms trafficking, the majority of which go unpunished. 

Confronting the threat posed by TCOs to citizen safety requires coordinated diplomatic, law enforcement, and military cooperation among countries in the region. In 

countering this threat, Department of Defense efforts are aligned and coordinated 

with our interagency partners. We focus our efforts on the consequences of security 

challenges in the region, and support our interagency and international partners in 

confronting the causes of these challenges. U.S. Southern Command strongly supports increased congressional funding to our interagency partners—including 

USAID and the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security—to strengthen regional civilian law enforcement agencies and judiciaries. We will continue to 

improve our collaboration with international and interagency colleagues to combine 

our efforts to disrupt and reduce transnational threats to the United States and regional security. 

Extra-Regional Actors in the Region 

As the Nations of Latin America and the Caribbean develop, they look beyond the 

hemisphere for trading partners, diplomatic support, and sources of aid, leading to 

increased activity in the hemisphere by various extra-regional state actors. U.S. 

Southern Command views this activity as both an opportunity and a challenge. We 

have a long history of regional security cooperation with the armed forces of countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, and Spain, and we also 

work with Canada on many issues related to hemispheric security. Additionally, we 

welcome activities by other countries when they are conducive to regional security 

and stability. However, as evident in the following observations, objectives for such 

activities are difficult to discern. 

For example, China has engaged with Latin American militaries through highlevel personnel exchanges 4 and arms sales. In summer 2010, China sold 18 K–8 

light attack and training aircraft worth millions to Venezuela. Earlier significant 

arms transfer agreements include air surveillance radars to Venezuela and Ecuador, 

as well as K–8 aircraft to Bolivia. Additionally, China has become one of the largest 

providers of investment and trade in the region. With a large appetite for the natural resources needed to supply its manufacturing sector, China’s imports of raw 

materials from the region reached $41 billion in 2009.xx The region is now also the 

second-largest destination for Chinese investments, which extend to local manufacturing as well as resource extraction.xxi,xxii

Although not a significant investor in the region, Russia has also found markets 

for arms sales in Latin America and the Caribbean. From 2002–2009, arms transfer 

agreements between Russia and Latin America increased several fold, peaking at 

$5 billion in sales in 2009.xxiii However, overall military spending remains low in 

Central and South America, and we expect some specific incidences of Russian arms 

and equipment sales to enhance the region’s ability to counter TCOs 5. In other 

cases, though, these sales have the potential to undermine regional stability. My 

principal concern with Russian arms in the region is the large number of 

manportable air defence systems and automatic weapons sold to Venezuela, and the 

potential they could reach the hands of organizations like the Revolutionary Armed 

Forces of Colombia (FARC). Beyond arms sales, Russia is also participating in infraVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00775 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
770 

6 Iran had 6 embassies in the AOR in 2005 and 10 in 2010. 

7The Presidents of Bolivia, Guyana, and Venezuela. 

structure development programs. For example, in 2010 Russia agreed to assist Argentina—as well as Venezuela—with nuclear energy programs. Russia is also widening its influence in the region by expanding diplomatic activities beyond its traditional allies of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. 

Finally, Iran continues expanding regional ties to support its own diplomatic goal 

of reducing the impact of international sanctions connected with its nuclear program. While much of Iran’s engagement in the region has been with Venezuela and 

Bolivia, it has nearly doubled the number of embassies in the region in the past 

decade 6 and hosted three regional heads of state in 2010.7 Currently, Iranian engagement with Venezuela appears to be based on shared interests: avoiding international isolation; access to military and petroleum technologies; and the reduction 

of U.S. influence. Together with our interagency partners, U.S. Southern Command 

will continue to monitor Iranian activity in the region consistent with law and policy 

to ensure that U.S. laws and international sanctions are respected, and that our existing partnerships remain strong and well-functioning. 

In addition to extra-regional state actors, members of violent extremist organizations (VEOs) from the Middle East remain active in Latin America and the Caribbean and constitute a potential threat. Hezbollah supporters continue to raise funds 

within the region to finance their worldwide activities. Several entities affiliated 

with Islamic extremism are increasing efforts to recruit adherents in the region, and 

we continue to monitor this situation closely. Additionally, we deploy military information and civil affairs teams to undergoverned spaces to help our regional partners 

to hinder these recruitment efforts and counter VEO propaganda. 

FOCUS AREAS

As we look to the future, U.S. Southern Command will continue supporting wholeof-government efforts that enhance the United States’ role as an enduring partner 

of choice in the region. We will continue to do our part to sustain a region of secure, 

stable, and prosperous partner nations that work cooperatively to address shared 

challenges. In this regard, we will focus in three key areas: countering TCOs and 

illicit trafficking; providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief; and supporting 

peacekeeping operations. 

Counter Illicit Trafficking 

TCOs and the illicit trafficking they conduct continue to be the primary threat 

to regional security. These groups construct flexible, resilient networks which use 

multiple paths to support illicit activity. In countering this international threat, 

working with our partners, we must attack TCOs in a broad, coordinated manner, 

to include demand reduction; eradication and regulation of source materials; suppression of money laundering; interdiction of the illicit shipments as they transit to 

the United States and other end-user countries; and ultimately the disruption and 

dismantling of TCOs operating in the region. However, TCOs are increasingly sophisticated and have proven resilient and adaptive to attempts to disrupt their operations. They are innovative; to minimize and avoid detection and interdiction by 

U.S. and regional authorities, criminal organizations have begun using self-propelled fully submersibles to conduct illicit trafficking from South America to Central 

America and Mexico. These submersibles, built in the jungles of western Colombia 

and Ecuador, provide TCOs with a multi-ton, long-range cargo capacity. They are 

hard to detect and difficult to intercept. U.S. Southern Command is working with 

our interagency partners, the military Services, and our partner nations’ armed 

forces to counter this evolving threat. 

Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-South) in Key West, FL, is the center 

of U.S. maritime interdiction efforts in the Caribbean Basin and eastern Pacific. 

Using information from law enforcement, JIATF-South detects and monitors suspect 

aircraft and maritime vessels, and then provides this information to international 

and interagency partners who have the authority to interdict illicit shipments and 

arrest members of TCOs. This past year, JIATF-South and our international and 

interagency partners were directly responsible for interdicting 142 metric tons of cocaine, 3,419 pounds of marijuana, and 309 arrests, denying TCOs $2.8 billion in revenue. 

JIATF-South’s collaborative, interagency approach serves as the model for our 

partnerships with other combatant commands and U.S. Government agencies. U.S. 

Southern Command works directly with U.S. Northern Command to synchronize 

Department of Defense operations in the Western Hemisphere, prevent TCOs from 

771 

xxiv Country Data: Colombia. World Bank Database. Available online at http:// 

data.worldbank.org. xxvOffice of National Drug Control Policy (2010). 2010 National Drug Control Strategy. Washington, DC: page 83. 

exploiting seams in our AORs, and coordinate the employment of our combined resources. Specifically, U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command are coordinating counter-TCO actions with Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico to enhance our 

combined efforts to reduce trafficking along their borders. In addition, U.S. Southern Command coordinates counter-TCO activities with our other partners throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean. 

Active engagement with our partner nations is a key component to effectively 

counter transnational criminal activities. U.S. Southern Command supports U.S. 

Government security initiatives in Colombia, Central America, and the Caribbean. 

Our ongoing strategic partnership with Colombia—undertaken within the framework of the Colombian Strategic Development Initiative (CSDI) originally developed 

by the U.S. Embassy in Bogota—serves as a model for integrated collaboration. 

CSDI aligns the U.S. Government support to Colombia with the Colombian government’s National Consolidation Plan, a whole-of-government effort to expand State 

presence and services in targeted areas where poverty, violence, illicit crop cultivation, and drug trafficking have historically converged. Colombia has suffered from 

decades of violence and instability as narco-terrorist groups, financing their activities through drug trafficking, waged an insurgency against the government. While 

challenges remain, the security situation today in Colombia is drastically different, 

thanks in large part to the sustained efforts of the Government of Colombia, supported by Plan Colombia and its corresponding U.S. Government-sponsored initiatives. Since August 2002, more than 54,000 combatants from Colombia’s illegal 

armed groups have demobilized. Of these, 58 percent demobilized collectively as a 

result of an agreement between the Government of Colombia and the paramilitary 

United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). The FARC’s strength has declined 

from over 18,000 in 2002 to around 8,000 today and its territorial control has decreased significantly. The successes of Plan Colombia and Colombia’s own democratic security initiatives resulted in the acceleration of economic development; security and stability have helped Colombia achieve annual growth rates averaging 4 

percent.xxiv

U.S. Southern Command’s role in supporting the execution of Plan Colombia and 

its corresponding programs and initiatives involved equipping and training the Colombian armed forces; the sharing of technical expertise; and the facilitation of technology transfers. The armed forces of Colombia continue to yield positive results. In 

2010, with the support of the U.S. Embassy country team and U.S. Southern Command, the Colombian armed forces planned and executed a string of operational 

successes, including eliminating Victor Julio Suarez Rojas, also known as ‘‘Mono 

Jojoy’’ (the FARC’s long-time military leader and fourth in command) and 15 other 

high-ranking FARC members. I ask for continued congressional support for Colombia; your support has resulted in a valuable and reliable partner directly involved 

in countering illicit trafficking and promoting regional stability. As noted in the 

2010 National Drug Control Strategy, while Colombia’s gains have been impressive, 

they are reversible, and we value continued congressional support to CSDI and 

other initiatives.xxv

Our focus on countering transnational criminal organizations and their illicit trafficking activities extends beyond Colombia to include Central America and the Caribbean. In support of the U.S. Government’s two sub-regional initiatives to improve 

citizen safety—the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) and the 

Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI)—U.S. Southern Command will continue 

to support interagency efforts to interdict illicit trafficking in international waters 

and airspace. Through Theater Security Cooperation activities, we will continue to 

enhance the capacity and capability of our partner militaries to operate within their 

respective territories and to support bilateral and multilateral counter illicit trafficking operations. 

With its porous borders, lack of surveillance capabilities, and under-governed 

areas, Central America has become the TCOs’ preferred transit zone to the United 

States. TCOs support and use a spectrum of destabilizing activities to conduct their 

operations, to include corruption, intimidation, extortion, kidnapping, targeted violence, and terror tactics. Confronting this spectrum requires a sophisticated, orchestrated strategy that both guides efforts to meet current challenges as well as sets 

a framework for disrupting future TCO adaptations. 

Our current plan to counter the trafficking threat in Central America is to support U.S. interagency efforts and help build self-sustaining regional military capacVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00777 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
772 

8 Enduring Friendship countries include: Dominican Republic, Bahamas (funding provided in 

fiscal year 2006 when they were in the U.S. Southern Command AOR), Jamaica, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Belize. Enduring Friendship was expanded into 

the Eastern Caribbean under the ‘‘Secure Seas’’ rubric providing funding to the Regional Security System HQ, Barbados, Grenada, Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts & Nevis, Dominica, St 

Vincent& the Grenadines, St Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago, Suriname, and Guyana. 

ity to increase the cost and consequences to TCOs of using the Central American 

transit zone. Under initiatives like Enduring Friendship, we facilitated the procurement of maritime interdiction assets and command, control, and communications 

(C3) capabilities for Central American and Caribbean Basin countries.8 To strengthen international borders, we are facilitating technology transfers that support Department of Homeland Security training that is improving our partners’ ability to 

detect and interdict illicit shipments at international crossings. We are also providing training and equipment to partner nations’ ground forces to strengthen their 

capacity to respond to TCO-related events requiring a military response. 

However, the limited capabilities of Central American states have allowed Mexican TCOs to establish convenient points of entry for illegal drugs coming from South 

America. Nearly all cocaine destined for the United States crosses the GuatemalaMexico border. The expansion of Mexican TCOs into Central America has created 

even more violence and crime, and a significant decline in citizen safety. Focusing 

specifically on this vulnerable Mexico-Guatemala-Belize border area, we are engaged 

in planning with our U.S. Northern Command, interagency, and partner nation colleagues, and are on solid footing towards developing a regional operations capability 

among these three countries. 

With Caribbean Basin countries, we want to reduce the ability of TCOs to expand 

their operations. To achieve this goal, we will support CBSI and leverage existing 

regional initiatives in the Caribbean Basin like the Caribbean Community and the 

Regional Security System in the Eastern Caribbean to build capacity to conduct aerial and maritime surveillance and interdict illicit trafficking. 

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) 

HA/DR consists of two separate but complementary missions. Humanitarian assistance provides support for basic human needs—food, water, shelter, and sanitation—to populations temporarily or chronically underserved. Disaster relief reduces 

the human suffering associated with natural disasters which cause the disruption 

of normal transportation and commerce and destroy infrastructure. Our annual humanitarian and civic assistance exercises provide valuable training for U.S. military 

medical, engineering, and combat support personnel, while complementing the Department of State and USAID’s goal of advancing community development and hemispheric prosperity. Disaster relief activities go beyond deploying our own forces 

when disaster strikes. We also seek to improve our partner nations’ capacity to conduct disaster relief operations within their own borders, and when possible, outside 

their borders. We envision a region in which mutual assistance is the norm. 

Our annual training exercises in the Caribbean Basin and Central America help 

improve our ability to conduct disaster relief and humanitarian assistance at both 

the tactical and operational levels. In 2010, we conducted 76 medical readiness 

training exercises (MEDRETEs), resulting in the treatment of 276,827 patients 

throughout the region. During our annual engineering exercises—New Horizons and 

Beyond The Horizons—our forces built or renovated 10 schools, 6 health centers, 6 

sanitation facilities, 2 police stations, and 7 water wells in communities in Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. These exercises 

also helped increase response capabilities of the participating partner nations; during the course of the training, our forces provided valuable training to first responders and disaster managers in the host countries. 

Joint Task Force-Bravo (JTF–B) at Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras provides regional support for responding to natural disasters and supporting counter drug operations with our partners in Central America and the Caribbean. In 2010, JTF–B 

medical personnel conducted four Medical Capability Projects in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, treating 6,981 patients and also supported relief 

efforts in Haiti and in Guatemala after the eruption of the Pacava volcano and the 

landfall of Tropical Storm Agatha. I thank Congress for its continued support of 

JTF–B, especially for the appropriation of funds to support construction of new barracks at Soto Cano. 

Unquestionably, the most significant 2010 HA/DR operation for U.S. Southern 

Command was Operation Unified Response in Haiti. The situation after the January 

12 earthquake was grim: over 230,000 people killed, 300,000 wounded, and 1 million 

people displaced in our hemisphere’s poorest country. Critical infrastructure, includVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00778 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
773 

ing the Port-au-Prince airport and seaport, was destroyed or unserviceable. Thirteen 

of fifteen government ministries were destroyed, crippling the Haitian government’s 

ability to respond. 

We established Joint Task Force-Haiti in support of USAID, the lead Federal 

agency for the disaster response effort. Our response was immediate: within hours 

the airport was reopened; within days maritime transportation was reestablished, 

allowing the influx of food, water, and medical supplies. U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines provided critical rescue, medical, and relief supply distribution 

support for the Haitian people. During Operation Unified Response, U.S. forces delivered 2.3 million meals, 17 million pounds of bulk food, 2.6 million bottles of 

water, and almost 150,000 pounds of medical supplies. In addition, Department of 

Defense medical personnel—operating on the ground as well as onboard USNS 

Comfort—treated almost 10,000 patients, and conducted 1,025 surgeries and 343 

medical evacuations. In partnership with nongovernmental organizations and the 

private sector, U.S. Southern Command coordinated both the delivery of additional 

relief supplies worth $36.2 million and the integration of 200 civilian medical specialists and translators into our relief efforts. 

JTF-Haiti completed its mission on May 15, but the end of our operation did not 

signify the end of our support to Haiti. Instead, we transitioned to a smaller mission 

consisting of targeted humanitarian and civic assistance exercises. As part of New 

Horizons Haiti 2010, approximately 500 personnel—mainly from the Louisiana National Guard—deployed to Haiti from June to September 2010. Engineers completed 

13 projects, building schools, improving wells, and constructing sanitation facilities. 

Medical forces conducted 10 MEDRETES and established clinics that each served 

4,000 to 5,000 patients. Equally noteworthy, the exercise involved forces from another country in the region. Belize—partnering with the Louisiana National Guard 

under the State Partnership Program—deployed an engineer company to assist with 

reconstruction efforts. This example of regional collaboration represents the type of 

capability we actively seek to build and sustain throughout Latin America and the 

Caribbean. Our commitment to Haiti is ongoing. As Haiti rebuilds, U.S. Southern 

Command will continue to conduct annual humanitarian and civil assistance exercises and respond to lingering effects of the devastating earthquake, as well as other 

humanitarian challenges. 

U.S. Southern Command also supported U.S. Government disaster relief efforts 

in Chile following a devastating 8.8 magnitude earthquake on February 27, 2010. 

In support of USAID, approximately 150 U.S. military personnel deployed to Chile 

and worked with local and international responders to deliver 300,000 pounds of relief supplies. Working with Chilean counterparts, a U.S. Air Force Expeditionary 

Medical Support team treated more than 300 patients. U.S. Southern Command 

also partnered with the private sector, which donated $1.2 million in transportation 

assistance to ship 40,000 meals-ready-to-eat to Chile. It is important to note that 

Chile possessed the internal capacity to effectively respond to the disaster, requiring 

limited assistance from the U.S and other nations. This epitomizes the type of capability we seek to promote with our other regional partners. 

Finally, during hurricane season in the Caribbean Basin, U.S. Southern Command remains prepared to assist any partner nation in the region affected by a 

tropical cyclone. We design our annual maritime deployment, Continuing Promise, 

to conduct humanitarian assistance in the Caribbean Basin while maintaining readiness to respond to disaster relief efforts, if requested. This past year, USS Iwo 

Jima—with a Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force of approximately 500 

marines, 128 NGO personnel, and 44 partner nation personnel embarked—deployed 

to the Caribbean Basin between July and November. During eight port visits, U.S. 

medical personnel treated 45,517 patients and performed 329 surgeries; dental personnel treated 15,472 patients; and veterinarians treated 26,969 animals. Engineers 

completed 23 projects over the course of the deployment. In late October, when Hurricane Tomas was forecast to strike Haiti with Category 3 strength, U.S. Southern 

Command diverted USS Iwo Jima from a scheduled port visit in Suriname to a safe 

location near Hispaniola as part of U.S. Government response preparations. Following landfall of the storm, USS Iwo Jima moved into the area quickly and U.S. 

Marine helicopters conducted several damage assessment flights. Fortunately, Hurricane Tomas only struck a glancing blow to southwestern Haiti, and relief organizations already on the ground were able to respond to the minimal damage caused 

by the hurricane. 

Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) 

Our partner nations exhibit a tremendous capacity to conduct peacekeeping operations in the region and around the globe. During Operation Unified Response, U.S. 

Southern Command drew on the strengths of our South American regional partners 

774 

9GPOI countries: Belize, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru, Paraguay, 

Uruguay, and Dominican Republic. Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador are pending diplomatic agreements. 10Panamax participants: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, 

Peru, and Uruguay. 

who comprised the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). Led 

by a Brazilian general officer, peacekeepers from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, 

and Uruguay were on the ground when the earthquake occurred and were instrumental in maintaining security and leading the initial response. MINUSTAH continues to play an invaluable role in Haiti through the on-going efforts of our hemispheric partners. U.S. Southern Command also supports peacekeeping efforts 

through our partnership in the Department of State’s Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). Joining with nine countries in the region, we develop or enhance national training capabilities and equip potential peacekeeping units for deployment 

of U.N. Peace Support Operations.9 We conduct the annual PKO Americas exercise, 

which is designed to improve partner nation capacity to plan and conduct peacekeeping operations. In the coming year, we will continue to support GPOI and our 

regional partners who take the lead in peacekeeping operations. 

ENDURING ENGAGEMENT

Military-to-Military 

Building partner nation capacity and enhancing interoperability is at the core of 

everything we do in our AOR. In implementing this strategy, we facilitate exchanges, seminars, and training exercises throughout the region with our partner 

militaries. A cornerstone of our engagement strategy is the International Military 

Education and Training program, which provides professional development for foreign military officers and senior enlisted personnel from Latin America and the Caribbean. Each year, U.S. Southern Command helps send approximately 5,000 students from the AOR to attend U.S. military training programs across the Department of Defense, to include the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, the Inter-American Defense College, and the Inter-American Air Forces Academy. Our goal is to encourage our 

partner nation militaries to promote institutional professionalism within the context 

of democratic governance. These programs are vital to building and sustaining relations with our partners throughout the region. 

Our training and education programs also promote respect for human rights with 

our military partners. These programs remain important across the region, but hold 

particular relevance in the few countries whose militaries are being asked by their 

governments to assist local police forces in supporting and enhancing internal security. U.S. Southern Command’s programs support our military partners in preparing 

to assume these roles and help them provide clear instructions to their soldiers to 

support and respect human rights. Our human rights programs and initiatives remain an important aspect of our engagement throughout the region. 

Our engagement strategy is reinforced through our Foreign Military Interaction 

(FMI) exercise program. Every year U.S. Southern Command sponsors seven military exercises specifically designed to facilitate interoperability, build capabilities, 

and provide venues to share best practices among the military and security forces 

in the region. Our largest multinational exercise, Panamax 2010, brought together 

18 nations from the Western Hemisphere to train for the defense of the Panama 

Canal.10 Other key FMI exercises in the region include Tradewinds, Fuerzas 

Comando, and Unitas. These exercises provide a venue for participating militaries 

to train together and maintain security and stability within the region. 

Interagency 

Very few threats in the region require a conventional military response; as a result, the predominant security challenges we face are best addressed through the 

coordinated efforts of many U.S. Government agencies. U.S. Southern Command 

headquarters is organized to support this coordination and collaboration; 27 representatives from 12 different agencies are embedded throughout our structure. This 

integration is both efficient and effective, allowing us to combine resources, perspectives, and expertise to collectively address issues in the region. Our interagency 

partners contribute to the development of strategic plans and participate in our joint 

exercises and operations, a cooperation that is critical to our success in the region. 

We continue to seek innovative ways to orchestrate our efforts across the U.S. Government to maximize our results. 

775 

REQUIREMENTS

In order to successfully achieve our strategic objectives in the region, U.S. Southern Command has identified requirements in two key areas: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance and Foreign Military Sales. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) are critical enablers of U.S. 

Southern Command’s operations. Effective countering of illicit trafficking operations 

is contingent upon our ability to detect and monitor illegal activities. As demonstrated during Operation Unified Response, ISR is also valuable for supporting 

HA/DR operations. ISR components—such as improved imagery intelligence, wide 

area coverage, sensor integration, signals intelligence, moving target indicators, layered ISR architecture and management tools, and biometrics—will improve our ability to synthesize a common operating picture to better support our operations in the 

region. 

An additional source of valuable regional insight is information available and disseminated on the Internet. Social media and social networks provide opportunities 

for increased regional awareness and improved collaboration with our partners. U.S. 

Southern Command is improving our ability to analyze social media sources such 

as Twitter and blogs so we can identify regional trends early and accurately. When 

appropriate, we are also seeking to improve and expand the use of the All Partners 

Access Network, an online community that promotes collaboration among governmental and nongovernmental organizations during exercises and operations. 

We continue to work with the defense industry and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to identify promising technologies that match our requirements. Specific needs include: flexible, persistent manned and unmanned aerial vehicles; light detection and ranging technologies for foliage penetration; fast and 

flexible unmanned surface craft to support maritime domain awareness; acoustic 

and electronic sensor technologies to detect semi- and fully-submersible craft; commercial satellite radars with the ability to detect high-speed watercraft; next generation Over-the-Horizon radars; non-electro-optical imagery which enables change 

detection; and the associated Tasking, Collection, Processing, and Dissemination architecture. Individually and collectively, all of these technologies enable our operations and represent opportunities to develop regional capabilities. 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) are key components in the security assistance the U.S. Government provides our partner nations. The goal of these programs is to increase partner nation capability and capacity to help us address threats to security and stability. Ideally, FMS would be an 

efficient process to rapidly support and enhance partner nation capabilities and deliver products that are tailored and appropriate for a nation’s requirement. Unfortunately, the current program is inflexible and does not allow for efficient coordination 

within the interagency community. An improved FMS program would increase 

interoperability, strengthen military and economic ties, and maximize the efficient 

use of resources. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency has begun reforms that 

represent a promising start to addressing the inadequacies of the current FMS system. We also support efforts to pool State and Defense resources for the purpose 

of funding more robust and comprehensive security sector assistance programs to 

respond to emergent challenges and opportunities. These and other improvements 

are necessary to effectively develop a comprehensive, integrated security assistance 

program. 

CONCLUSION

U.S. Southern Command is committed to being a trusted, reliable partner of 

choice in the region. Our success will depend on our ability to engage effectively and 

transparently with regional militaries, partner nation governments, and our interagency partners. We actively work with the countries in our AOR to build enduring, 

mutually beneficial partnerships that address our shared security concerns: violence 

and instability caused by TCOs and illicit trafficking, and the repercussions of natural disasters. Each training exercise and operation in the region is designed to increase partner nation capabilities to help us confront these challenges; we envision 

a region that is capable and willing to share the responsibility of hemispheric security and stability. Although we have experienced successes, we remain vigilant for 

evolving threats; watchful for new opportunities; and willing to engage with our 

partners to enhance our international, interagency, and public-private relationships. 

None of the progress we made this year would be possible without the dedication 

and hard work of our military and civilian personnel, the support of their families, 

and the cooperation by the men and women from our partner agencies who serve 

alongside us. I thank Congress again for your continued support to all the dedicated 

776 

professionals at U.S. Southern Command as we serve together to accomplish our 

mission. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Let’s try a 7-minute first round. 

Admiral, let me start with you. According to a recent press article, leaders of the National Guard and the Army Reserve, including 

General McKinley, who’s chief of the National Guard Bureau, told 

a House committee last week that they believe that current law 

should be changed to allow the Reserves to be activated to respond 

to a natural disaster. 

Can you tell us whether you agree with their view that it would 

be beneficial to modify the law to allow the Reserves to be called 

up to help States respond to natural disasters? Are you working 

with the Council of Governors to address the concerns that they 

have expressed about that proposal? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I do agree that it 

would be helpful for the law to be changed so that Reserves could 

be involuntarily activated in the wake of a disaster. I appreciate 

the comments that were made by General McKinley and his colleagues last week. I would point out that we are working closely 

with the Council of Governors. We want to make sure that they are 

comfortable with this. I believe that this initiative should come 

from the governors and I believe that eventually it will. I think 

we’ve formed such a very good partnership in the wake of the establishment of the Council of Governors that I think we’re on a 

very good trajectory there. 

So again, I think that we would never want to have to come to 

this committee and explain why we were not able to bring all elements of national power to bear to help American citizens that are 

in danger, but I think taking a deliberate approach so that the governors are comfortable is the right way to go. 

Chairman LEVIN. I would hope you would pursue that course, because it just doesn’t seem sensible to me not to have that capability. We tried it once before here and the governors reacted negatively, I guess because they weren’t involved in the takeoff. But it 

is important that we work that out so that, whether the initiative 

comes from the governors or whether—wherever it comes from, 

that the governors are comfortable with it and understand that it 

can make a real difference in response to a disaster. 

Now, I think that there’s an initiative, talking about initiatives, 

which you’ve undertaken for dual-status commanders for FederalState military cooperation in responding to domestic disasters. Can 

you describe how that concept would work in practice and where 

is it? Has this been implemented in any of the States yet? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir. This is another outgrowth of the 

efforts of the Council of Governors. As you are aware, there has 

been some historical friction between the State governments and 

the Federal Government regarding command and control of military forces inside a State in the wake of a disaster. Understandably, the State governors would like to have control because they 

are sovereign States; and also understandably, the Federal Government believes it has a vested interest in Federal forces being used 

legally, ethically, safely, and cost-effectively. 

777 

What we’ve done is, historically for deliberately planned events, 

such as support for political conventions or inaugurations or 

Superbowls or what have you, is a deliberate 6-month planning 

process for a dual-status commander, in which a National Guardsman would be dual qualified to command Federal troops in a chain 

of command leading to the President and State troops in a chain 

of command leading to the supported State governor. 

We asked the question last year why this would not work in the 

wake of a disaster, as long as we properly trained the National 

Guardsman who would be potentially in command and provided 

the proper support for that National Guardsman’s staff, to include 

a Title 10 deputy commander and some supporting staff elements 

that can bring some Federal expertise to bear. 

We put this in motion under some very good cooperation between 

the National Guard Bureau, NORTHCOM, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and a number of other key players. We 

prototyped it in the States of Florida, Texas, and California over 

the course of late summer. It worked very well. In particular, we 

have a very intense training program for these particular National 

Guardsmen who would be chosen to do this kind of response. Then 

we took it to the Council of Governors and it’s been approved by 

the Council. 

Since then, we have trained 31 National Guardsmen from 31 different States to be State Joint Task Force (JTF) commanders who 

could be dual status qualified, and we will have the remainder of 

the 54, because of the States and the territories and Washington, 

DC, trained by the end of the summer. The only thing we’re really 

waiting for is the fact that there has to be a memorandum of agreement between the affected State and the Federal Government. 

We’re trying to get those memoranda done in advance of a disaster 

so that we can turn on a dime when the disaster occurs, the President and the governor can agree that a dual-status commander is 

appropriate, and we believe it normally will be appropriate, and 

then off we go. 

It’s a tremendous initiative. I’m really grateful to my State partners and my National Guard partners for making this work, and 

it’s really transformed our relationship and the way we do business. 

Chairman LEVIN. We thank you for that. As I understand it, 

there’s a deputy commander who’s a Title 10 commander underneath that dual-status commander; is that correct? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you need any legislative authority, legal authority, or do you have all you need to make this happen? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We have the legal authority that we need 

to make all this happen, sir. But I think tied to this is your previous question of activating the Reserves involuntarily in the wake 

of a disaster. We’re exploring carefully right now with the council 

how we might make a legislative proposal that would codify the 

contingency dual-status commander in legislation, and I think that 

would give a lot more confidence to the governors in their willingness to accept having the Reserves involuntarily activated. 

So we’re exploring that right now. It’s in its early stages and I’m 

sure we’ll be able to report back to you. 

778 

Chairman LEVIN. I would think that the agreement should be 

signed before the problem. You said you’re hoping that it would be 

signed before the problem. The time to get it signed is not after the 

disaster. So would you keep this committee informed on progress 

that you’re making in that regard? Would you also send us a copy 

of what I assume would be a form agreement that would apply to 

all 54 units? Would that be separate, a different kind of contract 

with each, or would it be a form? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We have sent to the National Governors 

Association a straw man, if you will, of what a memorandum would 

look like. Because the individual States are sovereign States, they 

will want to conclude a separate agreement with the Federal Government. But we believe and certainly hope that they will be relatively similar, with only minor modifications based on the particular laws of the State. 

But I would be happy to supply you with that draft memorandum. 

Chairman LEVIN. Would you do that? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Enclosed is a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) jointly developed by the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the Joint Staff, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, the National 

Guard Bureau, and the Office of the DOD General Counsel. This MOA can significantly expedite establishment of a Dual-Status Commander, consistent with the direction of the Joint Action Plan for Developing Unity of Effort. 

779 


405ful1.eps
780 


405ful2.eps
781 


405ful3.eps
782 


405ful4.eps
783 


405ful5.eps
784 


405ful6.eps
785 


405ful7.eps
786 


405ful8.eps
787 


405ful9.eps
788 


405ful10.eps
789 


405ful11.eps
790 


405ful12.eps
791 


405ful13.eps
792 


405ful14.eps
793 

Chairman LEVIN. My time is up. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Winnefeld, both of us mentioned in 

our opening remarks that 35,000 Mexican citizens have been killed 

in the drug cartel situation in Mexico. You’ve been in your job for 

about a year. Would you agree that the drug cartels pose an existential threat to the Government of Mexico? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sir, I don’t believe they pose an existential 

threat to the government. They don’t have political ambition to 

take down the Government of Mexico and I don’t think that’s—— 

Senator MCCAIN. No, but they have ambitions to control certain 

areas of Mexico. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. They have ambitions to preserve their market share and to have the freedom to maneuver, certainly to ply 

their evil trade, if you will, in Mexico and in the United States, yes, 

sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Have you seen an increase or a decrease in violence in the last year since you’ve been in command? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I think that the violence has actually increased. I think part of that has to do with increasing competition 

among the cartels, I also think that part of that has to do with the 


405ful15.eps
794 

Calderon government’s courageous decision to continue this fight 

and not back off of the cartels. 

Senator MCCAIN. Have you been briefed that in Arizona there 

are somewhere around 100 or more guides that are sitting on 

mountains in Arizona guiding the drug traffickers across the border and up to Phoenix, AZ? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sir, I was not aware that there are guides 

on the mountains guiding them. It wouldn’t surprise me if they 

have some sort of an arrangement set up to get their people where 

they want them to go. 

Senator MCCAIN. You’re aware that about 40 percent or 50 percent of the marijuana smuggled into the United States from Mexico 

comes through the Tucson sector of our border? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir, I’m aware of that. 

Senator MCCAIN. So what is your prediction as to what will happen here with the Mexican efforts to bring these cartels under control? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. It’s very hard, as we found in other places 

where we’ve been involved in some sort of a struggle, to predict 

anything definitively. However, I would say, as I mentioned in my 

opening remarks, that the Mexican military and overall security 

forces are undergoing a very important transition right now, that 

I think is going to lead to more success on their part. 

They’re learning more about how to do the sort of irregular work. 

They are working much more closely together. They are seeking 

our help in the right way. I believe that the opportunity exists, if 

we can support them properly, if they can continue the progress 

that they’re making, that they can turn the corner on this. But it 

still remains to be seen. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you assess our border, the U.S.-Mexico 

border, as being secure? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sir, I would say that security is not a binary answer, yes or no. It is secure to a degree. I don’t think it’s 

secure to the degree that any of us would want it to be, but I think 

there has been progress over the last couple of years, at least. 

We’re determined to support our law enforcement partners as well 

as we can to enhance their efforts to make it even more secure. 

But it would be false to say that it’s perfectly secure, absolutely. 

Senator MCCAIN. Some of us believe that the increase in the 

level of violence in Mexico has exceeded our efforts to secure the 

border. On the Mexican southern border they have a lot of work 

to do to secure their border; is that correct? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Absolutely, yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. General Fraser, what effect has the failure to 

ratify the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement had on our relations with Colombia? 

General FRASER. Senator, from a military-to-military relationship 

we still have very close relationships and continue to do that. I 

would see an agreement on a free trade agreement as a very positive, beneficial aspect for our cooperation with them, because I see 

a growing capacity to support the capabilities of the Armed Forces 

and law enforcement capabilities to then address the issues that 

they have within their countries. 

795 

Senator MCCAIN. Recent press reports state that Hugo Chavez is purchasing $15 billion in weapons, tanks, submarines, and helicopters primarily from Russia, China, and Spain. What’s that all 

about? 

General FRASER. Senator, I can’t tell you exactly why President 

Chavez has chosen to purchase that level of weapons, and I can’t 

confirm the $15 billion number. It’s still a large number, between 

$8 and $12 billion, that he’s made agreements with various countries for. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is that destabilizing? 

General FRASER. Senator, I don’t see the fact of purchasing those 

weapons as a destabilizing factor within the region. My bigger concern on the purchase of weapons is the number of automatic weapons that he has purchased as a part of those agreements and the 

potential that those could make it into the hands of illicit or illegal 

armed groups. That is my bigger concern. 

Senator MCCAIN. The Chinese have increased their presence dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere, would you agree, General? 

General FRASER. Yes, sir, I would. 

Senator MCCAIN. Their reasons are purely for natural resource 

access reasons in your view? 

General FRASER. I see it as a very complex relationship, Senator. 

I see both diplomatic efforts as well as commercial. There is a 

growing effort also in the defense area, with exchanges with military members within the region, as well as also selling arms like 

K–8 aircraft to Venezuela as well as defense radars. So there is a 

growing effort both commercial and diplomatic with Latin American countries, but I would argue they’re doing the same thing 

looking for markups within China as well. 

Senator MCCAIN. We hear continued reports about these gangs 

of human smugglers and drugs, these criminal gangs, that now 

seem to be transnational in nature, rotating from places like Salvador and Honduras and others, up to Mexico and into the United 

States. Do you see that as being on the increase? How serious a 

problem do you view that to be? 

General FRASER. Senator, it is a serious problem. The 

transnational nature of it, we don’t see it within the gangs at the 

same level we see it within the drug trafficking organizations and 

other illicit activities. We still see it very much localized, but there 

are large numbers of gangs and they are starting to make some 

transnational connections, but those are really more through those 

other organizations, not the gangs themselves. 

The gangs, though, in trying to get their credibility within the 

streets, are increasing the levels of violence to show and demonstrate that credibility, and that’s the growing problem I see with 

gangs, within Central America, especially. 

Senator MCCAIN. Just one question I forgot to ask, Admiral 

Winnefeld. Do you know whether the cost of an ounce of cocaine 

on the street in Des Moines is up or down? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sir, I don’t know whether it’s up or down. 

Over which period of time? 

Senator MCCAIN. In the last year. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I don’t know, but I can find that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

796 

The price of an ounce of cocaine in the Des Moines, IA, area has remained fairly stable in the 2009 to 2010 timeframe, at approximately $1,000 to $1,200 per ounce, 

based on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s reporting. Over a longer period of 

time, the price of cocaine is a complex function of supply and demand, and due to 

the opaque nature of this market, it can be difficult to decipher what causes a 

change in price. 

Senator MCCAIN. Isn’t that the best measurement of whether we 

are succeeding or failing in stopping the flow of drugs into this 

country? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sir, I think it’s a very complex metric, and 

I’m very suspicious, frankly, of numerical metrics we apply to any 

of this, because it’s a supply and demand problem. The biggest engine of this whole challenge that we face is U.S. drug demand and 

if drug demand goes up, of course, the price is going to go up. If 

supply goes down, the price is going to go up as well. 

So I don’t have my arms around exactly whether it’s a demand 

problem or a supply problem that would be driving that principally 

in recent months. 

Senator MCCAIN. But the number has not changed in your view? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. As far as I’m aware, it hasn’t changed. But 

I’m not sure, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral and General, thank you for your testimony. Thanks for 

your leadership. You’re both at the command of important commands that really affect the security of the American people. These 

tend not to be in the news today except with regard to the violence 

in Mexico and drugs coming into the United States, but on a daily 

basis, the testimony that both of you have filed, which really is 

very interesting, important reading, shows that you’re doing critically important work. 

I’d say, wearing my other hat as chair of the Senate Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Admiral, I think 

you’ve done a really exceptional job at negotiating agreements with 

the governors, between the governors and the Department of Defense (DOD) and really, effectively, each other and the adjutant 

general, that have created the opportunity for a level of preparedness and response to disasters, both natural disasters and unnatural, which is to say terrorist attacks, that is really quite impressive. 

I thank you very much for it. 

Frankly, I think if more people both in Congress and throughout 

the country knew where we are on all that, they’d feel more secure. 

Of course, these are all applications of lessons learned from the two 

national traumas that we had different kinds of traumas: September 11, and then Hurricane Katrina and the failure of our government to protect our people. 

Let me focus in first on part of that. DOD has transitioned now 

from an initial plan to have three so-called chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRNE) consequence management response forces to now having 10 Homeland response forces and 1 

DOD CBRNE response force. I thought it would be helpful if you 

described that system and where you think we are in our level of 

797 

preparedness to respond based on it, because it brings to bear the 

capacities of DOD to protect the American people in the event of 

a disaster. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir, thank you. If I could very briefly 

first thank you for the accolade on the work we’ve done in partnership with the governors and the States. I would be remiss if I did 

not point out that it’s a two-way street and they’ve been wonderful 

partners to work with. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good. I agree. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Second, on the CBRNE response enterprise, 

the enterprise is going through a transition right now. Currently 

it is more federally-focused than it is State-focused, but there’s capability on both sides of that. It begins with very small teams, 57 

of them. Obviously, each State has at least one 22-person Civil 

Support Team (CST) that can respond to an event like this and 

really diagnose it and figure out what’s really happened and what 

kind of response. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. So every State has one of those? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Every State, and there are 57. California 

has two. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Then within the National Guard there are 

CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages, we call them. It’s a 

couple hundred people who can respond a little more robustly than 

a CST can. Then on the Federal side we have two Consequence 

Management Response Forces for CBRNE (known as CCMRF), 

that are able to deploy in response to one of these disasters. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

CERFP stands for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Enhanced Response Force Package. CERFPs are composed of existing National Guard units on 

State Active Duty, title 32 or title 10 status, and are specially trained to respond 

to a weapons of mass destruction incident. They must be ready to deploy within 6 

hours of notification. CERFPs locate and extract victims from a contaminated environment, perform mass patient/casualty decontamination, and provide treatment as 

necessary to stabilize patients for evacuation. 

Each CERFP is composed of 186 personnel. CERFPs are primarily equipped to deploy via ground transport to CBRNE incident cites, but can be moved by air, if necessary. 

There are 17 CERFP States: New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Colorado, California, Texas, Illinois, Missouri, Florida, Hawaii, Washington, 

Virginia, Ohio, Georgia, Minnesota, and Nebraska. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The choice was made in the Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR), and I fully agree with it, to transition this 

enterprise, first to make it a little bit more State-centric and less 

Federal-centric, to give it more lifesaving capability, and to make 

it a more rapidly responsive force. That’s the transition that we’re 

going through right now. By the end of this year, we will have a 

single large Federal response force that’s larger than one of the 

CCMRFs right now. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. The number is about what, number of personnel? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The number under the CCMRF—I have the 

exact numbers. I can get it to you. But the Defense CBRNE Response Force (DCRF) will have 5,200 people and the CCMRF is 

right now around 4,500 people. 

798 

Senator LIEBERMAN. What are their capacities? They will have 

lifesaving capacities? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Right. They will be able to do search and 

extraction under very challenging circumstances, radiological, 

chemical, biological, that sort of thing. They will have a lot of medical capability; much more transportation capability, helicopters, 

ambulances, vehicles, than we currently have; more engineering capability; and they’re designed to respond in half the time. 

The current CCMRFs are designed to respond between 48 and 96 

hours. The future DCRF will respond in half that time. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Very important. As we know, the speed of 

the response is critical. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Speed is life, absolutely. Then a key element of this is that there will be one Homeland Response Force 

within each FEMA region. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. So in other words, as part of the FEMA 

Reform Act we created—we beefed up 10 regional offices for FEMA. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Now we’re going to complement—each of 

those will have a Homeland Response Force through your operations. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir. That will be around 500 people 

who will be able to respond very quickly within that FEMA region, 

or even respond to an adjacent FEMA region. They have a very 

rapid timeline, 6 to 12 hours to get out the door. 

We’re working very closely with the National Guard Bureau in 

pulling all of this together. It’s a good news story. My U.S. Army 

North (ARNORTH) commander has a very good relationship with 

his National Guard Bureau counterparts in how we’re going to 

train, standardize, and that sort of thing. 

I think it’s a good news story, frankly. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I think it’s a very good news story and 

should give us all, in an uncertain world, an added measure of confidence. 

The joint action plan relies on officers being trained in advance 

to serve in a dual-hat role and components of the training are provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA, 

I know. I wanted to ask you whether you think the DHS component of the training to date has been what you want it to be? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir, it has. We take these National 

Guardsmen who would be a dual-status commander, we put them 

through a week-long JTF commanders course that we host in Colorado Springs, which other people can attend as well, but this is a 

prerequisite for these officers. Then we take them on a special 1- 

week training course where I spend a lot of personal time with 

them. Then they travel around the country to visit ARNORTH, Air 

Forces Northern, and that sort of thing. 

They end up here in Washington, DC, where they get to visit 

with FEMA, they see the command centers, they visit with DHS 

and OSD and a number of the key players. I think at the end of 

the day we end up with a National Guardsman who is trained better than 99.9 percent of the Federal people who would be trained 

who could end up responding in a disaster here. 

799 

So I end up with a guardsman who understands his or her State, 

who understands how the Guard works, but also who understands 

how the Federal side works as well as anybody. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

My time is running out. I just want to make one point, General 

Fraser. I’m sorry I don’t have the chance to ask you to respond. I 

was really struck by a point you made in your prepared statement, 

which was that nearly all the cocaine destined for the United 

States crosses the Mexican-Guatemalan border. So I think there 

may be in the minds of a lot of people a kind of feeling that all 

this is coming from Mexico to the United States, but it’s obviously 

coming from south, and that’s something that demands the cooperation of both of your commands. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me echo my appreciation to both of you for your service. General Fraser, you and I have had the opportunity to work on any 

number of issues from time to time. I’m very proud of your service 

and where you are now. Admiral Winnefeld, you continue to make 

Georgia Tech proud. 

Admiral, an incident occurred on the border in the last day or 2 

where two young Americans were apparently shot to death. I don’t 

know whether it was random or whether you can shed some light 

on that. But a two-part question: first, was this a random act; and 

second, going to the numbers that you alluded to as well as Senator 

McCain, is this becoming more and more common, where we’re seeing 35,000 Mexicans killed over a short period of time here? It’s 

highlighted when we have Americans killed, but can you comment 

on what’s happening with respect to the random killings like this? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I only learned about the two deaths at the 

Tijuana border this morning as well. So I’m sure law enforcement 

will work with our Mexican counterparts. They have a very cooperative relationship in situations like this to get to the bottom of 

what actually happened there. So I don’t have any new information 

for you on what happened in the two killings in Tijuana. 

I do believe it goes without saying that violence is a problem inside Mexico. They acknowledge that. They have a plan to address 

it. I think again everything we can do to help them in a right way 

that acknowledges Mexican sovereignty and is a reciprocal way will 

only help them get their arms around that challenge that they face, 

that you and Senator McCain have both pointed out. 

So I think we have a ways to go before this is solved. But again, 

I applaud the courage and the commitment of the Calderon government and my Mexican military counterparts in taking on that 

problem. It’s a tough one. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. The issue of border security continues to be 

a very hot-button item with policymakers as well as our constituents all across the country. Let me first ask you whether or not in 

your support role to law enforcement on the border there is any 

asset that you don’t have that you need or any increase in numbers 

of assets that you have that would provide you greater opportunity 

to be of assistance? 

800 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Sir, we have a JTF-North, who works underneath me in El Paso, that is charged with supporting our law 

enforcement agencies along the border as best we can within the 

legal limits of how a military can support law enforcement inside 

a democratic nation like ours. 

So we provide construction support along the border, whether it 

be new roads or repairing roads or fences. We provide some surveillance assets, including contract surveillance assets that were useful 

in apprehending the suspects in the Agent Terry case late last 

year. We also provide intelligence support, and we have to be very 

cautious with that to strictly adhere to the legal and policy limitations that we have. 

But I’ve moved, for example, 14 of my intelligence specialists 

from JTF-North into the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) to help 

them benefit from some of the lessons that we’ve learned overseas 

on how you fuse different types of intelligence and go at this problem. 

We’re doing what we can with the resources we have to support 

our law enforcement partners as best we can. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. To again echo what Senator McCain said, 

it’s the last year that’s our measuring stick. So when you come 

back next year and appear before this committee, very honestly, 

Admiral, we expect you to be able to tell us—while it’s not your primary responsibility to secure that border, I think it’s reasonable to 

expect us to get a favorable report from you with regard to an increase in security on that border from the standpoint of the support 

that you’re giving. 

Let me address a question to both of you regarding the valuable 

role of Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation 

(WHINSEC) in particularly the Mexican situation, but otherwise, 

too. I know that the training that we are providing at WHINSEC 

today—and Senator Levin and I have the privilege of serving on 

that board—with regard to the Mexicans being able to confront the 

TCOs has been very forceful and very positive at WHINSEC. 

I’d like for you to comment on that, and also for both of you to 

comment on this issue of whether or not the names of non-U.S. personnel who are attending WHINSEC should be released, in light of 

the fact particularly with what’s going on in Mexico, what kind of 

harm’s way does it put these individuals in should their names be 

released to the public? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I’ll go ahead and start if it’s okay, sir. I 

managed to visit WHINSEC this year. I have attended the Board 

of Governors meeting and that has been a useful experience for me 

to understand what that terrific institution is able to do. We’re 

very delighted to have a Mexican deputy commandant this year, 

which I think is a tremendous step from the Mexicans’ part, to provide that, and will benefit both of us. 

Regarding your last point, I think it’s very important that we not 

release names. I would categorically state that WHINSEC has undergone a tremendous transformation in the last decade. It’s a very 

good education for the Latin Americans and Mexicans who visit 

there. They emphasize human rights at every turn. I think it would 

be tragic if we were to release the names of those personnel and 

expose them to risk inside their own countries potentially, as we 

801 

have seen in many cases. In fact, in Mexico they’ve lost as many 

security personnel in the last 4 years as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. So there is real risk for these folks and I think we 

should not release their names. 

General FRASER. I’ll echo Admiral Winnefeld’s comments. Roughly 1,000 people are at WHINSEC each year. We’re seeing growing 

demand. We’re seeing growing support for the school. It follows the 

curriculum that Admiral Winnefeld discussed. 

I, like him, do not think we should release the names, for exactly 

the same reason. I’ve even had—not regarding the release of 

names, but I’ve had some of my counterparts ask us to extend and 

increase the types of training that we have in WHINSEC, they find 

it that valuable. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I believe you told me also that you even had 

a request for more numbers of individuals from countries to be able 

to attend WHINSEC. That’s what our partners think of the school. 

General FRASER. Yes, sir, that’s in fact true. I’ve had one of my 

counterparts ask that he be able to train all of his cadets and 

lengthen the amount of time that they have at the school. He had 

a chance to attend the school when he was a young officer and he 

found it very valuable, and he wants to extend that to all his young 

officers. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss, and thank you 

for the work that you do relative to WHINSEC. As a matter of fact, 

even some of the skeptics and the critics, I think, have gradually 

understood the value of that institution in terms of training, in 

terms of support, and in terms of human rights. 

I want to particularly thank you and join with you in saying how 

much we opposed the release of those names and were able to get 

that removed in conference last year, that effort that was made on 

the part of the House. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, gentlemen. It’s great to have you here. It’s also 

inspirational to know the kind of partnership the two of you have 

crafted, given the interwoven nature of the challenges we face, both 

NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM. 

Admiral Winnefeld, I want to thank you as well for outlining in 

some great detail the relationship we have with the Mexican Government, the Mexican authorities. The TCO dynamic is a dangerous one, it’s a complex one. But I think it’s important to underline the fact that these are criminal organizations that are bent on 

driving their own mission forward with no consideration for human 

lives and societal stability. So thank you for the good work you’re 

doing there, and also the partnership you’ve crafted with the Mexican authorities. I know it’s been a focus of your time. 

Let me turn to the concept you’ve used, Admiral, the 21st century border. Could you describe that concept in a little more detail? 

Is it a physical structure, the 21st century border, or is it a combination of physical construction, sound policy initiatives, and other 

actions that might not be obvious at first glance? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I would first point out that the 21st century border concept is one of the four Beyond Merida pillars, so it’s 

802 

not my creation. It’s an intergovernmental creation between the 

Government of Mexico and the Government of the United States, 

led by the Department of State (DOS), which involves not only defeating and disrupting the TCOs, but building strong and resilient 

communities, also establishing strong institutions and the rule of 

law, and finally the 21st century border. 

In the case of the 21st century border, I would also want to defer 

to my DHS colleagues, who really are the dominant feature of that 

particular initiative. 

I would say that the 21st century border concept is not a line in 

the sand. It’s not a fence. It’s a concept that talks about depth in 

terms of looking at the border beyond just the border, both into 

Mexico and into the United States. It’s a concept that tries to preserve the freedom of licit commerce as well as the ability to intercept and interdict illicit commerce. 

I really would want to turn to my DHS colleagues to have them 

outline it in greater detail. 

Senator UDALL. You noted, Admiral, that the air sovereignty 

alert mission requires careful coordination between Active Duty 

and National Guard units, and there are a whole host of partners 

involved, including the Canadians, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other agencies. I want to make sure you have the tools 

that you need for continued success. Do you have any concerns, 

given that the F–16 fleet is aging and there are then delays in the 

F–35 program? As a follow-on, would you speak to any other resources or improvements in your existing infrastructure that are 

necessary to make sure the air sovereignty alert (ASA) mission is 

fully manned and supported? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I’d say first we’re delighted to have one of 

our ASA sites right in Denver at Buckley. They do a wonderful job 

up there. We have 16 ASAs inside the continental United States, 

all of which are manned by the Air Guard, and they do a terrific 

job for us. We interact with them on a day-to-day basis through 

both our continental NORAD and our eastern and western air defense sectors. 

It’s my sense from working closely with the Air Force that General Schwartz is determined to make sure that our ASA needs are 

met. He’s made that commitment, and of course it’s the Services’ 

job to work through the details of how they would achieve that. 

SLEPing F–16s or what have you may be the correct answer, but 

I’m counting on the Afghans and they have given me good reassurance that we will have the assets that we require to conduct that 

mission properly. I know there’s a very good, healthy discussion 

going on inside the Air Force and the Air Guard to make sure that 

happens. 

Regarding the other resources, I’m pretty pleased that we’re on 

track regarding budgetary pieces that would help me do my mission better. There are a number of capability enhancements that 

we’ve sought and have received, things like better satellite communications for our interceptors, so that you can have one down low 

in case there’s a low flyer and one up high and still be able to communicate properly with those aircraft, and a host of other things. 

But we’re in pretty good shape resource-wise for this mission. 

803 

Senator UDALL. If I might, let me turn to the QDR from July 

2010. I think you’ve spoken to this, but I wanted to consider it even 

a little bit further. In the QDR, to quote what was stated there, 

the force structure recommended by the QDR ‘‘will not provide sufficient capacity to respond to a domestic catastrophe that might 

occur during a period of ongoing contingency operations abroad. 

The role of Reserve components needs to be reviewed with an eye 

to ensuring that a portion of the National Guard be dedicated to 

homeland defense.’’ 

Do you agree, and what changes will NORTHCOM need to pursue to address this concern? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I think the QDR was probably addressing 

the fact that we are transitioning some of our CBRNE response capability into the National Guard, much more State emphasis with 

the Homeland response forces being produced over the next year 

and a half. All 10 of those will be in place by the end of fiscal year 

2012. So that’s principally what we’re talking about. 

I would say that the National Guard is serving extremely well 

as an Operational Reserve. I would not want to box them in too 

much into one mission because the very same guardsmen who can 

respond inside a State or can respond at the request of another 

State under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact in 

the event of a disaster, are the same guardsmen who have been deployed overseas, many of them several times, to Afghanistan or 

Iraq. It just demonstrates the terrific versatility of that force. I 

wouldn’t want to box them in too much into a Homeland security 

or defense role. They’re just a wonderful, diverse partner to have 

in anything that we do. 

Senator UDALL. I think outside of the overall Guard commander, 

you have the best view of the capacity of the Guard. I think you 

put it very well that the expansion of their knowledge, their skill 

sets, their experience, is phenomenal. You are well aware of that 

because, although you don’t, as you’ve told me and told the committee, own that many assets, when the emergency hits the Guard 

will need to be deployed under your command. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I also rely on the Guard for a number of 

other things, not only ASA and to be a good partner in the event 

of a disaster, where we would be a supporting partner; they are my 

missile defense trigger-pullers. The Alaska National Guard and the 

Colorado National Guard perform the missile defense mission for 

me each and every day. 

So I have a tremendous reliance on them. They’re a wonderful 

partner and I have a vested interest in them being well taken care 

of. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you both for your service. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral and General, thank you, obviously, for being here. It’s 

good to see you both again. 

Admiral, we’ve come pretty far since the days of September 11 

in how we respond to natural disasters and defend our Homeland. 

As you also know, I’m a Guardsman and so I have a unique appreciation for the role of the Guard as an Operational Reserve, whethVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00809 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
804 

er it’s responding to floods, earthquakes, responding with no notice 

to defend our air space with F–15s or F–16s. 

So I just want to thank you for recognizing, obviously, the importance of the Guard on NORTHCOM’s mission. It’s important. I 

know that General Carter is here, the adjutant general in Massachusetts, advocating on behalf of Massachusetts guardsmen, and I 

know a lot of other Senators feel very strongly about the role that 

they play, and also the strains and stresses not only on them but 

their families. 

So I think it’s important for you to know that you have an ally 

and that if there’s a problem we need to know about it. As the 

chairman referenced, is there any type of legislation or any other 

benefits that we need to try to help you with? Please include me 

in that circle if you could. 

I was wondering, how many actual National Guard officers sit in 

your command, Admiral? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I have on any given day around 45 or 50 

permanently assigned to my headquarters. But on top of that, a 

number of them are passing through. 

Senator BROWN. TDY? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. TDY, that sort of thing. So around 100 on 

any given day in my headquarters. 

Senator BROWN. In terms of the communications with General 

McKinley, is it on a daily basis, weekly? How does that work? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I probably speak with General McKinley at 

least once a week, if not more often. We spend an awful lot of time 

together. Once I was nominated for this position, the first phone 

call I made was to General McKinley to express my desire to have 

a great partnership. We already knew each other from previous 

work, and that has been an excellent partnership. I think the world 

of the National Guard and its leadership. 

Senator BROWN. I have noted that you’ve obviously referenced it. 

It’s refreshing to see the role of the Guard and how it’s being perceived, obviously, with the administration and obviously you in 

your position. 

How does the Guard actually fit into NORTHCOM’s training 

plan, if you can do it now, or we can speak off-line, whatever’s easier? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I can provide you information for the record 

on that, but I can tell you that they are intimately integrated. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the National Guard Bureau (NGB), and the Department of Homeland Security/Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), develops, plans, and conducts a number 

of training courses and exercises every year. 

The Vigilant Guard exercise program is jointly operated and staffed by 

NORTHCOM, NGB, and the States to conduct four regional exercises annually involving between 12 and 30 States total in each year. States often link their own response exercise efforts to their participation in a Vigilant Guard or NORTHCOM exercise, mutually benefiting the State, the National Guard, and NORTHCOM. Exercise Ardent Sentry, our annual national Defense Support of Civil Authorities 

(DSCA) exercise, is routinely linked to at least one Vigilant Guard exercise and, 

when appropriate, the National Level Exercise. 

For 2011, we have two Vigilant Guard exercises linked and the eight States of 

the four affected FEMA regions participating with NORTHCOM, NGB, and FEMA. 

As a matter of sound training practice, we incorporate some appropriate level of 

805 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRNE) and cyberspace incidents into 

every exercise. 

We partner with the NGB to conduct training and exercises for all State Joint 

Force Headquarters Joint Task Force Commanders and their staffs. In addition, we 

sponsor a DSCA Executive Seminar. Hosted in our Headquarters, this 2-day seminar provides a great opportunity for me to meet with the Adjutants General (ranging from one to five at a time) or other senior Guard officers, for them to receive 

capabilities briefs from various staff directorates regarding DSCA operations, and 

to orient themselves to NORTHCOM’s missions. 

Finally, NORTHCOM, in coordination with the NGB, has developed the Contingency Dual Status Commander Training and Qualification Program in order to ensure that the most highly qualified officers are selected and trained for this important duty. The Contingency Dual Status Commander Initiative is an element of the 

Council of Governors’ Unity of Effort with the Department of Defense. Previously, 

dual status command (one military chain of command over title 10, and title 32 

forces) was utilized only for pre-planned events such as the 2008 Democratic and 

Republican National Conventions, and more recently, for the 2010 National Boy 

Scout Jamboree. The historical success of the Dual Status Command concept has 

been expanded in order to enable State Governors to select and implement a Contingency Dual Status Commander during a no-notice event, such as an earthquake, 

hurricane, or wildfire 

Bottom line: The National Guard is an integral component of all our exercises, 

including all phases of planning, execution, data collection, and lessons learned. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We work hand-in-glove with the Guard 

supporting them. We always try to leave them at the helm, if you 

will, and be a good supporting partner. We’re not trying to run 

their training for them. 

We have good partnerships in exercise. We have a very important national-level exercise that’s coming up in the next month or 

so called Ardent Sentry for us, that will examine the effects of a 

New Madrid earthquake fault. FEMA is involved. It’s a very national-level exercise. We’ll be partnering very closely with the 

Guard in the process of that. So that’s just one example of the 

many things that we do together with them. 

Senator BROWN. I found it exciting and interesting about the contingency dual status commander initiative you mentioned. Are officers from all Active and Reserve components eligible to become 

dual-status commanders? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Anybody theoretically can be a dual-status 

commander, including a Title 10 officer. Our training program is 

focused on the Guard because the Guard is in the States. 

Senator BROWN. Where do you do it? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We do the JTF commanders course right in 

Colorado Springs, and then I spend a day with them in Colorado 

Springs personally, talking with them and hearing from them, 

frankly, as much as we talk to them. Then they move to San Antonio, where my U.S. Army North headquarters is, and they get a 

good solid day of understanding how that team works. Then they 

spend time in Washington, DC, all around town visiting with some 

of the key players that would be involved in the response to a disaster. 

Senator BROWN. DOD has modified the CBRN consequence management enterprise. When will the transition to the new enterprise 

be completed, and how will the new structure provide greater lifesaving capabilities? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The transition should be complete at the 

end of next fiscal year, so on October 1, 2012, we should be complete with the transition. The first two Homeland response forces, 

806 

one in Ohio and one in Washington State, will stand up this year, 

and the remaining eight will stand up over the course of fiscal year 

2012. 

We will be complete with the transition on the Federal side to 

the DCRF, if you will, at the end of this year and we will stand 

up one other unit, called a Command and Control CBRN Response 

Element, which is about 1,000 people, who also have some response 

capability, but whose intent in life is to bring in general purpose 

forces in the event of a large disaster that goes beyond the scope 

of what the current enterprise can handle. 

So the transition is on track. 

Senator BROWN. General Fraser, I don’t want you to feel left out. 

I apologize. I just wanted to zero in on a couple of areas. 

I want to thank you, first of all, for SOUTHCOM’s really tremendous success with Haiti and Chile. It really makes me proud to be 

an American and see what our men and women are doing. I know 

the President has traveled to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to try 

to forge new alliances, and I certainly encourage him in that. In 

fact, that’s why I’m hopeful a lot of these free trade agreements 

will be approved sooner rather than later. 

However, I’m troubled. When I was in Israel, I noticed Iran’s 

kind of tentacles out there. I know Iran is also establishing relationships within Latin America, and I know they’re looking for new 

allies in that region. I was wondering, can you comment on the 

anti-U.S. alliance in Venezuela under President Chavez and the 

personal relationship between Ahmedinejad and Chavez, and has 

this relationship enhanced Iran’s influence in Bolivia, Nicaragua, 

and Ecuador? 

General FRASER. Thanks, Senator. There is a close relationship 

between President Chavez and President Ahmedinejad. President 

Chavez has visited nine times in the 12 years that he’s been President. I still see it primarily on a diplomatic and a commercial level, 

those relationships. Although there are growing opportunities for 

military-to-military connections, we haven’t seen it growing to the 

same extent. Iran has almost doubled the number of embassies 

they have within the region, so they’re not just focused in Venezuela and Bolivia, those other countries. 

They’ve also built cultural centers in 17 different countries 

throughout the region. So they are continuing to try and gain an 

understanding within Latin America, of Latin Americans, of Iran 

and form those connections. 

My concern as I look at it is the fact that there are flights between Iran and Venezuela on a weekly basis. Visas are not required for entrance into Venezuela or Bolivia or Nicaragua. So we 

don’t have a lot of visibility in who’s visiting and who isn’t, and 

that’s really where I see the concerns. 

I don’t have connections with those organizations that Iran has 

supported in other parts of the world, Hezbollah, but we’re still 

skeptical and watching that on a routine basis. 

Senator BROWN. My time is up. I want to just wrap it up. Can 

I have one more small question, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

807 

Currently, does SOUTHCOM have the necessary amount and appropriate mixture of ISR resources required to successfully combat 

illicit trafficking operations, in your opinion? 

General FRASER. Senator, let me be honest. Every combatant 

commander would like more. 

Senator BROWN. Right. 

General FRASER. Within the current capabilities and capacities 

and priorities we have, I’m comfortable with the assets we have. 

But we’re also exploring ways that we can gain information 

through a lot of other information sources that are throughout the 

region, meaning social networking, a lot of different areas that 

we’re trying to see what the value and what the capabilities are, 

because ISR is only one piece of where we can gain information 

and get awareness. We have a lot of effort in that area. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you both. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your service and the service of your 

families and service men and women. Thank you very much. 

Admiral, you’ve talked a lot about Mexico today. It’s a significant 

and violent situation. These TCOs are operating openly. One of the 

disturbing facts is not just the fatalities, but also the increasing sophistication of their weapons, and not just firearms, but communications, night vision devices, and others. 

Where are most of these weapons coming from? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. They come from a variety of places. To be 

sure, there are a number of weapons that are flowing south across 

our border, and it’s a grave concern to the Mexicans and of course 

it is for us as well. By the same token, there are also weapons coming into Mexico from other parts of Latin America. If you see an 

AK–47, it could come from either place. But there are certain types 

of weapons that might come from south of Mexico. 

So there are a number of other sophisticated weapons. The night 

vision goggles, I’m not really sure where they come from. But 

you’re absolutely correct, they are getting more and more sophisticated. They’re using heavily armored vehicles that are more and 

more resistant to the types of weapons that the Mexicans are 

using. They are using fully submersible submarines to move cocaine from South America and to Central America. So it is an increasing challenge to be sure. 

Senator REED. We are taking efforts on our side of the border to 

try to disrupt this trade? General Fraser can respond to the efforts 

that are being taken in other countries, neighboring countries. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir. I can’t speak for the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and a number of other organizations that are trying 

to do the best we can to interdict the flow of weapons going south, 

but there is a concerted effort. It’s a big challenge, though. 

Senator REED. When you say you can’t speak for them, is there 

some type of statutory bar for collaboration? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. No, sir. It’s just that most of the support 

that we give to the law enforcement agencies is fairly basic in 

808 

terms of construction, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance 

(ISR), that sort of thing. In terms of the sort of deep investigatory 

type of work that a law enforcement agent would do in order to 

interdict weapons, it’s really not in our area of expertise. 

Senator REED. General Fraser, your comments on the flow of 

weapons from other neighboring countries into Mexico? 

General FRASER. Yes, Senator. The information I have is that 

over 50 percent of the military-type weapons that are flowing 

throughout the region have a large source within Central American 

stockpiles, if you will, left over from wars and conflicts in the past. 

DOJ, ATF, have a lot of focused efforts they’re working to work 

stockpile controls as well as military efforts to work the same 

issues. But there is a lot of funding available with these TCOs, so 

corruptions, slack processes, are still a problem, and we’re fighting 

those on every level. 

Senator REED. Let me ask a question of both of you in the context of the strategic implications. By 2014 there will be a Panama 

Canal that is able to accommodate much larger ships. We’re told 

by the Navy that by 2020 at least 1 month a year the Northwest 

Passage will be open to commercial traffic, which is your responsibility, NORTHCOM. 

Are you beginning to think in terms of this significant change in 

maritime routes in terms of your strategy and our policy, General 

Fraser? 

General FRASER. We are looking at that. We conduct annual exercises in support of the Government of Panama. We call it 

‘‘Panamax.’’ It also involves 18 other countries; it varies, 18 to 20. 

We conduct that on an annual basis, as well as the government 

itself takes advantage of the opportunity and conducts its own internal exercise focused on the defense of the Panama Canal. So 

they have a very significant effort working along those lines. 

So in conjunction with NORTHCOM, it is an area that we are 

looking at. But a lot of our focus right now continues to be on the 

counter-transnational criminal operations. 

Senator REED. Admiral, in terms of the Arctic opening up, which 

was something that 10, 20 years ago was beyond—I mean, no one 

could credibly see this coming—what are you doing to prepare for 

this? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Of my eight different focus areas that I 

have in the command, the Arctic is one that we are working on 

very hard. I’m calling this the year of the Arctic around the headquarters. We’re working very closely with a lot of our partners, to 

include our Canadian partners, to put together what we call a 

Commander’s Estimate for the Arctic that will lay out where we 

see the challenges, what’s the environment is like, and how would 

we organize our thinking to take on the potential for the Arctic 

opening up. 

I’m blessed to have Canadians in my headquarters because they 

not only bring considerable expertise on the Arctic to bear on the 

intellectual work we’re doing, but it also demonstrates transparency to Canada that I have Canadians helping me with this 

problem, which forges a very good partnership between us. 

So we are looking very closely. We believe we’re going to organize 

ourselves around defense, security, and safety. But I think that 

809 

most of our attention will probably be applied in reverse order. As 

the Arctic opens up more and more, there’s going to be more 

human activity up there, more possibilities for search and rescue 

requirements or an environmental disaster where we may be the 

only people around, along with our Canadian partners and the 

Coast Guard, who can assist in something like that. 

So we’re examining this very closely and trying to stay ahead of 

it. 

Senator REED. This is also an opportunity for cooperation or confrontation with other powers in the region, which I presume would 

be the Russians. Who else are you beginning to reach out to or who 

will have some type of geographic interest in the area? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. There are eight recognized Arctic nations, 

Russia being one of them. We are cautiously optimistic that the 

eight nations together will manage to prevent the militarization of 

the Arctic, but we’re very vigilant for that. We obviously don’t want 

to unintentionally cause it by getting up there with too much too 

fast. 

I think the key in the Arctic is open partnerships among the Arctic nations. There are other non-Arctic nations who are expressing 

an interest up there, namely China, that we are watching very 

closely as well. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, General, thank you so much for your service to our 

country, and please give my gratitude to all of those who serve beneath you for the sacrifices that they’re making to keep us safe. 

I wanted to ask you, General Fraser, you said in your written 

testimony that members of violent extremist organizations from the 

Middle East remain active in Latin American and the Caribbean 

and constitute a potential threat. Could you provide more detail regarding the fundraising activities of Islamist extremist groups in 

Central and South America, and an estimate, if you were able to 

give one, of how much money they’re raising, how’s it being raised, 

and where are they then funneling those funds to? 

General FRASER. Thank you very much, Senator. There are those 

organizations resident, not as much in Central America. They’re 

more in South America. Most of their funding is raised through illicit activity, and these are organizations and members who have 

been around for a number of years, decades, if you will, in those 

areas. 

The amount of how much they raise I don’t have a good estimate 

of, because it transfers back and forth to parent organizations in 

the Middle East in a variety of methods. So I can’t get a very clear 

estimate. Even then, as it goes back to locations within the Middle 

East, I can’t tell you exactly where it is going. But we have again 

assessments that it is going into parent organizations. That’s my 

concern right now. We haven’t seen a change in that over the last 

2 to 5 years, of where their activity is focused. 

Senator AYOTTE. Do you have any thoughts for us on how we 

could better assist what you’re trying to do, obviously not just your 

810 

command, but multiple other agencies, in addressing the fundraising activities that go to terrorist groups? Are there any other 

tools that you need in your toolbox that we could help you with? 

General FRASER. Senator, I think it is, as we look across the region, this is a whole-of-government effort. It is support to those 

DOS programs that really focus on law enforcement activities, on 

the judicial areas, and supporting those opportunities, money-laundering. There has been a significant effort focused on money-laundering through the DOS. 

The interagency efforts is the best focus that I have within that 

to really addressing these issues. 

Senator AYOTTE. How much are these Islamic terrorist groups 

having success recruiting in the area of Latin America? Is this a 

fertile recruiting ground for members of those organizations to commit terrorist acts? 

General FRASER. There are individuals who are attempting to recruit in various locations. We have seen fairly low numbers of results of any ability to radicalize elements. So it’s an area that we 

continue to watch and monitor, but we haven’t seen any big change 

in their ability to really improve and recruit activists within their 

organizations within Latin America. 

Senator AYOTTE. That’s actually very encouraging. Thank you. 

Admiral, the Government Accountability Office recently published a report on the northern border. The report highlights that 

in fiscal year 2010 only 32 of the nearly 4,000 northern border 

miles had reached an acceptable level of security. I realize that 

we’ve been talking about in this committee very importantly some 

of the incredibly serious problems along our southern border that 

require immediate attention and resources. I certainly fully support 

those efforts to secure our southern border. 

But as we look at our northern border, I’m concerned al Qaeda, 

terrorist organizations, they’re going to look at wherever they can 

come into our country, and wanted to know from you how does 

NORTHCOM’s support for DHS in securing our northern border— 

can you update us on efforts to better coordinate with civilian agencies and our Canadian partners at that border? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. First, of course, DHS will be in the lead, as 

you pointed out, on this. A 4,000-mile border is a tremendous challenge, as you well understand. It’s a longer border than we have 

on the southern border. 

We have provided support in the past to our DHS partners. Since 

2008 it averages roughly a couple of events per year that are major 

events, a month-long surveillance support mission or what have 

you. We have two more of those scheduled this year. So we’ll execute those. 

We also have a number of other initiatives that we work with 

our partners in terms of some training initiatives that we work 

with the law enforcement folks. But it is an economy of force effort, 

to be sure. 

I would candidly point out that in the years since 2008 that 

we’ve been doing this, DOD efforts have assisted in interdicting 

181 pounds of marijuana. That’s what a single ultralight coming 

across the southern border in one night will drop and depart and 

head back into Mexico. So we are using about 20 percent, I believe, 

811 

of our JTF-North resources along the northern border to support 

our partners, and we think we have that about right. But it is, as 

you point out, a very difficult challenge to secure 4,000 miles of 

border. 

Working with Canada, I think the peripheral security initiative 

that we have ongoing within the Governments of Canada and the 

United States is a positive move ahead and if it’s able to improve 

transparency between the two nations in terms of intelligence regarding potential terrorist threats, I think that will be one of the 

most important things that we can do in this effort. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you both very much for your testimony. 

I appreciate it. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, both of you, for being here today and obviously your 

service to our country. It’s very appreciated. 

As chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of this committee, I believe it’s critically important to counter 

the TCOs and their illicit trafficking activities. Central to that is 

building the effective partnership capacity with key regional governments and the security establishments to prevent them from operating in permissive environments. 

General Fraser, in your prepared statement you indicated that 

Central America has become the preferred transit zone for this 

criminal organization in pursuit of their illicit activities and the 

limited capabilities of Central American states have allowed the 

Mexican transnational criminal organization to establish points of 

entry for illegal drugs coming in from South America, and then the 

Mexico-Guatemala-Belize border area is particularly vulnerable. 

I understand that SOUTHCOM is working with NORTHCOM 

and the interagency to develop a regional operation capability 

among the nations. I understand that an estimated $100 billion per 

year in illicit goods—drugs, weapons, counterfeit products—and 

then an estimated 100,000 humans are trafficked through the porous borders throughout the region; and also that nearly all the cocaine destined for the United States crosses the Guatemala-Mexico 

border. 

With that background, what types of resources will this regional 

operations capability require and what will the objectives be? 

General FRASER. Thank you, Senator. It is a complex issue, as 

you mentioned. Central America has become a preferred pathway 

for illicit activity, if you will, coming in and out of the United 

States. From a cocaine standpoint, still 90 percent of the cocaine 

is grown in the northern part of South America and it transits up 

through various stops into Central America, and then there is bulk 

cash and weapons and other activity that flows south. 

We are working very closely in an interagency process within the 

Federal Government to support the governments within Central 

America. If you look in the northern part of Central America, the 

presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are meeting 

on a regular basis. Their ministers of defense and ministers of security are doing the same thing, to build their own capacity across 

their borders. 

812 

As you mentioned, along with Admiral Winnefeld we are working 

with our counterparts in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize to work 

the issue along their common border. A lot of the focus of the effort 

is going to be in other parts of our government. It is law enforcement focused, it is judiciary, it is working with disadvantaged 

youth to help them. It is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 

We have a role to play in that. A lot of our area is focused in 

the maritime and air environment to try and help support efforts 

all throughout Central America to give them the capacity and support their capacity to intercept those vessels that transit drugs and 

illicit activity as well as the airborne capacity. But that’s in very 

close coordination with DOS and all interagency efforts. That is a 

growing capability. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, with 

the President’s initiative, with the Central American regional security initiative, and if I go into the Caribbean, the Caribbean Basin 

security initiative, in conjunction with what we’re doing in Mexico 

with the Beyond Merida and what Colombia is doing, it is a regional effort and it needs to remain that way. But we have a lot 

of work to do. 

Senator HAGAN. Admiral Winnefeld? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Again, I would reiterate that General Fraser and I work closely together. We see signs, good signs, I think, 

of cooperation among Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, and of course 

we encourage that. We would like to help them in any way we can, 

while respecting their sovereignty. 

In the case of Mexico, they have a very clear understanding of 

their southern border region. It’s a very complex place, much more 

complex than I ever anticipated before I came into the job. Their 

current focus right now is in the northeast because that’s where 

the most violence is occurring, it’s where the Zetas and the Sinaloa 

and the Gulf cartels and the like are fighting over turf, and that’s 

where most of the violence is occurring. The last thing they want 

to do is open up another front in the south before they’re able to 

get their arms around the challenges in the northeast. 

We’re in lockstep with them on that philosophy. We’re ready to 

help in any way that we can within the resources and authorities 

that we have. 

Senator HAGAN. General Fraser, I’d love to hear your comments 

about the submersibles. Where is it coming from? Where is that 

starting and where is it ending up in the United States? 

General FRASER. We have seen an evolution of maritime transit 

over the last decade. There’s still a large portion of it, 40 to 50 percent, that transits through go-fast vessels along the coast of Central America, and that’s where it enters Central America. 

In the last decade, we saw an increase in what we call semisubmersibles, 100-foot long vessels that could carry 10 tons of cocaine, that travel 1,000 to 1,500 miles. We saw an increase and it 

peaked in 2007, and we’ve seen a decline of those vessels, and now 

an increase in, as Senator McCain mentioned, fully submersible 

vessels, vessels that can submerge on a shallow level, very difficult 

to detect, about the same level. 

They transit primarily from the west coast of Ecuador, Colombia, 

up through the Pacific, in some cases around the Galapagos, back. 

813 

Two days ago we just captured or we stopped a semi-submersible 

about 300 miles to the east of the Galapagos as it was transitting. 

Then they go north to along the southern border of Guatemala or 

Mexico. 

So it’s an increasing problem, made in the jungles of western Colombia and Ecuador. As an idea of why they’re using them, it costs 

in our estimate $3 to $4 million to produce, but one transit will 

equate to about $70 to $80 million of return on that one transit. 

Senator HAGAN. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Cornyn is next. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, General, thank you for being here and for your service. 

I think it’s appropriate that you be here together because, as we’ve 

seen, there’s a continuum of concern from our northern borders all 

the way into South America. I want to talk to you a little bit about 

that. 

Admiral, thanks for meeting with me recently to go over some 

specific concerns I had, and shared by others, about what’s happening in Mexico and our efforts to help President Calderon and 

the government there. As you said, respecting their sovereignty, 

but being there to help as an ally and friend and trading partner, 

a must as they confront this great challenge. 

General, as much attention as I pay as a Texan to things happening south, I was frankly very surprised to hear part of your testimony that the northern triangle formed by Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras is possibly the most violent place on Earth. 

That came as a little bit of a surprise to me, but I guess again reiterating how everything’s connected to everything else. We know 

that things that can flow north, which is where the money is and 

where these TCOs are committed to doing everything they can to 

maximizing their profits by selling anything that has a market 

value, that all of this is worthy of our attention and certainly your 

best efforts to try to help us combat. 

General, since you are in charge of the Joint Interagency Task 

Force-South (JIATF-South), I have actually had some conversations 

with the Admiral about using that model in combatting the cartels 

and the drug trafficking in Mexico or along the border. Of course, 

Admiral, you pointed out that it’s important to have civilian lead 

in any JIATF-type model that was created in El Paso or thereabouts. 

But I wonder, General, would you talk just briefly about what 

you see the benefits of the JIATF model are? Then I’d like, Admiral, for you to follow up with that and talk about what we can 

learn from that model in SOUTHCOM that might be appropriate 

to help add additional resources and capabilities in fighting the 

cartels and the drugs coming into the United States. 

General FRASER. Thank you, Senator. Our focus within JIATFSouth is very focused. It’s a portion of the traffic route and the disruption of that as they transit to the north. It’s very focused in detecting and monitoring that traffic as it goes through the maritime 

and air environments of the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, so 

a very defined mission in support of our interagency goals. 

814 

It’s become a very effective organization because it includes 17 

different Federal agencies: law enforcement, service organizations, 

as well as national intelligence organizations, all working, all 

bringing their capacities and authorities together, and then they 

coordinate to conduct their mission. They get intelligence information on what vessels or aircraft to look at from law enforcement 

and local countries. Then they detect and monitor it with both military and law enforcement capability, and then hand that vessel off 

to either a domestic capability within a Central American country 

or to an international vessel, who then detains those operators and 

then moves them to prosecution within the United States or domestically. 

It’s become a very effective organization and a great model. In 

fact, it has representatives from countries and law enforcement 

throughout Latin America, but also Europe, because we see a connection across the Atlantic as well. 

Senator CORNYN. Admiral, what could we learn from what’s happening in SOUTHCOM to enhance capabilities for law enforcement 

and our Federal agencies? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. First of all, I would say JIATF-South is a 

very good model. It may not be a perfect model for what you would 

do inside the Homeland, because there are different legal requirements inside our own country, as opposed to outside. 

Senator CORNYN. Hence the point you made about the importance of a civilian lead? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Exactly, and of course, we would be very 

happy to have a civilian lead of an organization like that. The last 

person who should lead something inside the Homeland that has 

to do with law enforcement is DOD. 

I believe that we’re migrating slowly in that direction. The EPIC 

is an organization that continues to evolve positively, in a positive 

direction. There’s the newly created Border Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS), down with the EPIC, that is starting to do some good 

work. 

As I mentioned earlier, we have put 14 of our own international 

people from JTF-North inside of the BIFS. I think they’re doing 

some good work down there. So we are migrating in that direction. 

I would characterize it as adults will act their way into a new way 

of thinking before they’ll think their way into a new way of acting. 

I think that’s exactly what’s happening down there. 

The thing I would want to express is that the individual agencies, law enforcement agencies associated with it, each have their 

own genuine concerns about what would happen if they were 

drawn together in one of these entities, that I think they can work 

their way through over time. 

So I support it. I think it’s a potential concept that can do good. 

We’re migrating in that direction. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much, both of you. I am very 

concerned that, notwithstanding the efforts that we’ve tried in the 

United States to help our Mexican allies with the Merida Initiative, 

that more needs to be done. We need to find other creative ways 

to adapt to the threat and to provide the resources. 

I think you said, Admiral, the military has the resources, civil 

law enforcement should take the lead, but we ought to avail ourVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00820 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
815 

selves of the resources, the operational capacity that the military 

has to try to maximize our impact. 

Let me ask you one other question about money. We know that 

when the drugs come north and are sold there’s a challenge of getting the money back to the seller, the original seller, and that 

raises questions about money-laundering, bulk cash transfers, and 

the like. What other resources can the U.S. Government apply to 

help you and our Federal agencies interdict cash that’s heading 

south? It strikes me that that has to be one of the legs of the stool 

that’s perhaps the most vulnerable. 

General FRASER. Senator, we are watching the illicit traffic as it 

comes south, and that’s why we’re focused on illicit trafficking, not 

just drug trafficking. It doesn’t matter whether it’s going north or 

south; if it’s illicit activity, we’re going to work with our law enforcement partners to stop that. 

We’re seeing an increase in bulk cash coming south. There has 

been a lot of interagency effort. I’m not qualified to do that, to address the money-laundering issues. We’re also working with our 

DOJ, Department of Commerce counterparts, Department of Treasury (DOT), to focus on the financial tracks and use that as opportunities to help us conduct our efforts as well. We’re using all means 

throughout the interagency on a regional basis to address the issue 

you were talking about. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I would say a couple of things, sir. First, 

the EPIC is actually doing some pretty good, increasingly improved 

work in interdicting cash coming south. I was just down there a 

few weeks ago and they briefed me on one of the operations that 

they had that managed to interdict some cash coming south in a 

pickup truck that had been carefully sewn into the seats. It’s almost like smuggling drugs. They have to be as careful with cash 

as they do with the drugs. 

I also would say that OSD has provided us with financial resources to allow us to stand up a six-person cell inside my headquarters that’s oriented to countering illicit financing, the traffic of 

cash. The natural bureaucratic and human tendency is to let that 

operate in a stovepipe and we’re going to resist that. We’ve really 

pushed these people out—we don’t have all six of them yet, but we 

have, I think, three or four of them. We’re pushing them out to 

work with our interagency partners, DOT, ATF, and the like, to try 

to make the sum greater than the parts. I think that’s a nascent 

effort that will see some progress as time goes on. 

But it’s a very difficult problem. We’re not moving money electronically here. We’re moving it physically, and that’s a very hard 

thing to interdict. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, if I may. We’ve put a lot of assets on things heading north, as we should, and I think we need 

to continue to expand our efforts to secure our border. But obviously, this is a vulnerability heading south and there’s not a similar effort being made there. You don’t have the resources. But we 

need to try to come up with the right answers and resources you 

need in order to deal with that critical element in drug trafficking, 

which is to cut off the cash. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

816 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to focus on an area first with you, General, if I may, and 

I want to join in thanking both of you and the men and women 

under your command for your service and sacrifice to our Nation. 

Focus on an area that I think is very important, both to 

SOUTHCOM and to others, particularly the Middle East, where 

military leadership has proved to be so important, military leadership in other countries, and particularly the leadership of the military of those countries in respecting human rights and values that 

you have made such a central part of your concern. I want to thank 

and commend you for recognizing the importance of those values. 

I understand that SOUTHCOM has a unique human rights unit 

dedicated to addressing these issues in military training and cooperation with our allies in Latin America. I’d like to learn more 

about how this office was established and what you believe can be 

done to replicate its activities and success in other commands, if 

you would address that issue, General? 

General FRASER. Thank you, Senator. The office has been around 

for a number of years. It was started in the 1990s as a recognition 

of the issues and the importance of human rights and the need to 

address the concern. It has grown and focused over that time 

frame. It established a human rights initiative. There are 10 member nations who now support that effort. 

We conduct training with our partners throughout the region. It 

is a focus of all our visitors. All our people have to be trained in 

human rights awareness before they travel into the region, so that 

they support it. 

But our military’s partners within the region also understand it. 

There has been, I think, a real transformation over the last 20 

years, at least from my standpoint. They understand their role in 

a democratic and a civilian-led government. They understand their 

authorities. They understand the importance of human rights. I 

hear it discussed routinely throughout. 

As we look into other commands, all the COCOMs are focused in 

this same area. I don’t know that the others have a specific office. 

Ours is a resource for them with what we’re doing to support 

human rights initiatives, and it will continue to be an ongoing 

focus for us. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I wonder if you could describe maybe in 

more specifics how the relationships with other commands, that is 

commands in other countries in Latin America, fosters the value 

for human rights? Is it the personal interaction? Is it an institutional interchange? 

I know there’s a very conscious policy on your part, which again 

is, I think, extraordinarily important for this Nation, as well as 

those nations. 

General FRASER. It’s on multiple levels I would say, Senator. It 

is at the senior level, where it’s discussed. It’s at the individual 

level. It’s in the conduct of our men and women as they go down, 

and that’s why the importance of briefing them before they go 

down on their focus and their conduct, as they also represent the 

United States throughout the region. 

817 

It’s in conferences that we hold. But we’ve had a very deliberate 

effort in focus with Colombia, in their fight over the last 10 years. 

They are an important counterpart with us in espousing the role 

and the importance of human rights in all the forums in which I 

talk about it, and I have connections—I hear them talking about 

it more than a lot of other people. 

Now, we also work with human rights nongovernmental organizations and have discussions with them here in Washington, here 

in the United States, but also throughout the region. We look for 

opportunities to bring those partners together. So it’s little efforts 

on a continuous basis that I think are making the difference. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I was going to ask, within your time, sir, 

if I could answer also? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Absolutely. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The Mexican partners that I have are up 

against a very sophisticated information adversary, who’s very 

skilled at taking almost any incident and turning it into an alleged 

human rights violation. So they’re very cautious about that. I 

would tell you that they really want to get this right, and they 

have an insatiable appetite for the types of subject matter expert 

exchanges that we have with them, where we have to remember 

that we don’t have a perfect record, either. We’re eager to share 

with them our experiences and they’re very eager to hear them. 

They really want to get this right and they’re on a good track in 

Mexico. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That is a very encouraging part of this 

story and, unfortunately, perhaps less told or untold. I want to 

thank you for bringing it to our attention and for pursuing it so aggressively and vigorously, because I think it’s very important to the 

future of our Nation as well as their nations that we support those 

democratic values and human rights. 

I want to also thank you for supporting our National Guard and 

our Reserves, which in Connecticut are very important to much of 

what we do. Many of our citizens depend on them and they have 

a very distinguished record of service to our Nation in Iraq and 

other parts of the globe, as well as in Connecticut. So I think your 

emphasis, Admiral, on that Reserve and National Guard component and on clarifying the lines of command, I think, is very important. 

I’d like to ask you, because you refer to it in your testimony, 

about the consequences of failing to fund the fiscal year 2012 budget that the President’s proposed, what impact you would see that 

potential failure as having on their capability and on the relationships to the active service? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I would want to defer to the National 

Guard Bureau probably to give you a more robust answer to the 

impact of budgetary issues on their capability. I think there’s a 

good news story in there over the last few years, as I think Secretary Gates has pointed out, that the Guard’s equipment status 

has steadily increased, I think very well. Some of that has to do 

with the fact that they’ve done overseas contingency operations. I 

think it was very much the right thing to do. 

In terms of specifics in the 2012 budget regarding the Guard, I 

want to get back to you for the record on that, sir. 

818 

[The information referred to follows:] 

North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command rely 

on the capabilities of the National Guard to execute our missions, including air sovereignty and ballistic missile defense, among other missions. As a combatant commander, I strongly urge Congress to fully support the fiscal year 2012 President’s 

budget request for the Reserve components. The National Guard Bureau and the 

Services are best-suited to provide capability impacts resulting from potential adjustments to the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. One more quick question, if I might, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I have been told, General Fraser, about the relationship between 

Argentina and Iran concerning the state-sponsored terrorist attack 

on their Jewish community center that I believe occurred back in 

1994, as to some quid pro quo. You may be more familiar with the 

facts than I, involving Argentina’s agreement not to pursue an investigation in return for Iran’s economic benefits to Argentina. I 

wonder if you could comment on those reports? 

General FRASER. Senator, I don’t have a whole lot more information on that than you do. I know that there are discussions that 

are ongoing between the Government of Iran and the Government 

of Argentina. Where and why those are taking place, I don’t have 

any other insight specifically on that. But it is a development that 

we’re watching. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If you have any additional information, I 

would appreciate having it. 

General FRASER. We’ll provide that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Why don’t we just push that one step further and ask you if you 

would take the initiative to look into that and provide the committee any additional information that Senator Blumenthal has 

pointed to. 

General FRASER. I will do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. It’s an important subject. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The original article first appeared in a March 26, 2011, edition of a prominent 

Argentine opposition newspaper, regarding an alleged agreement between Iran and 

Argentina in which Argentina agreed not to pursue an investigation into Iran’s involvement in the bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires in 1994 

in exchange for increased trade. On April 5, 2011, Argentina’s Foreign Minister 

traveled to Israel, where he publicly denied the allegation. I have no information 

that confirms the existence of such an agreement. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start, Admiral Winnefeld, by telling you I know that 

you’re in great hands because your deputy commander for the 

NORTHCOM is a Missourian, Lieutenant General Frank Grass of 

the Missouri National Guard. So I want to point that out. 

I assume that you are participating in the national-level exercise 

concerning the New Madrid fault that will be occurring later in 

May. Obviously, with earthquakes on the minds of everyone in the 

world after what happened in Japan, clearly that’s something 

that’s very important where I come from, is national-level exercises 

to deal with a potential earthquake which, frankly, was the most 

819 

serious earthquake we’ve ever had in the United States, was the 

New Madrid fault. So I thank you for that. 

Let me start quickly with both of you. The Secretary of Defense has asked the branches of the military to look at $100 billion in 

cuts through the efficiencies program. Can both of you briefly give 

me what your top-line cuts are that you’ve been able to identify for 

the Secretary of Defense in your commands? 

General FRASER. Thanks, Senator. Ours were, because we’re a 

level of effort command, pretty straightforward. We looked at some 

conference costs and how many conferences and what we were 

doing. We looked at some TDY expenses, what we were doing 

there. Then we took some small efforts, if you will, into some other 

areas. 

So it was really on a fairly small basis, about $20 million is what 

we worked through that effort. But we also got, as we looked 

through the entire focus, some support and improved some capacity 

as we looked at continuing to support our over-the-horizon radar, 

as we looked at support for ISR capacity we have. So it was a giveand-take throughout that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Did you take more than you gave? 

General FRASER. Ma’am, overall I think we did. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Okay. If you could get those numbers for us 

specifically, that would be helpful. 

General FRASER. Yes, ma’am. We’ll provide them. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

General FRASER. U.S. Southern Command’s (SOUTHCOM) top-line cuts for Secretary of Defense Efficiencies totaled $9 million for fiscal year 2012 and were: 

(a) ($3.9 million) Reduction of foreign military interaction exercises by conducting 

command post (virtual) exercises every other year vice conducting some annual exercises. 

(b) ($2.5 million) Reduction of Operation Southern Voice by eliminating some 

analyses and assessment activities without degrading mission accomplishment. 

(c) ($2.4 million) Reduction in travel and conference costs by reducing travel for 

headquarters personnel by 30 percent, reducing the number of SOUTHCOMsponsored conferences by 50 percent, and minimizing the number of personnel 

who travel to conferences. 

(d) ($.2 million) Reduction of personnel recovery and force protection by eliminating support of one country which has reduced theater cooperation activities. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. 

Northern Command topline reduction between the fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 

2012 President’s budget related to the Secretary of Defense Efficiency program is 

$25.4 million. These funds were intended to pay for costs related to existing military 

and civilian positions eliminated as part of the efficiency review, existing support 

contractors, and an expected growth of civilian positions. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Admiral? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I’d also like to provide the numbers for the 

record. But I can say that as I stepped in as the new commander 

10 months ago, I felt as any new commander would a responsibility 

to look across the organization to see if there were ways we could 

become more efficient. This coincided with the initiative that came 

out later, late last summer, to do this among the COCOMs. 

Of course, the Services are taking the lion’s share of the effort 

in finding the savings. But we were tasked to do it as well. We 

have come up with I think it’s numbering in the 60s of people that 

we have determined we can probably live without and transition 

820 

those billets into other types of organizations. So I think 40 of 

those are military personnel who will be absorbed back into the 

Services. They won’t lose their jobs, but I just will not have them 

in the headquarters any more. The same thing on the civilian side. 

So we’re working very hard to become more efficient. We know 

we have to be good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars. Even though our 

numbers are small compared to the Services, we need to do our 

part. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I think that this exercise has been helpful. I’m not convinced that all of the $100 billion that’s been identified 

all needs to go back in, but I know that the $78 billion that the 

Secretary of Defense identified at DOD is something that we can, 

I think, work towards cutting. 

I do think that there is—I am a big believer in some of the things 

that the Secretary of Defense said about brass creep, about making 

a flatter organization, about taking a different attitude about how 

many people we have where and are they all essential, have we 

puffed up, so to speak, some of our tasks. 

Let me go to fighting drugs. We had a hearing in my Ad Hoc 

Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 2009 and it was 

revealed that over a 4-year period, DOS and DOD spent over $1.1 

billion on contracts to U.S. businesses conducting counternarcotics 

activities in Colombia alone. We are trying to get additional information on this contract spending. It didn’t appear at that hearing 

that there was a good handle on performance measures, what was 

actually going on. Frankly, a lot of the same companies are resurfacing with very big contracts in Afghanistan. 

If you look at overall the amount of money that we’ve spent on 

counternarcotics funding, it’s ranged in the last couple of years and 

for the budget next year between $3 billion and $2.6 billion. That’s 

combining DOS and DOD. Now, I don’t even have in those numbers what we’re doing at DOJ and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and so forth. 

Could I get comments from you? Are you comfortable that if we 

did a really aggressive hearing and scrub at what we’re spending 

with private contractors that the American taxpayers would be 

pleased? 

General FRASER. Senator McCaskill, from my standpoint, yes, 

ma’am. As you have looked into this, we have looked into it very 

deliberately also, for all the right reasons. We continue to focus on 

that. A lot of the support that we provide to Colombia and we provide with other parts of our counternarcotics effort are contracted 

focused, and we have a contracting Center of Excellence that really 

focuses on this effort and makes sure that we have accountability 

for those efforts and activities and that we’re getting value for our 

dollar. So we are very focused on this, and I’m happy to have a discussion at a more detailed level with you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It’s confusing to me. Do you feel it’s clear 

in your mind the different functions between DOS, USAID, DOD, 

and DEA? Do you think that everybody knows exactly what the 

other guy’s job is in regards to this effort? 

General FRASER. Senator, within Colombia specifically there is 

daily coordination between all those organizations within the emVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00826 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
821 

bassy country team. There’s very clear understanding of what each 

is doing and why they’re doing it and how it supports one another’s 

efforts. So I’m very comfortable in their focus and I’m very comfortable in their coordination to do this. 

I see that throughout the rest of government as we focus this. 

We do have a very clear understanding within our country teams 

and within our organization as well. We have representatives from 

USAID within our staff. We have representatives from Federal law 

enforcement within our staff. We coordinate those on a very routine 

basis. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I wish I were as confident as you are that 

everyone knows what everyone’s job is and there’s no—part of the 

problem is, of course, is we’ve gone back and forth between is this 

a DOS function, is this a DOD function. We’ve seen that with 

training of police. We’ve seen that with trying to use contracts, different places to augment the things that we needed in contingencies versus what’s going on in South America. 

I’m going to continue to drill down in this area and will look forward to both of your cooperation, because my sense is that there’s 

money to be saved there and there’s efficiencies that can still be 

gained in terms of how we are mounting this effort, the overlap, 

and the lack of consistency as to who’s in charge and why. 

I appreciate both of you and all the people under your command 

and thank everyone for their service to our Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

I have a few more questions so we will start a second round. 

General, a number of questions have been asked about these 

semi- and fully-submersible vessels that are being tracked, operating out of, I guess, Central and South America. When they are 

detected and monitored and when it looks as though they’re going 

to land or deliver their cargo to some other ship, is that information then turned over to the Coast Guard? Is that the way it 

works? 

General FRASER. Yes, sir. It is an interagency group that does 

that. That is JIATF-South. So the Coast Guard is a part of that, 

as well as the service organizations, as well as law enforcement. 

That information, if it’s a host nation or a domestic capability from 

one of our partner nations who can intercept, that information is 

provided directly to their command centers and then they work to 

intercept and detain the vessel. 

So it depends on whether it’s in international waters or territorial waters on who’s contacted and how the information is passed. 

But it is law enforcement that’s responsible for detaining and then 

prosecuting those individuals. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are there many cases where that information 

is turned over to the Coast Guard? 

General FRASER. On a routine basis. 

Chairman LEVIN. It happens all the time? 

General FRASER. Yes, sir, that happens on a daily basis. 

Chairman LEVIN. What percentage of the cases would you say results in an arrest? Most, a few? 

General FRASER. Senator, I don’t have a specific number. I will 

give you that for the record. 

822 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Since the first self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) was detected in 2006, there 

have been 174 SPSS and 2 self-propelled fully-submersible events documented. A 

total of 30 events have been disrupted with 9 resulting in rescue, and 21 resulting 

in detention of the crew. An additional six SPSSs were reportedly lost at sea and 

were never detected by detection and monitoring assets. 

Chairman LEVIN. Just with our Coast Guard. 

General FRASER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. 

We have cooperation with Cubans on matters of mutual interest, 

particularly going after narcotics; is that correct? 

General FRASER. Yes, sir. There is coordination between U.S. 

Coast Guard and the border patrol from Cuba. 

Chairman LEVIN. The Cubans I gather are cooperative in terms 

of trying to get the narcotic traffickers; is that accurate? 

General FRASER. Senator, I don’t know what their efforts are 

within Cuba. But the coordination—when there is a transit that is 

leaving Cuba towards the United States, there is coordination with 

a U.S. Coast Guard representative who is resident within the U.S. 

interest section in Havana. That information is exchanged. 

Chairman LEVIN. As far as you know, is that a cooperative relationship? 

General FRASER. Yes, sir, it is a cooperative relationship. 

Chairman LEVIN. Relative to SOUTHCOM’s requirement for U.S. 

Special Operations Forces, is the requirement being met? 

General FRASER. Senator, yes, it is being met. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. General, you’ve indicated that there’s a 

big focus in Colombia on espousing human rights. I want to talk 

to you about a problem that we have down there in terms of the 

killing of union officials and bringing the killers to justice, because 

the record’s not very good. Is that part of the human rights effort 

that we work with the Colombians about? 

General FRASER. Senator, we have worked very diligently and 

the Colombians continue to do that. They have a human rights 

education process within their own organization, talking from a 

military standpoint. There was an incident about 6 months ago 

where there was killing of some young individuals by some soldiers. The Colombian army, the Colombian military, the Colombian 

minister of defense, attacked that issue very deliberately and arrested and continues that prosecution. 

We have worked with the Colombians on establishing rules of engagement, rules for the use of force, as they work throughout. So 

I see a continued effort to focus on it. But much like we, they don’t 

have a perfect record, and we don’t have a perfect record as you 

look at some of these issues. But their focus on it continues and 

they continue to make progress. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you know what their record is in terms of 

bringing to justice the murderers of union officials? 

General FRASER. I don’t have that, no, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral, relative to Cyber Command, you said 

in your prepared statement that you’re closely examining the role 

NORTHCOM would play in response to a cyber attack, in order to 

synchronize our efforts with the STRATCOM and the Cyber Command; and that you view your role as assisting the lead Federal 

823 

agency in mitigating the physical effects of such an event, while 

staying close to our partners working in the cyber domain. 

What would NORTHCOM do beyond what the Cyber Command 

would do in the event of a cyber attack? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I think it depends, obviously, on the nature 

of the attack. If it were an attack, for instance, that took down a 

significant portion of the electrical grid and if it took that grid 

down for an extended period of time, we would start to see some 

pretty serious physical effects inside the country. When you can’t 

pump gas out of a gas station, the transportation network starts 

to break down. When you can’t pump fresh water, that sort of thing 

starts to happen. 

So we would probably find ourselves in some fairly basic physical 

roles of transportation and support, just using the capacities that 

we have as a military applied to a serious problem like that. 

In terms of the cyber response, though, we really have resisted 

the temptation at NORTHCOM to become a cyber command, to be 

the lead military agency in support of the lead Federal agency. 

We’ve left that to General Alexander and Cyber Command. But we 

have a good, close, cooperative working relationship with them. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral, relative to those two flight tests of the 

GMD system that failed, do you support the need to take the time 

to understand and to fix the problem, to conduct whatever testing 

is necessary to confirm the fix, and to demonstrate that the system 

works? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Absolutely. 

Chairman LEVIN. Whatever time it takes? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir. I give General O’Reilly a lot of 

credit. It would be tempting to stop at the first thing you find 

wrong in any given test failure, and he’s going beyond that. This 

is why I think it’s going to take him a little bit longer to fully dissect what occurred. 

I watched that test personally. It was going amazingly well until 

the last 10 seconds. It was very frustrating. But I think he has a 

good handle on what the problem was, and I do believe we need 

to do subsequent tests. 

Chairman LEVIN. I hope you’ll continue to take that position, because there’s been too much pressure to move the system before it 

was operationally effective and proven to be operationally effective, 

and it’s had some real costs as a result. These decisions with missile defense ought to be made like any other system. We ought to 

make sure that it works before we deploy them, and I hope that 

you will continue to take the position that you’re going to make 

sure that you fix the problems before we continue to manufacture 

and deploy. 

Okay, is that fair enough? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, sir. I would point out that the missiles 

that failed were a new and upgraded version of the current missiles we have. So based on the test results from the existing what 

we call Capability Enhancement-1 (CE–1) missiles, I have a lot of 

confidence in the system. Don’t have confidence yet in the CE–2 

system, as you point out. I fully support the appropriate type of 

testing that General O’Reilly will want to do. 

824 

Chairman LEVIN. We thank you both very much again for your 

being here this morning and for your great service and the great 

service of the men and women with whom you work. We will stand 

adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

DUAL STATUS COMMANDERS

1. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Winnefeld, at the hearing you discussed the ‘‘dual-status commander’’ initiative for improving the cooperation and coordination of Federal 

and State military forces to respond to a natural disaster. Could you explain the 

details of how the dual-status commander concept would work in practice, using an 

example of the types of Federal and State officers and chains of command involved? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The Contingency Dual Status Commander (CDSC) concept 

aims to achieve unity of effort over military operations by placing one military officer as commander of National Guard forces operating under State control in a title 

32, U.S. Code status, or State Active Duty status, and over military forces under 

Federal control in a title 10, U.S.C. status. In this capacity, the designated CDSC 

will serve as an intermediate link in two distinct chains of command flowing from 

different authorities. Under this arrangement, Federal and State military forces 

have separate chains of command that intersect in the person appointed as the 

CDSC. Command authority within each of the separate chains of command may be 

exercised by the appointed CDSC through the separate chains of command. While 

acting pursuant to State authority, the commander may issue orders only to State 

military forces; while acting pursuant to Federal authority, the commander may 

issue orders only to Federal military forces. As such, the establishment of a CDSC 

does not give the President command of State military forces, or the Governor of 

a State command of Federal military forces. 

EXO-ATMOSPHERIC KILL VEHICLE

2. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Winnefeld, you are the combatant commander with 

operational responsibility for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to 

defend the Homeland against limited missile attack from nations such as North 

Korea and Iran. The last two flight tests of the GMD system failed. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is working to understand and fix the problem, and plans to 

conduct two flight tests to verify and demonstrate that the problem has been fixed. 

Until the fix has been verified, MDA has halted production of the Exo-atmospheric 

Kill Vehicle (EKV) that experienced the problem. Do you agree with the MDA that 

we should make sure the problem is fixed before resuming production of the EKV 

that failed in the flight tests? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, I agree with the MDA decision. I think it is good stewardship to fix the EKV problems now on the production line, rather than potentially 

needing to invest additional dollars in the future to repair faulty EKVs. 

JOINT NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND EXERCISE WITH RUSSIA

3. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Winnefeld, your prepared statement mentions a firsttime joint exercise North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) conducted last year with Russia, called Vigilant Eagle, in which each side practiced 

passing control for monitoring and escorting a simulated hijacked aircraft into each 

other’s airspace. Your statement says that exercise was an ‘‘overwhelming success 

and has helped create an environment for further cooperative efforts.’’ What do you 

see as the benefits of such cooperation, and are you planning similar cooperative efforts with Russia? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We are building on the success of last year’s Vigilant Eagle 

exercise to plan and conduct a similar event in August 2011 involving NORAD and 

the Russian Federation Air Force. I recently held detailed discussions on this exercise in my Headquarters with my Russian counterpart, General Zelin, and he too 

was pleased with the results of last year’s event, and looking forward to a repeat 

performance this year. 

The benefits we realize from this type of event are significant. The exercises are 

by their very nature complicated, requiring high levels of synchronization between 

NORAD and the Russian Federation Air Force. As a result, this process by itself 

825 

opens up new avenues for discussion and cooperation, establishes long-term contacts, and fosters better understanding among our governments, and especially 

among our militaries. These open lines of communication help our respective militaries avoid misunderstandings that can result in heightened tension and unintended consequences. Vigilant Eagle is a symbol of what can be achieved using an 

incremental, stepping-stone process—each event building on the success of the prior 

year’s effort—which I hope over time will lead to even greater levels of openness 

and cooperation between our nations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW RELATED TO FORT HOOD

4. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Winnefeld, your prepared testimony says that U.S. 

Northern Command (NORTHCOM) is ‘‘fully implementing the relevant recommendations of the Department of Defense (DOD) Independent Review Related to 

Fort Hood.’’ What are the specific recommendations you are implementing? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. We are implementing the following recommendations: 

• Recommendation 3.6, Create a Process for Sharing Real-Time Force Protection Event Information Among Installations 

• Recommendation 4.5, Develop an Operational Approach that sets Force 

Protection Conditions (FPCON) Appropriately 

Per these recommendations, the Secretary of Defense tasked that, ‘‘By April 2011, 

Combatant Commands will ensure there is an unclassified means to notify all DOD 

facilities within their Area of Responsibility (AOR) of a FPCON change.’’ 

In September 2010, I directed the use of the Automated Notification and Recall 

System as NORTHCOM’s mass notification means of addressing this task. This 

web-based mass notification system is now populated with the phone numbers and 

email addresses of over 500 DOD installation Emergency Operations Centers, DOD 

leased facilities, organizations, and emergency services points of contact; as needed, 

it is ready to immediately send out FPCON change information or FP-related event 

information via telephone and email. 

We have tested this system five times since October 2010. The final test was conducted on 22 March 2011, with 100 percent of all TACON for FP subordinates confirming receipt of the test message; most within 7 minutes of initial notification. 

(Note: The 7-minute figure includes the DOD Agencies and Field Activities. All four 

of the Service components responded in less than 2 minutes). 

ELECTRICAL GRID SECURITY

5. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Winnefeld, your prepared testimony states that, with 

respect to its counterterrorism mission, NORTHCOM has a responsibility to ‘‘ensure 

military infrastructure across our AOR is properly postured to mitigate and prevent 

potential terrorist attacks.’’ As part of this responsibility, does NORTHCOM monitor 

risks to the electrical grid that supplies power to U.S. military facilities and critical 

infrastructure? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. On a daily basis, we monitor events across the NORTHCOM 

AOR and evaluate the information for potential impacts on DOD missions and supporting infrastructure. This includes impacts from the electric grid. We collaborate 

with our Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) partners through venues such as the DOD Energy Grid Security Executive 

Council (EGSEC) to evaluate the health of the electric grid. We are also in the process of developing near real-time information sharing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the status of the electric grid across the Nation. 

Additionally, the NORTHCOM Cyber Fusion Center is constantly monitoring 

risks to global data networks for impact on our NORAD and NORTHCOM enterprise, while paying close attention to potential risks to the electric grid industrial 

control systems that could impact our mission sets. We receive this information from 

organizations that lead these efforts, such as the Defense Cyber Crime Center or 

DHS Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, then analyze for 

NORAD and NORTHCOM impacts and equities, and share it with our other mission 

partners to enhance the cyber security posture or our mission sets. 

6. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Winnefeld, what actions, including any training and 

exercises, is NORTHCOM taking to mitigate and prevent potential risks to the electrical grid that would degrade the capabilities of U.S. military facilities and critical 

infrastructure? 

826 

Admiral WINNEFELD. NORTHCOM is actively engaged in a number of interagency 

activities to mitigate potential risks to the electric grid and related impacts to national security and military readiness. Some examples are: 

1. NORTHCOM is a member of the EGSEC, which serves as a forum for the exchange of information on energy grid security issues. The EGSEC is co-chaired 

by the assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs), assistant Secretary of Defense (Operational Energy Plans and 

Programs), and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment). We also support the Technical Working Group, a subcommittee of the 

EGSEC, on developing assessment methodology for critical infrastructure interdependencies. We are working closely with the Mission Assurance Division at 

the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, VA in their Energy Security 

Case Studies to identify the systemic vulnerabilities of the DOD regarding the 

commercial electricity sector and appropriate mitigating solutions. 

2. We have also stood up an Electric Energy Security Working Group to investigate and evaluate issues that relate to potential impacts of the electric grid 

on DOD mission assurance. 

3. U.S. Pacific Command and NORTHCOM are co-sponsoring a fiscal year 2011 

Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration to demonstrate a cyber-secure 

electric grid security architecture in partnership with DOE and DHS. 

4. 2011 Secure Grid Table Top Exercise (TTX), led by DHS and co-sponsored by 

DOE and DOD (NORTHCOM supporting), will focus on Geomagnetic Disturbances due to a solar storm and its impact on the Power Grid in September 

2011 at the National Defense University (NDU). 

5. 2010 Secure Grid TTX, jointly hosted by NORAD and NORTHCOM in July 

2010, examined crisis and consequence management related to a prolonged 

electrical outage (6 weeks) resulting from a domestic cyber attack on the Colorado electric grid. The TTX was attended by more than 100 participants representing both public and private interests at the State, local, and Federal levels. This TTX examined industry’s requirement for Federal support and 

NORTHCOM’s ability to deliver capabilities in accordance with the National 

Response Framework and NORTHCOM Concept Plan 3501, Defense Support 

of Civil Authorities. The TTX further explored ways to reduce the impact of 

a prolonged electricity outage on NORAD and NORTHCOM operational readiness. Significant findings were compiled into a subsequent After Action Report 

and entered into the DOD Joint Lessons Learned Information System for corrective action and further investigation. NORAD and NORTHCOM continue to 

support the Secure Grid series of energy reliability exercises in partnership 

with the DHS, DOE, and NDU. 

6. In May 2006, the NORAD and NORTHCOM Directorate of Training and Exercise sponsored an Electric Power Grid Terrorism TTX. The Electric Power Grid 

Terrorism TTX was a scenario-driven, facilitated discussion providing a forum 

for military, interagency and private sector participants to build relationships, 

refine coordination procedures, and deconflict responsibilities relating to major 

power outages of such a magnitude as to require DOD consequence mitigation 

support. 

TROPAS GUARDA FRONTERAS

7. Senator LEVIN. General Fraser, the relationship the United States enjoys with 

the Cuban Ministry of Interior’s Counternarcotics Unit, known as the Tropas 

Guarda Fronteras, is positive. The Cubans are eager to expand their cooperation 

with the United States in areas of mutual interest, such as search and rescue operations, migration operations, and counternarcotics operations. What is your view regarding increased cooperation with the Cubans on matters of mutual interest? 

General FRASER. I view increased cooperation with the Cubans on matters of mutual interest as a positive step toward better achieving our strategic objectives. Two 

potential areas of increased cooperation are counter illicit trafficking and disaster 

preparedness/disaster relief activities, which could better prepare both our Nations 

to respond to regional disasters. 

8. Senator LEVIN. General Fraser, could offering the Cubans the opportunity to 

place a liaison officer at Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF–S) in Key 

West, FL, help expand cooperation efforts between the United States and Cuba further? 

General FRASER. Historically the flow of illicit contraband into Cuba has not met 

the threshold to request a Cuban liaison officer for JIATF–S. The last documented 

827 

illicit trafficking event involving Cuba was in 2006. As with all countries in the 

JIATF–S Joint Operating Area, if the situation changes and Cuba becomes a center 

of illicit trafficking, JIATF–S will reevaluate the need for a liaison officer. 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA

9. Senator LEVIN. General Fraser and Admiral Winnefeld, both of your prepared 

statements discuss the increasingly dangerous region along the southern border of 

Mexico and the devastating impact transnational criminal organizations (TCO) are 

having on the people and security of southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, 

and El Salvador. The United States has increased its assistance in this region, 

but—to date—the DOD has had only a small role. Each year since 2005, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has provided DOD with an expanded 

counternarcotics authority to support the Colombian military and law enforcement 

in their efforts to counter the role of TCOs and insurgent groups. Do your respective 

commands have the authorities needed to support host nation military and law enforcement efforts in Central America? 

General FRASER. Our authorities are adequate to conduct more traditional support 

however, as we explore options on how the authorities can be modified, I think we’ll 

see that they can be improved. We are currently reviewing whether SOUTHCOM 

would benefit from an expansion of current counternarcotic (CN) authorities contained in the NDAAs in terms of permitted forms of support under Section 1004 and 

expansion of Section 1021 authorities to other Latin American states. 

Admiral WINNEFELD. NORTHCOM has adequate authorities to conduct the missions assigned. NORTHCOM is providing support to Mexico as our neighbor and 

partner nation. We have sufficient authorities to continue working closely together 

to succeed in disrupting TCOs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND

NATIONAL GUARD

10. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Winnefeld, in Admiral Mullen’s National Military Strategy published earlier this year he stated, ‘‘We will continue to dedicate, 

fund, and train a portion of the National Guard for Homeland defense and defense 

support of civil authorities. Working with Canada and Mexico, we will remain prepared to deter and defeat direct threats to our North American Homeland.’’ What 

is your assessment of the terrorist infiltration threat along our northern border? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. [Deleted.] 

11. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Winnefeld, I was very interested in the discussion of dual-hatting the Reserves in order to enable them to support domestic emergency needs. Given that cybersecurity is inherently both a domestic and national 

security issue, as evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

DOD and DHS, do you expect that such dual-hatting for cyber attacks on our key 

infrastructure sectors would be appropriate? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Although we have not yet explored this concept with U.S. 

Strategic Command (STRATCOM), there may be instances where using a Dual Status Commander to mitigate the results of a cyber attack on civilian key infrastructure would be appropriate. The DHS–DOD Memorandum regarding Cybersecurity 

addresses support provided by DOD to DHS, which is the Federal agency lead for 

cybersecurity. For a purely cyber incident, the lead Combatant Command would 

more likely be STRATCOM, with expertise provided by their subordinate command 

(U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM)). Since the National Guard in the States has 

cyberspace operational expertise, they could have the capacity to provide Defense 

Support of Civil Authorities for cyber incidents within the State. Thus, in this situation, STRATCOM/CYBERCOM may choose to establish the CDSC relationship between their Title 10 Federal forces with cyberspace capabilities and those of a 

State’s National Guard. Therefore, the simultaneous Title 10 civil support for cyberspace by STRATCOM/CYBERCOM and the State National Guard support could conceivably be commanded and controlled by a Dual Status Commander. 

12. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Winnefeld, might this be an issue that could be 

raised with the Council of Governors? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Yes, the issue of a CDSC relationship between Title 10 Federal forces and a State’s National Guard for cyber incidents could be raised with 

828 

the Council of Governors. Within DOD, this would also need to be discussed with 

STRATCOM and their subordinate command, CYBERCOM. 

WIND FARMS

13. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Winnefeld, you stated that you are ‘‘watching 

closely the pace of wind farm development. Increases in the number of wind farms 

raise the likelihood that radar signals vital to our ability to protect the national airspace will be obstructed. We believe enabling the construction of alternative energy sources and conducting our national defense mission are not mutually exclusive . . .’’ Your testimony further supports development of ‘‘technical solutions, 

and future surveillance infrastructure that will provide both national security and 

renewable energy at the same time.’’ I am very pleased that this is DOD’s policy 

since there are wind farms close to Fort Drum, NY, and my office has been briefed 

by experts in the radar field on a low cost radar system that mitigates the operational issue caused by wind turbine clutter. Would you agree that the immediate 

testing and evaluation of this radar system be performed with the results subsequently shared with this committee? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I am encouraged by recent technological innovations and I 

agree they should be evaluated and, if warranted, endorsed by DOD. We should continue to conduct research and development this area. In many cases, a solution for 

one sensor does not transfer to another type of sensor. However, DOD continues to 

evaluate emerging technical solutions that show promise in mitigating risks to military missions from wind turbine radar interference. 

GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE

14. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Winnefeld, you are the combatant commander 

responsible for the operation of the GMD system to defend the United States 

against limited ballistic missile attack from countries such as North Korea and Iran. 

I was pleased to learn that Fort Drum is under consideration as the deployment site 

for the planned GMD In-Flight Interceptor Communications System Data Terminal 

(IDT) on the east coast that was included in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

request. Do you know when a final basing decision for the east coast IDT will be 

made and when the system is planned to be operational? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The Department has selected Fort Drum as the deployment 

site for the planned East Coast IDT. Based on the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request, the East Coast IDT should achieve initial operational capability in 2015. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

15. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Winnefeld, I would like to hear what we are 

doing to leverage similar or similarly situated missions carried out by DOD and 

DHS to increase efficiencies and cut costs without compromising security or law enforcement. For example, on New York’s northern border, we have the Niagara Air 

Reserve Station, while the Customs and Border Patrol operates in the same area 

and is likely to have a need for runways and other facilities. Are you aware of other 

institutions under your command where DOD and DHS missions are collocated? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. There are no institutions under my command where DOD 

and DHS are collocated; however, there are numerous instances of where DOD and 

DHS units share the same facility. For example: 

• Joint Base Charleston, which is comprised of Air Force, Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and other DOD missions—all 

working together in the global fight against terrorism 

• Selfridge Air National Guard Base, which is home to DHS’s Operational 

Integration Center. The center provides a centralized location for Customs 

and Border Protection, along with Federal, state, local and international 

partners, to gather, analyze and disseminate operational and strategic data 

in the Great Lakes region of the Northern border for use by frontline agents 

and officers. 

While NORAD and NORTHCOM do not have units collocated with Department 

of DHS assets on a permanent basis, throughout DOD and DHS, there are continuous planning and evaluation efforts ongoing, which result in collocated capabilities 

during disaster response. By way of illustration, DOD installations are used as Base 

Support Installations, Interagency Incident Support Bases, and as Modular Airborne 

Firefighting Systems operating bases in support of DHS or other primary agencies 

829 

for contingency responses. Most recently, DOD provided installation support in response to Federal Emergency Management Agency mission assignments for severe 

winter weather response efforts to preposition equipment and Federal personnel. 

16. Senator GILLIBRAND. Admiral Winnefeld, what would you see as the benefit 

of such co-location at Niagara? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I believe the benefit of any colocation decision at Niagara 

would need to be based on an assessment of the current threat, mission requirements, synergy of operations, and fiscal constraints. 

IRAN

17. Senator GILLIBRAND. General Fraser, I am concerned by your testimony with 

respect to Iran’s growing contacts and institutions in Latin America. Can you please 

list the locations of Iran’s missions, their purpose, and any credible evidence of Iranian military activities in the countries involved? 

General FRASER. Iran continues to expand its regional diplomatic initiatives and 

seeks to impede U.S. and European international sanctions to allow its nuclear enrichment program to succeed. Long term, Iran will continue to seek financial, energy, and military engagements in Latin America. 

Iran has 10 embassies in Latin America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Bolivia, 

Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Venezuela) an increase of 6 since 2005, and has diplomatic ties with St. Vincent and Grenadines. 

Iran’s Ambassador to Mexico is also a nonresident ambassador to a majority of Central American countries. Iranians can travel to Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Venezuela, and Central America without a visa. 

Since 2008, Iran has nearly doubled its socio-cultural efforts. Iran funds 40 Shi’a 

mosques and/or cultural centers in 17 countries in the region. Since 2005, Iran has 

pursued arms deal with Latin America. 

Combined, Argentina and Brazil account for 94 percent of Latin America’s trade 

with Iran totaling over U.S. $2 billion. Venezuela replaced Ecuador as Iran’s thirdlargest trading partner in the region. Traditionally, most Caribbean, Central and 

South American countries do not conduct major trade with Iran. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE

ARGENTINA

18. Senator AYOTTE. General Fraser, could you please describe the nature and status of U.S. Southern Command’s (SOUTHCOM) interaction with the Argentine military. Please include a detailed list of SOUTHCOM’s contributions to Argentina (e.g., 

exercises, training). The list should clearly delineate how Argentina benefits from 

this support and how much SOUTHCOM’s support to Argentina costs the U.S. taxpayers in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

General FRASER. SOUTHCOM’s interaction with the Argentine military has traditionally embraced a wide gamut of engagement activities, ranging from exercises 

(Peacekeeping Operations, Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief, Search and 

Rescue, etc.) to conferences, seminars and programmed staff talks (i.e., between the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and equivalent, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

equivalent). However, since 2003, those engagements activities have been greatly 

curtailed due to Argentine political considerations and Argentine legal and funding 

constraints. SOUTHCOM activity with Argentina cost approximately $2.1 million in 

fiscal year 2009 and $1.8 million in fiscal year 2010 (a list of activities is provided 

in an attachment). From this support, Argentina has benefited in educational and 

training opportunities not otherwise available, increased professional military education/professional development, increased access to science and technology expertise, and enhanced interoperability. 

830 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

INSTABILITY IN MEXICO

19. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, cartel-driven violence in Mexico continues to rage. You mentioned in your prepared statement that over 34,000 Mexicans have lost their lives in the last 4 years as the Government of Mexico and the 

Mexican military have courageously taken up the fight against the drug cartels, the 

so-called TCO. This is clearly a terrible situation, both for Mexico and the United 

States. What is the Mexican Government currently doing, militarily and otherwise, 

to address this very serious problem? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. President Calderon and the Mexican Government have displayed extraordinary courage in their efforts to combat difficult transnational organized crime challenges. They recognize this struggle is about the future of Mexico 

and their efforts have achieved some significant successes. In addition, their military has been directed by President Calderon to support law enforcement in this 

struggle and they are aggressively engaged in the land, maritime, and air domains. 

Overall, the Mexican Government is employing a multi-pronged, interagency approach to eliminate the TCO leadership, disrupt their networks, reform Mexico’s judicial system, and transform the police force. Some highlights of these efforts follow: 

• Mexican military and Federal police force are conducing intelligence-driven operations to disrupt TCO activities and fracture their organizational 

structures. They have apprehended 20 key TCO leaders over the past year. 

While these actions have resulted in an increase in violence directed at 

Mexican law enforcement and military forces, in the longer term, these activities show great promise in diminishing the capabilities of the TCOs. 

• President Calderon has transformed local police departments into unified 

commands that are more cohesive and professional forces, which in large 

measure resulted in the October 2010 confiscation of 134 metric tons of 

marijuana—one of the largest seizures to date. 

• Mexican Congress has passed legislation to impose tougher penalties for 

trafficking crimes, tightening control on money laundering and toughening 

forfeiture laws. 


405ful16.eps
831 

• The Mexican Government is also working closely with our government to 

reduce the volume of illicit weapons and cash flowing south from the United 

States into Mexico. 

20. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.), 

former commander of SOUTHCOM and U.S. Drug Czar, released a report in December 2008 regarding his visit to Mexico to assess first-hand the impact of the Mexican 

drug cartels. General McCaffrey, in his report, warned that the incoming Obama administration should have immediately focused on the dangerous and worsening 

problems in Mexico, ‘‘which fundamentally threaten U.S. national security.’’ He 

went on to predict that, ‘‘before the next 8 years are passed—the violent, warring 

collection of criminal drug cartels could . . . establish de facto control over broad regions of northern Mexico.’’ Although this report is 2 years old, I believe General 

McCaffrey’s findings and analyses remain relevant and accurate. What do you see 

as the risks to our own national security if the Mexican drug cartels are not defeated? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I believe it is in our interest as a nation to have secure, stable, and prosperous neighbors. The drug trade does not respect borders or national 

sovereignty. It is a transnational, trans-border problem that must be approached in 

a holistic, interagency manner, taking into account the regional and international 

nature of the problem. The TCOs currently operate in 270 U.S. cities; gangs are in 

2,500 U.S. cities with total gang members exceeding 900,000 and we are seeing 

Latin American gangs push out traditional American gangs. We have not seen a 

spillover of violence from Mexico yet; however, the threat of violence is ubiquitous. 

The demand for illegal drugs in the United States continues unabated despite the 

dire consequences. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, nearly 

40,000 people die each year of drug-induced causes and the economic cost to our Nation exceeds $180 billion annually. 

21. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, it is my understanding that 

NORTHCOM has conducted a number of military-to-military engagements with 

Mexico, which I see as very positive. What is your assessment of the current state 

of our military-to-military relationship with Mexico? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The military-to-military relationship between the United 

States and Mexico is very positive and has progressed to unprecedented levels of 

cooperation. We work closely to enhance planning, tactical skills, and adherence to 

human rights principles, and meet frequently to build personal relationships and cooperation. As an example, we conduct combined planning and exercises such as 

Quickdraw, which is a tactical-level exercise that tests the capability of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican maritime forces in a joint response against illicit activity threatening North American Maritime Security. We have also incorporated bilateral/multilateral agreements such as the North American Maritime Security Initiative Subject 

Matter Expert Exchanges, which allow us to learn from each other with regard to 

military best practices. We also conduct bilateral and multilateral conferences dealing with issues such as natural disasters, pandemics, and search and rescue for 

broader coordination. The United States also shares information with the Mexican 

military in resource management and logistics, operations development, and aviation training. 

Additionally, for the past few years, NORTHCOM has had a resident Mexican 

Foreign Liaison Officer from both SEMAR (Mexican Army) and SEDENA (Mexican 

Navy), which has helped tremendously to improve cooperation. 

22. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, where is the Mexican military making 

the most progress? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Mexico is facing tremendous challenges to its security, economic development and human capital. The military is moving aggressively on all 

fronts and making progress. Notable progress has been made in three key areas: 

• Conducting intelligence-driven operations • Greater awareness, sensitivity, education, and practice in human rights • Understanding the importance of working jointly and with Mexican interagency partners to address the challenges posed by TCOs. 

23. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, where can NORTHCOM and DOD do 

more to help Mexico defeat the TCOs, while respecting Mexico’s national sovereignty? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. NORTHCOM can build on recent successes in working with 

the Mexican military to help them transition from a traditional military force to one 

that is more capable of combating an irregular threat. We will continue to share 

832 

lessons learned from our experiences overseas that are relevant to Mexico’s struggle 

against TCOs and provide material and operational support to enable Mexico’s efforts to disrupt illicit trafficking. Our near-term focus is on assisting Mexico in integrating intelligence with operations. 

The United States and Mexico are developing an interagency approach to combating TCOs in Mexico. One important aspect of this approach continues to be sharing information on how DOD supports interagency partners to facilitate arrests and 

successful prosecutions by law enforcement agencies. In all we do with our Mexican 

military partners, we will continue to demonstrate respect for Mexico’s sovereignty 

and reinforce the importance of protecting human rights. 

JIATF–S MODEL FOR ADAPTATION ALONG SOUTHWEST BORDER

24. Senator CORNYN. General Fraser, in your role as commander of SOUTHCOM, 

you oversee the work of the JIATF–S, based in Key West. Your predecessor, Admiral Stavridis, called JIATF–S ‘‘the gold standard for future joint and combined interagency and international security organizations.’’ It is clear that this interagency 

approach has greatly increased America’s ability to combat illegal trafficking of all 

kinds. Please explain how and why JIATF–S has been so successful. 

General FRASER. JIATF–S’s successes stem from the fact that their team is a fully 

integrated international and interagency organization that capitalizes on the finer 

aspects of ‘‘unity of effort’’ and builds upon the idea of matching capability with authority across the whole of government and the international community to conduct 

their detection, monitoring and support to interdiction mission in order to achieve 

results against illicit trafficking organizations. 

JIATF–S is able to gain insight into the flow of illicit trafficking through their 

Tactical Analysis Teams (TAT) and intelligence liaison officers deployed to 44 locations in 34 countries and in U.S. Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces 

(OCDETF). These teams of intelligence research specialists are embedded in U.S. 

Law Enforcement country teams and OCDETFs and facilitate the flow of law enforcement information to provide JIATF–S with cueing information for illicit trafficking events. Working with our international partners, through JIATF–S’s Joint 

Operations Center (JOC) and their Joint Interagency Intelligence Operations Center, the TATs provide JIATF–S with critical, tactically actionable information on illicit trafficking. The intelligence that comes from law enforcement is analyzed and 

fused (‘‘stacked’’) with multiple national, commercial, and international sources to 

create actionable target packages which are prioritized through JIATF–S’s Targeting Process for action by U.S., allied, and partner assets under JIATF–S’s Tactical Control and directed through the JOC. JIATF–S also has 17 senior country liaison officers from 13 key countries. These officers coordinate with their national 

headquarters, their ships and planes supporting the JIATF–S mission, and the 

entry and pursuit of traffickers in their nation’s territorial waters and airspace. 

25. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, in contrast to JIATF–S, the U.S. Government takes a much less unified (and less effective) approach along the U.S. land 

border with Mexico, where counter-trafficking and border security operations are 

critical. For example, although there is solid interagency coordination in the area 

of intelligence fusion, there is no similar interagency integration and synchronization function in the areas of interdiction operations and border security. This is 

a gap that needs to be filled, in order to maximize the efforts and resources of the 

various Federal agencies that play a role here. In my opinion, we need to take the 

successes and lessons learned from JIATF–S and apply this model on the southwest 

border. Applying a JIATF–S approach could serve as a sort of force multiplier, but 

it would need to be specially tailored to the unique requirements of the border. I 

believe such an interagency effort there should be civilian-led, but should be supported by our military, which could bring to bear its substantial resources whenever 

needed. I believe any such effort on the border should be not just interagency, but 

also intergovernmental. The State and local law enforcement agencies on the border 

play a huge role, and their Federal counterparts would be well-served to coordinate 

efforts, wherever possible. Do you agree that this type of approach would make a 

positive impact in counter-trafficking and border security efforts on the southwest 

border? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I believe it would be prudent and timely to re-evaluate our 

efforts to achieve a higher degree of synergy and efficiency with the interagency 

community. One potential approach could include a civilian-led JIATF-like model/ 

concept with intergovernmental integration and synchronization functions in the 

areas of interdiction operations and border security for the southwest border. In 

833 

fact, The Interdiction Committee (TIC) was tasked by the Office of the National 

Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to lead the development of a National Arrival Zone 

Task Force (NAZTF) Implementation Plan with full interagency and state and local 

participation, to be provided to ONDCP by 1 November 2010. My staff participated 

in preliminary discussions with TIC staff on these efforts. TIC response to ONDCP 

on 2 November 2010 was to monitor the progress of a number of complementary, 

parallel efforts intending to improve U.S. Government efforts on the border. Those 

efforts are led by the DHS/Customs and Border Protection and the Department of 

Justice, with NORTHCOM in a supporting role. TIC will monitor the progress of 

these ongoing efforts and will reassess and lay a track-line for where collectively we 

need to go in 12 months. 

The desired goal of a NAZTF model/concept is to disrupt, degrade, or defeat TCOs 

and associated transnational threats by integrating multiple Federal coordination 

centers for air, land, and sea with regional and local intelligence and coordination 

centers enabling dissemination of intelligence to support interdiction operations. 

26. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, would it improve the U.S. Government’s 

ability to stem the flow of drugs into the United States? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I believe the establishment of a JIATF-like model/concept, 

regardless of its title, has the potential to reduce organizational redundancy, increase agility, and facilitate better/faster decisionmaking. A whole-of-government 

approach could help counter TCOs responsible for the drug flow, which are a viable 

regional, hemispheric, and global threat to national security and interests. 

COLOMBIA

27. Senator CORNYN. General Fraser, in your prepared remarks you spoke very 

highly of efforts in Colombia to combat narco-terrorist groups that finance their activities through drug trafficking. You went on to request continued congressional 

support for U.S. efforts in Colombia—efforts which have resulted in a valuable and 

reliable regional partner. Do you believe that economic advancement in Colombia 

will help combat illegal trafficking in Colombia? 

General FRASER. Economic advancement will undoubtedly help combat illicit trafficking. All too often, the traffickers prey upon the disenfranchised who often have 

little or no opportunity for social and economic advancement. Whether through cultivation, production, or distribution, participation in illicit trafficking is their only 

means of livelihood. The Government of Colombia’s approach is to establish security 

and governance in previously ungoverned areas, and subsequently establish economic clusters that provide opportunities to escape the endless entrapment to the 

narcoterrorists. 

28. Senator CORNYN. General Fraser, if economic growth is impeded in Colombia, 

what are the ramifications to stability within the country? 

General FRASER. Colombia has made impressive economic strides, but 16 percent 

of the population still lives in extreme poverty—a condition that disproportionally 

affects rural Colombians and Colombians of African and indigenous origin. Establishing a solid economic base is a critical component of solidifying the security advances of the past decade. If Colombia’s economic growth is impeded, it will slow 

advances in security and may create a situation that could actually lead to additional instability. 

WIND FARMS

29. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, in your prepared remarks, you stated 

that you are closely watching wind farm development because, ‘‘increases in the 

number of wind farms raise the likelihood that radar signals vital to our ability to 

protect the national airspace will be obstructed.’’ In a 2006 report to Congress, titled 

‘‘The Effect of Windmill Farms on Military Readiness’’, the Office of the Director of 

Defense Research and Engineering concluded that: ‘‘wind turbines located in radar 

line of sight of air defense radars can adversely impact the ability of those units 

to detect and track, by primary radar return, any aircraft or other aerial object. 

Should the impact prove sufficient to degrade the ability of the radar to unambiguously detect and track objects of interest by primary radar alone this will negatively impact the readiness of U.S. forces to perform the air defense mission.’’ In 

your understanding, how does a wind farm negatively affect an air defense radar 

facility? 

834 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Wind turbines interfere with radar operation in a variety of 

ways. First, wind turbines create clutter and undesired reflected signals, potentially 

obscuring actual airborne objects of interest. While there are other sources of clutter 

such as buildings, trees, terrain, power lines, birds, road traffic, and precipitation, 

most clutter can be filtered out by signal processing techniques. The effects of rotating wind turbine blades are not easily filtered because they are very dynamic, varying with rotor speed, blade pitch, and turbine aspect, so the clutter can appear and 

disappear sporadically as conditions vary. Under certain conditions, an operating 

wind turbine can present a radar cross section and Doppler shift that are similar 

to that of an aircraft, creating problems for both aircraft detection and tracking. 

Additionally, wind turbines increase ambient electromagnetic noise. As large reflectors, they can increase the noise level in the radar view of the surrounding area. 

This decreases the signal-to-noise ratio and raises the noise floor, and thus, lowers 

the probability of detection of legitimate targets in the area. 

Another problem is the radar shadows they cast by blocking radar signals, effectively masking targets above and behind the turbines. At very close range, a wind 

turbine can create radar shadows or data spikes that extend for the entire range 

of the radar along that azimuth. Because wind turbines are highly reflective, radar 

returns from aircraft near wind farms can reflect off multiple wind turbines creating 

multipath interference or scattering, leading to errors in target bearing, or even 

‘‘ghost’’ targets. Scattering can result in target tracking errors, false alarms, and obscuration. 

In combination, wind-turbine interference reduces the probability of detection, and 

can lead to target tracking interference, increased false alarms, and saturated radar 

processors. 

30. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, how can the United States ensure that 

wind farm development does not negatively impact national defense? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. I believe that to ensure we continue to have an adequate 

detection capability, we need to invest in research and development to improve 

radar performance and mitigate the impact of radar interference, including interference from wind turbines. However, impacts from wind turbines extend beyond 

NORAD’s Air Defense mission and therefore this question would be best answered 

by the DOD Energy Siting Clearinghouse, which can provide a whole-of-DOD perspective that includes training and test impacts. 

31. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, what are the risks to military readiness? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. From a NORAD Air Defense perspective, it’s not so much 

a question of readiness, but rather the potential risk to mission execution. Degraded 

radar coverage resulting from wind turbine interference can contribute to late or 

false detections of potentially threatening aircraft. This late or false detection could, 

in a worst case scenario, result in the loss of life or national assets. The DOD Energy Siting Clearinghouse is best suited to provide DOD-wide impacts of wind turbine interference on other DOD activities such as testing and training. 

32. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, section 358 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 

2011 gives DOD 30 days to assess renewable energy proposals that have unacceptable impacts on military operations. In response to a recent request for information 

from my office, the Air Force stated that, ‘‘proposals that are found to present significant operational impacts will be hard-pressed to meet the new requirements 

within 30 days.’’ Do the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 provisions provide the military 

with adequate time to conduct a thorough analysis and make informed objections 

to proposed wind farm developments when necessary because of impacts on military 

operations? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. From a NORAD and NORTHCOM perspective, we are postured to provide Preliminary Reports to the DOD Energy Siting Clearinghouse in 

order to meet the initial 30-day Preliminary Assessment requirement established in 

Section 358 of the 2011 NDAA. The 30-day requirement is adequate for our initial 

screening to determine which projects will have only a minimal impact on our Air 

Defense mission. However, for projects we deem as having potential for significant 

impact, we believe the additional 30 days prescribed in the 2011 NDAA will not provide NORAD and NORTHCOM enough time to accurately determine the actual impact or to recommend proper mitigation strategies. This question as it pertains to 

the rest of DOD would be best answered by the DOD Energy Siting Clearinghouse. 

33. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, in your interpretation, do the NDAA for 

Fiscal Year 2011 provisions take into account the electromagnetic effects of wind 

835 

turbines on radar systems and provide adequate protection for military radars and 

other sensors? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. The capability to recognize and characterize wind turbine affects on radars and developing solutions is an evolving field. The NDAA for Fiscal 

Year 2011 provisions that allow DOD to work with industry to employ solutions will 

help us protect the effectiveness of military radars and other sensors. 

34. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Winnefeld, as you may know, when a wind farm 

is proposed, an application must be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In response, the FAA determines whether or not a hazard to aviation 

exists. However, in its review process, the FAA fails to take into account the electromagnetic effects of wind turbines on radar systems when the proposed wind farm 

would be within line of sight of a military radar tower. In your opinion, how could 

the FAA’s ‘‘Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis’’ (OE/AAA) be enhanced to adequately take into account the impact of electromagnetic (or any other) 

interference on airport surveillance and long-range radars? 

Admiral WINNEFELD. Since 2006, NORAD and the Air Combat Command LongRange Radar Joint Program Office have been working closely with the FAA’s Obstruction Evaluation process. While the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011 has improved 

the FAA’s process, there is room for revised and updated guidance in situations 

where wind turbines impact the DOD, but do not cause an ‘‘obstruction to air navigation’’ as contemplated by the FAA OE/AAA process and the applicable Federal 

Aviation Regulation (14 C.F.R. Part 77).’’ The DOD Energy Siting Clearinghouse is 

the best organization to address this issue from an overall DOD perspective. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(837) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND AND U.S. AFRICA 

COMMAND 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room SD– 

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Webb, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, McCain, 

Inhofe, Sessions, Brown, Ayotte, Graham, and Cornyn. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Creighton Greene, professional 

staff member; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Michael J. 

Kuiken, professional staff member; and Gerald J. Leeling, counsel. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member; Christian D. 

Brose, professional staff member; and Michael J. Sistak, research 

assistant. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Hannah I. Lloyd, 

and Brian F. Sebold. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Vance Serchuk, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator 

Reed; Gordon Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Lindsay Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator 

Begich; Joanne McLaughlin, assistant to Senator Manchin; Chad 

Kreikemeier, assistant to Senator Shaheen; Jeremy Bratt, assistant 

to Senator Blumenthal; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator 

Inhofe, Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde 

Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator Ayotte; 

Taylor Andreae, assistant to Senator Graham; and Dave Hanke, 

assistant to Senator Cornyn. 

838 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. We want to welcome 

our witnesses this morning, General Duncan McNabb, Commander, 

U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), and General Carter 

Ham, Commander, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), to testify on 

the programs and budget needed to meet the current and future requirements within their respective commands. 

Gentlemen, please extend on behalf of this committee our gratitude to the men and women of your commands and their families 

for the many sacrifices that they’ve made on behalf of our Nation. 

Thanks to both of you for your long careers of leadership and service. I guess the best way we can thank the troops and their families 

is to make sure there’s no gap in the receipt of their paychecks. I 

know every member of this committee is thinking about how to 

avoid that gap. 

General Ham, congratulations on your recent swearing in as 

Commander of AFRICOM. Your first month on the job has been extraordinarily busy. However, as Admiral Stavridis told this committee, AFRICOM has demonstrated, just a few years after reaching full operational capability, that it is capable of conducting and 

coordinating a major multinational effort to prevent a tyrant from 

massacring his own people, people who simply wanted to exercise 

their fundamental human and democratic rights. You and your 

staff at AFRICOM are to be commended for your performance in 

this effort. 

Over the past few weeks, international military action in Libya 

has established an arms embargo and a no-fly zone, stopped Qadhafi’s advancing army, and has seamlessly passed the command 

of the military effort from a U.S.-led joint task force to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Moving forward, the question is whether the coalition or a coalition member or members 

should supply the opposition with arms. I believe it is important 

that any such decision be made with the support or at least the acquiescence of our coalition partners because of the military and political importance of maintaining broad international support for 

the mission. 

President Obama has been cautious in weighing the considerations and conditions for the use of military force and I am confident that he will continue to do so in considering the many questions surrounding supplying weapons to the opposition forces. 

We look forward, General, to hearing your views on this issue 

and other Libya-related issues. 

From a transnational terrorism perspective, there are many 

other areas of concern to this committee, including Somalia and 

northwest Africa. Today, large regions of Somalia are ungoverned 

spaces where the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab operates freely 

and with impunity. To make matters worse, Al-Shabaab numbers 

are growing as it recruits young men from the Somali diasporas in 

Europe and North America. 

To counter this growing threat, a small African Union Mission in 

Somalia, known by its acronym AMISOM, stands between AlShabaab and the Somali Transitional Federal Government. So, 

General Ham, this committee looks forward to what you can tell us 

about that as well. 

839 

In the region that includes Niger, Mali, and Mauritania, al 

Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is growing 

stronger through the extraction of ransoms, taxing illicit trafficking, and general banditry. Over the past year this group has 

stated in no uncertain terms that it intends to strike western targets in the region and possibly in Europe. That is a cause of great 

concern, not only to the United States, but to our allies in Europe. 

We must also make sure that AQIM does not take advantage of the 

fog of war in Libya to its advantage. If these al Qaeda franchises 

grow unchecked in the Horn of Africa or across northwest Africa, 

it may lead to further attacks against U.S. interests overseas or in 

the Homeland. 

While Libya is in the headlines today, there remain many other 

challenges in General Ham’s area of responsibility (AOR), including 

the evolving political situation on the Ivory Coast, the post-protest 

recovery in Tunisia, the growth in illicit trafficking across the continent, and the ongoing elections in Nigeria. While confronting 

some of these issues falls squarely in the lap of a combatant command, many do not, which means that your command is being directed to assist in both traditional and nontraditional ways, and 

often where the jurisdictional lines within the Federal Government 

are blurred. 

General McNabb, we know that things have been busy for you 

as well ever since you assumed your job at TRANSCOM. 

TRANSCOM has played a critical role in supporting our war efforts 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. Less well known, but no less important, 

has been TRANSCOM’s role in supporting the Japanese earthquake and tsunami relief efforts, as well as previous relief efforts 

around the world. We applaud those efforts. We also know that 

TRANSCOM forces have been involved in supporting forces engaged in operations in Libya. 

A number of ongoing critical issues confront TRANSCOM. One is 

modernizing the forces. One acquisition program supporting 

TRANSCOM has received a lot of visibility and has been resolved, 

and that’s the strategic tanker modernization program. 

TRANSCOM has received congressional additions to the budget 

to buy C–17 aircraft in excess of what the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and TRANSCOM said were needed to support wartime requirements. As the Air Force is taking delivery of those extra

C–17s, the Air Force is seeking authorization to retire C–5A aircraft because it believes that they do not need the extra aircraft 

and cannot afford to operate them. 

TRANSCOM is also facing other, less well-known modernization 

challenges. The Ready Reserve Force, a group of cargo ships held 

in readiness by the Maritime Administration, is aging and will 

need to be modernized with newer ships over the next 10 years. 

While perhaps not as glamorous as airlift operations, sealift support is critical to our capabilities. We have relied on sealift to deliver more than 90 percent of the cargo to Iraq and Afghanistan, 

similar to previous contingencies. 

This committee has sought to ensure that our combatant commanders have what they need to succeed in all of these missions, 

conflicts, and challenges. This committee will continue to support 

the needs of our warfighters in these conflicts. 

840 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank 

our distinguished witnesses for their many years of dedicated service to our Nation. This is an important moment to discuss the 

issues within both of our witnesses’ commands. 

In the AFRICOM AOR, Libya is obviously the top priority, even 

though General Ham is no longer the operational commander of 

the military effort there. I remain a strong supporter of the President’s decision to take military action in Libya. It averted what 

was an imminent slaughter in Benghazi and has given us a chance 

to achieve the goal of U.S. policy, as stated by the President, to 

force Qadhafi to leave power. That goal is right and necessary. 

I’m very grateful that we have capable friends, especially our 

Arab partners and NATO allies, who are making critical contributions to this mission. But for the United States to have withdrawn 

our unique air-to-ground capabilities at this time is only increasing 

the odds that this conflict will last longer, that more civilians will 

be lost unnecessarily, and that what began as a peaceful protest 

could turn into a long and bloody stalemate. 

Qadhafi’s forces are regaining the momentum and they’re clearly 

adapting to NATO’s capabilities and tactics, which is only making 

it harder for our coalition to identify and attack regime forces that 

are threatening Libyan civilians. We cannot say that we intervened 

to prevent an atrocity in Benghazi only to accept one in Misurata 

or some other city. 

As the leader of Libya’s opposition forces, General Abdul Fatah 

Younis, said, as reported in this morning’s New York Times: 

‘‘NATO blesses us every now and then with a bombardment here 

and there and is letting people in Misurata die every day.’’ That’s 

not success, and that’s why the United States needs to remain engaged militarily, especially with our unique close air support capabilities, such as the AC–130 and the A–10. 

Let’s be honest with ourselves and the American people. Our objective in Libya is regime change, whether the administration 

wants to call it that or not. That’s not to say that we should commit ground troops to remove Qadhafi from power. I don’t support 

that. But it is to say that our military mission should work toward 

the goal of our policy, which is to compel Qadhafi to leave power. 

This is not the case at present. 

Rather than playing a supporting role within NATO, America 

should be leading. Our military should be actively engaged in degrading Qadhafi’s forces in the field, which could significantly increase the pressure on his regime. There continues to be hope that 

his regime will crack and that he will leave. I hope it does. But 

hope is not a strategy. 

With so much focus on Libya, we mustn’t lose sight of other important developments in Africa. The situation in Somalia remains 

an increasing source of threat to the United States and our friends, 

especially as Al-Shabaab now appears to have aligned with al 

Qaeda. However, it’s not clear that we have a strategy to foster stability in Somalia while marginalizing and defeating al Qaeda and 

841 

its allies in East Africa. To the contrary, their influence in the region has experienced, to quote General Ham, a ‘‘dramatic increase.’’ 

Similarly with the growing threat of piracy, I would welcome an 

explanation of what more we and our partners need to do to disrupt and defeat pirates operating in and out of Somalia and East 

Africa. 

Finally, on a more positive note, the peaceful revolution in Tunisia started the entire Arab spring and we must help their transition to democracy succeed. The Tunisian military has played a vital 

role throughout this process and I’d like to hear from our commander what more we can do to support the Tunisian military in 

protecting their borders, policing their coastal waters, and performing their other essential duties during this historic opportunity 

for the country. 

What happens in Tunisia will have a major impact across North 

Africa and the Middle East, especially in Egypt, which is the heart 

of the Arab world and the major test case of whether the hopeful 

opening of the Arab spring will endure and thrive. 

There are pressing issues within TRANSCOM, especially the security and effectiveness of our supply routes into Afghanistan. Our 

southern supply line has been and remains plagued by uncertainty, 

instability, and growing threat, and the strategic consequences of 

our dependence on it have been problematic. So last year we added 

two additional routes, through the Baltics and Central Asia, helping to facilitate a faster flow of cargo with less cost and risk. I’d 

like to hear from the commander about his efforts to support the 

Northern Distribution Network (NDN) and how we might expand 

it further. 

At the same time, informed by the results of a critical airlift 

study from last year, Congress mandated a 316-aircraft floor for 

large-size cargo planes. From testimony presented earlier this year, 

the committee has learned that the Air Force has hit the congressionally-mandated floor for cargo planes. The Air Force now wants 

appropriate relief from the restriction in last year’s defense bill, 

meaning that as new C–17 Globemaster aircraft are delivered, the 

Air Force wants to start retiring C–5A Galaxy aircraft, which are 

too old to reengine cost-effectively. 

The administration’s proposal to this effect seems reasonable, especially considering that congressional appropriators earmarked 

$13.2 billion for 44 C–17s that the Air Force did not request and 

does not need, but which they now have a surplus of, thanks to 

congressional earmarks. For this reason, I am leaning toward supporting the retirement of some of our oldest, least capable C–5As. 

However, I’d like to hear the commander’s views on the administration’s proposal to repeal the statutory requirement imposed by Congress for the Air Force to maintain a large-size cargo aircraft inventory of 316 aircraft. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

General McNabb. 

842 

STATEMENT OF GEN. DUNCAN J. MCNABB, USAF, 

COMMANDER, U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND 

General MCNABB. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of this committee: It is my distinct privilege to 

be here with you today representing more than 145,000 of the 

world’s finest logistics professionals. Throughout 2010 and continuing today, the TRANSCOM team of Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, civilians, merchant mariners, and commercial partners accomplished incredible feats in the face of historic challenges. I have 

three outstanding components who execute our global mission 

every day: the Air Mobility Command, led by General Ray Johns; 

the Military Sealift Command, led by Rear Admiral ‘‘Buzz’’ Bueby; 

and the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, led by 

Major General Kevin Leonard. 

When a regional combatant commander like General Ham is 

given a mission that requires TRANSCOM support, we rapidly 

plan solutions, and then as the TRANSCOM commander, all I do 

is unleash them. It is amazing to see that, no matter the challenges 

our components face in execution, it is their amazing men and 

women who figure it out and then get it done. 

We have a saying at TRANSCOM: ‘‘We view our success through 

the eyes of the warfighter.’’ Our mission is to always support the 

six regional combatant commands and their Joint Task Force Commanders. Working with the Defense Logistics Agency, the Joint 

Staff, the Services, the combatant command staffs, our log nation, 

and transnation teams have provided unparalleled logistics superiority to the combatant commanders. 

From the Services and the Joint Forces Command getting the 

forces ready to go, the TRANSCOM team delivering the force, and 

the theater commanders receiving the force, this is the best overall 

performance I have seen of the end-to-end logistics chain in my almost 37 years of service. 

Sitting next to me is one of our finest warfighters and my good 

friend, General Carter Ham. I was proud to support him as he commanded military operations over the skies of Libya in Operation 

Odyssey Dawn, I look forward to continuing to support him as he 

takes AFRICOM to new and even higher levels. It is he and the 

other combatant commanders that I am always supporting, and we 

view our success through their eyes. 

I feel blessed to be the custodian of one of our Nation’s greatest 

asymmetric advantages, our strategic ability to move. Since taking 

command of TRANSCOM in the fall of 2008, I have been amazed 

to see some of the unique capabilities that are inherent in the command. First and foremost, is the power of the total force team. Nobody matches up our Active-Duty Force with our Guard and Reserve partners like TRANSCOM. 

When we called for volunteers to help relieve some of the suffering in Haiti last January, the men and women of the Guard and 

Reserve stepped up in huge fashion. This included a contingency 

response group from the Kentucky Guard that was just coming up 

to speed. During the surge of forces into Afghanistan, we relied 

heavily on activated C–5 and C–17 crews, maintainers, and aerial 

porters and they were crucial to meeting President Obama’s deadline to complete the plus-up by 31 August last year. Most recently, 

843 

we saw their patriotism in action in responding rapidly to the air 

refueling requirements in support of the Libyan operation. 

I’m also in awe of the power of the U.S. flag fleet in the air, on 

the sea, and over land. The U.S.-flag maritime fleet and their outstanding merchant mariners stepped up during our historic surge 

last year into Afghanistan and out of Iraq, and we didn’t have to 

activate one ship for either operation. Our commercial team delivered. They continue to be key to supplying our forces in Afghanistan, whether coming up through Pakistan or over the NDN that 

Senator McCain talked about. 

In the air, our commercial partners have continued to meet the 

demands of the surge in Afghanistan and most recently responded 

brilliantly to bringing Americans home from Japan following the 

recent earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear incident. 

We know the combatant commanders around the world depend 

on us to deliver the forces and their sustainment day in and day 

out. From resupply of the South Pole to air-dropping food, water, 

and ammo to a forward operating base in Afghanistan, to delivering fuel to our fighters and bombers enforcing the Libyan no-fly 

zone, TRANSCOM delivers. If we do this right, our warfighting 

commanders do not worry about their logistics lifeline. 

This is what the Secretary of Defense intended when he made 

TRANSCOM the distribution process owner (DPO) in 2003. He 

gave the DPO influence over the entire supply chain, from factory 

to foxhole, and we constantly look for more effective solutions for 

the warfighter, while also being good stewards of the taxpayers’ 

dollars. 

Since its inception, the DPO has realized over $5.3 billion in savings and we’re still counting. Last year alone, that savings was 

$1.7 billion. 

A big part of the savings is taking advantage of lower-cost surface transportation whenever possible. When we match surface to 

air and commercial to military modes of transportation, we are 

leveraging our enterprise to maximum advantage for both the 

warfighter and the taxpayer. 

We recently saved over $110 million a month moving lifesaving 

mine-resistant all-terrain vehicles to our forces in Afghanistan 

using a combination of commercial, surface, and military air. We 

also did it faster than air alone by maximizing every air sortie into 

Afghanistan. We continue to look for every opportunity to use 

multimodal operations throughout our global enterprise. 

My final callout is to the power of the interagency and joint 

team. President Obama in ordering the plus-up of forces in Afghanistan and drawdown in Iraq set a very tight time line for execution. 

We knew we would need some help increasing capacity on our existing supply lines and help in establishing new supply routes— 

Senator McCain, what you were alluding to. We took our recommendations to the interagency and the whole of government 

came through with excellent results. 

The National Security Council, ambassadors around the world, 

the Department of State (DOS), the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Maritime Administration, the combatant commands, and 

the log nation and trans-nation teams came together to make logistics magic. This was at a time when we were asked to expand 

844 

quickly and redirect flow due to the earthquake in the Caribbean 

that devastated Haiti, a volcanic eruption that shut down European air space for 3 weeks, a coup in the country where we have 

our major passenger transload operation, the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill in the Gulf, and the worst floods in Pakistan’s history during the last month of the plus-up. We still closed the force on the 

President’s deadline of August 31. 

Our operations continue today at recordbreaking pace, as, Mr. 

Chairman, you alluded to. We continue to support our forces in Afghanistan and the drawdown in Iraq. We pivoted the transportation enterprise rapidly to support General Ham in the implementation of the no-fly zone over Libya, and we moved out urgently to 

help with disaster relief in Japan and provide immediate responses 

to the nuclear incident with special equipment and nuclear specialists, and we stand ready to do more. 

I could not be more proud of the men and women of 

TRANSCOM. I’ve flown with our air crews and loaded and moved 

containers with our stevedores. I’ve walked through the pilot holding areas with our aerial porters in Afghanistan and explored the 

cargo holds of our Ready Reserve Fleet with our merchant mariners. Daily I’m amazed and humbled by what our people accomplish. 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and all members of this committee, thank you for your continued superb support of 

TRANSCOM and our men and women in uniform. It is my distinct 

honor and privilege to appear before you today to represent the 

145,000-plus men and women who are TRANSCOM and to tell you 

their story. 

I ask that my written statement be submitted for the record and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General McNabb follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. DUNCAN J. MCNABB, USAF 

INTRODUCING THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

Mission/Organization 

The U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) is a Total Force team of Active 

Duty, Guard, Reserve, civilian, commercial partners, and contractors who lead a 

world class Joint Deployment and Distribution Enterprise (JDDE). Through our 

component commands, the Army’s Military Surface Deployment and Distribution 

Command (SDDC), the Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC), the Air Force’s Air 

Mobility Command (AMC) and our commercial partners, we execute military and 

commercial transportation, distribution process integration, terminal management, 

aerial refueling and global patient movement across the full range of military and 

humanitarian operations. We operate effectively and efficiently to deploy and sustain the warfighter . . . and 2010 was a banner year. Together with our Service, 

Combatant Command, Interagency and Coalition partners, the TRANSCOM team 

responded superbly to the President’s direction to increase forces by 30,000 in Afghanistan, to drawdown forces to 50,000 in Iraq and to an unprecedented series of 

world events and natural disasters. Whether delivering combat power to Afghanistan through logistics or humanitarian relief to the people of Pakistan, Haiti, and 

Japan, our team kept our promises and delivered on time, on target and at best 

value to the taxpayer. 

Our People 

When faced with immediate- and long-term world events, the men and women of 

our superb TRANSCOM team overcome colossal obstacles to support our Nation’s 

objectives with world-class logistics. In the history of the command, we’ve never had 

a better group of experienced, dutiful and enthusiastic individuals to fulfill the 

promises we make to the combatant commanders and warfighters. As challenges 

845 

arise, this team ignites their talent, insight, flexibility, and ingenuity to swiftly design a way to deliver, whenever, wherever. Simply put, the spirit and work of the 

people who make up the Total Force TRANSCOM team has put the command on 

the world stage as the best of the best for delivering global logistics superiority. 

SUPPORTING GLOBAL OPERATIONS

Over the past year, TRANSCOM components moved near-record quantities of 

cargo and supplies and tens of thousands of service personnel to all parts of the 

globe. AMC and our Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) commercial partners airlifted 

more than 2 million passengers and 848,000 tons of cargo, while AMC’s aging air 

refueling fleet delivered 202 million gallons of fuel to U.S. and coalition aircraft. 

Equally impressive, MSC, SDDC and our commercial sealift partners moved over 

3.8 million tons of cargo worldwide. Finally, MSC’s tankers delivered 1.5 billion gallons of fuel to support operations around the world. 

Support to CENTCOM 

TRANSCOM continued its focus on supporting operations in the U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR). In 2010, we deployed and redeployed 48 Brigade Combat Teams, 75,000 Air Expeditionary Forces, 12 Security 

Force packages, and moved Marine Expeditionary, Stryker and Combat Aviation 

Brigades. The centerpiece of our efforts this year was the team’s successful and ontime deployment of the 30,000 surge force into Afghanistan and drawdown from 

130,000 to 50,000 servicemembers in Iraq—both completed on our target date of 31 

August 2010. 

In Iraq, and in close coordination with CENTCOM, we began the drawdown in 

earnest in May 2010 and redeployed 9,000 servicemembers per week. We were able 

to achieve this remarkable volume of passenger movement by leveraging an additional strategic redeployment hub in Al Asad, Iraq. The addition of Al Asad to our 

existing hub in Kuwait, and the great flexibility and responsiveness of our CRAF 

partners, allowed us to nearly double our capacity to move military passengers and 

meet the President’s 31 August 2010 deadline. 

In Afghanistan, the lack of developed and robust infrastructure required close collaboration with other combatant commanders, the Joint Staff, and our interagency 

partners to further expand capacity of our existing ground lines of supply in both 

Pakistan and the Northern Distribution Network, to increase through-put at airfields and to add further seaport and airfield capacity. The team was successful in 

our capacity-building efforts. In 8 months, TRANSCOM’s components and our commercial partners delivered 30,000 troops and 60,000 tons of equipment and supplies 

to Afghanistan by 31 August 2010, again meeting the President’s direction to increase the force by the end of August. 

At the height of the drawdown in Iraq and surge in Afghanistan, an almost 

monthly occurrence of world events and natural disasters took place. Each of these 

events carried significant transportation and logistics implications, which challenged 

the TRANSCOM team and our partners to both meet emerging requirements and 

stay on time in Iraq and Afghanistan. This demonstrated TRANSCOM’s flexibility 

to use its Total Force and U.S Flagged carriers to surge capacity to meet worldwide 

requirements. 

In January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti and required an immediate response by all three TRANSCOM components and our commercial sealift 

partners in support of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and USAID. The 

team reacted magnificently providing aid and relief supplies within hours and days 

of the devastation. In February, a coup in Kyrgyzstan disrupted operations at our 

primary Operation Enduring Freedom personnel transit hub at Manas Transit Center in the Kyrgz capital of Bishkek. This required us to quickly reroute thousands 

of military passengers to Kuwait. Once again the system responded immediately, 

and deployment operations to Afghanistan continued without delay. Almost immediately after the return to normal operations in Kyrgyzstan, we were challenged in 

March by the month-long volcanic eruptions in Iceland which dramatically affected 

most, and sometimes all, of European airspace. 

Again, TRANSCOM and our partners responded immediately and rerouted cargo, 

passenger and aeromedical evacuation missions around the affected airspace and 

vital cargo and passenger missions arrived with little or no delay. Finally, and as 

the drawdown in Iraq and the surge in Afghanistan were coming to a close, Pakistan experienced unprecedented devastation due to heavy rains which flooded over 

one fifth of the country and displaced 20 million people. TRANSCOM, in coordination with CENTCOM, responded by delivering 400,000 meals within 72 hours to 

those in greatest need. We also mobilized contingency response elements and delivered helicopters and boats to distribute over 8,500 tons of aid to remote provinces. 

846 

Improving throughput and expanding capacity in our surface networks which supply Afghanistan has again been a centerpiece of our efforts in 2010. The Northern 

Distribution Network (NDN) remains a priority for TRANSCOM, and we have delivered over 30,000 containers via this network. In 2010, we added two additional 

routes through the Baltics and Central Asia and continue to improve the processes, 

facilitating a faster, less costly cargo flow. 

In addition to the NDN improvements, we added capacity in intermodal Persian 

Gulf locations. Realizing we needed more capacity to support the surge of forces into 

Afghanistan and the movement of thousands of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) Vehicles, the team worked closely with CENTCOM and the Department of 

State to secure access to additional airfields and seaports in the Persian Gulf. Using 

a concept called multi-modal operations, we moved large volumes of cargo and thousands of vehicles by sea to locations in closer proximity to the CENTCOM area of 

operations, by truck from the seaports to the nearby airfields and then by air to Afghanistan. This concept was used with great success throughout 2010 as we moved 

almost 7,000 MRAP and MRAP all-terrain vehicles to Afghanistan. Utilizing the 

combination of air, land and sea modes of transportation resulted in increased velocity, better utilization of aircraft and ultimately reduced costs by almost $400M in 

2010. 

The mountainous terrain and poor infrastructure in Afghanistan also required an 

increased reliance on aerial delivery, and 2010 was a record year with over 60 million pounds of cargo delivered by airdrop—almost double the amount in 2009. The 

mobility air force continues to add new capabilities such as Low-cost, Low-altitude 

(LCLA) Delivery and Low-cost Aerial Delivery System (LCADS). TRANSCOM is also 

exploring a high-speed container delivery system capability for the C–130J and C– 

17. This capability will improve both the survivability of the aircraft and accuracy 

of aerial delivery. 

Finally, threats to our operations in CENTCOM are not isolated to Afghanistan. 

Somali-based pirates continue to hazard our commercial sealift partners. 

TRANSCOM and MSC continue to actively engage with the Maritime Administration, the Coast Guard, the Navy and our industry partners to further reduce the 

vulnerability of the U.S. Flag commercial fleet. One tactic which has been extremely 

successful is the mindful use of contracted armed security teams aboard U.S. flag 

commercial vessels. 

Support to Other Combatant Commands 

SOUTHCOM was a very active AOR. As previously mentioned, Operation Unified 

Response provided relief to Haiti after a massive earthquake on January 12, 2010, 

and TRANSCOM was a key partner in that effort. Within 2 days of the earthquake, 

TRANSCOM deployed its Joint Task Force-Port Opening units to re-establish airfield and seaport operations after the earthquake had largely destroyed Haiti’s existing infrastructure. This rapid response allowed TRANSCOM and our commercial 

partners to deliver over 400,000 tons of lifesaving cargo, more than 2.5 million 

meals, and over 5 million liters of water to Haitians in need. Further, TRANSCOM 

aeromedical evacuation teams safely moved 361 critically injured earthquake victims. 

Support for the NATO security presence in Kosovo continued in the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) AOR. TRANSCOM moved over 2,500 servicemembers 

into the Balkans in support of that mission, and provided strategic airlift support 

to 5 major EUCOM and NATO exercises. 

Our support to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) continued to increase this year. 

We moved 1,476 servicemembers and more than 16,000 tons of cargo for Exercise 

African Lion, AFRICOM’s largest combined exercise. 

This past year, we began a close partnership with the newly constituted U.S. 

Cyber Command to improve information operations security and to counter cyber 

threats to our networks. Winning the cyber fight is critical to safeguarding the systems and information which enable our global logistics network to operate. 

TRANSCOM not only moves cargo and people, we move information as well. Our 

vigilance will only increase as we work with our partners to defend our networks 

and information in this new battlespace. 

In the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) AOR, TRANSCOM deployed 3 

Modular Aerial Spray System-equipped C–130 aircraft and over 60 personnel to 

begin immediate oil dispersant operations over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Throughout the 33-day deployment, the team flew 92 sorties and 

released more than 156,000 gallons of oil dispersant over the spill. Additionally, 

TRANSCOM airlifted over 259 tons of booms, skimmer boats, and other oil spill containment equipment to support the clean-up. 

847 

TRANSCOM also supported a series of NORTHCOM exercises which provided realistic homeland defense and Defense Support to Civil Authorities training for joint 

and interagency partners throughout the Federal Government. 

The U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) AOR is the largest and most diverse in the 

world, and TRANSCOM supported operations from Alaska to Antarctica and around 

the Pacific Rim and the Indian Ocean. In support of the National Science Foundation’s Operation Deep Freeze, TRANSCOM delivered more than 3,250 passengers, 

10,000 tons of cargo, and 5.1 million gallons of fuel into McMurdo Station, Antarctica. In the Pacific Rim, TRANSCOM provided humanitarian assistance and disaster response in the wake of Typhoon Fanapi in the Philippines and the Mount 

Merapi volcanic eruptions in Indonesia. Additionally, TRANSCOM transported more 

than 687 passengers and 13,300 tons of cargo for Operation Enduring Freedom— 

Philippines. 

Support to the Warfighter 

Global patient movement remains one of TRANSCOM’s most demanding missions 

as it requires 100 percent accuracy. Thanks, in large part, to rapid global patient 

movement, the wounded warrior survival rate has increased from 75 percent a decade ago to over 92 percent today. The survival rate increases to 98 percent if a 

wounded warrior makes it to a hospital alive. In 2010, TRANSCOM completed more 

than 26,600 patient movements, all without incident. Additionally, TRANSCOM 

rapidly deployed patient movement expertise all over the globe. Within 48 hours of 

the earthquake in Haiti, TRANSCOM patient movement personnel were on-scene 

coordinating the movement of critically injured patients. When the Icelandic volcano 

erupted, TRANSCOM rapidly altered aeromedical evacuation flight routing through 

the Mediterranean to ensure uninterrupted return of our wounded warriors from 

Southwest Asia. 

TRANSCOM support to the warfighter is not reserved solely for the battlefield. 

We recognize the need to care for families, including the effective and efficient 

movement of household goods. To that end, TRANSCOM continued to field the Defense Personal Property System (DPS). DPS is a next generation, web-based system 

for management of personal property shipments and is helping to provide the bestvalue move for DOD families. 

DPS executed more than 338,000 shipments in fiscal year 2010 and will soon be 

used for nearly all shipments of household goods for DOD military and civilian personnel and their families. 

Leading the Joint Deployment and Distribution Enterprise 

The ability of the United States to project and sustain our forces over global distances is one of our Nation’s greatest asymmetric advantages. Our success depends 

on our ability to synchronize deployment distribution planning and execution across 

DOD, the regional combatant commands, the Services, and our coalition and interagency partners. To that end, upon the President’s approval, TRANSCOM is poised 

to assume an additional Unified Command Plan mission as the ‘‘Global Distribution 

Synchronizer.’’ In collaboration with our partners, this new mission will enable us 

to shape the distribution environment and gain greater access to distribution lanes 

that cross multiple theaters to project and sustain forces globally. Collectively, we 

will ‘‘knit the seams’’ between multiple combatant command theater distribution 

campaign plans and create a more robust and adaptive distribution network that 

reduces operational risk. 

Enhancing DOD Supply Chain Management 

TRANSCOM is leading the transformation of the DOD supply chain through a series of Distribution Process Owner Strategic Opportunities (DSO) initiatives. These 

include five major opportunities to enhance readiness, improve velocity and reduce 

DOD supply chain cost. 

Strategic Surface and Air Optimization lower the cost of shipments by consolidating surface cargo into single containers, as well as modifying pallet build rules 

and using ‘‘less-than-planeload’’ commercial freight services for air cargo. Through 

Strategic Network Optimization and Supply Alignment, TRANSCOM optimizes the 

number, location and function of supply chain nodes to increase distribution effectiveness by positioning selected materiel in forward locations to reduce reliance on 

high-cost air transportation. Finally, through process improvement, TRANSCOM increases velocity across the enterprise by identifying and removing ‘‘dead time’’ 

throughout the supply chain process. 

These initiatives are generating benefits to the warfighter by delivering higher 

levels of service at lower costs. To date, the DSO initiatives have generated savings 

of $80 million and an improvement in delivery time of up to 34 percent. 

848 

Global distribution efficiency begins with the best value movement of DOD freight 

in the Continental United States (CONUS). This is the purpose of the Defense 

Transportation Coordination Initiative (DTCI). Using commercial best practices, 

DTCI improves the reliability, predictability, and efficiency of DOD materiel moving 

in the CONUS. Thus far, DTCI has saved $182 million and meets or exceeds goals 

for on-time pickup, reduced damage claims and small business participation. 

Business process reengineering and Corporate Services Vision are at the heart of 

TRANSCOM’s transformation efforts. Agile Transportation for the 21st Century 

(AT21) is one such effort which uses industry best practices and government and 

commercial off-the-shelf optimization and scheduling tools to deliver best value, endto-end distribution and deployment solutions. Business process reengineering improves transportation planning, forecast accuracy and on-time delivery of forces and 

sustainment to combatant commanders at a lower cost to the Services. Equally important, our Corporate Services Vision aligns information technology systems with 

these reengineered business processes with a one-stop information technology shop. 

We expect our AT21 to deliver a significant return on investment. We are also investigating industry-leading collaborative technologies, computer gaming, and social 

networking innovations to provide additional capability. 

In cooperation with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), TRANSCOM is improving visibility across the supply chain through the Integrated Data Environment/ 

Global Transportation Network Convergence (IGC) initiative. The purpose of IGC is 

to collect supply, transportation and deployment data from disparate systems and 

allow access to that data from anywhere in the world. This capability provides 

warfighters access to real time, actionable logistics information and allows them to 

make informed decisions. 

As DOD’s lead proponent for radio frequency identification (RFID) and related 

automatic identification technology (AIT), our focus is on implementing the proper 

technologies to enhance supply chain business processes. While active RFID remains 

the primary AIT enabling in-transit visibility, this year we used satellite technology 

in high-threat areas where it is necessary to have near real-time location of critical 

assets while in transit. Additionally, we are exploring the use of sensor technology 

to enhance security of high-value cargo. Container intrusion sensors also provide a 

force protection layer, alerting the warfighter to take extra safety precautions due 

to a container breach. Finally, passive RFID will enable supply chain process improvements such as increased inventory accuracy and decreased time to receive, 

store, and issue material. 

Realigning the Organization and Personnel 

Another notable achievement in 2010 was the completion of the Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) relocation of SDDC to Scott Air Force Base. The cornerstone 

of the project was the $130 million BRAC-funded MILCON facility, which was operational well ahead of schedule. Coincident to the colocation of SDDC with AMC and 

TRANSCOM, we reengineered business processes and consolidated functions to 

achieve operational and fiscal efficiencies. Operational benefits include fused operations and intelligence centers, a joint billing center and consolidated acquisition 

and analysis centers of excellence. The results have been impressive—470 fewer billets, a 20 percent reduction in contracts, elimination of two leased buildings, and 

a projected cost saving of $1.2 billion over 20 years. 

TRANSCOM continues to emphasize professional development of our human capitol. Our focus is to develop joint logisticians who can perform core functions inherent in the command’s Distribution Process Owner (DPO) responsibilities. Innovative 

logistics solutions, like the NDN, require new ways of thinking about supply chains, 

developing sustainable infrastructure, running distribution networks in remote geographies, and building enduring international relationships. To develop that intellectual capital and critical thinking ability in our people, we added industry-leading 

courses from the University of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania State University, Carnegie 

Mellon University, Stanford University, University of Tennessee and Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology to our professional development curriculum. 

Maintaining Air Mobility Readiness 

Rapid global mobility is a key enabler to the effectiveness of the joint force. The 

ability to mobilize forces and materiel within hours, rather than days or weeks, depends on versatile, ready and effective air mobility forces. 

In order to maintain our decisive global mobility advantage, we must have a viable tanker fleet. Therefore, the re-capitalization of the tanker fleet remains my top 

acquisition priority. The KC–46A will fulfill its primary refueling role and also have 

the flexibility to contribute to an array of mobility missions. It will dramatically imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00854 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
849 

prove our ability to do the air refueling mission and allow us to make the whole 

air mobility system much more efficient. 

Likewise, our national defense strategy requires a viable fleet of about 300 strategic airlift aircraft. The C–17 Globemaster III will continue to be our premier 

airlifter, and our modernized C–5s are achieving their expected levels of mission 

readiness. However, in order to achieve the correct mix of C–17 and C–5 aircraft, 

and take full advantage of our critical aircrews and maintainers, the Air Force 

should be given the authority to retire the oldest, least capable C–5s. 

C–17s will continue to meet TRANSCOM’s future requirements through currently 

funded purchases, upgrade programs, and fleet rotation. New C–17s arrive with improvements which increase the reliability of the weapon system. Older aircraft enter 

into the Global Reach Improvement Program to increase sustainability and reliability. Aircraft located in corrosive and training environments are monitored and 

analyzed for stress and rotated to maintain structural integrity of the fleet. Furthermore, two additional Reserve component units will take on the C–17 mission as they 

retire their C–5s. 

The C–5 is critical to our oversized and outsized air cargo capability. C–5 fleet 

management has two main focus areas: C–5 reliability and C–5A retirements. The 

Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program (RERP) will increase the mission capable rate (MCR) of the C–5 fleet. All C–5 B and C models and one C–5A 

model aircraft will undergo RERP resulting in a total of 52 C–5Ms in the inventory. 

Additionally, the new maintenance processes changed our focus from ‘‘fly to fail’’ on 

major components to preventative replacement. This has reduced the number of C– 

5s stranded off-station awaiting parts and will result in a 7 percent increase in 

MCR. Finally, C–5A retirements will improve aircraft availability by removing 

maintenance intensive jets from the fleet and will allow us to focus our maintenance 

personnel and resources on the right sized fleet. 

The intra-theater workhorse supporting the warfighter is the C–130. The Mobility 

Capabilities and Requirements Study-2016 (MCRS–16) determined that 335 C–130s 

are required to perform general support intra-theater airlift missions. Follow-on 

analysis of the direct support mission determined that 20 additional C–130s and the 

38 C–27Js already in the program can perform the direct support mission. Air Mobility Command’s assessment is that a total of 355 C–130s and 38 C–27Js, in both 

general and direct support roles, will support the warfighter. 

Finally, I support the Air Force’s plan to acquire up to 134 C–130Js, modernizing 

221 legacy C–130s with the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), and fielding 38 

C–27Js. 

Our mobility aircraft routinely operate in threat areas across the spectrum of conflict from humanitarian relief to combat resupply. To operate safely in these environments, I strongly support continued defensive systems upgrades. These upgrades 

include equipping aircraft with the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures system 

and beginning development of the Advanced Situational Awareness and Countermeasures capability for operations in low-medium threat environments. 

Operational Support Airlift (OSA) is another key component of our mobility force. 

Our senior leaders require immediate airlift to carry out military and other missions 

in a fluid strategic environment. It is important that we not only right-size and 

modernize the OSA fleet, but we need to develop a management system with a common multi-Service database and operational picture. The goal is to achieve real-time 

visibility of worldwide senior leader and OSA movements to enable TRANSCOM 

and Geographic Combatant Commanders to exercise command and control of the 

OSA fleet within their area of responsibility. 

Just as command and control of OSA assets is critical, the leaders aboard the aircraft must be able to communicate while they travel. This requires secure, reliable 

communications for U.S. national leaders anywhere on the globe. TRANSCOM continues to work with other DOD and U.S. Government stakeholders through the National Leadership Command Capability Executive Management Board to provide the 

proper level of Senior Leadership Command, Control and Communications-Airborne 

(SLC3S–A). The Senior Leader In-transit Conference Capsule (SLICC) is a transportable ‘‘office in the sky’’ that provides a secure, interconnected meeting place for 

Senior Leaders traveling aboard C–17, KC–10 and C–130 aircraft. Designed with 

flexibility and affordability in mind, the SLICC promises to reduce operating costs 

by enabling combatant commanders to support DV missions using available theater 

assets and regularly scheduled airlift routes. 

The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) is a critical component in our ability to rapidly deploy forces and equipment. In this past year, through discussions with our 

commercial industry partners, we made the most sweeping changes to the CRAF 

program in 15 years. These changes will result in a stronger, more viable program 

and address congressional mandates to improve predictability of DOD commercial 

850 

requirements and incentivize carriers to use modern aircraft. Perhaps the most profound change is the implementation of a ‘‘flyer bonus’’ which, for the first time in 

the history of the CRAF, rewards peacetime mission participation in addition to the 

traditional reward for wartime commitment. Our plan for fiscal year 2012 is to 

amend the flyer bonus to provide increased reward to those carriers who fly peacetime CRAF missions with modernized aircraft. 

To ensure the CRAF partnership remains strong, TRANSCOM created the Executive Working Group (EWG), modeled after a similar venue with our sealift partners. 

The CRAF EWG brings together TRANSCOM and AMC leaders with Chief Executive Officers, Presidents, and other representatives of the commercial airline industry to discuss issues with the CRAF program. Since its first meeting in March 2010, 

this group has met six times and proved instrumental in crafting the changes to 

the fiscal year 2011 contract. The CRAF EWG will continue to meet on a regular 

basis to discuss additional changes to this vital program. 

Maintaining Sealift Readiness 

Sealift is the primary means for delivering ground forces and sustainment during 

major combat operations, and has been responsible for delivering over 90 percent 

of all cargo to Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of the superb volunteer participation 

of commercial U.S.-Flagged vessels in the Maritime Security Program (MSP), we did 

not have to activate a single ship in the Surge Fleet or the Ready Reserve Force 

(RRF) to meet the President’s aggressive timeline for the surge and drawdown of 

forces in Afghanistan and Iraq—a remarkable achievement. 

The large, medium speed, roll-on, roll-off ships in the Surge Fleet, the vessels of 

the RRF and the commercial U.S. Flag Fleet in the MSP and Voluntary Intermodal 

Support Agreement are all required to meet the Nation’s strategic sealift requirements. While cargo preference laws and national defense sealift policies ensure the 

viability of the U.S. flag commercial fleet, we must also continue to keep the Surge 

Fleet and Ready Reserve Force vessels at an equal state of readiness as well as our 

citizen mariners who man these vessels during operations in CENTCOM and 

around the world. In fact, the Maritime Administration is conducting a thorough 

study of cargo preference laws to ensure that they most effectively support the delicate balance of commercial viability and readiness which is so critical to our sealift 

capability. 

TRANSCOM’s partnership with the U.S. commercial sealift industry and the Department of Transportation has been vitally important in developing new routes for 

conveying cargo around the globe—particularly to regions with undeveloped infrastructure. Through programs like the Maritime Security Program (MSP), the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement and the Voluntary Tanker Agreement, the Department of Defense gains access to U.S. commercial capabilities and transportation 

networks while ensuring the continued viability of both the U.S. flag fleet and the 

pool of citizen mariners who man those vessels. Last year, Congress ensured the 

continuation of the MSP by extending it an additional 10 years to 2025. We look 

forward to working with Congress and this committee to refine this program between now and the MSP implementation date in 2015. 

We also work closely with the DLA Energy office to meet DOD’s fuel requirements. On October 7, 2010, MSC took operational control of the first of two U.S.- 

built, U.S.-flagged State-class tanker vessels. These new double-hulled 331,000-barrel ships will provide vital sealift capabilities. The MV Empire State and her sister 

ship, MV Evergreen State, will carry refined petroleum products between commercial refineries and DOD storage and distribution facilities worldwide. While these 

two new tankers increase the total number of U.S.-flagged tankers with international trade rights to five, our Nation would benefit greatly from even further increases in U.S.-flagged tanker capacity. Additionally, the Maritime Administration 

is currently examining the feasibility and potential benefit of developing a strategic 

access program outside of MSP solely for tankers. 

Finally, we look forward to working with the Navy and combatant commanders 

to fully realize the logistics capabilities of the Joint High Speed Vessel across all 

its missions from Theater Security Cooperation to its use as an operational and tactical logistics platform. 

Maintaining Surface Readiness 

TRANSCOM depends on our en route structure to rapidly support theater 

COCOMS. On August 9, 2010 TRANSCOM submitted its inaugural En Route Infrastructure Master Plan (ERIMP) 2010 to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

The purpose of the ERIMP is to guide the en route infrastructure investment decisions necessary to ensure we support the regional Combatant Commander Theater 

Campaign and Theater Posture Plans. The ERIMP frames the en route strategy by 

851 

identifying our most important enterprise-wide infrastructure requirements. It includes recommendations from the combatant commands and takes an enterprise approach to global deployment and distribution. 

Because en route infrastructure is key to global logistics, Rota, Spain; Camp 

Lemonier, Djibouti; Souda Bay on the island of Crete; and Guam remain 

TRANSCOM near-term priorities as strategic locations. Similar to our multi-modal 

MRAP movement through the Persian Gulf, movement of Combat Aviation Brigade 

helicopters by ship to the intermodal port at Rota, Spain, then flying them into Afghanistan significantly increases velocity. Camp Lemonier is the only en route node 

on the African continent with enduring presence; an unrefueled C–17 can reach twothirds of the continent from Djibouti. Funding the expansion of the aircraft parking 

area and the taxiway will help ensure Camp Lemonier’s continued viability as a 

critical strategic intermodal location. Located on the island of Crete in the central 

Mediterranean Sea, Souda Bay is key to the JDDE en route mission due to its proximity to the Black Sea, the Middle East, and Africa. Funding for a multi-access 

road, aircraft parking expansion, an air operations complex, and the Marathi logistics facility will help tremendously as we support three separate Geographic Combatant Commanders from Souda Bay. Guam is our intermodal crown jewel in the 

Pacific. The TRANSCOM-led 2009 Global En Route Infrastructure Steering Committee identified two necessary military construction projects at Anderson Air Force 

Base, Guam: an Air Freight Terminal Complex and Air Passenger Terminal/Joint 

Personnel Deployment Center. Each of these projects will greatly enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of the passenger and the cargo handling process. 

At home, our highways, railroads, and ports for National Defense Programs work 

in partnership with the Department of Transportation to identify DOD’s requirements for the civil sector infrastructure between our installations and ports and integrate these requirements into the civil sector planning cycle. These programs play 

a key role in ensuring our infrastructure in CONUS is ready to support DOD’s deployment and distribution needs. 

Developing New Capabilities 

Global logistics is an incredibly fluid business. As the geopolitical, diplomatic and 

operational landscape changes, TRANSCOM understands the need for innovative 

mobility and distribution strategies, processes and technology. 

Our Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program searches for these 

emerging enablers to support the future force. Through this program, we leverage 

new technologies, cutting edge business processes and innovative logistics strategies 

to address mobility challenges before they arise. 

Given the poor infrastructure in Afghanistan, much of our work focuses on new 

methods of aerial delivery. We are working with the Natick Soldier Center to develop the Helicopter Sling Load of the Joint Precision Airdrop System. The project 

integrates elements from various airdrop programs into a new capability that will 

allow for the delivery of payloads from a helicopter cargo hook. The system also ensures rapid distribution for both delivery over land and ship-to-shore applications. 

We also continue to invest in intelligent unmanned aircraft technology to autonomously deliver critical supplies to forward points of need. Our intent is to address 

extended lines of communication susceptible to weather, degraded road conditions 

and enemy threats, such as improvised explosive devices, ambush, and sabotage. 

Through the Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration program, we are supporting High Speed Container Delivery Systems (HSCDS) to improve airdrop accuracy, increase tonnage dropped, and enhance survivability of airlift and aircrews. 

HSCDS is a high-speed, low altitude airdrop system that provides the warfighter 

more cargo, more often and with more accuracy than any comparable delivery system. It optimizes aircraft threat avoidance and tactical maneuverability while enhancing our ability to deliver vital cargo to small combat units at the point of need. 

Hybrid airships can revolutionize logistics by moving the supply chain above the 

battle space to deliver large volumes of cargo directly to the point of effect, without 

the need for an airfield or roads. By delivering directly, hybrid airships bypass many 

supply-chain ‘‘touches,’’ thereby reducing cost and risk. The continued exploration 

of the hybrid airship concept is essential to support future operations in austere and 

infrastructure-challenged locales where TRANSCOM will likely be required to support military or humanitarian relief operations. 

The Joint Recovery and Distribution System (JRADS) achieved tremendous success in its first demonstrations with the 101st Sustainment Brigade. The JRADS 

technology enables quick and efficient recovery of damaged MRAPs on the battlefield, which minimizes troop exposure to attack when recovering damaged vehicles. 

TRANSCOM is committed to innovative sealift solutions as well. Sea basing is one 

such innovation which affords alternatives to the traditional use of seaports of deVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00857 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
852 

barkation. It enables discharge, reception, staging and assembly at sea; and interfaces with both organic and commercial sealift assets. The Large Vessel Interface 

Lift-On/Lift-Off system provides the ability to load and offload containers between 

ships at sea with precision and in much higher sea states than is currently possible. 

In April 2010, the technology was successfully demonstrated in the Gulf of Mexico 

between Ready Reserve Fleet vessels SS Flickertail State and MV Cape Texas. Together with the Navy, we will further develop this technology. 

The Joint High Speed Vessel represents a transformational sealift capability. 

Bridging the traditional gap between high-speed, low-capacity airlift and low-speed, 

high-capacity sealift, it affords the promise of enhanced logistic response to military 

and civil contingencies around the globe. Forward deployment of the vessel in combination with warehoused stocks of equipment and supplies will leverage its speed 

and capacity to quickly deliver needed cargo. 

Fiscal Stewardship 

Good stewardship of the taxpayers’ dollars is a TRANSCOM hallmark. In everything we do, we are always effective, but mindful of cost. Since 2003, we and our 

enterprise partners have avoided costs in excess of $5.2 billion through transformational distribution initiatives, 1improving inventory and transportation alignment, optimizing strategic air and surface processes and effectively utilizing multimodal transportation solutions; all while improving end-to-end velocity and effectiveness. 

Given our global mission, the AMC Fuel Efficiency Office has been laser-focused 

on increasing fuel efficiency. The result is a significant cost decrease to the customer 

and taxpayer. For example, information technology (IT) improvements such as Mission Index Flying for the C–17 and C–5 reduce each sortie’s fuel burn during mission execution. Other improvements, such as the Advanced Computer Flight Planning overlay, reduce the excess fuel carried which increases the amount of cargo the 

aircraft can carry—again lowering the cost to the taxpayer. 

TRANSCOM continues to lead the certification effort for alternative fuels. Most 

aircraft in AMC’s fleet are approved to fly on a synthetic blend of coal or natural 

gas-based Fischer-Tropsch fuel and JP–8 military grade jet fuel. The workhorse of 

AMC, the C–17, underwent flight tests and certification on a cutting-edge, renewable jet fuel blended with JP–8 this past August. In addition to allowing the DOD 

to target renewable sources, alternative fuels are more environmentally friendly 

than traditional jet fuel. 

Final Thoughts 

TRANSCOM has the critical national responsibility to support the men and 

women who fight to preserve our liberty and security and to support those who provide lifesaving relief to those in need . . . and to do so in an global operating environment increasingly characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and rapid change. Looking to the future, TRANSCOM, along with our enterprise partners, will continue to 

transform the Joint Deployment and Distribution Enterprise to meet this challenging new environment and continue to provide effective and best value support 

to our Nation. We will always, always deliver. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you so much, General McNabb. 

General Ham. 

STATEMENT OF GEN CARTER F. HAM, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. 

AFRICA COMMAND 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the 

committee: Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you 

today the accomplishments of the men and women of AFRICOM. 

I am honored to be here seated beside General McNabb, a highly 

distinguished airman and joint force leader, and it is no exaggeration to say that Operation Odyssey Dawn would not have occurred 

as it did without TRANSCOM’s great support. 

This is indeed a historic time for AFRICOM. We completed a 

complex, short-notice, operational mission in Libya and have now 

transferred control of that mission to NATO. The situation in Libya 

and the conduct of Operation Odyssey Dawn highlights some important matters about Africa. First, this event illustrates the dyVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00858 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
853 

namics of the African political-military environment, one that has 

seen the growing threat of transnational extremists in Somalia, 

election crises, coups, the Southern Sudan referendum, and the 

scourge of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), to name just a few 

of the challenges to security on the continent. 

In order for AFRICOM to reduce threats to our citizens and our 

interests both abroad and at home, we need to contribute to operations, programs, and activities that help African states provide for 

their own security in a manner consistent with the rule of law and 

international norms. We must continue our efforts to enhance regional stability through partnerships with African states and sustained, reliable support to African regional organizations. 

AFRICOM’s programs are designed to help prevent conflict while 

simultaneously ensuring that the command is prepared to respond 

decisively to any crisis when the President so directs, as demonstrated in our conduct of Operation Odyssey Dawn. 

Second, building the coalition to address the situation in Libya 

was greatly facilitated through the benefits of longstanding relationships and interoperability, in this case through NATO. This is 

the kind of regional approach to security that AFRICOM seeks to 

foster on the continent. AFRICOM’s priority efforts remain building 

the security capacity of our African partners. We incorporate regional cooperation and pursuit of interoperability in all our programs, activities, and exercises so our African partners are postured to readily form coalitions to address African security challenges as they arise. 

Everything that AFRICOM has accomplished is the result of the 

professionalism and dedication of the uniformed and civilian 

women and men of the command and our teammates from across 

the U.S. Government. Their dedicated efforts are a testament to 

the American spirit and determination and reflect our commitment 

to contributing to the well-being and security of the people of Africa. 

Our guiding principles within the command are: first, that a safe, 

secure, and stable Africa is clearly in the best interests of the 

United States; and second, that we seek to help Africans find solutions to African challenges. 

I am cognizant that this command is only able to accomplish its 

missions with the enduring support of this committee. I thank you 

for that and invite you to come visit us at our headquarters, or better yet, come see us at work in Africa. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Ham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN CARTER F. HAM, USA 

INTRODUCTION

It is my privilege as Commander of U.S. Africa Command to present to Congress 

our Posture Statement for 2011. U.S. Africa Command protects American lives and 

promotes our national interests by advancing security and stability in Africa. We 

follow two main lines of effort: building the security capacity of our African partners 

and preparing for a wide range of potential crises. U.S. Africa Command’s operations, programs, and activities contribute to reducing the threats to our citizens 

and interests both abroad and at home by helping African states provide for their 

own security. We seek to enhance regional stability through support to and partnership with African regional organizations. Our planning and training are designed 

854 

1 Egypt is in U.S. Central Command’s AOR. The United States does not recognize the Sahrawi 

Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara); however, it is recognized by the African Union. 

to prevent conflict while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. Africa Command is prepared to respond decisively to any crisis when the President so directs. 

A prosperous and stable Africa is strategically important to the United States. An 

Africa that can generate and sustain broadbased economic development will contribute to global growth, which is a longstanding American interest. However, poverty in many parts of Africa contributes to an insidious cycle of instability, conflict, 

environmental degradation, and disease that erodes confidence in national institutions and governing capacity. This in turn often creates the conditions for the emergence of a wide-range of transnational security threats that can threaten the American homeland and our regional interests. 

Our primary effort for increasing stability and deterring conflict is focused on 

building partner capacity—one of six core Department of Defense (DOD) mission 

areas identified in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The Command is 

helping African states transform their militaries into operationally capable and professional institutions that are subordinate to civilian authority, respect human 

rights, adhere to the rule of law, and are viewed by their citizens as servants and 

protectors of the people. We assist our African partners in building capacities to 

counter transnational threats from violent extremist organizations; to stem illicit 

trafficking in humans, narcotics, and weapons; to support peacekeeping operations; 

and to address the consequences of humanitarian disasters—whether manmade or 

natural—that cause loss of life and displace populations. In many instances, the 

positive effects we achieve are disproportionate to the modest investment in resources. 

Dramatic events taking place in Africa, as demonstrated by the unfolding situation across North Africa, have shown how quickly the strategic environment can 

change. It has also shown the value of the Nation’s investment in the command. 

As of the writing of this report, the situation in Libya remains unclear. The command is prepared to respond in a variety of ways pending national decisions. We 

will maintain our steady focus on security cooperation with our African partners, 

and stand ready to protect American lives and interests. 

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT

The challenges and opportunities in U.S. Africa Command’s Area of Responsibility 

(AOR) are dynamic and complex. Our AOR includes 52 African states more than 800 

ethnic groups, over 1,000 languages, and a diverse geography three and a half times 

the size of the continental United States.1 Its rapidly growing population presents 

a complex mix of political, economic, social, and demographic challenges. 

Continent-wide Trends 

The global economic crisis disrupted a period of sustained economic growth in Africa. However, according to a 2010 report developed jointly by the African Development Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the 

United Nations (U.N.) Economic Commission on Africa, the continent’s economies 

are resilient and the prospects for regaining economic momentum are good. Earlier 

debt relief and aid programs ensured that many African Governments were not burdened with onerous financial obligations, and their commodity-based economies appear poised to rebound faster than countries that are more dependent on financial 

and manufacturing sectors. 

Demographic trends highlight the urgent need for sustained and broadbased economic growth throughout Africa. High birth rates, a youth bulge, and urban congestion stress the ability of many governments to provide basic services, education, and 

jobs. Forty-three percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s population is below the age of 15. 

This population could provide further advances in developing and consolidating democracy; however, if unaddressed, this potential pool of undereducated and unemployed youth could present a possible source of instability and potential recruiting 

pool for violent extremist organizations or narcotics traffickers. The rapid expansion 

of already strained urban areas with limited infrastructure will increase competition 

for limited jobs, social services, housing, food, and water as Africa’s population is 

expected to double to 2 billion by 2050. 

A welcome development across the continent is that several African conflicts have 

ended in the last 10 years—Liberia, Angola, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Chad, and the 

North-South Sudanese conflict. However, as recent events in Cote d’Ivoire and 

Darfur illustrate, many of these settlements and compromises remain fragile. 

855 

African states are working hard to meet their own security challenges. Today, Africans comprise 30 percent of UN peacekeeping forces worldwide and 50 percent of 

peacekeeping forces deployed across the African continent. At any given time there 

are approximately 25,000 African soldiers deployed in support of UN and African 

Union (AU) peacekeeping missions. Five African countries—Nigeria, Rwanda, 

Ghana, Ethiopia, and South Africa—rank amongst the top 15 UN troop-contributing 

nations, and Uganda and Burundi are the major contributors to the AU peacekeeping mission in Somalia. Also, the development of the AU and its Regional Economic Communities, growing regional cooperation among neighboring states, the efforts to establish the African Standby Force, regional cooperation by Gulf of Guinea 

states to improve maritime security, and combined efforts to combat the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) demonstrate a growing continent-wide commitment to establishing stability. 

Though much of Africa is peaceful today, conflict remains a significant problem 

that drains resources and saps the confidence needed for Africa to realize its potential. These lingering conflicts are predominantly driven by internal fissures rather 

than external interstate disputes. The conflict between the Nigerian Federal Government and a variety of alienated groups in the oil and gas rich Niger Delta region 

continues and is a concern as the 2011 elections approach. The Democratic Republic 

of the Congo (DRC) continues to recover slowly from one of Africa’s most devastating 

wars. With over 20,000 soldiers, the UN mission in the DRC is the largest and most 

expensive peacekeeping operation in the world. Additionally, the LRA, although diminished since Uganda began operations against it in 2008, continues its horrific 

actions, which threaten stability in central Africa. 

Sudan remains a concern as the governments of the north and south implement 

the results of the January 2011 independence referendum. North and South Sudan 

will need to resolve contentious issues like oil wealth sharing, debt, and border demarcation before the end of the mandated Comprehensive Peace Agreement 

timeline set for July 2011. The new government of Southern Sudan will face significant challenges uniting an ethnically disparate populous while building both state 

institutions and economic infrastructure. 

Concerning elections, the positive democratizing trend that emerged in the 1990s 

has slowed somewhat during the last few years as some nations continue to suffer 

from constitutional tampering, rigged elections, and intimidation of opposition candidates. African elections in the near term are likely to produce mixed results for 

democratization. However, the proliferation of civil and political opposition groups 

enabled by social media, increased voter participation, local press coverage of political events, greater citizen access to information, and continued international attention will help promote transparent and democratic elections in the 22 national contests scheduled in 2011. The recent changes of government in Tunisia and Egypt 

vividly illustrate these trends, as the power of social media and greater citizen access to information has empowered ordinary citizens. 

Good governance builds the trust and confidence necessary for regional cooperation and economic development, and provides the leverage for national and regional 

programs to foster growth and stability. The African states making progress toward 

free and fair elections, open regulatory practices, and the provision of essential services are, more often than not, reliable partners trusted by their neighbors. Those 

states with weak governments are less stable and less dependable. 

Transnational Threats 

There are numerous transnational threats in Africa, with violent extremism, piracy, and narcotics trafficking constituting three of the most dangerous. Many African states recognize these threats and are taking positive actions—often with Africa 

Command’s assistance—to confront them. 

Somalia remains a failed state: divided, weak, and fragile. Despite the intentions 

of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to establish the sinews of a functioning state, Somalia is unable to provide essential services or control of its territory on its own. It does not have a civil service, central bank, judicial system, police 

force, or functioning cross-clan military. Inter-clan rivalries and the Islamic extremist groups al-Shabaab and Hizbul al-Islam continue to challenge Somali’s ability to 

form a functioning and stable government, and al-Shabaab controls much of southern Somalia. The survival of the TFG in Mogadishu depends, in large measure, on 

the presence of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the more than 

8,000 troops supplied by willing African partners. 

Linked to Somalia’s instability is al Qaeda’s dramatic increase in influence in east 

Africa over the last year. In early 2010, al-Shabaab announced their alignment with 

al Qaeda. This alliance provides al Qaeda a safe haven to plan global terror operations, train foreign fighters, and conduct global terror operations. The July 2010 

856 

attacks in Kampala, Uganda, demonstrate a willingness and capability to expand 

the conflict beyond Somalia. This situation poses a direct threat to the security of 

the United States. 

Piracy remains a significant problem off the coast of Somalia. The murder of four 

U.S. citizens aboard the sailing vessel Quest this February demonstrates that piracy 

is a lethal threat—not just an economic inconvenience or acceptable business risk. 

The pirates have adapted to the increased international naval presence in the Gulf 

of Aden by extending their operational reach as far south as the Mozambique Channel and east into the Indian Ocean by hundreds of miles. The number of ships and 

hostages held by Somalia-based pirates is at an all-time high. The increasing operational reach of Somali pirates vividly illustrates that the dangers emanating from 

ungoverned spaces rarely remain local. 

The Sahel region continues to experience attacks and kidnappings by al Qaeda 

in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, an Algerian-based group with relative safe 

haven in northern Mali. If al Qaeda affiliates grow unchecked in the Horn of Africa 

or across the Sahel, it may lead to further attacks against U.S. interests overseas 

or in the homeland. 

Illicit trafficking of narcotics poses a significant threat to regional stability in both 

West and East Africa. Western Africa is a critical transshipment point for South 

American cocaine. Increasing European cocaine demand, transportation availability, 

and negligible risk of interdiction contribute to West Africa’s importance in the narcotics trade. The cocaine transiting through this area constitutes from 30 to 60 percent of European demand, with relative wholesale values exceeding the gross domestic products of some affected West African states. East Africa is also facing trafficking challenges, but in the form of Afghan heroin via the Makran Coast of Pakistan pouring into world markets. 

U.S. AFRICA COMMAND’S APPROACH

U.S. Africa Command’s approach to the continent is guided by our national interests and priorities, our theater objectives, and three operating principles. 

• We listen and learn from our African partners; 

• We understand and address the continent using a regional framework; 

and, 

• We collaborate as part of an interagency team. 

U.S. Security Interests, Priorities, and Theater Objectives 

U.S. Africa Command’s programs and activities directly support American national security interests. Our vital national security interest in Africa is protecting 

the lives and interests of the American people by reducing threats to the homeland 

and abroad. We support the U.S. Government’s five priorities in Africa: good governance, economic progress, preventing and resolving conflicts, strong public health programs, and helping our African partners develop the capacity to meet the demands 

of transnational challenges. In supporting these national priorities, U.S. Africa Command focuses on preventing and resolving conflict and helping our African partners 

develop their own security capacity. 

To focus our efforts, U.S. Africa Command has established the following theater 

objectives: 

• Ensure that the al Qaeda networks and associated violent extremists do 

not attack the United States; 

• Maintain assured access and freedom of movement throughout our AOR; 

• Assist African states and regional organizations in developing the will, 

capability, and capacity to combat transnational threats such as terrorism, 

piracy, and the illicit trafficking of weapons, people and narcotics; 

• Assist African states and regional organizations in developing the capacity to execute effective continental peace operations and to respond to crises; and, 

• Encourage African militaries to operate under civilian authority, respect 

the rule of law, abide by international human rights norms, and contribute 

to stability in their respective states. 

Listening to Our African Partners 

U.S. Africa Command values the views of our African partners and learns from 

them. Our partners have expressed four common defense-oriented goals consistent 

with American interests and the command’s theater objectives. These goals are: 

• That they have capable and accountable military forces that perform professionally and with integrity; 

857 

• That their forces are supported and sustained by effective, legitimate, 

and professional security institutions; 

• That they have the capability to exercise the means nationally and regionally to dissuade, deter, and defeat transnational threats; and, 

• That they have the capacity to increase their support to international 

peacekeeping efforts. 

These goals are in agreement with our emphasis on preventing conflict and enhancing regional stability to protect American lives and interests in Africa and in 

our homeland. 

A Regional Perspective 

To identify and analyze the relationships among crosscutting security issues on 

the vast continent, we view Africa regionally. The five regions—East Africa, West 

Africa, Central Africa, North Africa, and Southern Africa roughly correspond to the 

AU’s five primary Regional Economic Communities. The Command’s staff is responsible for establishing and supporting our African partnerships and developing programs and activities, and is organized along the same regional lines. 

East Africa 

The East African states include: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Burundi, Uganda, and the island states of Comoros and 

Seychelles. The interlocking security challenges of Somalia’s instability, Southern 

Sudan’s transition to statehood, al-Shabaab’s dangerous alignment with al Qaeda, 

which threatens not only the region but also the American homeland and interests, 

and the persistent threat from LRA require both regional and bilateral solutions. 

East African states recognize these challenges and are taking steps to meet them. 

Uganda is a major troop contributor to AMISOM and is involved in operations 

against the LRA. Moreover, Djibouti has emerged as a stable partner in a dangerous 

region and provides our only enduring military infrastructure in continental Africa, 

Camp Lemonnier. 

In East Africa, Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF–HOA) is essential to U.S. Africa Command’s effort to build the partner capacity necessary to 

counter violent extremism and address regional security issues. It is the Command’s 

element for conducting Operation Enduring Freedom-Horn of Africa. CJTF–HOA 

conducts engagement activities by employing small teams throughout the region. 

Typical military-to-military engagements include officer and non-commissioned officer mentoring, counter-terrorism training, peace support operations, and disaster response planning and preparation. Civil Affairs teams operating from Camp 

Lemonnier in Djibouti help partner nations improve civil-military relations in their 

communities. CJTF–HOA is a model for multinational and interagency collaboration, and plays a key role in supporting two important Department of State initiatives; the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program 

as part of the larger Global Peace Operations Initiative, and the Partnership for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism (PREACT). 

West Africa 

The countries of Senegal, Mali, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Niger, Cape Verde, 

and Sao Tome and Principe comprise West Africa. West Africa features a diverse 

population, straddles the transition zone between Christianity and Islam, and retains overlapping French, Portuguese, and British influences. Today West Africa experiences political instability and great disparities in wealth. Recent election disputes in Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire are indicative of stubborn regional problems. Liberia’s revitalization, however, demonstrates that West African states can take positive steps to overcome violence, poverty, and disorder. 

Nigeria, by virtue of its location, population, significant gross domestic product, 

and oil Reserves is a major power in the region, and one of the continent’s most 

politically and economically significant states. Nigeria provides regional leadership 

through the Gulf of Guinea Commission and Economic Community of West Africa 

States. Nigeria, along with Ghana and Senegal, are emerging in West Africa as critical partners essential to our efforts to enhance stability and security in this important region. 

U.S. Africa Command assists in developing the capacity of individual West African states and encourages regional security cooperation. Exercise Flintlock 11 in 

February and March 2011 was a special operations exercise focused on military 

interoperability and capacity building with partner nations in North and West Africa. Approximately 669 African, European and U.S. participants from 17 nations 

trained together in this 17-day exercise. In addition, 9 of the 15 West African counVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00863 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
858 

tries participate in Africa Partnership Station, where their focus is on enhancing 

their maritime capabilities and developing multinational approaches to security in 

the Gulf of Guinea. 

In support of Liberia’s revitalization, U.S. Africa Command contributes to a sustained multi-year defense sector reform operation to help establish effective armed 

forces in Liberia: Operation Onward Liberty (OOL). OOL is a dedicated DOD and 

Department of State effort that follows three interrelated lines of operation that include security force assistance to the Armed Forces of Liberia, a U.S. Coast Guard 

effort to help establish a maritime law enforcement capability in the Liberian Economic Exclusion Zone, and mentorship and advisor support to the Liberian Ministry 

of Defense. 

Central Africa 

The Central African states of Chad, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Angola, DRC, and Central African Republic extend from the middle 

of the continent east to the Great Lakes, and westward to the Atlantic Ocean. This 

is one of the most geographically diverse regions in the world and is wealthy in resources. For example, Angola is reaping the rewards of new oil wealth, but is still 

developing programs to generate broadbased, sustained economic growth. Corruption, weak political institutions, high instances of pandemic disease, and an inability 

to secure their maritime domain, borders, and natural resources hinder Central Africa’s progress. 

The lingering effects of the DRC conflict remain the primary challenge to peace 

and stability in the region. As part of the effort to help the DRC establish the rule 

of law and legitimate national institutions, U.S. Africa Command has been working 

with other U.S. agencies and international partners to improve the Congolese military’s ability to serve its citizens. Specific examples of U.S. Government efforts include strengthening the military justice system, improving training capacity, developing agricultural projects designed to reduce military personnel dependency on 

local populations, and improving indigenous training capacity. 

The LRA continues to threaten vulnerable populations in northern Uganda and 

parts of the eastern DRC, Central African Republic, and Southern Sudan. The 

‘‘Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Reconstruction Act of 

2009’’ directed the U.S. Government to develop a strategy to ‘‘mitigate and eliminate 

the threat to civilians and regional stability’’ posed by the LRA. U.S. Africa Command is the key DOD participant in the interagency effort to assist our regional 

partners in apprehending or removing the group’s leaders, to protect civilians, to 

provide humanitarian assistance, and to promote justice and reconciliation in LRAaffected areas. 

North Africa 

The countries of North Africa are Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. Separated physically and culturally from sub-Saharan Africa by the Sahara 

Desert, this region maintains strong links to Southern Europe and the Middle East. 

North Africa is a critical gateway to sea-lane choke points as well as air and sea 

routes into Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Trafficking of all types (human, drugs, 

weapons), economic stagnation, and ungoverned space in the Sahel make the region 

vulnerable to extremist influences and activities. The political and social upheaval 

that erupted across North Africa has captured the attention of the international 

community. However, it is too early to assess properly either the myriad causes or 

the outcomes of these important events. 

Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb has emerged as a direct threat 

to the stability and security of North Africa as well as the West African Sahelian 

countries of Niger and Mali. To assist these countries in meeting this extremist 

challenge, U.S. Africa Command supports the Department of State led interagency 

Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership through Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Sahara (OEF–TS). OEF–TS strengthens regional counterterrorism and 

security capabilities by employing small Mobile Training Teams, Civil Military Support Elements, Joint Planning and Assistance Teams, and through Senior Leader 

Engagements. 

Southern Africa 

Southern Africa comprises nine continental states including Namibia, South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and 

two island states—Madagascar and Mauritius. In many dimensions, Southern Africa is highly developed economically; yet, the region still has some significant problems. Governance challenges, inflation, and refugees from Zimbabwe present challenges to Southern African nations. Two states with great potential, Zimbabwe and 

Madagascar, have difficult internal political challenges and are under economic 

859 

2 U.S. Africa Command has four component commands, one sub-unified command, and the 

Combined Joint Task Force—Horn of Africa. The four component commands are U.S. Army Africa (USARAF), U.S. Naval Force, Africa (NAVAF), and U.S. Air Forces (AFAFRICA/17AF). U.S. 

Special Operations Command, Africa (SOCAFRICA) is the sub-unified command. 

sanctions, while Botswana continues to rise from one of the world’s poorest countries to middle-income status. South Africa and the United States recently institutionalized a steadily improving era of cooperation when Secretary Clinton and South 

Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Maite NkoanaMashabane, established an ongoing Strategic Dialogue to foster cooperation in areas 

of mutual concern. South Africa is an active participant in U.S. Africa Command’s 

primary maritime security engagement initiative, Africa Partnership Station (APS). 

Integrated Interagency Team 

U.S. Africa Command is part of a diverse interagency team with abundant talents, expertise, and capabilities. An integrated interagency effort requires understanding the institutional perspectives of each agency, as well as each agency’s statutory responsibilities and authorities. 

U.S. Africa Command’s contribution to an integrated approach starts in our Stuttgart headquarters, where the Deputy to the Commander for Civil-Military Activities 

is a senior U.S. diplomat. In addition, a U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) Senior Development Advisor helps ensure that our military programs and 

activities support and complement our government’s development programs and activities. We have made progress in creating a collaborative interagency environment 

in U.S. Africa Command. While we welcome the skills and capabilities our interagency partners bring to our mission, we are still working toward fulfilling our vision of an integrated whole-of-government approach to the challenges in Africa. We 

would benefit from increased interagency support from other U.S. Government agencies and departments. 

U.S. Africa Command also works closely with embassy country teams to ensure 

that our programs and activities support and complement their Mission Strategic 

and Resource Plans. To enhance this cooperative interagency effort, our annual Theater Security Cooperation Conference brings together over 300 stakeholders from 

U.S. embassies in Africa, U.S. Government agencies, and our component commands 

to ensure our programs and activities are synchronized and integrated with those 

of the other government agencies. 

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

U.S. Africa Command is committed to the delivery and sustainment of effective 

security cooperation programs that build our partners’ security capacity. At our 

partners’ request, we design and develop programs, activities, and exercises that 

support their four common defense goals. When we complete an activity, we stay 

engaged with our partners to foster long-term gains and successes. Our intent is to 

achieve a persistent and sustained level of engagement. 

Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Special Operations Forces as well as 

CJTF–HOA set the conditions for the success of our security cooperation programs 

and activities on the continent.2 They perform detailed planning, provide essential 

command and control, establish and sustain relations with our partners, and develop processes to provide timely operational assessments. 

Partner security capacity building programs focus on three overlapping capacity 

building functions: 

• Building operational capacity; 

• Building institutional capacity; and, 

• Developing human capital. 

Building Operational Capacity 

Building Operational Capacity is about more than the number of troops and 

pieces of equipment. It is about aligning the right military capabilities—ground, 

maritime, and air—against a partner’s unique mission requirements, as well as developing the necessary operational enablers that foster the independent sustainment 

of those capabilities. We work closely with our partners to align the right military 

capabilities against threat and mission requirements, as well as develop the necessary operational enablers. Examples of programs and activities that help our African partners build operational capacity, as mentioned earlier, include OEF–TS, exercise Flintlock, PREACT, and the GPOI/ACOTA programs. 

Beyond these important programs and activities, the National Guard State Partnership Program, APS, the African Maritime Law Enforcement Partnership, exerVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00865 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
860 

cises Africa Endeavor and Natural Fire, Medical Capabilities and Readiness Exercises, and Africa Deployment Assistance Partnership Team all contribute to partner 

operational capacity. 

The State Partnership Program connects a U.S. State’s National Guard to an African nation for military training and relationship building. This program builds longterm relationships, promotes access, enhances African military professionalism and 

capabilities, strengthens interoperability, and enables healthy civil-military relations. Our current National Guard partnerships are: Botswana and North Carolina, 

Ghana and North Dakota, Liberia and Michigan, Morocco and Utah, Nigeria and 

California, Senegal and Vermont, South Africa and New York, and Tunisia and Wyoming. Working closely with the National Guard Bureau, the Command will seek 

to expand this highly effective program. 

Africa Partnership Station (APS) is U.S. Africa Command’s primary maritime security engagement program. APS strengthens our partners’ maritime security capacity by focusing on the development of planning skills, maritime domain awareness, 

response capabilities, and regional integration. In 2010, APS included representatives from 9 European allies, 23 African countries, and Brazil. This was more than 

double the number of partners participating in the planning and execution in previous years. 

African Maritime Law Enforcement Partnership (AMLEP) is a maritime partner 

program conducted with the U.S. Coast Guard that contributes to operational as 

well as institutional capacity. AMLEP develops partner capacity in maritime governance and maritime security by engaging partner nations at both the national 

interagency level and tactical enforcement level. AMLEP operations result in the apprehension of vessels engaged in illegal operations and enable U.S. diplomatic efforts that foster good governance. 

Africa Endeavor is our premier communications exercise designed to encourage 

interoperability, information exchange, and regional cooperation among African nations so they can coordinate with one another during natural disasters and emergencies. Last year in Ghana, communications experts from more than 30 African nations participated in the continent’s largest communications interoperability exercise. A highlight was the direct satellite link and associated command and control 

tactics, techniques, and procedures established between the African Union’s Peace 

Support Center in Addis Ababa and the exercise main body in Accra, Ghana. 

Joint and multinational exercise Natural Fire seeks to improve interoperability 

and build partner capacity to respond to complex humanitarian emergencies, specifically planning for possible pandemic influenza outbreaks. The fiscal year 2010 exercise included more than 500 U.S. soldiers training alongside more than 600 troops 

from Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. The fiscal year 2011 exercise will be held for the first time in Tanzania and is scheduled for July and August 

2011. 

Medical Capabilities and Readiness Exercises, referred to as MEDFLAG, provide 

medical training to the host nation’s medical personnel as well as offering clinics 

for residents in the local area. A September 2010 MEDFLAG bi-lateral exercise in 

Kinshasa, DRC, saw 90 servicemembers from U.S. Africa Command and its components train more than 200 members of the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic 

of the Congo in combat lifesaving skills, preventative medicine, and mass casualty 

procedures. As part of the exercise, doctors from the DRC worked side-by-side with 

their American counterparts to treat more than 1,800 Congolese in a three-day clinic. 

Africa Deployment Assistance Partnership Team assists African partners to build 

logistics capacity by training African partner noncommissioned officers how to deploy their equipment in support of peacekeeping operations. Of the eight partner nations who completed the training in 2009, the Ugandans were the first to get their 

23 noncommissioned officers certified to plan, palletize, and load cargo on peacekeeping missions. 

Building Institutional Capacity 

To support the building of institutional capacity, we focus on developing and sustaining a government’s ability to program and allocate security resources, establish 

national command and control, provide civilian oversight of military forces, and develop military and security recruiting, training, and sustaining programs and policies. These functions help to ensure the readiness and independent sustainability 

of our partners’ military forces. An underlying premise of our building institutional 

capacity efforts is that military forces must be subordinate to civil authority and accepted as legitimate members of a civil society based on the rule of law. 

We have learned from Operation Onward Liberty in Liberia that rebuilding a 

state’s security institutions requires more than military means. Institutional capacVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00866 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
861 

ity building is an inherently interagency endeavor. Success in this mission requires 

a long-term commitment by numerous U.S. Government agencies and sufficient resources in all departments to ensure success. Onward Liberty illustrates how we can 

achieve positive effects that enhance the capability of our partners and support U.S. 

interests disproportionate to our modest investment in resources. With a small investment, the U.S. Government is helping Liberia transform their Ministry of Defense, Armed Forces, and Coast Guard. Liberia’s progress will contribute to regional 

stability and provide a model for other African states transitioning from conflicts. 

Moreover, these lessons will inform how we approach Security Force Assistance in 

other areas of Africa, such as Southern Sudan. 

Other programs and activities that are building institutional capacity include 

Partnership for Integrated Logistics Operations and Tactics, The Pandemic Response Program, Military Intelligence Security Cooperation, and special staff assistance and mentoring programs. 

Partnership for Integrated Logistics Operations and Tactics is an operational-level 

seminar jointly designed and funded in partnership with the Canadian Ministry of 

Defense, Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and the GPOI program. This program builds 

long-term operational logistics planning capacity within the AU Standby Force, and 

promotes interoperability with the U.S. military. 

The Pandemic Response Program focuses on strengthening our African partners’ 

military capacities to plan and respond to potential pandemics. Our efforts are reinforced with 3 years of funding from USAID, which cooperates with the International 

Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and other partner organizations in African countries. 

Military Intelligence Security Cooperation develops not only institutional capacity, 

but also human capital by enhancing partner country military and security service 

professionalism and the development of military intelligence organizations that respond to civilian authority and respect the rule of law. Military intelligence operational capacity building is designed to support the execution of full-spectrum operations, including counter terrorism, intelligence support to peacekeeping operations, 

and intelligence support to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. 

To support the development of institutional capacity, we also conduct special staff 

programs. Through mentoring and exchanges, our inspector general, chaplain, legal 

counsel, surgeon, public affairs, and other special staff elements work closely with 

partners to improve readiness and professionalism. Additionally, our African partners recognize that the backbone of a professional military is an effective noncommissioned officer (NCO) corps. Depending on the need, we help develop doctrine, 

training plans, and facility plans while also engaging with partner leadership in developing their NCO corps. 

Developing Human Capital 

To develop human capital, we focus on developing the professional attributes and 

values that complement capacity and institution building efforts and enhance the 

standing of the military among members of civil society. We encourage our partners 

to develop the capacity to take care of their military forces and their families, which 

increases readiness. Each positive engagement and activity alongside our forces 

helps our partners develop the professional attributes and values essential for an 

effective military. 

The African Leader Development Initiative is a U.S. Africa Command program 

that assists in the strengthening of our African partner’s warrant officer and noncommissioned officer corps. U.S. Africa Command and our components accomplish 

this by providing warrant and noncommissioned officer academies with curriculum 

development assistance, instructors, guest speakers, and familiarization visits for 

our African partners to our Services’ premier NCO academies. Additionally, 2010 

saw the first annual African Defense Joint Warrant Officer/Sergeant Major Symposium convene in Washington, DC. This symposium brought together senior warrant 

and noncommissioned officers from 17 African countries to collaborate on civil-military relations, regional security issues, peace support operations, Human Immunodeficiency Virus prevention, sexual and gender based violence prevention, and initiatives for women in the Armed Forces. This is an example of the outstanding support we receive from our Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS), which cohosted the 2010 symposium as well as many other events. U.S. Africa Command relies on the social, cultural, and academic expertise ACSS provides to inform our cooperative efforts with our sub-Saharan African partners. 

The Military Intelligence Basic Officer Course-Africa, the Military Intelligence 

Professionals Course, and the Military Intelligence NCO Course-Africa are U.S. Africa Command-sponsored courses that assist partner nations in further developing 

fundamental military leadership and intelligence skills. They enhance capacity for 

862 

intelligence analysis and sharing among nations and to provide an environment designed to improve collaboration within the region’s military intelligence community. 

International Military Education and Training (IMET) is a long-standing and 

well-regarded program funded by the Department of State. IMET provides military 

course education and training for foreign military and select civilian personnel. Professionalizing militaries and reinforcing the democratic value of elected civilian authority are among the benefits of the Department of State-led IMET and ExpandedIMET programs. These comprise the most widely used military assistance programs 

in U.S. Africa Command’s AOR as almost every country in the AOR receives IMET. 

Sending African officers to our mid-level and senior staff colleges provides these officers an opportunity to not only learn about the United States and develop long-lasting professional relationships with our very best officers, but to assume greater responsibilities in meeting their security challenges upon return to their own country. 

Presently, 30 West and Central African flag and general officers have benefited from 

the IMET program. A notable IMET participant from Uganda is Major General Nathan Mugisha—the commander of the African Union’s peacekeeping mission Somalia; a U.S. Army War College graduate. 

RESOURCING FOR THE FUTURE

U.S. Africa Command maintains a long-term commitment to our partners to ensure that stability becomes self-sustaining on the continent. Simultaneously, there 

are potential crises requiring prompt, decisive action, and U.S. Africa Command 

must be ready for these contingency operations. As we assess our capacity to execute our operations, programs and activities, we continuously evaluate our progress 

in four key categories: 

• Our ability to foster sustained engagement; • Our ability to expand our operational reach; • Our ability to respond rapidly to crisis; and, • Our ability to take care of our people. 

Fostering Sustained Engagement 

The 2010 QDR identified building security capacity of partner states as one of six 

key DOD mission areas. U.S. Africa Command is developing, executing, and refining 

a range of programs and activities that help African states build capable, professional militaries. 

Resourcing Sustained Engagement: Authorities 

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense highlighted on numerous occasions, the strict compartmentalization of engagement funding sources can impede unity of effort and progress. Authorities are often inflexible 

and processes too cumbersome for today’s security challenges. For example, the atsea training platform APS involved the cobbling together of over a dozen different 

funding sources from Title 10 to resource its first 3 years of this important program. 

This made establishing and administering this important program a challenge. We 

have had tremendous success with APS, and today the Department of State provides dedicated Title 22 funding to implement the training aspect of this program. 

The Global Security Contingency Fund proposed by the President offers a new approach to funding important assistance activities in an effective manner—pooling 

the resources and expertise of the Department of State and DOD. The administration has requested $50 million in the State Department budget for this fund, and 

DOD has committed to contribute significant funding as well. This approach would 

create a new business model that we believe will lead to collaborative programs to 

respond to emergent challenges and opportunities. 

Resourcing Sustained Engagement: Forces 

Maintaining a predictable pattern of available operational forces for sustained engagement activity is critical to the success of our efforts on the continent and an 

ongoing challenge. U.S. Africa Command’s components and subordinate commands 

are the primary implementers of our programs and activities on the continent. In 

an environment of competing global demands for forces, we rely on the Global Force 

Management process for the necessary support of our engagements in Africa. 

Funding for the Foreign Military Financing Program 

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is fundamental to our strategy of preventative 

rather than reactive response and represents an investment in critical relationships. 

Inadequate funding or inconsistent year-to-year distributions can compromise our 

efforts, turn our partners towards other sources, and inhibit peacekeeping and 

counterterrorism operations. The demand for FMF funds will always exceed reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00868 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
863 

source availability. Therefore, U.S. Africa Command carefully prioritizes its FMF 

recommendations to the Department of State using a rigorous analytical process 

that considers national interests, DOD guidance, country team recommendations, 

host nation desires, and the host nation’s capacity to absorb and effectively employ 

military equipment. For example, Senegal uses this program to maintain the fleet 

of U.S. military trucks they acquired for peacekeeping operations using the Excess 

Defense Article program. 

Planning and Assessing Our Programs and Activities 

U.S. Africa Command is a judicious steward of the resources provided to us by 

the American people to accomplish our theater objectives. With the fiscal challenges 

we face at home and the competing global demands on our military forces, we are 

dedicated to helping build partner nation capability at the lowest cost possible. In 

many instances, we achieve positive effects that enhance the capability of our partners and support U.S. interests with a modest investment in resources. We do this 

through a detailed planning process that links our programs and activities to our 

theater objectives and carefully justifies resources. 

While it is difficult to attribute improvements in our partners’ security capacity 

to individual activities or engagements, the evidence indicates that we are moving 

in the right direction with regard to our direct engagements. In CJTF–HOA, for example, we measure our effectiveness in several ways: socio-cultural research teams, 

informal and formal feedback from partner nations, and through surveys. We take 

a broad view of our programs and activities with a robust annual command assessment process, which incorporates indicators from a range of quantitative and qualitative sources and helps guide our planning for future programs and activities. 

Funding for Exercises 

A key component of our capacity building is our Joint and Combined Exercise program. This program is dependent upon funding from the Combatant Commander’s 

Exercise and Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2) Program. These 

exercises improve not only the readiness of our African partners, but also increase 

the capabilities of U.S. forces. As our exercise program expands to meet the readiness needs of U.S. forces and partner militaries, U.S. Africa Command will place 

increasing demands on limited CE2T2 funds. We seek Congress’ continued support 

of the DOD’s request for the Combatant Commander’s Exercise, Engagement, and 

Training Transformation Program. 

Though we face challenges in the previously mentioned areas, we are also entering into a new era of opportunities. 

Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review 

The Department of State’s recent Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) is a laudable milestone on the pathway to improving interagency cooperation and collaboration. Following in the footsteps of DOD’s QDR, the QDDR 

made a sweeping assessment of how the Department of State and USAID could advance our national interests and effectively partner with the U.S. military in support of these interests. The QDDR’s elevation of conflict prevention and response to 

a core civilian mission is notable, as is the commitment to developing an integrated 

capability to reform security and justice sectors in fragile states. We look forward 

to working with our interagency partners at the Department of State and across the 

government as they implement the QDDR’s recommendations. 

African Cooperation Authority 

U.S. Africa Command makes maximum use of Traditional Combatant Commander 

Activities authorities for military-to-military and other activities. Section 1050a, a 

new revision to title 10, U.S.C., will be an important additional authority enabling 

engagements with civilian elements of Ministries of Defense, the AU, and other security organizations. This authority, provided through the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, will open doors to broader cooperation 

and benefit both the United States and our African partners. We welcome this valuable addition and thank Congress for its support in creating this authority. 

Enhancing Operational Reach and Ensuring Rapid Response to Crisis 

U.S. Africa Command works to enhance our operational reach across the Command’s AOR. This supports our ability to respond to crises promptly and our longterm efforts for security as well. U.S. forces are often employed in austere environments with limited to non-existent infrastructure, port, and logistics networks. Improvements in these areas enhance our ability to respond to emergencies and 

threats and to meet the needs of sustained engagement. 

864 

Theater Infrastructure and Posture Requirements 

U.S. Africa Command evaluates and refines its access needs on a regular basis, 

in close cooperation with the Department of State. This effort centers on gaining 

and maintaining the access and freedom of movement necessary to conduct day-today security cooperation activities and crisis response operations. We work with our 

components, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Department of State to 

update the network of Cooperative Security Locations and supporting agreements 

required to enable the Command to carry out its activities. As U.S. Africa Command’s sole Forward Operating Site on the continent, Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, 

serves as a critical operational and sustainment facility (a hub for lift, logistics, intelligence, and Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4)) in support 

of DOD activities in the region. It is critical for activities and operations across AOR 

boundaries in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Peninsula. 

Camp Lemonnier’s proximity to Djibouti’s air and seaport make it ideal for supporting U.S. Africa Command operations throughout the region. Of equal importance is the Camp’s ability to support DOD’s global transportation infrastructure 

network as a key node. Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, is essential to U.S. security interests in East Africa and the Gulf of Aden. The fiscal year 2012 military construction request contains a number of important projects that will allow us to continue 

to enhance the capabilities of this facility. We appreciate your attention to these requests. 

Ensuring Rapid Response to Crisis 

U.S. Africa Command conducts prudent operational planning for a range of possible humanitarian and security contingencies beyond fostering sustained engagement and working to expand our operational reach. This requires the staff to continually assess potential force requirements and the lift, logistics, C4, and intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance enablers required to support a range of contingencies. We share our assessments regularly with Joint Staff and the Office of Secretary of Defense. 

Taking Care of Our People 

U.S. Africa Command team members and their families serve in Stuttgart, 

Alconbury (Molesworth), and across Africa. Quality of Life (QoL) Programs affirm 

our commitment to our team members and their families wherever they serve. This 

Command is committed to providing a strong, supportive environment fostering 

growth and excellence, while providing the highest quality of resources and services 

to our U.S. Africa Command family consistent with their commitment and dedication to serve the Nation. To that end, we created a QoL office to manage and oversee activities at the Stuttgart headquarters, Alconbury, and on the African continent. 

In order to understand the needs of our families stationed throughout the continent, U.S. Africa Command hosts the annual ‘Africa Command Families on the African Continent’ working group. This annual forum addresses emerging QoL issues 

and provides the foundation for our QoL Action Plan. This forum recently identified 

two issues that family members highlight on a regular basis. First, family members 

have requested changes that would allow expectant mothers to elect an alternate 

destination for obstetric care, providing an option to be with their families instead 

of alone at the nearest Military Treatment Facility. The second issue is the provision of student travel benefits for dependents attending accredited overseas colleges 

or universities off the continent in locations such as Europe. We appreciate Congress’ attention to these two important issues. 

To further assist our team members and their families in solving problems resulting from deployment, reunions, and other family changes, U.S. Africa Command implemented the Military and Family Life Consultant Program to support the command headquarters, remote locations and the African continent. We currently have 

three consultants supporting the Stuttgart and Alconbury communities, as well as 

CJTF–HOA in Djibouti. We continue to focus our efforts on our members and their 

families, both on and off the African continent, to ensure their quality of life remains a priority and is funded properly. 

CONCLUSION

U.S. Africa Command is protecting American lives and promoting our national interests today by helping our African partners assume a continually increasing role 

addressing their own security concerns. Africa’s long-term growth, stability, and economic prosperity is largely dependent on our partners’ ability to develop capable and 

professional militaries that are subordinate to civilian authority, respect human 

rights, and adhere to the rule of law. There are no short cuts to growth and stability 

865 

in Africa; we must shape our efforts with an understanding of the continent and 

patiently sustain our efforts over time. 

A prosperous and stable Africa is strategically important to the United States. An 

Africa that can generate and sustain broadbased development will contribute to 

global economic growth and vitality—a longstanding American interest. Prosperity 

and stability in Africa will ensure that it does not become a haven for those who 

wish to do harm to our citizens and our interests—both in the homeland and 

abroad. 

In the coming year, we will continue to support African leadership in addressing 

shared security challenges, take advantage of opportunities, deepen our strategic 

partnerships—regionally, bilaterally, and with the AU—and refine our focus in our 

security cooperation efforts, while also ensuring the military readiness and operational capability of U.S. Africa Command. 

I am grateful for the outstanding support U.S. Africa Command has received from 

Congress. The continued support for our uniformed men and women, our DOD civilians and the other U.S. Government departments and agencies assigned to the command will allow their tremendous work to continue. I am proud to serve on the U.S. 

Africa Command team with these dedicated Americans. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Let’s try a 7-minute first round. 

General Ham, let me start with some questions about Libya. You 

were the operational commander at the time our mission was initiated in Libya. My first question would be whether or not you supported the limited military mission in Libya? 

General HAM. I did. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you continue to do so? 

General HAM. I do. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, in your judgment was it important to obtain United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and Arab League support for the mission before the military operations were initiated? 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, I believe that was important. I 

think absent that support the negative reaction regionally would 

have been fairly dramatic and made it difficult for AFRICOM to 

continue its enduring mission on the continent. 

Chairman LEVIN. Would it also have been more difficult to put 

together the coalition? 

General HAM. I believe that would be the case, yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, in your judgment should the military 

mission be expanded to include regime change? 

General HAM. While it’s clearly our U.S. policy that the current 

leader has to leave, adding that as a military task greatly complicates the matter. So I would advise that that’s a difficult task 

to achieve militarily and would add to a greater complexity and 

make the duration and extent of U.S. military involvement much 

more uncertain than it is today. 

Chairman LEVIN. Because of that, would you recommend against 

it? 

General HAM. I would at this point, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, did you support the policy to hand off 

this mission promptly to NATO? 

General HAM. I did, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Could you tell us why? 

General HAM. A couple of reasons, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 

there’s great capability within NATO. Though we didn’t know 

when we started that NATO would be the organization to whom we 

would hand off the mission, it was our hope that that would be the 

case. But we were prepared to hand off to some other coalition 

866 

should that be necessary. There is great capability in those other 

nations. 

But more so, most of the U.S. military forces who were engaged 

in this operation are either recently returned from or preparing to 

deploy for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere. They are 

in the so-called dwell period. While we can certainly surge to meet 

operational needs, as we did for operations in Libya, there is a 

longer-term effect if greater numbers of U.S. forces had been committed for a longer period of time in Libya, and it would have had 

downstream operational effects in other missions. 

Chairman LEVIN. The surge you’re referring to was in Afghanistan, I believe; is that correct? 

General HAM. Sir, I’m sorry. I wasn’t clear. No, the ability to 

surge assets for an unforeseen operation, which was the operation 

in Libya. 

Chairman LEVIN. I see. I understand. 

Now, does NATO have the adequate capacity to carry out this 

mission? 

General HAM. Sir, I believe they do. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are the AC–130s and the A–10s available to 

the NATO commander upon his request? 

General HAM. Sir, the AC–130, as a very precise and specialized 

capability, remains available. They were not available when I 

began, just because of the transit time to get those aircraft into 

theater. They are available now. The A–10s similarly were not 

available when AFRICOM began the operation and with good effect, and they are available, but NATO must request the A–10 

availability. 

Chairman LEVIN. The rebel commanders have expressed concern 

about NATO’s willingness to strike the regime targets. In your 

view, is NATO willing to carry out this mission? 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, in my experience NATO is. In the 

conduct of several important NATO allies during the period for 

which AFRICOM was responsible for the mission, we saw several 

nations very active, very effective in the conduct of strike operations, and it is my assessment that that continues today. 

Chairman LEVIN. Should the United States provide arms to the 

rebels? 

General HAM. Not without a better understanding of exactly who 

the opposition force is. My recommendation would be we should 

know more about who they are before we make any determination 

to arm them. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

General McNabb, you’ve been quoted in the press as stating that 

TRANSCOM, from a cyber perspective, is the most attacked command in DOD, that cyber attacks apparently are very large in 

number, hopefully not in effectiveness and hopefully never will be, 

but nonetheless numerically significant. What are the critical needs 

of TRANSCOM for cyber security? 

General MCNABB. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we are indeed the most 

attacked of the combatant commanders, and it primarily has to do 

with our enterprise. We ride on a protected but not secure, much 

more like the rest of the whole of government, vice a lot of the 

other combatant commanders that primarily stay on the high side 

867 

or the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network. We do that, obviously, because of the nature of our mission and our working with 

the commercial partners. So we have special challenges along that 

line. 

The kinds of things that we have found as they have attacked 

us, we ended up having over 33,000 hacking attacks last year. I 

would say that we have over 100 structured attacks. What we do 

is we watch that, we work very closely with Strategic Command 

and the new Cyber Commander, General Alexander, and we go 

through that and say, okay, how do we get at this. One, how do 

we protect it, but also two, can we watch it and make sure that 

we mitigate any damage that would go. 

Right now, they will find the weakest link that we have. In some 

cases that’s a cleared defense contractor that has an ability to get 

into our databases, and they will come through there. 

So again, much like the whole of government, we have to figure 

out how to make sure that the whole network with all of its parts 

are protected. For instance, I sent out a message to all of our 

cleared defense contractors that help us with all of our systems and 

told them: ‘‘we need you to take a special look at how you’re doing 

business, your security programs, and make sure that you have 

taken appropriate measures to protect the network.’’ 

The same thing with our components. We obviously do air, land, 

and sea. The Services have taken this on very seriously, but each 

Service does it a little differently. We have to make sure that we 

bring that all together so there’s not a weak link in the seams between how we do this, especially as we do multimodal operations. 

Those are the things that we’re working right now with General 

Kehler at STRATCOM and General Alexander at U.S. Cyber Command, and again we keep teaming with everybody to say we’re 

ready to be test cases. Again, I think it has applicability to the 

whole of government. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Hearing your testimony, General Ham, is almost an Orwellian 

experience for me. The fact is that if we had imposed a no-fly zone 

3 or 4 weeks ago, Qadhafi would not be in power today. The fact 

is that the situation on the ground is basically a stalemate. 

Would you say that the situation on the ground is a stalemate 

or an emerging stalemate? 

General HAM. Senator, I would agree with that at present on the 

ground. 

Senator MCCAIN. So our policy objective of the removal of Qadhafi is further from being achieved than it was 3 or 4 weeks ago? 

General HAM. Senator, I don’t know that I would agree with 

that, because that again was not a military mission. The military 

mission of protecting, I think, was not wholly achieved, but 

achieved in large part. 

Senator MCCAIN. The citizens of Misurata would be very interested in hearing your comment. 

General HAM. Senator, Misurata, as I mentioned—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Oh, it’s only Benghazi that we need to worry 

about? We don’t need to worry about Misurata. 

868 

General, you are trying to defend an indefensible position. Is a 

stalemate in the United States’ national security interest? 

General HAM. Senator, only if it allows the international community to seek a political or diplomatic solution through at least a cessation in attacks. 

Senator MCCAIN. Qadhafi remaining in power which is the result 

of a stalemate is in the United States’ national security interest? 

General HAM. Sir, it is clear that the United States’ position—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Is it or not? I’d like an answer to the question. 

General HAM. Sir, I don’t know that—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Is it in the United States’ national security interest to see Qadhafi remain in power, which is the result of a 

stalemate? That’s a pretty straightforward question, General. 

General HAM. Sir, it is clear that the United States has said it 

is in the United States’ interest for Mr. Qadhafi to no longer be in 

power. 

Senator MCCAIN. So right now we are facing the prospect of a 

stalemate, which then means Qadhafi remains in power, which 

means that we will then have a very serious situation with Mr. Qadhafi in the future if he remains in power, particularly given his 

past record. 

In other words, you believe we are doing exactly the right thing, 

which we pursued a course which you strongly support that leaves 

us in a stalemate situation; is that correct, General? 

General HAM. Senator, the military mission which AFRICOM 

was assigned did not—— 

Senator MCCAIN. General, I didn’t ask you about the task you 

were assigned. When you were nominated for your position, you 

were asked if you will state your personal opinion when asked by 

the members of this committee. I’d like to know if you think a 

stalemate is an acceptable outcome of the conflict in Libya? 

General HAM. Senator, it is my personal opinion, that it is not 

the preferred solution. 

Senator MCCAIN. Not the preferred solution, I see. 

Is a stalemate more or less likely now than when you were in 

command, when you were commanding Operation Odyssey Dawn? 

General HAM. It is now more likely. 

Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, on the issue of the supplies 

into Afghanistan, would you give us a little brief outline as to what 

the threats you face and how serious they are or how tenuous the 

situation might be? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. When you talk about resupplying Afghanistan, as you mentioned in opening, we bring about, I would 

say, 30 percent of our stuff comes in through the port of Karachi 

and up through the Pakistan lines of communication (LOC). About 

35 percent we’re bringing over the NDN, and you asked how that 

was going and we continue to expand that to good effect. We’ve 

moved 38,000 containers coming over the NDN. But we are restricted from bringing military-type equipment through the NDN, 

so anything that we bring by surface must come through the Pakistan LOC, and that includes foreign military sales (FMS) stuff for 

the Afghan National Army. 

869 

We bring in 35 percent by air. That used to be 20 percent, but 

we are doing a lot more of the multimodal, where we take it by surface as far forward—— 

Senator MCCAIN. It’s a lot more expensive, too. 

General MCNABB. Sir, it is much less expensive, because you’re 

taking advantage of the surface for the majority of the trip and 

you’re only using the air for the last part. That allows you to really 

be efficient on your air, at the same time taking full advantage of 

the much lower cost of taking it by surface. That has paid very big 

dividends and that’s allowed us to bring a lot more in for that last 

portion into Afghanistan. 

Everything high value, everything sensitive, everything lethal, 

we bring in by air. So a couple of the things that we have really 

pushed hard is the discipline to make sure that if it’s stuff that 

you’re going to take through surface, that if it’s a container of food, 

we can replace it with another container of food. If it’s very valuable equipment to you, let’s make sure we get that on the air. 

We continue to work to make the Pakistan LOC work with better 

velocity. There’s a Task Force Guardian that General Petraeus and 

General Mattis set up to work the pilferage issue on that and I will 

say that has had a very good effect. Then, as you mentioned, we’re 

working very closely with the neighbors in the north to see if we 

can open up some additional routes. 

What’s been good about the routes is it is a network; competition 

has driven costs down, so actually costs have come down coming in 

from the north. 

Senator MCCAIN. Does the Air Force need additional C–17s? 

General MCNABB. Sir, not beyond the 222 that you have set. My 

take right now, as you had mentioned, is as we get those additional 

airplanes—we have 209 of those delivered now. We get about one 

a month now. There obviously are some C–17s that are being used 

in FMS, that’s good for the alliance because we have more C–17s 

with our allies and friends. 

So right now the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 

(MCRS)–2016 said we need 32.7 million ton-miles per day (MTM/ 

D), a measurement that we use. Right now the Air Force has come 

forward with a plan, as you mentioned, as those additional C–17s 

are delivered, to retire some of our oldest C–5As. I think that’s a 

prudent thing to do for what you had mentioned. It frees up the 

crews and maintainers, the facilities, to be able to retire the C–5As. 

Our plan would be to flow the newer C–17s into places like 

Charleston and McChord, take some of our older C–17s, replace the 

C–5s, so we’ve modernized our strategic mobility fleet, and the plan 

that the Air Force has meets that 32.7 MTM/D, so I am good with 

that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to both of you. General Ham, let me come back to a question that the chairman touched on and I want to try to draw you 

out a little more on it. Senator McCain mentioned it too, which is 

this: certainly the impression or the opinion that the rebel forces, 

870 

the opposition to Qadhafi on the ground, has, as expressed by General Younis, who I guess is the head of their military, that the support they’ve been receiving has diminished since the transfer of operations went from your command to NATO. 

If you were sitting at a table with General Younis now, how 

would you answer that? What would you say? 

General HAM. Senator, I would say that that’s not the case. What 

has changed dramatically has been the tactics applied by the regime forces. Where they have shifted from their traditional use of 

conventional armored equipment, which was easily identifiable as 

regime forces and therefore easily targeted, they now operate largely in civilian vehicles, and when those vehicles are intermixed with 

the opposition forces it’s increasingly difficult to discern which is 

which. 

Second, we have seen an increased tactic by the regime forces to 

put their military vehicles adjacent to civilian aspects, mosques, 

schools, hospitals, civilian areas, which would result in significant 

civilian casualties through the strike of those assets. 

Then a third factor, Senator, would be, frankly, just the weather. 

We went through a period of a few days, significantly impeded the 

ability to collect and to strike. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. You’re an experienced commander. Isn’t 

there a way around this response that Qadhafi forces have developed to the attacks that AFRICOM oversaw? 

General HAM. Senator, there are some things that would help. 

One of the challenges is the opposition forces are not a regular 

military, not disciplined, and we have seen a tendency for them to 

get intermixed with the regime forces, rather than maintaining 

some degree of separation, which again would allow for more effective targeting of their regime’s forces. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I want to come back to that in a minute. 

But there’s been a lot of conversation here—we had it last week 

with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen—about the A–10s and 

the AC–130s. Would the A–10s and/or the AC–130s be able to operate more effectively either in the bad weather or in response to the 

kind of subterfuge that Qadhafi’s forces are involved in now? 

General HAM. Sir, we have tried that and, while AFRICOM had 

command, they had some effect, but frankly limited. The AC–130s 

are affected by weather, to be sure. They’re also affected by a significant number of surface-to-air missiles and systems that remain 

effective and operational, the tactical mobile systems that the regime has, which do in fact pose a significant threat to the AC–130s. 

For the A–10s, the weather has been probably the most significant factor in being able to identify and strike targets. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Which command has control of the A–10s 

and the AC–130s, yours or European Command (EUCOM)? 

General HAM. Sir, EUCOM has operational control, and those 

can then be placed under NATO operational control if NATO requests that and the Secretary of Defense approves. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Are those planes remaining somewhere 

close by the Libyan—— 

General HAM. Yes, sir, they are. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. What’s required for the NATO commander 

to ask that the A–10s and AC–130s come back? 

871 

General HAM. Sir, the process is that the Canadian officer who 

is the task force commander would make a request through his 

NATO chain that would go ultimately to Admiral Stavridis as Supreme Allied Commander. He would then make a request to the 

Secretary of Defense. But that process would take a very short period of time. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Okay. Let me come to the rebels or the antiQadhafi forces. We all acknowledge that this is not an organized 

military force. But if you take the discussion that you had with 

Senator McCain, this has been a difficult inconsistency here for us. 

We have the political goal of getting Qadhafi out of power, but it’s 

not a military goal. 

So we’re using diplomatic, economic pressure on him. On the 

other hand, it seems obvious to me that the boots-on-the-ground 

are the Libyan boots. The stronger they are, the more that puts 

pressure on Qadhafi, in addition to the diplomatic and political 

pressure, to get out. 

But at this point, if we keep saying, as you did—and it’s the answer that the administration basically gives—we don’t know 

enough about the rebels to give them the arms and training, I’m 

afraid if we wait much longer, there’s not going to be a reason to 

help them because Qadhafi will have effectively won the battle. 

That’s why I want to ask you again, don’t you think that either 

we or NATO or somebody in the region has to work quickly? These 

rebels have a will, they have a passion for their cause, but they’re 

not trained and they’re not, in my opinion, as fully equipped as 

they should be to take on Qadhafi’s forces. Shouldn’t we be making 

sure that somebody’s giving them some training, particularly a 

military organization, and additional weapons as determined they 

need? 

General HAM. Senator, I have some indication that some Arab 

nations are, in fact, starting to do that at present. The points you 

make are great points and I know that that debate is occurring 

within the U.S. Government. There is a tactical urgency which I 

understand. But as the commander who also inherits the long-term 

security aspects for Libya as part of AFRICOM’s AOR, I think the 

long-term effects also have to be considered. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. What do you mean by that? 

General HAM. Sir, again, I think not knowing who the opposition 

forces are, are they trustworthy? We have seen certainly media reporting of extremist organizations at least espousing support for 

the opposition, and we would need, I think, necessarily to be careful about providing lethal means to a group unless we are assured 

that those U.S.-provided weapons would not fall into the hands of 

extremist organizations. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. A final question. Don’t you also, as the head 

of AFRICOM with the responsibility for Libya, conclude that Qadhafi’s remaining in power is a very bad result for Libya and for 

the region? 

General HAM. Senator, I wholeheartedly agree with that. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. To me, that’s a much worse result than the 

possibility, which I understand is only a possibility from everything 

I hear about the opposition, that there may be some extremists involved. Everything we know says that the leadership of the TransiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00877 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
872 

tional National Council and the military are not extremists, not 

Islamists by any means. 

My time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Generals, for appearing today. There’s been plenty of 

discussion from my colleagues about Libya, so I’m not going to beat 

a dead horse. But I will also echo my concern about the escalation 

of violence in Northern Africa and across the Middle East, and the 

state of Libyan affairs demonstrates the value that AFRICOM has 

to promote a secure and stable Africa. So I thank you for your efforts, and I recognize that there are a lot of challenges. 

I’d like to discuss the piracy issues coming out of Somalia and 

how it frames the broader question of how to deal with the growing 

terrorism and failed states throughout that continent. The fact that 

piracy enjoys a safe haven is not a big surprise. Somalia has a per 

capita gross domestic product of $600. As a result, stealing a $5 

million ship carries a pretty big incentive. 

How would you recommend we begin fixing the problem? 

General HAM. Senator, I would absolutely agree with you that in 

the mid-term the extremist threat emanating from East Africa, notably Somalia, is our greatest concern. Piracy has some play in 

that. I’m not exactly sure yet what it is. But I have to believe that 

at least Shabaab and others are drawing at least some economic 

support from the piracy activities. 

I think also the murder of four Americans aboard the motor vessel Quest changes this dynamic. Some would argue that this had 

heretofore been exclusively an economic activity. I think the murder of four Americans, at least in my mind, very significantly 

changes that position. 

I am headed to Tampa tomorrow to speak with U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM), who has responsibility for the maritime 

aspects of countering piracy, to see what we can do together between the two combatant commands to counter this growing threat 

more effectively. 

Senator BROWN. Are there rules of engagement when it comes to 

dealing with the pirates and when you can engage them? Are there 

rules that you’re dealing with or the ships themselves are dealing 

with? 

General HAM. Sir, there are. The rules for the application of military force apply. That’s probably something we should talk about 

in a closed session. 

Senator BROWN. I’d enjoy that. 

What’s your assessment of al Qaeda’s involvement in the piracy 

issue off Somalia? If none, do you think it’s a matter of time before 

they do get involved? 

General HAM. Sir, we have not seen the direct links. We have 

seen direct links between al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and 

Al-Shabaab. So I believe it is indeed just a matter of time before 

al Qaeda is associated in some way with piracy activities in Somalia. 

Senator BROWN. General McNabb, current law requires the Air 

Force to maintain 316 strategic airlifters to meet the global mobilVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00878 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
873 

ity demands. The surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, humanitarian relief, massive drawdowns in Iraq, are just some examples. 

In your testimony you said our national defense strategy requires 

a viable fleet of about 300 strategic airlift aircraft, and you went 

from a 316 requirement down to 300. What changed from last year 

in your estimation? 

General MCNABB. Sir, a couple of things. When we did the 316, 

at that time we had programmed 205 C–17s and 111 C–5s. After 

that time, we now have 222 C–17s coming to us, so that has increased. When we did the 316, at that time we had not done the 

MCRS–2016, that looked at all the things that had changed, all the 

lessons learned, and how we’re using the airplanes. 

Senator BROWN. You adapted to the situations as they came 

about. 

General MCNABB. Right. It ended up that the 32.7 MTM/D, what 

we do is we say that’s what the requirement is; Air Force, you figure out what you need on the mix of airplanes. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. What is the Air Mobility Command’s plan 

to sustain and recapitalize the C–5 fleet? I do agree that some

C–5s should be retired. Some of the oldest C–5s were flown over 

40 years ago. What’s your plan to sustain and recapitalize? 

General MCNABB. Sir, right now obviously we’re continuing with 

the reengining and reliability program on the C–5Bs, the ones that 

were built in the 1980s. What that does is not only upgrade the engines, but a lot of the reliability enhancements. We have four of 

those now. We call them the C–5Ms. 

When we have all of them, we’ll have 52 of those. 

Senator BROWN. When you say the C–5M, is that the avionics 

modernization program? 

General MCNABB. No, sir. The avionics modernization program is 

for all the C–5s. You have to have that done. Then we plan to also 

reengine those newer C–5s. 

Senator BROWN. Then how many would you like to actually retire? 

General MCNABB. Sir, I think they want to go down to 27 C–5As. 

It ends up being about 32 C–5As that they’d like to retire, 30 to 

32. 

Senator BROWN. How many C–5s will undergo the reliability enhancement and reengining program? 

General MCNABB. A total of 52. 

Senator BROWN. How many years will the lives of the C–5Bs be 

extended as a result of the engine and avionics upgrades? 

General MCNABB. Sir, we’re figuring 30 to 40 years. 

Senator BROWN. Does that meet the requirements? 

General MCNABB. Sir, it will. The other portion that has been a 

real plus here is the new tanker. As we bring the new tanker, because it’s multipurpose, it will actually free up additional strategic 

airlift that we are using to do transload operations, C–17s and C– 

5s, because now we’ll be able to use the new tanker, to be able to 

do that because of it’s other capability to move passengers, 

aeromedical, and cargo. 

Senator BROWN. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

874 

Senator Begich is next. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General Ham, I just want to pursue one clarification here. I don’t 

think—none of us—and I think I heard this from Secretary Gates 

that having Qadhafi out of there is a good thing. If we can get rid 

of him, great. But we’ve been in a stalemate for 40 years since he’s 

been there; isn’t that fair to say? He’s been there for 40 years, and 

now we’re in a different kind of level of stalemate. Isn’t that a fair 

statement? 

General HAM. Yes, sir, it is. But I don’t think we had previously 

seen his very clearly stated intent to kill his own citizens. 

Senator BEGICH. Maybe not publicly. Is that a fair statement, 

too? 

General HAM. It is, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. I think there has been activities that a lot of 

citizens from Libya would tell you otherwise. 

General HAM. I think that’s accurate, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. We could probably point to multiple countries 

all around the world that we have concerns with their leadership, 

but this one we’re engaged in right now to a certain level. Is that 

a fair statement? 

General HAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. I want to get to an issue that I started last 

week with Secretary Gates and I want to just make sure I clearly 

understand, not to debate the policy because I have some concerns, 

but I’m going to put that aside. It’s the money issue that I’m now 

starting to get concerned about. We’ve spent, at least reported, $550 million to date so far. I’m 

getting different reports on what the burn rate is now and where 

we are. Can you give me a sense of what you see and what your 

anticipated costs are to manage the affairs from your end of it? I 

know there’s DOS, there’s CIA, there’s all these other players that 

are burning money at the same time here. 

Can you tell me what you estimate your costs are going to be? 

General HAM. Sir, the best estimate that I have seen from the 

Services and from the Office of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller Office is about that $550 million initially, and then about 

$40 million per month in continuing costs. The command does not 

oversee and budget those operations. The Services fund each of 

their Service components. So in this case, largely Air Force and 

Navy as the primary contributors to this to bear the burden. But 

the best estimate I have seen is about $40 million in sustained 

costs per month. 

Senator BEGICH. Here’s my struggle, because I heard that from 

the Comptroller also about a week ago or so. I read a report yesterday that the Air Force is burning about $4 million a day. So doing 

the math, on a 30-day cycle, that’s more than $40 million. So I 

guess, when do we get to that $40 million level? 

I understand there are other elements that deal with the budgetary, but at the end of the day you’re going to have to figure out 

resource allocation for the command that you’re involved in. If 

you’re burning at a certain rate, which I don’t know what it is 

today, and maybe you have an idea of what your costs are per day 

right now—when do we get to this supposed level of $40 million a 

875 

month, which seems pretty cheap from the perspective of $550 million in 10 days that we burned up? 

General HAM. Senator, if you’ll allow me to take that for the 

record so I can make sure I give you an accurate assessment. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

On March 29, the initial portion of the operation cost $550 million. Since March 29, we spent an additional $74 million for a confirmed total of $624 million through 

April 11, 2011. 

Senator BEGICH. I’d appreciate that. My biggest concern is, for 

example, and another question I have for you, on the intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms in aircraft that 

were required in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Let me ask you 

this from just an equipment utilization: Have we utilized or have 

we shifted any of their missions or activities to this now that we’re 

doing in Libya? In other words, some of those platforms that were 

maybe programmed or planned or utilized as backup for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? 

General HAM. Sir, we probably should have a detailed discussion 

in a closed session. But in general, I can say that there were some 

assets that were, in fact, diverted from the CENTCOM AOR to support operations in Libya. There were stateside assets which were 

either in training commands that are generating future capabilities, that were pulled from that mission and sortied to support operations in Libya. So there is and has been an effect. We probably 

should discuss the details in closed session. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, General. 

Now that NATO has taken the lead and is starting to move in 

that direction—I know we have the Airborne Warning and Control 

System and refueling and some other activities. What percentage 

of our assets are now being used compared to when we first started 

to where we are now? In other words, where are we—in the global 

picture of now NATO taking the lead? Are we 10 percent, 40 percent, 80 percent of the assets that they’re utilizing or partnered 

with them? Does that question make sense? 

General HAM. It does, sir. If I could divide it into two different 

categories. In the strike assets, those aircraft which were actually 

attacking targets on the ground, the United States now contributes 

a very small percentage of that. It is principally those U.S.-unique 

capabilities, surface-to-air, suppression of enemy air defense systems, which are unique to the United States. The AC–130s, which 

others have mentioned, which are a unique U.S. capability, are in 

that category. 

So a very small percentage, I would guess maybe less than 15 

percent of the strike assets. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s as of right now? 

General HAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. 

General HAM. In the other category, in the support category, 

which are tankers, ISR assets, again a number of those are unique 

U.S. military capabilities. We are probably about, I would ballpark, 

60 to 70 percent of that capability is United States, again because 

many of those systems are unique to the United States. Tankers 

are a special case. Many other nations have tankers, but they don’t 

have tankers in the quantity that the United States has, and so we 

876 

are, again, while not a unique U.S. military capability, the quantity 

to sustain operations requires the United States to contribute some 

to that effort. 

Senator BEGICH. We’ve frozen, I think, about $32 billion, give or 

take, in regards to the Qadhafi family assets. I’m just assuming 

here, within the efforts of conflict, he needs money to do what he 

needs to do. Have you seen any impact of that amount of money 

that we have frozen, the $32 billion that he could have access to? 

Have you seen anything that indicates any impact to his operations? 

General HAM. Sir, not a direct tactical effect. But I think we are 

starting to see that now. I think one of the reasons that the regime 

forces are not pushing forward is that their sustainment capability 

has been significantly attacked by the United States and now by 

NATO, and he can’t replace that. He doesn’t have the money to replace those systems, and I think that is starting to have, if not a 

tactical, at least an operational impact. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. 

My time is up. Thank you both for being here. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Ham, I remember the—I think I have it correct—Patton 

quote that: ‘‘A good plan, violently executed today, is better than 

a perfect plan tomorrow.’’ I believe that Senator McCain and Senator John Kerry were close to correct. I tended to be supportive of 

their view early on that a no-fly zone would make a difference. 

Now, you’ve talked about the advantages of international support, and there are advantages from that. I don’t deny it. But we’ve 

waited about 3 weeks before we got all these international agreements and so forth somehow agreed to, and during those 3 weeks 

Qadhafi rallied, consolidated his power, and put the rebel forces, 

the contras, on defeat, on the defensive. It’s not a good situation 

today and I’m worried about that. 

Let’s talk first about the U.N. We apparently spent a good bit of 

effort getting a resolution out of the U.N. China and Russia abstained. Had either one of those vetoed the resolution, could we 

have gotten the resolution out of the Security Council? 

General HAM. Senator, I’m afraid that’s pretty far beyond my 

area of expertise. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would say that it’s pretty clear that it takes 

an unanimous vote out of the Security Council to get a resolution. 

So, first of all, by going to the U.N. we put the policy of the United 

States in the hands of an unanimous vote there. 

Then with regard to NATO, it operates on a consensus theory, 

does it not? 

General HAM. It does, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Consensus means unanimous vote. 

General HAM. 28 nations, yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. One nation can object and stop a military operation that’s part of a NATO operation, can it not? 

General HAM. That’s correct, sir. 

877 

Senator SESSIONS. I saw in the Washington Times today that the 

rebels are blaming the lack of air strikes, the air strike lull, on 

Turkey. Is that correct? 

General HAM. Sir, I also saw that report. But it is my military 

assessment that that is not the case. 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you involved in the negotiations that lead 

up to the deployment of forces in the Libyan campaign? 

General HAM. Sir, I was, but I am not now. 

Senator SESSIONS. They say Turkey is blocking NATO attacks. 

Said one of the rebels: ‘‘We believe the reason why NATO attacks 

have come down in the last 4 or 5 days is Turkey is vetoing a lot 

of them.’’ 

Are you able to say with certainty that Turkey has not vetoed 

any air strikes? 

General HAM. Sir, I have no evidence of that. 

Senator SESSIONS. But you’re not saying that that’s true—not 

true? 

General HAM. Sir, I am not privy to internal NATO discussions. 

Senator SESSIONS. On the question of arming the rebels, Mr. 

Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, rejected the idea of arming 

the rebels, saying it could be conducive to terrorism. Isn’t it a fact 

that if Turkey and Mr. Erdogan object to arming the rebels, even 

if we were to decide it’s a good idea, we wouldn’t be able to do that 

under the nature of the operation we’re now in? 

General HAM. Senator, I’m not sure that that would necessarily 

be the case, but others would have to address that more definitively. 

Senator SESSIONS. As I remember in the Kosovo campaign the 

U.S. Air Force—what happened was NATO met and deployed the 

U.S. Air Force. Ninety percent of the sorties were flown by the 

United States and it took a virtually unanimous vote, and they 

voted on various targets inside Serbia, which ones we could hit and 

which ones we couldn’t. 

Doesn’t that make it more difficult to act decisively in a military 

campaign when you have to get 28 nations to agree on the targets 

that your aircraft may take or the kind of attack that might be executed? 

General HAM. Sir, it would. But I spoke with the Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe and the current NATO task force commander, 

and individual targets are not being subjected to individual target 

approval by the alliance. 

Senator SESSIONS. Certainly the activities of the U.S. military 

are under the control of NATO. I don’t think that is in dispute. 

Now, the question of regime change. We’re operating under the 

essential rules of engagement that the U.N. passed, are we not? 

General HAM. No, sir. The forces are currently operating under 

NATO rules of engagement and before transition to NATO, under 

U.S. rules of engagement. 

Senator SESSIONS. The U.N. clearly has stated that the objective 

is not regime change, isn’t that right? They set forth a limited 

number of objectives and it did not include regime change. 

General HAM. I believe that is correct. In my recollection of U.N. 

Security Council Resolution 1973, I think that is correct. 

878 

Senator SESSIONS. What about NATO? That’s not one of the 

goals of NATO either, is it? 

General HAM. No, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. It’s explicitly not the goal. That’s been discussed and explicitly decided it’s not the goal of NATO to have a 

regime change in Libya. Does that not impact how you conduct a 

military operation? 

General HAM. Sir, again I’m not privy to the internal NATO discussions, but I do know that, while the U.S. military mission did 

not include regime change, that did not in any way impede the conduct of our military operations. 

Senator SESSIONS. It alters them, does it not? If regime change 

was one of the missions you were given, you’d be approaching this 

conflict a lot differently, would you not? 

General HAM. We would, sir. We’ve devoted an increasing 

amount of intelligence collection and strike activity to an individual 

personality, and we’ve had some difficulty in that previously. 

Senator SESSIONS. My time is up. I would just conclude by saying 

that, yes, it’s good to have international bodies support us, but in 

this instance, I think we’ve all learned a valuable lesson. Weeks go 

by. From the time Senator McCain and Senator Kerry said to use 

a no-fly zone, 3 weeks plus went by. In the interim, bad things happened that leave us now in a stalemate which might not have been 

the case had we been able to act sooner. We ended up with an 

amorphous policy that’s put us in a stalemate and it’s just not a 

very comfortable position for this Senator to be in. 

Now, I hope we’re successful. I believe it would be good for the 

world if Qadhafi is gone. But we have to have more clarity and 

more decisiveness in our plans. 

I would make one more complaint, that this administration apparently found time to consult with the U.N. at length, with NATO 

at length, but a totally unacceptable amount of time spent with the 

U.S. Congress to explain why they felt it necessary to commit the 

U.S. military to this action. 

I think we should let this thing calm down a little bit. At some 

point we need to talk more in detail about congressional role under 

particularly these military actions that are actions of choice and 

not defending the direct interests of the United States. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. General Ham, when you 

began to take air operations it appeared to me and others that the 

Qadhafi regime was on the verge of taking Benghazi, effectively 

ending the revolution and consolidating their position in a way 

which would likely be irreversible. But at this juncture the Qadhafi 

regime’s going from the verge of victory now to a situation where 

their hold is weakening. Is that a fair estimate in your view of 

what took place? 

General HAM. Senator, I would agree with that general characterization. The important part is that I think at this point the regime has a significantly degraded ability to continue to attack civilians. But if I may, with the notable exception of Misurata, and that 

879 

is a particular challenge and one that I will frankly bear responsibility for as long as I live for that particular situation. 

Senator REED. Yes, sir. The Misurata situation is such that it is 

within their operational control except for the city itself, and they 

have been able to introduce forces in there and it’s essentially 

street-fighting. It’s difficult to strike from the air? 

General HAM. Senator, that is correct. The opposition forces have 

held an area in the northeastern portion of the city in the port, and 

frankly the port has been operating to get some relief. But the regime forces are and remain active in the city against civilians. 

Senator REED. Let me ask you from a military standpoint, does 

the fact that this is an international alliance that has been sanctioned by U.N. resolution, and supported by NATO and the Arab 

League increase the effectiveness of these forces and the military 

capabilities available? 

General HAM. Senator, I believe that it does. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

One area that I think many of my colleagues are interested in, 

and so am I, is the specific operational objectives of NATO. It was 

very clear initially that they were going to suppress any Qadhafi 

air activity, which they’ve done. They have the authority to intercept and to disrupt any activities designed to attack the Libyan 

people. But could you give us an idea more specifically. Is it their 

goal, for example, to degrade completely the command and control 

system of the Qadhafi forces? Is it their plan to try to disrupt and 

destroy all of the ammunition depots, et cetera? All that being factors that would help the overall mission of protecting the Libyan 

people. 

General HAM. Senator, I believe that to be the case. It was clearly the case when the United States controlled the operations that 

those were objectives. As we transitioned those missions to NATO, 

I believe they share those same priorities. 

Senator REED. From your perspective, which is again you’re no 

longer the direct commander, but you have significant insights, 

those objectives, those plans, and the tactical operations are continuing as they were under your leadership? 

General HAM. Sir, I believe they are. 

Senator REED. Let me switch to General McNabb, who’s the 

loneliest guy here in Washington today, sir. [Laughter.] We have 

opened up a northern route into Afghanistan to supply. Have you 

seen that in any way decrease the cost or increase, from another 

perspective, the leverage we have in moving material through 

Pakistan? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir, I do. I think primarily if you have options you bring competition in. I will say that the Pakistan LOC 

got better after we established the NDN. I think that’s absolutely 

true. 

We are working with the NDN, because all of the involved countries have agreed that we can move commercial-type cargo through 

them. Most of the countries have said we can move non-lethal military equipment, but not all. We’re working to try to get all the 

countries to say that we can do that, because right now the only 

way to move by surface military equipment, again non-lethal, is up 

the Pakistan LOC. 

880 

The other portion that we’re working very closely with them is 

to have a two-way flow. Right now we’re allowed to flow stuff in, 

but we’re not allowed to bring stuff out. Obviously, that helps us 

with retrograde. It helps us with swapping out units, those kinds 

of things. 

Then the other one that we are working very closely with the 

whole interagency team and both CENTCOM and with EUCOM, 

General Mattis and again Admiral Stavridis, I would say we’re 

looking for intermodal locations in the north that we could use to 

be able to jump stuff out, especially military equipment, and then 

be able to prepare it for surface transportation, then bring it home 

from there. Those are the things that we’re really pushing hard on, 

because I think that will set us well. We’ll have two ways, whether 

north or south. 

Again, we use this to make sure that as we look at the Pakistan 

LOC, working on better security, better velocity, because every 

time you slow this down—during the floods in July, we saw almost 

a doubling of the pilferage rate. We’re still below 1 percent, but we 

did see it go up. As I tell folks, when you talk this number of containers and you say it’s less than 1 percent, if it’s your container 

you don’t really care that the rest of it made it through. So we really try to make sure that we’re constantly looking at that to make 

it better. 

Senator REED. Let’s just for a moment get a quick assessment on 

the repositioning of forces and materiel out of Iraq. Presumably on 

schedule? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. That has gone very well. Really, I 

can’t say enough about General Odierno and now General Austin 

and his team and how they do that, working with the Army Materiel Command. That’s commanded by General Ann Dunwoody. 

They basically make sure that it gets down to the ports in either 

Kuwait or Jordan. We have wash racks there where they prepare 

it, agricultural inspections, so that we can bring it back to the 

States. 

They’ve done a superb job of sorting out what they would send 

to Afghanistan, what they will bring home for reset, and what they 

will work with the Iraqis to leave in country. My take is that it has 

really worked well and we’ll just continue on that. 

Senator REED. Just a final quick question in that regard. I know 

it’s difficult to quantify. The flexibility and the additional capacity 

or head space you will have at the end of this year, once we’ve 

come out of Iraq? An estimate of that? Is that marginal or significant, i.e., you won’t be doing as much flying up in there? You won’t 

have to commit resources, et cetera. Can you elaborate very quickly? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. The big thing here is we have not had 

to activate one military vessel to handle this. So it’s all been done 

by our commercial partners. We worked very closely with them 

early on. In fact, General Dunwoody came out and gave them a 

forecast. They stepped up superbly to both bringing the stuff out 

of Iraq and the stuff into Afghanistan. I mentioned in my remarks 

that we didn’t have to activate one ship. 

881 

We have a commercial-first if we can use commercial. It’s the 

cheapest way to do it. It keeps our U.S.-flag fleet strong. It’s good 

for jobs. All of those things are positive and that’s what we do. 

They have done superbly. I would say, our bigger worry is what 

happens to the U.S.-flag fleet as we reduce some of the requirements that we’re depending on them now. We are working very 

closely with them to make sure that we maintain the robustness. 

They do depend absolutely on cargo preference. They absolutely do 

depend on our Maritime Security Program. Those two programs 

are really valuable so that we keep a very strong U.S.-flag fleet, 

which is in the interest of the taxpayers and in the interest of the 

warfighters. 

Senator REED. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General McNabb, General Ham, thank you for your service to 

our country. 

General Ham, as a combatant commander and as a general proposition, do you think that it is important before the United States 

intervenes militarily that there be a clear mission, that the mission 

be authorized by Congress, and that that mission have the support 

of the American people? 

General HAM. Senator, absolutely we have to have a clear mission. I would have to leave it to others about the second part of 

your question, but certainly it is preferable always to have the support of Congress and certainly the support of the people as represented by Congress. 

Senator CORNYN. General, I thank you for your answer. It wasn’t 

supposed to be a trick question. It strikes me that we have learned 

from sad experience what happens when the United States gets involved or stays involved in a military conflict where public support 

and support from Congress wanes in terms of its impact on our 

success of accomplishing the mission. 

Let me move on, though, to the question of intelligence. It strikes 

me as unusual and maybe something that Congress needs to look 

at further that our intelligence capabilities are so limited that we 

don’t even know the composition of the opposition force in Libya— 

I’m just using that as one example—before we intervene militarily, 

and that because we are in doubt about the composition of that opposition force that we are constrained from equipping them or providing them with access to the resources they may need in order 

to accomplish our goal and their goal at the same time. 

Is this unusual in your experience or is this common? 

General HAM. I think I would describe it as unique, at least in 

my experience, not having a clear understanding of who the opposition forces were. Senator, it is also important to remember that our 

mission was not to support the opposition, but rather to protect civilians. Now, certainly in the protection of civilians there was some 

obvious benefit to the opposition forces when we would do that. But 

it was a distinction in my mind of the purpose of the mission. 

Senator CORNYN. To protect the civilians in Libya, there’s been 

a lot of discussion about whether we should arm the opposition 

882 

forces or the rebels. I’m entirely sympathetic to your concerns and 

those expressed by others that we don’t want to arm them if we 

don’t know who they are and what they might become. 

But it strikes me as very strange and certainly a deficiency in 

our intelligence capability if we’ve intervened in a military action, 

even for humanitarian purposes, and we don’t know who the opposition is, so we are thus constrained from going further and giving 

them the resources they need in order to win and expel Qadhafi 

from power. 

But let me ask you another question. What sort of signal does 

it send to our other adversaries in the region, notably Iran and others, for us to intervene militarily and fail to accomplish a regime 

change in Libya, whether it be by military or political means? Does 

it strike you as a sign of weakness or lack of American resolve or 

inadequacy of planning that we would actually go this far and yet 

not accomplish or seem ambivalent about accomplishing regime 

change? 

General HAM. Sir, I would say again, I’d come back to the first 

part, which was the execution of the military mission to protect civilians, establish a no-fly zone, embargo, which I think was successful and I think a message to others around the world is the 

speed with which that was accomplished was pretty significant. 

I don’t think people should misunderstand a policy decision that 

says it is the policy for there to be regime change, but to seek that 

through means other than military. I don’t think folks should misunderstand the lack of seriousness which that means. We certainly 

could use military force, but again we have some history in trying 

to apply military force to regime change where we have been less 

than successful. 

Senator CORNYN. Yes, General. It’s not your responsibility or 

your fault, but I go back to my initial questions with regard to clarity of mission, support from Congress, and support from the American people. Any ambiguity in any of those things would seem to 

me to give you less than the kind of support you need in order to 

accomplish that mission, whatever it may be. 

I think Senator Lieberman or Senator McCain asked about the 

A–10s and the AC–130s, which you said are unique American capabilities. I think you and Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen all 

said that these are available; although they’re unique American capabilities, they’re available to NATO if they request them. 

To your knowledge, have they been requested? 

General HAM. Yes, sir, they have, and they have been provided. 

Senator CORNYN. They have been? They’re currently being deployed in the fight? 

General HAM. Sir, the AC–130s, I believe, are currently available. I believe the A–10s are currently available on request. 

Senator CORNYN. So the AC–130s are in the fight now? 

General HAM. I think they are. My last understanding was that 

they are available to the commander, should he want them. 

Senator CORNYN. Then finally, let me ask, General, I think 

there’s a mistaken impression that by the United States initiating 

this fight and then handing it off to NATO, it’s somehow handing 

it off to a third party that is not the United States. But the truth 

883 

is that NATO could not function as a fighting force without U.S. 

support, could it? 

General HAM. Senator, the Supreme Allied Commander is a U.S. 

officer. Much of the military capability that enables the current operation is provided by the United States. 

Senator CORNYN. One of the perennial problems in NATO is that 

our allies do not resource either funding or in terms of personnel 

their military requirements like the United States. The United 

States spends more on our national security than I think the next 

22 nations in a row. In other words, the United States is the biggest, most powerful nation as part of that coalition; wouldn’t you 

agree? 

General HAM. Sir, I would. The contributions of other nations 

have been significant and very important, but certainly the United 

States has provided to this point the preponderance of military 

force. 

Senator CORNYN. That includes, as Senator Begich asked, the obligation as part of that NATO coalition to fund operations at whatever level is required by our agreements with NATO? 

General HAM. Sir, my understanding is that NATO contributions 

are currently funded by the individual states. I’m not a NATO expert, but I’m not sure that NATO common funding is being applied. 

Senator CORNYN. I certainly understand and appreciate that. 

You’ve been very good about answering my questions. Thank you 

very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, General McNabb and General Ham, thank you for 

your testimony, your service to our country, and being here today. 

I wanted to talk about NATO and Libya. The Libyan rebel forces 

allege that NATO inaction and bureaucratic delays are placing the 

lives of civilians at risk, complicating the rebel efforts to fight Qadhafi’s forces, and allowing Qadhafi’s forces to advance against the 

rebels’ strongholds. It seems that the pace of the NATO military 

operations in Libya is complicated, obviously, by the importance of 

protecting the civilians and avoiding any sort of collateral damage. 

Meanwhile, Qadhafi’s forces are reportedly using civilians as 

human shields and hiding armor in populated areas, decreasing 

NATO’s ability to hit targets. I’ve read recently where Qadhafi’s 

forces are keeping their heavy equipment, such as their armored 

vehicles, hidden in more highly populated areas and are actually 

using more trucks and light vehicles. 

In terms of the use of air power, what is the proper balance between destroying Qadhafi’s air force, neutralizing his air defenses, 

degrading the ability of his ground forces to wage war, and avoiding collateral damage? 

General HAM. Senator, your characterization is one in which I 

would generally agree on the manner in which the regime forces 

are operating. So with the application of air power, even as precise 

as we are, in the circumstance as you described becomes increasingly problematic. Air power can do other things. Certainly when 

regime forces move is when they are most vulnerable, and we have 

884 

collection systems that are able to see them move, and then NATO 

is able to apply and has applied effective air power against moving 

forces, particularly their heavy equipment. 

The air force is also very effective in degrading the regime’s ability to sustain its operations, denying the movement of supplies, 

fuel, ammunition, and the like. It is my military assessment that 

the attacks on those kinds of targets are what have presently not 

allowed regime forces to continue their attacks against civilians. 

Senator HAGAN. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of 

NATO assuming command and control of all phases of the missions 

in Libya? 

General HAM. Senator, I believe actually it’s been quite good. 

NATO assumed command first of the arms embargo, which is 

largely a maritime effort. That, I think, has gone quite well. There 

have been numerous instances where NATO vessels under NATO 

command have stopped, queried, inspected, and denied movement 

of shipments along the coast of Libya. It has been very successful. 

Clearly, NATO’s assumption of the no-fly zone remains effective. 

We have not seen regime aircraft operate in Libyan air space. 

Then the toughest mission is the protect civilians mission, and 

it is my military judgment that NATO has done that effectively, 

but in an increasingly complex and difficult scenario in which to attack regime forces. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Let me ask about arming, the question having to do with arming 

the Libyan rebels. Without allied intervention, from what I understand, Qadhafi would have continued to slaughter his people. The 

opposition in Libya wants Qadhafi out. They also, I understand, 

want democracy and freedom and economic opportunities and an 

end to the corruption that’s been going on. 

So I want to know more about the nature of the opposition. Some 

people have suggested arming them and I’m skeptical about that 

approach because I think we need to have a lot more information 

to know about whom exactly it is that we’re talking about, the discussion going on about rebels, whether to arm them. Once you put 

those weapons out there, there’s no getting them back. I understand in the early days of unrest the opposition forces broke open 

the Libyan military arsenals and obtained a large number of weapons. 

Do you believe there are members of al Qaeda in this opposition 

and how concerned are you with the potential regional proliferation 

of weapons that the opposition has already acquired? 

General HAM. Senator, to the second part of your question first, 

I’m very concerned about the proliferation of weapons, notably 

shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, which we assess there were 

perhaps as many as 20,000 in Libya as the operation began. Many 

of those we know are now not accounted for, and that’s going to be 

a concern for some period of time. 

The first part of your question, the presence of al Qaeda or other 

violent extremist organizations with the opposition to me is very 

much the important unanswered question that we must have to 

have better understanding of the opposition. We have seen intent 

expressed by AQIM, by the Libyan Islamic Fighter Group, and others to partner with the opposition, if you will, in an anti-Qadhafi 

885 

regime mode. I think we need to know more about what that 

means before we were to make a U.S. decision to arm, though I 

think others are working in that direction. 

I would also note that the U.S. Special Envoy’s presence and engagement with the opposition forces is an important step in trying 

to get a better understanding of exactly who the opposition is. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Let me move to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The 

Democratic Republic of the Congo needs an integrated and professional army to protect its citizens. What is your assessment of the 

effectiveness of AFRICOM’s training and equipping of the armed 

forces of this area, and what lessons would you derive from this 

train-and-equip effort, and how does this fit under the context of 

the whole-of-government approach? 

General HAM. Thank you, Senator. We have trained one battalion and, frankly, with good but some mixed results. Clearly 

there’s a capability within the country. They have a willingness to 

participate in the training and become more operationally effective, 

subordinate to civilian control, respective of the rule of law, those 

are all attributes that we like. 

There have been some technical challenges in the provision of 

weapons and communication, certainly some leader development 

challenges. But I think for a first effort it was okay. We’re doing 

an assessment now to say what can we do in the future to make 

our training and our sustainment more effective. I would argue 

that it is indeed the sustainment—it’s insufficient to just train one 

time and then let them go, but rather an enduring effort, and I 

think that one of the reasons that AFRICOM was established, was 

to have that kind of enduring effort, and we look to do that. 

Senator HAGAN. Do you know what the retention is of the battalion that they have trained? 

General HAM. I’ll have to check. My indications are from a personnel standpoint it’s pretty good, but there are concerns about the 

retention and maintenance of useable equipment. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The U.S.-trained battalion retention rate has exceeded our expectations. There are 

498 personnel assigned, 493 present for duty, and 5 in prison for absenteeism or 

criminal acts. While the nearly 100 percent retention rate is remarkable, we remain 

concerned about the military pay system and the government’s ability to sustain the 

battalion over the long term. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General McNabb, we’re going to just keep you in a holding pattern for a while. We’ll call you if we need you. I appreciate your 

service. [Laughter.] 

General Ham, I think you have one of the most fascinating commands in the whole military. I want to compliment President Bush 

for creating AFRICOM and President Obama for continuing to 

stand it up. It’s really a region ripe with opportunity and heartbreak all at the same time. 

I’ve been told Secretary Gates has instructed DOD to look for a 

stateside home for AFRICOM, to move you out of Stuttgart, and 

886 

that the leading contender, the most preferred site, was Charleston 

Air Force Base. Are you familiar with that decision? 

General HAM. Senator, I’m not familiar with the decision. I have 

direction to assess and make a recommendation as to—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you like to live in Charleston? [Laughter.] 

General HAM. Sir, I have visited Charleston and enjoyed that 

visit very much. 

Senator GRAHAM. Good. We would like to have you. I just want 

to let you know that that was the preferred site in terms of the assessment and that the community is willing to provide infrastructure to DOD to move your headquarters to Charleston, so you won’t 

have to do military construction contracts. All politics is local, so 

I really do want to talk to you about that potential move. 

The other issue is that there’s $7.6 billion being appropriated 

through the foreign operations account for Africa assistance. From 

a commander’s point of view, how important are those funds, $4.78 

billion for health-related issues in Africa? Could you tell this committee the importance of those funds to your mission? 

General HAM. Senator, I believe that what that enables us to do 

is, as the military component of a U.S. whole-of-government approach, it allows us to more effectively achieve the U.S. Government’s desired end states in Africa consistent with the goals which 

the President has described, to include health care. 

Our military component of that is largely focused on building capable and credible military and security institutions responsive to 

the rule of law and responsive to civil authority, so that increasingly Africans can provide for their own security nationally and regionally. 

Senator GRAHAM. America needs to know, we have a very small 

military footprint in Africa relatively speaking; is that true? 

General HAM. Sir, it is very small, other than the defense attaches in the embassies, it is essentially one location at Camp 

Lemonier in Djibouti. 

Senator GRAHAM. So I would just urge the committee to look at 

the fact that our foreign operations account probably is our most 

effective tool in achieving stability in Africa and helping the African continent develop in a positive way. So I just want to let that 

account be known as important from the military’s point of view. 

Now, let’s go to Libya. What’s the likelihood in your view—I 

know you’re not the current commander—of the rebels being able, 

even with the air support provided by NATO today, to fight their 

way to Tripoli and replace the Qadhafi regime by military force? 

General HAM. Senator, I would assess that as a low likelihood. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think that’s a very honest answer. I would 

assess it as almost impossible. 

Now, the AC–130s and the A–10s, are they in the fight or not? 

General HAM. Senator, my current understanding is that the 

AC–130s are provided as a U.S.-unique capability which are indeed 

available at present to the NATO commander should he need to 

employ them. The A–10s are part of the on-call package which the 

commander would have to request—— 

887 

Senator GRAHAM. Is there an equivalent capability within the 

NATO countries to replace the AC–130 and the A–10? Can you replace those capabilities? 

General HAM. Sir, the AC–130 is clearly a unique U.S. capability. 

No one else has a capability like that. The A–10 has great capabilities, some of which can be replicated or provided by other strike 

aircraft, but not as a total package like the A–10. 

Senator GRAHAM. I’m going to stand up for Senator Ayotte’s husband, who’s an A–10 pilot, and she’ll be the first to tell you that 

it’s almost impossible to replicate the A–10’s impact on the battlefield. 

If the rebels can’t fight their way there with air cover being provided, how does this end? 

General HAM. Sir, I think it does not end militarily. The present 

condition with the regime forces and the opposition forces essentially opposed, but neither moving—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Could I suggest a scenario where the military 

part of it may actually help it end quicker? The inner circle of Qadhafi cracking is probably the most likely scenario, where people 

tell him and his inner circle: ‘‘You need to go.’’ Do you agree that’s 

the most likely way this ends for regime change? 

General HAM. Sir, I think that’s a likely outcome. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Would it be helpful in that regard in 

terms of putting pressure on the inner circle to make that decision, 

to take the aerial fight to Tripoli and start looking for targets 

where the inner circle operate out of and to put pressure on them 

militarily? Is that within our capability to do if we chose to do 

that? 

General HAM. Senator, it is and we have been from the very 

start attacking targets of regime command and control in Tripoli. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is that still going on today? 

General HAM. Sir, I believe it is. I know of no prohibition to that. 

Specifically to the 32nd Brigade, which is, if you will, the regime’s 

inner protective force, was a very specific target for us in 

AFRICOM and I know that it continues to be so for NATO. 

Senator GRAHAM. That’s curious because he’s still on TV. Is there 

any effort to knock him off the radio or TV? 

General HAM. Sir, there is. Again, another one of the unique U.S. 

military capabilities—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you agree with me that if he were unable to spread his propaganda and fear through radio and television he would be less effective in holding power? 

General HAM. Sir, I would agree with that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Why hasn’t he been knocked off radio or TV as 

of now? 

General HAM. Principally, sir, because of a concern for civilian 

casualties in the broadcast systems that he uses. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Finally, when it comes to putting pressure on this regime, I know 

we have a variety of strategies, but the idea that the Tripoli targets 

are being robustly pursued, I think, would be news to me, because 

I don’t hear any reporting on the ground of targets in Tripoli being 

pursued in an aggressive manner. Am I wrong there? 

888 

General HAM. Sir, again, I don’t have the day-to-day tracking of 

the battle, but again, I’m not aware of any prohibition to attacking 

command and control facilities or others in Tripoli. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is there a prohibition of going after Qadhafi, 

the individual? 

General HAM. In the U.S. mission, I expended no effort in tracking him personally or devoting assets to attack him. But there was 

also no prohibition if he happened to be at a command and control 

site or some other site. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you agree with me that if he were neutralized or taken out of the fight through kinetic activity it would 

end this whole conflict rather quickly? 

General HAM. Sir, his removal by any means would end this relatively quickly. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Graham. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both. General McNabb, the 167th Air Guard Wing in 

Martinsburg has handled multiple missions with the C–5 assets, 

including logistics support to Libya and Afghanistan. The Air 

Guard gives us the best military value in terms of personnel efficiencies and professionalism. On that base and all that’s been invested in that base, I know they’re looking at maybe either upgrading or improving those assets. Do you know if that is part of the 

rotation that you have planned? 

General MCNABB. Sir, they’re going through which bases they’ll 

do. First, they have to have permission for us to be allowed to retire the C–5As. We’ve been allowed to retire some of them, and so 

the two bases that have been chosen—there’s one at Stewart Air 

Force Base and the other one is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. 

They’re two C–5A bases, one Reserve, one Guard. They’re looking 

to say, ‘‘okay, if we’re allowed to retire some more, where will they 

go?’’ I know they’ve been in discussions in Martinsburg, but I know 

that you have been very happy with the C–5s and you’ve done a 

great job of taking care of them. 

Senator MANCHIN. I thought logistically where they are located 

right now proved very effective for our operations. 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. So we’re still going to have some

C–5As under the plan that they have right now, and so they’ll look 

and say, ‘‘where’s the best place to have those C–5As?’’ Obviously, 

Martinsburg is one of those. 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you know if Martinsburg has an opportunity for the C–5Ms? 

General MCNABB. Sir, right now it does not. Right now the

C–5Ms are going to be at Travis, at Dover, and at Westover. 

Senator MANCHIN. How about the C–130s at Yeager, the Air 

Force Base that we have flying the C–130s? 

General MCNABB. Sir, I believe that stays the same. I don’t know 

what the Air Force is planning on that, but I haven’t heard of any 

changes. 

Senator MANCHIN. General Ham, thank you again for your service. I know there was talk about Charleston, SC, I believe, as your 

889 

AFRICOM base, or they would like to entertain that. Why wouldn’t 

the command be in Africa? 

General HAM. Sir, we will look at some locations in Africa. But 

there are some significant hurdles in terms of transportation in 

and around the continent. There are not great air links. Frankly, 

cost to establish a wholly new base would be pretty expensive. 

Senator MANCHIN. Do we have any other of our operations in 

other parts of the world where we operate out of the United States? 

General HAM. Yes, sir. CENTCOM is headquartered at MacDill 

Air Force Base in Tampa, FL, and U.S. Southern Command is 

headquartered in Miami, FL. 

Senator MANCHIN. General Ham, Secretary Gates told me last 

week, I believe—and I told him I was giving him my overview of 

basically what happened in the First Gulf War, when Saddam attacked Kuwait and when we went in and were very successful in 

that mission, and the Kuwaitis and the Saudis paid. I guess they 

paid the bill. We as Americans felt good we were asked to help and 

the American people weren’t burdened with the cost. 

I understand now as of April 4, $608 million has been spent in 

Libya. It was $550 million. There’s been an additional $58 million 

since then. With that being said, if we’ve been asked to come in by 

the people, the neighbors of Libya, why won’t they pay? Why do we 

have to, as the American people, burden this financial obligation? 

General HAM. Sir, again, out of my area of expertise. But I know 

there are efforts to seek to defray those costs. But I’m not cognizant of the status of those efforts. 

Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Gates said that he did not expect to 

get any money at all from the other ones because they don’t see 

it’s of imminent interest or an imminent threat. I’m thinking, if 

you have a bad neighbor, a thug in the neighborhood, you want to 

get rid of that thug. But if they don’t think, and they’re living 

there, why should we interject ourselves? Because I applaud basically getting the agreement from NATO and the other, Arab 

League, before we did go in, because we tried going alone and we 

see where that’s ended up and we’ve been in the longest war in the 

history of the United States. 

But with that, I just can’t believe that we would continue to 

interject ourselves in all these challenging areas when the people 

there really don’t care, and they certainly have the resources to pay 

their own way to clean up their neighborhood. 

General HAM. Sir, I can’t disagree with you, but in this particular circumstance I think the urgency to conduct military operations to prevent the slaughter of civilians had to—in my view, appropriately superseded the concerns about cost. But I think now 

that we did intercept at least that effort in the east for the regime 

to attack its civilians, it seems wholly appropriate that we would 

seek efforts that defray costs. 

Senator MANCHIN. General McNabb, on the alternative fuels, I 

know you have used very effectively, I understand, the coal-to-liquids process. If we were able to produce the fuel, would you be willing to purchase it? 

General MCNABB. Sir, obviously the price goes into that, but—— 

890 

Senator MANCHIN. The price right now, as I understand, is much 

more competitive than the imported oil that we’re using right now 

to refine the fuel you need. (start) 

General MCNABB. Sir, we are absolutely trying to make sure we 

have all the options. That’s why we’ve made sure all of our airplanes can do that, because we know that—— 

Senator MANCHIN. You have used successfully the coal-to-liquids 

process and it worked very well? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. So you’d be happy with the fuel as far as performance? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir, no problems with that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Also, General Ham, I just can’t believe that 

we had to have a northern route because our ally, Pakistan, was 

shaking us down for 30 percent of all the products being moved 

through there. Don’t you find that to be extremely offensive? 

General HAM. Sir, it’s a tough way to do business. 

Senator MANCHIN. I’m done. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, General McNabb and General Ham, for your distinguished service, and please express my gratitude to all that serve 

below you for the sacrifices that they’re making. 

I wanted to follow up on a question that Senator Hagan asked. 

General Ham, about the Libyan rebels, you said that there was an 

intent of AQIM to attempt to partner with the Libyan rebels. Can 

you tell me more about what we know about that, and how did 

they attempt to partner, so that we can assess that aspect of what 

we do know about the rebels? 

General HAM. Senator, we should probably have a more detailed 

discussion in a classified setting. But it is clear to me that there 

is at least that stated intent. It has been very difficult to ascertain 

whether that intent to support the opposition with AQIM personnel 

has actually materialized anything on the ground, and we’re watching that for indications of that very clearly. 

But in my view, just the stated intent is one that ought to be 

concerning to us, it certainly is to me as the commander responsible for that region in the long term. 

Senator AYOTTE. I would agree with you, General Ham. As a follow-up, the stated intent is—to what extent do we believe—and if 

you think this is more appropriate for a classified briefing, please 

let me know. But to what extent do we think that al Qaeda in the 

Islamic Maghreb would be in a position to also provide weapons to 

the rebels? 

General HAM. My sense would be that they probably could do so, 

but not on a large scale. I think it would be probably fighters. But 

again, we’re talking about an organization where small numbers of 

people can make a pretty significant difference and pose a pretty 

significant threat. So it is an area I think we have to approach 

with a great deal of precision and caution. 

Senator AYOTTE. I would agree, and I appreciate that you’re 

doing that, because obviously if we’re making decisions about how 

we’re going to treat the rebels in Libya we have to know who we’re 

891 

dealing with, and we certainly don’t want to encourage them to 

partner with al Qaeda or other groups that want to do us harm. 

I wanted to follow up also in regard to terrorist activity in Africa. 

Do you believe that the activity and recruitment of Al-Shabaab and 

other groups that are affiliated with al Qaeda, is that growing or 

diminishing in Africa? 

General HAM. Senator, unfortunately, I believe it to be growing. 

Senator AYOTTE. If that activity is growing, what are the factors 

that you think are driving that growth, and do you have any 

thoughts about how we could help you better address to make sure 

that we nip this in the bud before it again becomes the site of attacks against our own country and our allies? 

General HAM. Senator, the factors that encourage particularly 

young people to be attracted to the violent extremist organization 

way of life, I think, are as common in East Africa as they are in 

other parts of the world. It’s lack of good governance, it’s lack of 

education, it’s lack of stability, security, economic opportunity, that 

makes many young people susceptible to this violent extremist 

message. I think the challenge is how do you get to those underlying causes, which do, in fact, require a whole-of-government approach, not simply a military approach. 

Of particular concern to me with Al-Shabaab has been at least 

an expressed interest to recruit Somali Americans, U.S. passportholders, to that effort, which I think poses probably the single 

greatest threat to us. 

Senator AYOTTE. With regard to the activities that we have in Africa, if we were to detain a member of Al-Shabaab or al Qaeda— 

obviously, they’re partnering there in Africa—where would we detain them for purposes of intelligence-gathering? 

General HAM. Senator, that’s probably a question we ought to 

answer in closed session. I would need some lawyerly help on answering that one. [Laughter.] 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate that. Just others have testified before this committee, including Secretary Gates, that hypothetically 

if we were to catch, to capture a member of al Qaeda or a significant member of the leadership in an area that we’re not in a current armed conflict, for example an Afghanistan type scenario, that 

it’s unclear that, with the administration not putting additional detainees in Guantanamo, that it is unclear what we would do with 

those types of individuals. 

So I would just raise that, but obviously would love to hear from 

you more in an appropriate setting. 

Finally, I want to ask you a question about the coordination between DOD and DOS. As I understand, in Africa the way that you 

align jurisdiction in Africa is different and so you’re actually dealing with two different agencies of DOS, because DOD and DOS 

don’t have the same alignment. 

Could you describe that for us? 

General HAM. Yes, ma’am, that is true. Sub-Saharan Africa is 

managed at DOS by the African Bureau and North Africa by Mideast-North Africa. So it does cause us to have interaction with two 

entities of DOS. But frankly, that’s not been an impediment. 

One of the reasons it’s not is the interagency construct of the 

AFRICOM headquarters. In fact, seated behind me is the deputy 

892 

to the commander for civil-military affairs, who is a long career foreign service officer, Ambassador Tony Holmes, who helps the command understand how we most effectively interact not only with 

the two bureaus in DOS, but with the whole of the U.S. Government. 

Senator AYOTTE. General, as a follow-up—and, ambassador, I appreciate your being here—wouldn’t it make more sense, though, if 

we coordinated the boundaries, because then you would be dealing 

with the same area? I very much appreciate that, with the activities, the war for example that we are prosecuting in Afghanistan, 

there’s a significant and important relationship between DOS activities and DOD activities, and that coordination in a counterinsurgency strategy is critical. 

Given what you just told me about recruitment and the issues 

that drive young people to, unfortunately, join terrorist organizations, I would think that that alignment would be important, and 

I wanted to get your thoughts on if you were to realign and have 

the same jurisdiction whether we would gain a better ability to 

communicate. 

General HAM. Senator, I think this is a subject of some long debate. There are pros and cons both ways. To have DOS and DOD 

looking at the same countries, in our case the 52 or 53 nations of 

Africa depending on how Egypt would fall out, there is some goodness in that. But what you lose in that, in such an alignment, is 

the view outside of the AOR and how activities on the continent 

of Africa might affect, for example, southern Europe or into the 

Mideast. 

I think in that regard Egypt is a good example. Though it’s obviously on the continent of Africa, it is in CENTCOM’s AOR, but 

there is—for matters of African security, we have that discussion 

with Egypt. 

Similarly, across the Gulf of Aden in Yemen, obvious concerns 

there. It’s in CENTCOM’s AOR, but we have sufficient ties and 

dialogue to maintain effective operations. 

So I think it’s worthy of discussion, but I’m not so sure that necessarily equal alignment is the best way ahead. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, General Ham. I appreciate what you’ve said about that. The only issue I think that we 

need to also make sure that we’re focused on is, the more you 

have—if you have to deal with two areas at DOS, as long as there’s 

good coordination and you don’t feel like in one area you’re getting 

good information, in one you’re not—that coordination seems key 

when you don’t have aligned boundaries. 

So I appreciate your comments on it and thank both of you for 

your service. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, for raising that 

alignment issue. We are hoping that the Government Accountability Office is going to get back to us on that issue, and that 

would be great if you could get deeply involved in that. But we are 

expecting, apparently, a report on that, my staff tells me, very 

issue. So we’ll make sure that that gets to you, so you can get back 

into that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 

delving into that and looking at that closely. 

893 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Webb. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General McNabb, welcome. General Ham. 

Let me begin by following on with what my good friend Senator 

Graham mentioned about the relocation of AFRICOM. I’d like to 

ask you if you’ve had the opportunity to visit Norfolk? 

General HAM. Senator, I have, but not since arriving at 

AFRICOM. But clearly that is one of the stateside locations that 

we’ll look at. 

Senator WEBB. I hope you’ll come down and take a look. The 

Joint Forces Command has been greatly reduced and we have a facility that you can just turn the lights on and move right in. We 

hope you’ll take a look. 

I hope that we can be much more careful in the rhetoric that 

we’re using when we’re discussing the situation in Libya. I think 

the terms of reference we need to be much more precise about 

when we’re having this discussion. Let me begin by pointing out 

that the goal which this administration has set out is regime 

change by other than military means, as you have mentioned. But 

I think there’s been a little bit of perhaps maybe public confusion 

in some of the exchanges that have taken place here. 

I think in that respect it’s important to remind people that the 

United States still recognizes the Qadhafi government. This came 

up in an exchange when I asked Under Secretary Burns during a 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing a couple of weeks 

ago. We have never severed our relationships with the Qadhafi government. I had my staff call over to DOS during this hearing to 

make sure that is still the case. 

So we’re in an anomalous situation in which we are conducting 

military operations with the goal of deposing a government or at 

least the leader of a government which we still recognize. That 

would lead me to assume that what we are doing in terms of our 

military operations are indeed limited and the goal is perhaps the 

implosion of the government in terms of Mr. Qadhafi. So I think 

we ought to be real careful about another end state; we’re talking 

about another end state for this individual. 

I’ve had concerns about the way that this decision was made by 

the President. This was an unilateral decision to use military force 

when it came to the way that the U.S. Government is structured. 

We were not under attack. We were not under an imminent threat 

of attack. We were not responding to localized attack on our people, 

as we did in 1986 when I was in the Pentagon. I fully support what 

we did in 1986 after the Qadhafi regime had supported the killing 

of some of our soldiers in Berlin. We were not rescuing Americans, 

as we have in many periods of our history, including Grenada or 

in the piracy situation. 

If I could offer, you had an exchange earlier about rules of engagement in the piracy situation. I think my view would be shoot 

the pirates, blow up the boats. That’s a pretty good rule of engagement. I would support that. 

894 

But in this situation we weren’t responding to an attack on a 

treaty ally. We had a very unclear picture as to who we were supporting. In fact, Secretary Gates and I had an exchange last week 

when I asked him if this was a civil war, and he said clearly in 

his view it was not a civil war because the opposition is so disparate that there’s no one entity that we could work with if we 

were supporting forces against this present government. 

This has relevance, I think, particularly to your command, more 

than any of the other commands, because there’s so much volatility 

in the continent that you are responsible for. What specifically is 

your understanding of the authority under which the President 

made this decision? 

General HAM. Sir, it is my understanding that the President 

made this decision and issued authority to conduct military operations to protect lives and did so, it is my understanding, with notification to Congress. But, sir, I’d have to defer again to the general 

counsel and others to give you a more definitive answer than that. 

Senator WEBB. So it was probably—I’ve read the letter of notification. It’s a generalized statement of the powers of the Commander in Chief. But as it applies here, this is a humanitarian situation that doesn’t involve any of the situations that I just mentioned, correct? 

General HAM. Sir, there was no imminent threat to Americans, 

that’s correct. 

Senator WEBB. So it would be conceivable that, with this very 

broad interpretation of presidential power, it could be used in pretty much any manner in which this President decided to use it with 

respect to other humanitarian situations in Africa, like the Ivory 

Coast? 

General HAM. Sir, I would have to defer to the policy folks and 

the general counsel. 

Senator WEBB. I’d just like to reiterate my concern that if we 

don’t use the War Powers Act here, we need to use something like 

the War Powers Act for Congress to really examine the future of 

what we’re going to be doing in Libya and other situations. I think 

it’s a proper way for us to exercise the powers that we have here 

in Congress. 

I would assume that planners are considering the prospect that 

there might be an international force on the ground in Libya in the 

future? Let’s say not boots-on-the-ground in combat, but if Qadhafi 

leaves is that in the cards? 

General HAM. Sir, I think that is certainly one potential outcome 

of this, an international force of some composition intervening between the regime and the opposition forces. 

Senator WEBB. Would it be a consideration for the United States 

military to be on the ground in that situation? 

General HAM. Sir, I suspect there might be some consideration 

of that. My personal view at this point would be that that’s probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reactions 

that having American boots-on-the-ground would entail. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Webb. 

Senator Inhofe. 

895 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I read in Defense News this morning the discussion 

that has been around this table on where the headquarters should 

be. General Ham, I was very much involved in dividing out the 

continent of Africa into one command. It had been parts of three 

commands and I was involved in that change. 

At the time my preference was to have the headquarters in Africa. The place that I, at that time, felt would be more because of 

the location of the various AFRICOMs or unions would be in Ethiopia. But we also understand—it’s interesting. When you talk, as 

I do, individually to the presidents of the various countries, they 

agree that it would be better. But the problem is, and we all know 

it, with this whole idea of the colonialism and all that, they felt nobody wanted the presence in Africa because it would make it look 

like a takeover thing. So I understand all of that. 

But I’d be very much opposed—and I just want to get on record— 

that if there is a serious look at changing the headquarters—obviously, we have Tinker Air Force Base and all that. But it should 

stay, in my opinion, in Stuttgart, for this reason: We have our 

other combatant commands, like the Pacific Command is in theater, in the Pacific. In these areas, if you put it where it’s a different time zone you have a problem. I know your predecessors 

were—they have to come down, and we want them to have relations, be present in the continent as much as possible. It would be 

very difficult if you were coming from the United States, in my 

opinion. 

Stuttgart works well. It has two commands there, and I would 

hope that we leave it there until the day comes that we’d be able 

to move it to, with the acceptance of Africa, some African nation. 

I just think it would be very awkward, it’s really awkward right 

now, and I’ve talked to your two predecessors, in terms of getting 

equipment down there and responding and all that. Even distances 

between Stuttgart and places on the continent are inconvenient. 

If it gets into any kind of a serious talk about changing that, I 

want in on the discussion, okay? 

General HAM. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. The other thing, General McNabb, I’m going to 

bring up something that probably nobody up here is even familiar 

with, but you are. It has to do with the FAA bill and it has to do 

with one of our favorite subjects, and that is the Subpart S. The 

Subpart S—that’s the nonscheduled carriers—has always been separate from the crew rest and some of the problems, not problems, 

but some of the things that people comply with with scheduled airlines. 

But we have problems in many cases with bringing things in, 

let’s say, from Stuttgart or from someplace going into theater and 

then coming back out, which we do. We take equipment in, we take 

personnel in and out. If you use that 15 hours, you can’t do it. I 

have several examples here that we’ve actually looked at and 

mapped out. One would be from Belgium to Bagram to Amsterdam. 

That’s a regular route that is run. They take tents and equipment 

in there. Another one, from Germany to Kandahar to Hong Kong, 

a regular route. Another one, from Ramstein to Qatar and return. 

896 

The problem is, because of the securities, you can’t leave these 

aircraft in there overnight, so they can’t have a crew rest, a rest 

over night, that others could have, because it’s in a war zone. So 

I’d like to get you on record recognizing that as a problem and any 

comments that you have to make if you agree with me on this 

problem. In other words, we want that Subpart S to remain as it 

has been in the past. I say I do, anyway. What are your thoughts? 

General MCNABB. Administrator Babbitt did come and talk to me 

and said: ‘‘Hey, what are your concerns as I look at the U.S.-flag 

carriers, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)?’’ I do depend absolutely on the scheduled and the non-scheduled carriers. I mentioned to him then that I do not think one size fits all. Domestic 

flights where you have numbers of sorties is a little different than 

the international long-range, and so you have to deal with it differently. 

Safety is paramount, there is no question, and you can do a lot 

of things to enhance safety. They’re looking at crew rest facilities 

on the airplane so that you can get some rest en route. Operational 

risk management programs, to make sure that we’re looking at 

that. 

But from my standpoint, what I want to do is make sure that 

I keep velocity up and we’re taking full advantage of modern airplanes. I really pushed the CRAF, saying I really want to get to 

the more modern airplanes, which are inherently more safe. As we 

get these international airplanes, the amount of money that’s 

spent, there’s a lot of safety that’s built into them, and of course 

I think—so that’s a little bit different—— 

Senator INHOFE. But as far as maintaining the exemption for 

Subpart S, would you agree with my statement on that? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, that’s good. 

General Ham, I’m very interested in a lot of things that are 

going on there. One of the differences between you and me is when 

a decision is made as a policy decision by this country, whether you 

personally agree with it or not, you’re a soldier, you carry it out. 

So I disagreed with our attitude toward the government in Coˆte 

d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo and his wife, Simone. I know what 

they’ve been accused of in the past, but I also know that what happened in that election—and I have documented on the floor of the 

Senate—certainly brings it into question as to whether or not that 

was legitimate. 

The French then, behind Alassane Ouattara, actually participated in, not just in Abidjan, as they did with their gunships, and 

we have no idea how many hundreds of people were killed 3 nights 

ago there. That was something where specifically the French said 

to the U.N. ‘‘We authorize you; we’re going to use our troops as 

necessary to go in there and try to get the Gbagbo administration 

out.’’ 

That’s a real hotbed right now. It’s going to have huge repercussions in the future. But I hope that when things like that start 

coming up that you’d be in a position in terms of what our response 

will be to talk to those of some of us who are pretty familiar with 

what is going on in Africa. 

897 

Now, that same thing would go, as you and I have talked in the 

past, with the LRA, for example. That’s something where we now 

have Uganda, Central African Republic, the Congo, and Rwanda all 

in agreement they need to get this guy, and we now have a policy 

of the United States, because I passed the bill, that we need to do 

away with Joseph Kony and the LRA. 

Do you have any comments to make about that and where that 

is on your priority list? 

General HAM. Sir, it is a high priority, and I think it factors into 

the lack of security in East Africa as a whole. I think so long as 

the LRA is able to operate in the horrific manner in which they do, 

they will continue to contribute to instability in the region. We take 

very seriously our military responsibility in a supporting role in 

executing the strategy. In fact, this afternoon, I am headed to DOS 

to have discussions on this and many other topics. 

I think the challenge for us in AFRICOM is, while we may not 

have access to the full array of forces that we would like to have 

to support this endeavor, we should do what we can now. I think 

that would be my approach in the near term, to enable the Ugandans particularly, but others as well, to put as much pressure as 

possible on the LRA. 

Senator INHOFE. I know my time’s expired, Mr. Chairman, but 

I want to make sure I get into the record how serious this is. Joseph Kony, for over 20 years, almost 30 years now, has been going 

into the villages and stealing these little kids. It’s called the children’s army. They have to go back after they’re trained—I’m talking about 12-, 13-, and 14-year-olds. They have to go back to their 

village and murder their parents and all that. They have gone 

through and they’ve mutilated these kids for all these years. 

We now have a position of the United States in this thing. I do 

say this, that we have some really good presidents over there, like 

Museveni in Uganda, who’s just as interested as we are, Kabila in 

Congo is just as interested as we are, and certainly in Rwanda 

they’re concerned. So I would like to stay on top of that. Anything 

that is new in the way of a development, I would personally like 

to be advised of that. 

Then, for the record, if you could put in your thoughts on International Military Education and Training and train-and-equip. I’d 

like to have that because when we start developing our authorization bill I want to get everyone on record. I’d say the same thing 

for you, General McNabb, as to the significance of those programs. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

General MCNABB. International Military Education and Training (IMET) is designed to accomplish two primary goals. The first is to help strengthen foreign militaries through the provision of skills (and exposure to values) that are necessary for 

the proper functioning of a civilian controlled, apolitical, and professional military. 

Second, IMET is an ‘instrument of influence’ through which the United States 

shapes the doctrine, operating procedures, values, choice in weaponry of foreign 

militaries, and occasionally the policies of the recipient governments. Foreign students—many of whom will occupy the upper echelons of their country’s military and 

political institutions—are taught infantry tactics and operations by American instructors, learn how to operate and maintain American weapons systems, and establish ties with American officers. The resulting doctrinal and operational commonalities, and institutional and individual ties that form between the U.S. Armed Forces 

and their foreign counterparts, lead to more interaction and stronger relations beVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00903 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
898 

tween the two militaries. Additionally, more interaction translates into more U.S. 

access to foreign military facilities and bases, which in turn allows the United 

States to establish a military presence in more regions and facilitates the use of 

military force, or the threat of military force, to address regional threats. 

For these reasons, I feel IMET is a program which should enjoy the continued 

support of Congress. 

General HAM. The International Military Education and Training (IMET) program and/or Foreign Military Financing (FMF) are integral to meeting many of U.S. 

Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) goals and objectives. While the costs of these programs are low—the impact is immense. It takes one $10,000 to $70,000 investment 

in IMET to influence an officer for the next 20 to 30 years. Appreciation of American 

values, the rule of law, civilian control of the military, and the success of our political/economic model are lessons that are never forgotten and assist us in thousands 

of unanticipated and often unnoticed ways such as an appointment scheduled, a 

warning passed, a lesson taught, or a coup avoided. Training conducted to professionalize the military in and outside of Africa can lead to stable governments and 

the hope of a better future. Equipment programs are immensely valuable if they are 

properly focused. Relative to other commands—AFRICOM does not receive a lot of 

FMF—but we use what we have to encourage the development of sustainable logistics, mobility, specialization appropriate to the host nation, and the development of 

capacity that can benefit the goals of AFRICOM and the U.S. Government. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join in thanking both of you, General McNabb and 

General Ham, for your service to the country, and hope that you 

will convey that thanks to all the brave and distinguished men and 

women who serve with you. 

I want to focus on a number of areas quickly, first on, General 

Ham, the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 

(JSTARS) aircraft. I wonder if you could tell us a little about the 

role and importance of the JSTARS mission in Libya and other 

areas? 

General HAM. Senator, JSTARS has been an integral and important component of the suite of collection assets which the United 

States and others have applied to operations in Libya. JSTARS’ 

particular capability in detecting moving forces has been particularly useful and noteworthy. Especially early on in the campaign, 

where the regime forces were moving, JSTARS was able to identify 

those and greatly aided the vectoring in of aircraft to interdict 

some of those efforts. 

So it has been and remains a valuable component. It has long onstation time and a great capability. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So it’s been extremely useful in surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting, many of the areas where American aircraft have been so instrumental in the Libyan operation so 

far? 

General HAM. Yes, sir, American and others. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If you had more of them, would that be of 

use to you? 

General HAM. Sir, I had sufficient for this particular operation, 

which was, of course, limited in scope. But certainly in a largerscale operation and the ability to deal with multiple simultaneous 

contingencies, then that would be the case. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do you know whether those aircraft are 

still available to NATO? Are they still in use in helping to target? 

Because I understand that one of the challenges in Libya is identifying non-civilian targets. 

899 

General HAM. Sir, it is my understanding that JSTARS is still 

flying and operating. It is difficult again when both opposition and 

regime forces are operating in the same area with the same type 

of equipment. That’s a tough target set for JSTARS and others to 

operate against. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But JSTARS has been useful and instrumental in that effort? 

General HAM. It has been, yes, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. General McNabb, I wonder if you could 

tell us about the planning and perhaps the logistics of withdrawals 

that are intended for Iraq and potentially for Afghanistan? I recognize they are two very different situations. But is there planning 

for those purposes and what is its status? 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. It’s all going very well. In Iraq we already came down from 130,000 to 50,000, and of course the last 

50,000 coming out by December of this year. That whole system 

has gone very well. We basically bring it down, General Austin and 

his folks in Iraq determine which equipment they’ll phase out and 

bring down. They use two ports, in Jordan the Gulf of Aqaba, and 

then they also use Kuwait for the majority. It has to do with wash 

racks. They’ll wash it up, make sure that it’s all set. Then we use 

our U.S.-flag commercial fleet to then move them back to the 

States or in some cases, to Afghanistan. 

Some of the higher priority things like Mine Resistant Ambush 

Protected (MRAP) All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) and MRAP vehicles 

that they have said, ‘‘okay, we’re going to move these from Iraq to 

Afghanistan, we will fly directly from Kuwait and take them 

across.’’ 

So I’m very comfortable how well-oiled that is. The Army Materiel Command, General Dunwoody, that whole team has done superbly along with the folks in Iraq and the Services on getting the 

staff back and then getting it to the depots and fixing it up. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Fair to say it’s all on schedule? 

General MCNABB. Sir, that one’s going great. 

Afghanistan, we are working to make sure that we can get a flow 

out of Afghanistan. Right now with the NDN, we only have permission for one-way flow. A number of countries have no problem with 

that, but a couple of countries still have said, ‘‘we are okay with 

taking stuff into Afghanistan, but we’re not okay at this time with 

bringing stuff out of Afghanistan. Plus we can’t bring military 

equipment out.’’ 

So we are looking there in Afghanistan. One of the big things is 

to find some intermodal ports where we can jump out of Afghanistan to an airfield, that then we can put it on surface, clean it up, 

and put it on the surface and bring it home that way, which again 

you get the good part of getting it out quickly, but then we get the 

value of moving it by surface, so the much cheaper cost. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Regarding Afghanistan, I was interested 

in your testimony with respect to new air drop or air transportation vehicles, particularly under development at the Nordic Center, again especially the unmanned helicopter. I know the KMAX 

and other vehicles are in experimental stages. I wonder if you could 

elaborate a little bit on your testimony in that regard? 

900 

General MCNABB. Yes, sir. We went from 2 million pounds of air 

drop in 2005 to 60 million pounds of air drop last year, and we’re 

headed towards 100 million pounds this year, as I mentioned, using 

multimodal operations that’s freed up military airplanes like C–17s 

to be able to do more of that, C–130s as well. 

We keep working with the folks on the ground in figuring out 

low-altitude, low-cost, where we use disposable chutes where they 

don’t have to worry about getting the stuff back. We’ve done precision air drop, which if the weather or the threat demands we still 

want to make sure we can get the stuff in to them. 

Of course, what this does is it frees up either helicopter hours, 

so they can go do operational missions, or it gets convoys off the 

road, which saves our lives of our valuable folks. 

What we’re working on now is looking at high-speed container 

delivery systems (CDS), which is what the Special Operations 

Forces do. I was talking to the Commander of the Air Force Special 

Operations Command and I said: ‘‘What would you do if you were 

me?’’ He said: ‘‘The one thing I would do is try to get to high-speed 

CDS; that works very well for us.’’ This would be coming in at 250 

knots and 200 to 300 feet, very precise. But we have to design 

chutes that can handle that, that opening shock. 

The C–17 and C–130J aircraft as we’ve been modernizing, their 

tails are already stressed to handle that, so it’s simply to make 

sure that we can design the chutes that we can do that. Again, that 

will vastly improve safety as we go in and the precision that we 

need for those forward operating bases and of course, they appreciate the closer we can put it to where they want it, so they don’t 

have to go chase to get it. 

So it’s a very exciting time. As you mentioned, unmanned aerial 

vehicles. We’re also looking at airships, and there are some real 

positives there that it just may be time to be able to be taking advantage of that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to commend you for that very exciting work. You’ve used the term exciting. I think it is exciting, 

very challenging as well, and absolutely critically important, perhaps underappreciated by the American people, the job that you’re 

doing in getting supplies to those forward positions that are very 

difficult, particularly in Afghanistan, to supply and keep supplied. 

So I want to thank you for that work. 

My time has expired. I have other questions, so with your permission I may follow up with those questions to you in another 

form. 

Just in closing, I want to thank you for your focus on aiding our 

warriors when they are wounded and a very important part of your 

testimony dealing with the increased rate of survival and the great 

work that you’re doing in that regard. So I thank you very much, 

and thank you, General Ham, as well. Thank you. 

General MCNABB. Sir, it’s absolutely a labor of love. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General McNabb and General Ham, thank you so much for being 

here. I’m sorry to drop in at the 11th hour. I know you thought you 

901 

were all ready to go and then I walked in. I apologize for missing 

your testimony. 

General McNabb, you mentioned that the recapitalization of the 

tanker fleet remains your top acquisition priority, and I think we 

were all pleased, regardless of where we were on the decision, that 

the decision has finally been made and we can move forward. 

We’ve been following this very closely in New Hampshire, where 

we have our Air National Guard based at Pease, and has been 

working with the 157th Air Refueling Wing, and they’ve been flying in support of Air Mobility Command operations around the 

globe. Much of that has been done with the old KC–135 tankers 

from the Eisenhower era, and I can speak to how loud those used 

to be because they used to fly over my house. 

I know that the acquisition of the new tankers is very important. 

While I understand that the Air Force is going to be the main decisionmaker on where they’re based and that you probably don’t 

want to comment on that process, we’re also following that very 

closely because we would love to have them based at Pease. 

Could you talk about what kinds of criteria you think are important as the basing decisions are being made? You talked about 

looking for ways to optimize air processes and saving money as 

you’re thinking about these missions. What kinds of strategic basing decisions are you looking at as you’re thinking about the missions of the future? 

General MCNABB. Yes, ma’am. As you said, that’s really an organized train-and-equip mission of the Services. The Air Force has a 

very robust criteria where they will go in and they will look at all 

the bases, especially given the tanker decision, the 135s, and we 

know that the first 179 is just the start of the recapitalization of 

the whole 135 fleet as it ages out. 

They have the criteria, and it is things like facilities, it is like 

air space, it is how close are you to the tracks. Obviously, Pease 

is close to the northeast tanker task force. We use that a lot, and 

you helped out for the Libya operation, as you probably know. Very 

valuable how well that has worked. I will say that as both the Air 

Mobility Command commander and then as the TRANSCOM commander, I absolutely depended on that. 

But it is a process again under the Secretary of the Air Force. 

They go very clearly and say, ‘‘here’s the criteria, here’s how much 

everything’s worth.’’ They do the visits to all the places, and then 

they will say: ‘‘Okay, well, here’s three more.’’ Then they will finally get it down to a preferred location and say, ‘‘we’ll do the environmental studies.’’ But it’s very open and I know their plan is to 

make sure they do that right in consultation with all of you, in a 

very open process. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. We appreciate that and appreciate 

your kind words for the missions that have been done from there 

to support the Libyan effort. 

General Ham, I missed much of the discussion earlier in the 

committee about al Qaeda’s influence in Northern Africa and concerns about that. I certainly share the concerns that have been expressed today. In a hearing yesterday before the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee, we heard testimony about the finding of 

shoulder-fired rockets in Libya by the rebels. We heard this testiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00907 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
902 

mony from Human Rights Watch, and the fact that those shoulderfired rockets then disappeared not too long after they were found 

in a warehouse. 

You mentioned, as I understand, here the possibility that there 

could be as many as 20,000 of those rockets that exist in Libya. I 

wonder if you could talk about what the threat is to the operation 

in Libya and what we’re doing in cooperation with our allies to try 

and recover those shoulder-fired rockets? 

General HAM. Senator, it is a very real problem. We do estimate 

that there were as many as 20,000 of these types of weapons in 

Libya before the conflict began. It’s very difficult now to ascertain 

how many of them are still accounted for and how many of them 

may have been taken to other places. It does pose both a regional 

and an international concern, I believe. 

The threat to current operations is relatively easily mitigated by 

the aircraft operating at an altitude generally above the effective 

range of those shoulder-fired air defense systems. But the threat 

longer-term that if these systems were to be controlled by violent 

extremist organizations and the threat that that would pose is really to me the greater concern than the immediate tactical effect. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So can you speak to what kinds of cooperative 

efforts we’re doing with our allies in the region to try and recover 

those? 

General HAM. Yes, ma’am. It starts, of course, with intelligence 

and trying to track through a variety of means where those systems may have been taken and how they’re stored and under 

whose control. But it gets to the larger issue and the larger, longer 

range mission of AFRICOM and the U.S. interest there of helping 

African states establish good governance, good security apparatus, 

that would have the ability to detect the movement of such weapons into their countries and then be able to take actions themselves 

to bring those under control. 

That’s really what we want to get to long-term. In the near-term, 

it will be intelligence-driven and then in collaboration with the regional partners to try to take action to get those out of extremist 

hands. 

Senator SHAHEEN. As you talk about trying to help the African 

states on issues like this, one of the most horrible challenges that 

I think continues to threaten Africa is violence against women in 

those regions, especially when it’s used as a tool of war, as it was 

in the DRC. I just wondered whether you’re looking at any ways 

in which you can help as you’re supporting African nations and 

helping transform their militaries, if you’re thinking about any 

kind of training or awareness of the challenges of violence against 

women, particularly sexual violence against women, and how 

you’re dealing with that, if you are. 

General HAM. Yes, ma’am, it is a very real threat. The command 

has previously highlighted that as an important issue and it has 

incorporated such training when it helped develop military forces 

in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It’s a program, I think, that 

bears our further and continuing interest. Again, it gets into the 

notion of what are the characteristics of a military force that is responsive to civilian control, respectful of the citizens that it serves, 

and sex-based violence, while there is some tradition of that and 

903 

history of that, is something that has to be expunged from the 

ranks of the militaries of those nations. We’ll continue to do what 

we can in modeling by our own behavior, but specifically targeting 

instruction and leader development in that regard. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, General Ham. I really 

appreciate hearing that. Yesterday the head of the Office of U.N. 

Women, former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, was here and 

she talked about the challenges that they have and the importance 

of engaging men in African nations in this fight, so that they understand how they’re affected by these actions. So I very much appreciate that. If we in the Senate can help in any way in this effort, 

I’m certainly ready to do that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Just a couple more questions on Libya. General Ham, if the military mission were expanded, as some are proposing, to include regime change, what would be required to achieve that military mission? 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, at the outset it would require a 

very significant increase in the intelligence collection to be able to 

track that particular individual and his movements. It would be a 

considerable increase in the current effort against a very difficult 

target set, and then have available military forces to be able to act 

on very short notice to that intelligence. 

I think it would be a pretty significant increase from the current 

level of effort. 

Chairman LEVIN. Would that probably require boots-on-theground, then? 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, that would probably, in some cases, 

be part of the intelligence collection, again because this is a very 

practiced individual in terms of concealing movements. So the 

human intelligence component would probably necessitate some 

presence, maybe not military, but to contribute to that intelligence 

picture. 

Chairman LEVIN. What about in terms of the removal if the intelligence were obtained? Might that require boots-on-the-ground? 

General HAM. Sir, that could be an option, and certainly it would 

be the most precise and the less likely to have civilian casualties 

or additional collateral damage, but very difficult to execute. 

Chairman LEVIN. If that mission were amended, expanded, to include that goal, does that have an effect or might it have an effect 

on the coalition and on the resolution? 

General HAM. Sir, I believe it would. It is not addressed in the 

current Security Council resolution and if it were to be included I 

think we would find it more difficult to find willing partners. 

Chairman LEVIN. Could it have an effect on the NATO agreement? 

General HAM. I believe it could, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. What about the support of the Arab League? 

General HAM. I believe it would have a negative effect. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, if the no-fly zone had been put in place 

earlier, in your judgment, would the situation be different in Libya 

from what it is today? 

904 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, it’s difficult to assess. I think had 

the no-fly zone been imposed unilaterally by the United States or 

perhaps with a small subset of other willing partners, it probably 

could have had some effect, would have had some effect on the regime’s aircraft conducting some attacks which they did in 

Benghazi, probably could have had some effect there. But I don’t 

think the no-fly zone in and of itself would have had any deterrent 

effect on the regime’s ground forces moving toward Benghazi. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’re all done. We thank you both. 

General McNabb, you’ve had about as good a partner as you 

could possibly have today. 

We thank you both and thank the men and women with whom 

you work. 

We’ll stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KIRSTIN E. GILLIBRAND

FOOD FOR PEACE

1. Senator GILLIBRAND. General McNabb, it is my understanding that U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) largely relies on private U.S.-flag merchant marine vessels for its global sealift capability. According to a 2009 study prepared for 

the Maritime Administration, U.S. food aid cargoes account for a significant percentage of yearly revenue for U.S. private merchant marine companies. Given this, what 

is your estimation of the impact that significant cuts to the U.S. Food for Peace Program, as proposed in H.R. 1, would have on the cost and ability for TRANSCOM 

to continue to utilize private U.S.-flag merchant marine vessels for global sealift? 

General MCNABB. Maintaining sealift readiness is a priority for TRANSCOM. 

Sealift is the primary means for delivering ground forces and sustainment during 

major combat operations, and has been responsible for delivering over 90 percent 

of all cargo to Afghanistan and Iraq. TRANSCOM’s partnership with the U.S. commercial sealift industry is a vital component of meeting the Nation’s strategic sealift 

requirements. 

Through programs like the Maritime Security Program and cargo preference laws, 

the Department of Defense (DOD) gains access to U.S. commercial capabilities and 

transportation networks while ensuring the continued viability of both the U.S. flag 

fleet and the pool of citizen mariners who man those vessels. While no quantitative 

analysis has been undertaken with regard to recent proposals to reduce international food aid, it is apparent that any reduction in preference cargo volume will 

have a corresponding impact on the revenue that helps to support this key element 

of our sealift readiness. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

SOMALIA

2. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, I am very concerned by the statement from 

your prepared testimony that al Qaeda’s influence in East Africa is experiencing 

‘‘dramatic increase.’’ Why is that, and how do we counter it? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

3. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, in your testimony, you accurately diagnose the 

problem in Somalia, with Al-Shabaab’s linkage to al Qaeda, but you do not describe 

a strategy to counter this threat. Do we have such a strategy, and if so, what is 

it? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

4. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, how would you assess the threat to the U.S. 

Homeland from terrorists who originate from, or who have been trained and based 

in, Somalia—including Americans of Somali origin? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

905 

PIRACY

5. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, do you have an estimate of how much revenue 

Al-Shabaab receives on an annual basis from its taxes on piracy activities? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

6. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, can the threat of piracy in East Africa be diminished and defeated in a lasting way only by operating at sea—or does it ultimately require us to take the fight ashore in Somalia to attack their bases and networks? 

General HAM. I do not believe the threat can be defeated through operating only 

at sea. The initial roots of piracy were, and for the most part still are ultimately 

economically driven, but the murder of four U.S. citizens this February demonstrates that piracy is a lethal threat as well. Good governance, capable security 

forces and a functioning judiciary system, none of which currently exist in Somalia, 

need to be in place to effectively address piracy. Thus an interagency and international approach with other supporting combatant commands is the best way to 

address counter piracy operations. A comprehensive approach would include diplomatic and development efforts, supported by defense operations targeting piracy infrastructure and support structures in a way that does not alienate the Somali population. 

7. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, is the use of contracted security guards on 

U.S. flag commercial ships deterring pirates? 

General MCNABB. Since the Maersk Alabama and Liberty Sun incidents in early 

2009, no U.S. flag commercial ships have been hijacked—a testament to the success 

of armed contract security. 

While many U.S. flag ships have been approached or fired upon during this timeframe, the presence of the security team has repeatedly proven effective, especially 

when used in concert with the internationally recognized Best Management Practices (BMP). 

8. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, what are the costs of taking this approach? 

General MCNABB. The direct cost for an armed security team on a U.S. flag vessel carrying DOD cargo is on average $122,000. To date, the total cost has been $8.5 

million. To support the employment of armed security teams, TRANSCOM worked 

closely with the Department of State (DOS), the U.S. Coast Guard, and other interagency partners to secure the permissions of the coastal states in the area to allow 

U.S. flag vessels to enter their ports with weapons and ammunition onboard. 

Through close communication with industry, we have ensured compliance with 

International Trafficking in Arms Regulations. 

These costs are a small price to pay for the safety of DOD cargo, our U.S. flag 

ships, and most importantly, our U.S. citizen mariners. 

9. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, what else can be done to secure U.S. flag 

vessels from piracy threats in the region? 

General MCNABB. U.S. flag vessels are already setting the standard with the use 

of armed security teams, full implementation of the BMP, and close coordination 

with both the interagency and international organizations dedicated to counter-piracy efforts. These BMPs include: 

• Liaison with naval forces in the region, and ensure high-risk transits are 

properly registered with local military authorities 

• Utilize International Recommended Transit Corridors when available 

• Conduct regular Ship Security Assessments and implement Ship Security 

Plans in accordance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security 

Code (ISPS) 

• U.S. flag vessels make use of periodic Anti-Piracy Assistance Team 

(APAT) visits 

• Prior to entry into the High Risk Area, crews are briefed on preparations 

and a drill is conducted 

• Defining the ship’s Automatic Identification System (AIS) policy: The 

Master has the discretion to switch off the AIS if he believes that its use 

increases the ship’s vulnerability. If the AIS is switched off it should be activated at the time of an attack 

• Vigilance. Ensure additional lookouts are briefed and available for each 

watch. Additional binoculars and night optics should be provided 

• Install and use close circuit television cameras to ensure coverage of vulnerable areas 

906 

• Install self-protective measures to include reinforcement of ship’s bridge, 

removable plates, and razor wire to prevent accessing accommodation or 

machinery spaces, lifting or removing external ladders, removal or barrier 

protection of exposed gas bottles and flammable liquid containers 

• Control access to the ship compartments by reinforcing hatches and creating safe muster points/citadels 

• Utilize fixed or remotely operated water or foam monitors to deter pirates 

from boarding and to make it difficult for skiffs to remain alongside 

• If attacked, activate alarms and the Ship Security Alert System. Maneuver to create unfavorable wake conditions for pirate skiffs. Increase speed 

if possible. Activate Emergency Communication Plan and notify naval authorities 

TRANSCOM communicates frequently with U.S. flag companies, participating in 

a robust information-sharing network via forums like the National Defense Transportation Association and its Sealift Committee and the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Executive Working Group to ensure close coordination of best practices and lessons learned. 

I believe continued open and frank discussion within industry, the interagency, 

and our international partners is the key to keeping our ships and mariners safe. 

Finally, I meet periodically with CEOs of our U.S. flag shipping companies to discuss this issue specifically. I most recently met with many of them on March 23, 

2011, and intend to hold a dedicated session in Washington, DC, in June, along with 

the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, the 5th Fleet 

Commander, and the other members of the interagency. 

MASTER PLAN FOR CAMP LEMONNIER, DJIBOUTI

10. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, you mention in your opening statement that 

‘‘as U.S. Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) sole forward operating site on the continent, 

Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, serves as a critical operational and sustainment facility 

(a hub for lift, logistics, intelligence, and command, control, communications, and 

computers (C4)) in support of DOD activities in the region. It is critical for activities 

and operations across the area of responsibility (AOR) boundaries in the Red Sea, 

the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Peninsula.’’ The Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 contained language expressing concerns with the safety and security of U.S. forces stationed at Camp Lemonnier, 

Djibouti, due to cramped conditions and the lack of deliberate planning to address 

vulnerabilities. We asked for a master plan that would include options for expanding the footprint of the base in order to allow for greater separation of functions 

and a better opportunity to meet anti-terrorism/force protection standards for almost 

$500 million worth of facilities planned for construction at the base over the next 

5 years. 

As part of the plan, will you review the roles and missions of Joint Task ForceHorn of Africa and other missions being conducted at Camp Lemonnier to determine 

their long-term end strength and facility requirements to ensure you have enough 

room in the existing footprint of the forward operating site? 

General HAM. Yes, and we have partnered with our components and the Department of the Navy to assess the roles and missions of the Combined Joint Task 

Force-Horn of Africa and to understand the requirements of other activities at Camp 

Lemonnier. The Department of the Navy has developed the Military Construction 

Master Plan that ensures the long range success of these missions and which meets 

DOD force protection requirements. 

11. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, do you agree a master plan for the entire base 

should be developed and approved by you before any further military construction 

projects are carried out at Camp Lemonnier? 

General HAM. As the Executive Agent for Camp Lemonnier, the Department of 

the Navy has developed this master plan, and it is pending release. 

Throughout the Master Plan process, AFRICOM worked with the Navy to develop 

a systematic way ahead that balances the operational requirements and quality of 

life needs for the deployed servicemembers. 

12. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, are you comfortable with the degree of security and protection currently provided to the forces deployed to Camp Lemonnier? 

General HAM. Although Camp Lemonnier does not currently meet all security and 

force protection requirements, I am confident that we have identified the specific 

area that require additional attention and have taken steps to mitigate the risk. I 

907 

am also confident that the pending Camp Lemonnier Master Plan spells out a clear 

path to meet all said requirements. 

13. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, will you review the master plan to ensure 

adequate measures and planning have been incorporated to provide for the safety 

and security of U.S. forces deployed to Camp Lemonnier? 

General HAM. Yes, we have supported the Navy in the development of the Master 

Plan with an emphasis being placed on the safety, security, and Anti-Terrorism 

Force Protection measures for the construction projects. The military construction 

priorities have recently been established and prioritized for fiscal year 2013–fiscal 

year 2017 and we will continue to ensure that full compliance with DOD force protection standards are maintained during the full Master Plan implementation by 

the Navy. 

C–17 ACQUISITION PROGRAM

14. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, over the last 4 years, the Senate Appropriations Committee added 44 C–17s that we neither needed nor could afford, at a 

total cost of over $14 billion above DOD’s requests—in the form of earmarks. In proposing to cancel the C–17 Globemaster program, Secretary Gates and General 

Schwartz argued against a congressional earmark last year that intended to buy 10 

more of those aircraft for more than $2.5 billion. Secretary Gates stated that the 

cost of buying and operating those additional aircraft would ‘‘invariably result in a 

reduction in critical warfighting capability somewhere else in the defense program.’’ 

Do you fully support Secretary Gates’ position to terminate the C–17 program? 

General MCNABB. Yes. The Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 

(MCRS–16) analysis identified a peak demand of 32.7 million ton miles/day as sufficient capacity for the Air Force’s strategic airlift aircraft inventory. Our planned 

strategic airlift fleet of approximately 300 aircraft (the current program consists of 

222 C–17s, 52 C–5Ms, and 27 C–5As) will achieve this capacity without the addition 

of more C–17s. In my view, DOD has more pressing modernization requirements, 

including the new KC–46A tanker, and the current budget reflects those priorities. 

15. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, what effect would the purchase of yet 

more C–17s, as some Members might insist on again this year, have on our ability 

to field critical warfighting capabilities? 

General MCNABB. The MCRS–16 analysis identified a peak demand of 32.7 million ton miles/day as sufficient capacity for the Air Force’s strategic airlift aircraft 

inventory. Our planned strategic airlift fleet of approximately 300 aircraft (the current program consists of 222 C–17s, 52 C–5Ms, and 27 C–5As) will achieve this capacity without the addition of more C–17s. In my view, DOD has more pressing 

modernization requirements, including the new KC–46A tanker, and the current 

budget reflects those priorities. 

16. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, isn’t it true that the number of C–17s on 

order, together with the existing fleet of C–5 aircraft, is more than sufficient to meet 

DOD’s mobility needs, even under the most stressing scenarios? 

General MCNABB. Yes. The MCRS–16 analysis identified a peak demand of 32.7 

million ton miles/day as sufficient capacity for the Air Force’s strategic airlift aircraft inventory. Our planned strategic airlift fleet of approximately 300 aircraft (the 

current program consists of 222 C–17s, 52 C–5Ms, and 27 C–5As) will achieve this 

capacity without the addition of more C–17s. 

CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE FOR LARGE-SIZED CARGO AIRCRAFT

17. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, what are your views on the administration’s proposal to repeal the statutory requirement imposed by Congress for the Air 

Force to maintain a large-sized cargo aircraft inventory of 316 aircraft? 

General MCNABB. I agree with the administration’s proposal. The 316 strategic 

airlift aircraft requirement was originally established before the MCRS–16 determined the strategic airlift requirement to be 32.7 million ton-miles per day. Our 

analysis confirms we can meet this requirement with approximately 300 strategic 

airlift aircraft (current program consists of 222 C–17s, 52 C–5Ms, and 27 C–5As). 

This fleet is more modern and capable than the one originally anticipated when the 

target of 316 aircraft was initially established. Also, the new tanker will provide an 

increased buffer to our airlift requirements because of the airlift capabilities it will 

bring to the table in addition to its air refueling role. 

908 

SUPPLY ROUTES INTO AFGHANISTAN

18. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, please tell me about your efforts to support the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) in the region. Is there anything that 

Congress can do to help you as the combatant commander? 

General MCNABB. Congress can assist DOD’s efforts to obtain further NDN enhancements, such as approval to transport unarmed armored vehicles and permissions for two-way transit through Central Asia. To do this, we must deepen our bilateral relationships with Central Asian governments through a balanced approach 

to strategic priorities in the region. Specifically, U.S. legislation enacted in 2007 continues to restrict foreign assistance to Uzbekistan. No Foreign Military Financing 

(FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), 1206, 1207, or other 

assistance, with the exception of assistance to improve humanitarian conditions and 

advance human rights, can be provided to Uzbekistan until certain human rights 

benchmarks are met. Current and proposed legislation also restrict our bilateral relationship with Azerbaijan, a critical node in the NDN. Relief on these restrictions 

will help support our overall strategic imperatives for enhanced cooperation. 

19. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, how did TRANSCOM respond when Pakistan closed the border to U.S. resupply efforts to our forces in Afghanistan and what 

effect did the closure have? 

General MCNABB. TRANSCOM and the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) responded to the Pakistan border closing by developing additional options to move and 

sustain our forces in Afghanistan. The plan includes increased CONUS direct support flights, shifting as much cargo as possible to the NDN, working with the interagency to get expanded transit authorities on the NDN, and establishing additional 

multi-modal operations at Southwest Asia locations. The Pakistan border closures 

caused minimal delays, with no significant impact due to the short duration. A 

longer loss of the PAKGLOC would require significant adjustments, but 

TRANSCOM is postured to sustain ongoing combat operations, continue rotations 

of personnel, and provide uninterrupted delivery of critical/sensitive unit equipment 

requirements. 

MODERNIZING C–5 CARGO AIRCRAFT VS. BUYING MORE C–17s 

20. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, we have heard positive things regarding 

the C–5 Modernization Program (which is comprised of both an avionics modernization and a reengining program). Please provide an update on the C–5 modernization 

program and how well those jets are performing. 

General MCNABB. We have four C–5As left to be modified with the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). The AMP modification replaces unsupportable flight instruments and all-weather flight control system components. It installs new communications, navigation, surveillance air traffic management systems, as well as Secretary of Defense-mandated safety equipment for terrain awareness and warning 

and traffic alert and collision avoidance. AMP also provides the digital architecture 

required for the C–5 Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program (RERP). We 

project AMP will complete on schedule by first quarter of calendar year 2012. 

In addition to being a reengining program, RERP also replaces 69 other unreliable 

aircraft components that will lead to more efficient and effective C–5 capabilities. 

Currently we have five RERP modified aircraft (C–5Ms) in the inventory with a 

scheduled fleet (52 C–5Ms) completion date of third quarter fiscal year 2016. 

C–5Ms successfully completed Operational Test and Evaluation January 5, 2010, 

and have performed very well in supporting two Afghan Surge Operations, both 

times exceeding our 75 percent wartime mission capable rate goal. Most recently, 

C–5Ms supported airlift operations in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya. 

The C–5M demonstrates much greater payload and range capability than the legacy 

C–5s. It can carry 120,000 pounds of cargo about 5,000 miles; while our legacy C– 

5Bs have to trade fuel for cargo to accomplish that same routing. Additionally, C– 

5Ms save fuel and time in getting our forces to destination. On average, a C–5M 

will save over 10 percent fuel on support missions greater than 5 hours. Because 

of its range, C–5Ms can over-fly normal legacy C–5 enroute stops: therefore, each 

C–5M mission (out and back) has the potential to save up to 8 hours of flight time. 

These capabilities were demonstrated in OT&E, Afghan surges in June 2010 and 

February 2011, and on Libya support airlift missions. 

With our modernization programs proceeding on schedule and the very positive 

results we are seeing in their performance, we are confident that we will reach our 

fleet goal of a consistent wartime 75 percent MCR by fiscal year 2015, as projected. 

909 

21. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, do you believe that we have enough largesized cargo aircraft? 

General MCNABB. Yes. The current strategic airlift fleet program (222 C–17s, 52 

C–5Ms, and 27 C–5As) provides sufficient strategic airlift capacity to meet MCRS– 

16 identified capacity of 32.7 million ton miles/day. 

22. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, does the Air Force have a need for additional C–17s? 

General MCNABB. No. The MCRS–16 analysis identified a peak demand of 32.7 

million ton miles/day as sufficient capacity for the Air Force’s strategic airlift aircraft inventory. Our planned strategic airlift fleet of approximately 300 aircraft (the 

current program consists of 222 C–17s, 52 C–5Ms, and 27 C–5As) will achieve this 

capacity without the addition of more C–17s. 

SENIOR LEADERSHIP IN-TRANSIT COMFORT CAPSULES

23. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, the Senior Leadership In-Transit Comfort 

Capsule (SLICC) has been described as a transportable ‘‘office in the sky’’ for VIPs, 

generals, and flag officers with a separate bedroom, lavatory, and mirrors. What 

precisely is the nature of the requirement that supports this program? 

General MCNABB. Sir, let me begin by providing you a more accurate description 

of the SLICC. The SLICC is essentially two large boxes (a conference capsule and 

a resting capsule). The conference capsule can seat up to five people. The berthing 

capsule has two single bunk beds. The conference capsule measures approximately 

10′ × 8′ × 8′. The berthing capsule measures 6.5′ × 8′ × 8′. These capsules are small 

enough to fit on C–130 aircraft. These capsules can travel together or separately depending on the requirements of the senior leader. A lavatory is not included in either capsule. 

The requirement for SLICCs is documented in an Air Mobility Command Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) performed in 2010 on DV Roll-On/Roll-Off requirements. Based on analysis of mission data, the CBA recommended purchasing four 

SLICCs in addition to the one SLICC currently operational to bring the total number of SLICCs to five. 

The need for the SLICC capability originates with the need to provide Senior 

Leaders an office-like setting to conduct day-to-day operations while in-transit on 

our cargo aircraft, typically C–17 and C–130 aircraft. The SLICC provides the user 

with the ability to have sensitive conversations with staff in a controlled area. 

SLICC is environmentally controlled for sound and temperature and has sufficient 

workspace (table and seating for up to five personnel) to permit both Senior Leader 

and staff to continue performing their duties while on the aircraft. Additionally, the 

SLICC is wired to support selected external communications kits, allowing the senior leader to participate in teleconferences while enroute, and to continue to work 

in an office-like setting much like their own offices. The DOD has recognized the 

need for our Senior Leaders to stay connected during travel in order to maintain 

up-to-the-minute situational awareness and exercise control over forces under their 

command in DOD Directive 4500.56 and various joint requirements documents, including the SLC3S–A Initial Capabilities Document. 

Finally, the SLICC enables us to take advantage of our current airlift system and 

effectively augment our Very Important Person Special Airlift Mission (VIPSAM) 

fleet when threat or capacity requires. C–17 and C–130 aircraft have more capable 

defensive systems than VIPSAM aircraft and are better equipped to counter the 

threat of hostile action. Arrival on a tactical aircraft is also very discreet, enabling 

the distinguished visitor to conduct his or her business while maintaining a low 

public profile. For these reasons, the SLICC is ideal for stationing at a forward, tactical location. SLICC has been stationed forward for the last 2 years in support of 

the ISAF Commander and both General Petraeus and General McChrystal have 

used SLICC on numerous missions. They have been very appreciative of the conferencing and situational awareness capabilities that SLICC gives them while allowing 

them to travel into higher threat or more tactical airfields. 

24. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, what is the cost of these capsules? 

General MCNABB. The contract for additional SLICC hasn’t been awarded yet, but 

the estimated cost is $2.5 million per SLICC and each SLICC costs approximately 

$266,000 per year to operate and maintain. 

25. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, how many capsules has the Air Force or 

TRANSCOM bought? 

910 

General MCNABB. The Air Force purchased one SLICC in November 2008 and will 

purchase two more in fiscal year 2012 with congressional approval of the fiscal year 

2012 President’s budget. 

Our plan is to forward station these capsules overseas to reduce positioning and 

depositioning costs and augment our existing VIPSAM fleet without the requirement to acquire, man, and sustain additional aircraft. 

26. Senator MCCAIN. General McNabb, in lean budget times—such as the times 

we are in—considering Secretary Gates’ efficiency initiatives to cut waste and unnecessary spending within DOD, would you suggest that the extravagance of 

SLICCs may be something that should be cut from the defense budget? 

General MCNABB. We don’t view SLICC as a luxury or extravagance, but as a 

mission enabler. A Senior Leader travelling overseas should be able to make effective use of time working enroute, arriving at destination fully informed, situationally aware, and ready to work effectively. Providing a controlled, connected, secure 

workspace like SLICC is the way we achieve that goal on our cargo aircraft. 

Senior Leader travel on tactical aircraft is necessary for several reasons. C–17 

and C–130 aircraft have more capable defensive systems than the VIPSAM aircraft 

and are better equipped to counter the threat of hostile action. Arrival on a tactical 

aircraft is also very discreet, enabling the distinguished visitor to conduct his or her 

business while maintaining a low public profile. For these reasons, the SLICC is 

ideal for stationing at a forward, tactical location. SLICC has been stationed forward for the last 2 years in support of the ISAF Commander and both General 

Petraeus and General McChrystal have used SLICC on numerous missions. They 

both have been very appreciative of the conferencing and situational awareness capabilities that SLICC gives them while allowing them to travel into higher threat 

or more tactical airfields. 

The SLICC program supports the Secretary’s efficiency initiatives by reducing 

costly prepositioning and depositioning missions in support of Senior Leader travel 

in theater. Stationing SLICCs at regional airlift hubs in the theater reduces operating costs by enabling Senior Leaders to use available theater assets and regularly 

scheduled cargo airlift already flying in theater. Air Mobility Command conducted 

a SLICC’s business case and concluded this program will reduce operating costs substantially. The business case estimates this strategy will save approximately $1.5 

million annually in positioning costs in the PACOM theater alone, meaning that 

payback time for a SLICC could be less than 2 years after acquisition. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

DELETION OF SUBPART S IN THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION BILL

27. Senator INHOFE. General McNabb, the supplemental carriers forecast $3.7 billion in additional costs over 10 years due to Deletion of Subpart S in the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Bill and a recent Air Mobility Command-sponsored 

Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) study shows that a very large percentage 

of segments would be considered completely infeasible if the regulation proceeded. 

The AFIT study indicates a projected requirement for thousands of DOD flights 

each year for which carriers would need exemptions and exceptions through Fatigue 

Risk Management Systems. Four percent of the 2,264 missions studied were infeasible under current rules with current rest facilities. It is believed that around 40 to 

50 percent of the missions would be infeasible under new rules, given rest facilities 

presently in the aircraft in the study. It is unrealistic to believe the FAA can handle 

this workload on a timely basis in view of anticipated demand by scheduled carriers 

for similar exemptions/exceptions, and projected reduced budgets. Undoubtedly 

these additional costs will be passed on to DOD and, in turn, American taxpayers. 

At a time when we are facing a shrinking defense budget, I do not believe the FAA 

should be considering new regulations that would unnecessarily drive up costs for 

carriers or DOD and inhibit DOD’s ability to ferry much-needed troops and supplies 

around the world. What are your thoughts on the FAA’s elimination of Subpart S 

and do you think it will negatively impact TRANSCOM operations? 

General MCNABB. TRANSCOM is evaluating the impact the proposed Flightcrew 

Member Duty and Rest Requirements Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) may 

have on DOD transportation operations utilizing commercial passenger and cargo 

carriers. We are engaged with the FAA to refine our understanding of the proposed 

new rules and to clarify how the exception process and Fatigue Risk Management 

Systems will be employed. 

911 

We have shared with the FAA that our experience shows different operations involve different levels of risk. The FAA’s goal of ‘‘one level of safety’’ and a proposed 

rule which attempts to achieve this through a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach seems at 

odds. Fatigue will affect everybody. However, there is a big difference flying four 

to six sorties in the United States versus flying a one-hop to the other side of the 

world. They both will fatigue the crews but will require different safety programs 

to mitigate. 

Safety is always paramount. The operators can do a lot of things to enhance safety. They are looking at better operational risk management, better aircraft safety 

modifications, and better crew rest facilities on the airplane. 

A critical concern is this rule’s impact on the velocity to our strategic airlift system affecting our ability to close the force and support the American warfighter. 

Every added stop will add time to mission completion and increases the risk of an 

aircraft breaking at an intermediate location. Additionally, the shorter Flight Duty 

Periods (FDP) proposed will limit options for keeping missions on time when they 

encounter unanticipated delays. The reduced flexibility to adapt to mission delays 

and decrease in velocity will be detrimental to the overall flow of our international 

airlift system, impacting timely support to our forces operating around the world. 

In addition to cost increases, this rule would also impede our congressional mandate to incentivize and take advantage of modern fuel efficient aircraft. The prescriptive limitations of the rule limit a carrier’s ability to realize the full economic 

and competitive benefits provided by longer ranges, more fuel efficient engines, modern avionics, and safety features of modern long-range commercial aircraft. 

Our goal is to find a set of mutually acceptable guidelines that not only mitigate 

the impact of crew fatigue, but also afford carriers the flexibility to implement safer 

aircrew processes. I believe there are better ways to improve safety in the segment 

of our enterprise, without sacrificing flexibility, velocity, or competiveness. 

28. Senator INHOFE. General McNabb, what will be the alternative to higher carrier costs should the Deletion of Subpart S in the FAA Bill be implemented? 

General MCNABB. Based on our commercial partners’ feedback, TRANSCOM anticipates the proposed NPRM may impact transportation costs because reduced crew 

FDPs will require carriers to increase their use of augmented crews and/or add additional stops to trade out crews. The costs for the additional crew members or extra 

stops are allowable charges which can be passed back onto TRANSCOM. These additional costs will translate into increased rates charged to our service customers, 

which will in turn, impact taxpayer costs for DOD transportation. 

Safety is always paramount and we must continue to strive to always enhance 

safety. That said, a critical concern is this rule’s impact on the velocity to our strategic airlift system affecting our ability to close the force and support the American 

warfighter. Every added stop will add time to mission completion and increases the 

risk of an aircraft breaking at an intermediate location. Additionally, the shorter 

FDP proposed will limit options for keeping missions on time when they encounter 

unanticipated delays. The reduced flexibility to adapt to mission delays and decrease in velocity will be detrimental to the overall flow of our international airlift 

system, impacting timely support to our forces operating around the world. I believe 

there are better ways to improve safety in this segment of our enterprise, without 

sacrificing flexibility, velocity, or competitiveness. 

Because of our strong reliance on the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program to 

augment our organic airlift fleet in times of war, there is no good alternative to covering any higher carrier costs that may result from the rule changes being considered by the FAA. We will continue to employ our U.S. flagged, commercial airline 

partners to perform DOD airlift in order to incentivize them to remain in the program so as to support our wartime requirements. 

29. Senator INHOFE. General McNabb, will we find ourselves in a situation where 

we will be forced to look to supplemental carriers based overseas to do the work 

for us? 

General MCNABB. Because of our strong reliance on the CRAF program to augment our organic airlift fleet in times of war, we will continue to employ our U.S. 

flagged, commercial airline partners to perform DOD airlift, in order to incentivize 

them to remain in the program, so as to support our wartime requirements. Assuming the new FAA rules do not impact U.S. commercial air carriers to the point 

where they would decide to pull out of the CRAF program, we should not find ourselves in a situation where we would be forced to look for additional overseas supplemental carriers to do the work for us. However, if the new rules make our carriers less internationally competitive and don’t allow us to take maximum advanVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00917 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
912 

tage of modern aircraft, we may see a reduction of our long-range commercial U.S. 

fleet. 

30. Senator INHOFE. General McNabb, will TRANSCOM support language in the 

NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 carving out exceptions for carriers supporting military 

operations? 

General MCNABB. TRANSCOM is engaged with the FAA to refine our understanding of the proposed new rules and to clarify how the exception process and Fatigue Risk Management Systems will be employed. Our goal is to find a set of mutually acceptable guidelines that not only mitigate the impact of crew fatigue, but also 

afford carriers the flexibility to implement safer aircrew processes. However, with 

only the draft rule set to go by at this time, maintaining the exemption for Subpart 

S would allow us some flexibility until all the implications of the new rule set are 

fully understood. 

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

31. Senator INHOFE. General Ham, the National Guard provides unique capacitybuilding capabilities in direct support of U.S. national security interests and objectives via its unique State Partnership Program (SPP). SPP specifically supports both 

combatant commanders’ and U.S. ambassadors’ strategic objectives by establishing 

sustainable relationships with critical partner nations around the world. Started 

back in the early 1990s as part of the U.S. European Command’s (EUCOM) engagement plan with former Warsaw Pact nations, SPP has grown and is now engaged 

with 62 nations around the world, one of those areas is the continent of Africa 

which currently has only eight active partnership programs. Although the SPP has 

great potential, cumbersome statutory limits and unsteady funding streams have 

hamstrung positive efforts. Have you encountered issues adjudicating resources in 

the SPP? 

General HAM. There are a number of critical security capacity requirements that 

our African partners need that the SPP cannot provide due to statutory limits—including disaster management, civil-military operations, law enforcement, fire-fighting, border control, coastal patrol, and many other relevant topics. 

32. Senator INHOFE. General Ham, at your confirmation hearing I asked that you 

consider AFRICOM’s role in SPP and provide feedback to this committee. Do you 

have any suggestions for improving SPP? 

General HAM. The National Guard and AFRICOM need authorities that allow the 

SPP to have greater flexibility to engage in military-to-civilian activities. Right now, 

we both have extensive military-to-military authorities, but limited military-to-civilian authorities to conduct engagements such as emergency management and disaster response. The National Guard is ideally suited to facilitate and conduct military-to-civilian engagements but they no longer have the authorities to do so. In 

AFRICOM, we believe that the newly authorized 1050a authorities could provide 

the command the authority to expand our military-to-civilian engagements. My staff 

is reviewing this authority as it relates to expanding our military-to-civilian engagements on the continent. I am discussing with the Chief, National Guard Bureau options for adding more state partnerships, particularly in East Africa. 

COMMANDER’S EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM AND COMBATANT COMMANDER’S

INITIATIVE FUND

33. Senator INHOFE. General Ham, our military-to-military (1206), civilian-to-civilian (1207), small-scale special forces (1208), Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), and Combatant Commander’s Initiative Fund (CCIF) proved to be 

vital resources in aiding developing countries in the professionalization of their militaries, fighting terrorism, and providing resources for emergency situations. A key 

to these programs has been that the engagements are worked by both DOS’s and 

DOD’s chiefs of mission and combatant commanders working together to increase 

the capabilities of our partner nations to provide for their own security, increasing 

stability in their region and around the globe. The worth of these programs was 

proven during the Egyptian uprising as the Egyptian military protected civilians 

and showed military professionalism: no looting, victimization, et cetera. Do you 

agree that the significant investment by DOD in Egypt through years of IMET, 

FMF, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) paid dividends this year? 

General HAM. Yes, I believe U.S. military support to the Egyptian military was 

one of many factors that shaped their behavior and actions during the uprising. 

913 

However, it is too soon to make a definitive judgment regarding how our programs 

and activities influence the decisions and motivations of the Egyptian military. 

34. Senator INHOFE. General Ham, based on your prior experience, what is your 

opinion of these programs and their future on the continent of Africa? 

General HAM. CCIF has demonstrated great value in the AFRICOM AOR. As one 

of the bridging funds that DOD can use for limited training of foreign forces, CCIF 

is tremendously useful for sustainment of capacity building activities during the period between Title 10 type military-to-military activities, and approval for longer 

term Foreign Military Funding/IMET programs. One major shortfall with CCIF is 

the limited amount of funds actually available for training ($5 million of $50 million). 

The CERP does presently not apply to the AFRICOM AOR. I do think it would 

be beneficial to have some ability to respond rapidly to emerging initiatives of limited scale. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS

OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR

35. Senator SESSIONS. General Ham, please provide the NATO chain of command 

for military operations in support of Operation Unified Protector, and AFRICOM’s 

current role in support of Operation Unified Protector. 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

TURKEY AND LIBYA

36. Senator SESSIONS. General Ham, a recent article in the Washington Times indicates that the Libyan rebels are placing blame on Turkey for a recent lull in 

NATO airstrikes. Turkish Prime Minister Arinc has acknowledged that Turkey has 

yet to designate which Libyan officials and entities with assets it will freeze, as required by the United Nations Security Council resolutions authorizing the allies’ 

Libyan operation. Russia, the European Union, the United States, and Switzerland 

have published such assets freeze lists. Also, Mr. el-Gamaty, the Transitional Council official in Britain, said Libyan rebels have reliable information that Turkey is 

selling fuel to the Gadhafi regime. Please provide your assessment of the accuracy 

of the reports that Turkey is selling fuel to the Gadhafi regime as well as Turkey’s 

compliance with United Nations Security Resolutions 1970 and 1973. 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS

OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN

37. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, I am interested in hearing your views on 

what Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector have revealed about 

AFRICOM’s current structure, organization, and assigned forces. For example, did 

AFRICOM’s modified command structure and headquarters organization pose any 

challenges as AFRICOM began planning for military operations in Libya? If so, 

were any changes made? 

General HAM. AFRICOM demonstrated that it is capable of responding, when the 

President directs, to a crisis within our AOR and simultaneously managing a full 

range of operations and activities. We rapidly responded to the unfolding Libya crisis by conducting operational assessments and crisis action planning, standing up 

a Joint Task Force and conducting combat operations, all while maintaining our 

steady focus on security cooperation with our African partners. 

AFRICOM’s modified staff structure did pose some challenges, so I recently directed the more formal adoption of a traditional J-code staff structure. 

38. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, does the Request for Forces (RFF) process 

present any challenges to the command in carrying out its mission? 

General HAM. With no assigned forces, AFRICOM is heavily dependent on the 

RFF process to conduct activities in Africa. Although we were given considerable 

focus and RFF priorities for operations in Libya, other activities crucial to the protection of U.S. lives and interests in our AOR must compete for limited assets 

against other global priorities. We also routinely review available forces with 

EUCOM, CENTCOM, and U.S. Strategic Command to ensure appropriate relationVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00919 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
914 

ships can be predetermined and approved by the Secretary of Defense to minimize 

the RFF challenge. 

39. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, how have our partner nations in Africa responded to AFRICOM’s role in the military operations in Libya? Specifically, how 

do you see the recent political developments in North Africa affecting AFRICOM’s 

activities and relationships with the militaries in the sub-region? 

General HAM. The African Union and some nations have publically opposed any 

foreign military intervention in Libya. Some nations have called for a ceasefire and 

negotiations while others have said that our actions contradict President Obama’s 

statement that there should be African solutions for African problems. That said, 

our support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 has not negatively 

impacted any of AFRICOM’s military-to-military activities with African partner nations. AFRICOM has placed a high priority on building and maintaining African 

partnerships through sustained engagement, and we expect those relationships to 

continue. 

40. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, AFRICOM has limited assigned forces and 

relies on DOD for resources necessary to support its missions. On October 1, 2008, 

the 17th Air Force was established at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, as the U.S. Air 

Force component of AFRICOM. In this capacity, 17th Air Force is referred to as U.S. 

Air Forces Africa. I have heard rumors about the proposed dissolution of the 17th 

Air Force. Can you comment and how would any dissolution affect AFRICOM’s capability to respond on short notice to a situation like Libya? 

General HAM. The U.S. Air Force is planning on consolidating manpower by moving the authorities and responsibilities of AFRICOM’s Air Force component, 17th 

Air Force, into U.S. Air Forces Europe. Additionally, 17th Air Force’s operations 

center will be absorbed into EUCOM’s Air Force component’s (3AF) operations center. Both will fall under U.S. Air Forces Europe. Final details on the plan are still 

in work, but this is a similar arrangement as for U.S. Naval Forces Europe and U.S. 

Naval Forces Africa in Naples, Italy. 

The dissolution should not have any effect on AFRICOM’s capability to respond 

on short notice to contingency operations. 

41. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, have the Libyan operations revealed any 

resource gaps within the command? 

General HAM. Operation Odyssey Dawn validated multiple gaps previously noted, 

particularly with respect to the lack of allocated resources to monitor potential 

threats to U.S. lives and interests and conduct required joint operations, particularly intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets as well as personnel recovery. 

42. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, does the command anticipate adding any 

additional units or forces? 

General HAM. There is currently no intent to add additional forces to support 

NATO or Combined Joint Task Force Unified Protector; however, NATO can exercise a request for capabilities via the Joint Staff at any time to meet operational 

challenges. 

COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE-HORN OF AFRICA

43. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, in your written statement you note that 

. . . AFRICOM understand[s] and address[es] the continent using a regional framework and the five regions—East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, North Africa, 

and Southern Africa—and these roughly correspond to the African Union’s five primary Regional Economic Communities. A regional framework seems to imply a series of regional strategies, nested within a larger, continental planning framework, 

all working together to accomplish the command’s stated objectives—building partner capacity and countering violent extremism. While Combined Joint Task ForceHorn of Africa (CJTF–HOA) does not directly engage terrorists, efforts to counter 

violent extremism nevertheless remain a significant focus for CJTF–HOA’s activities. I would note that civil affairs projects represent around 60 percent of CJTF– 

HOA’s activities. Would you describe the Task Force’s strategy in East Africa as 

counterterrorism or civic action? 

General HAM. CJTF–HOA supports U.S. counterterrorism objectives throughout 

the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. However, counterterrorism and civil-military operations are not mutually exclusive missions. Counterterrorism is imperative 

915 

to create the necessary security and space for economic development and good governance to grow. Civil-military operations lead to a more stable environment which 

counters the spread of extremism that supports terrorist networks. 

44. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, what is the primary purpose of the task 

force’s civil affairs efforts in the region? 

General HAM. CJTF–HOA’s civil affairs operations support the task force’s efforts 

to counter terrorism through activities that address economic or social stressors that 

are conducive for terrorist recruiting and sympathizers. They also enhance U.S. 

military access to partner nation facilities. 

Civil affairs force disposition and engagement efforts are focused in and towards 

populations particularly vulnerable to extremist’s affluence/influence and assist in 

enhancing the capacity and legitimacy of those population’s civilian and military organizations. They also help partner nations develop their own civil affairs capabilities. 

These operations are coordinated with and authorized by appropriate U.S. country 

teams and complement security capacity building efforts. 

45. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, how does CJTF–HOA’s mission differ from 

the mission of the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans-Sahel? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

46. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, in what ways are AFRICOM’s approach to 

countering terrorism in Northwest Africa and in East Africa similar, and how do 

they differ? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

AFRICOM HEADQUARTERS

47. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, the decision to establish the permanent 

headquarters location for AFRICOM has been delayed until early 2012 and in the 

interim, the headquarters has remained in Stuttgart, Germany. What are your 

thoughts about the ultimate, permanent location for the AFRICOM headquarters? 

General HAM. The ultimate, permanent location must be able to support 

AFRICOM’s ability to conduct its mission of building African security capacity, sustain long-term relationships with our African partners, support crisis response in 

Africa, and make best and most efficient use of our resources and taxpayers’ dollars. 

Specific criteria will be developed by DOD as part of the study that is planned for 

completion in spring 2012. 

48. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, what are the advantages and disadvantages of locating the headquarters in Africa, in Europe, or at a separate, U.S. location similar to U.S. Southern Command and CENTCOM? 

General HAM. From my perspective, there are some advantages and disadvantages that I can address broadly. 

Locating the command in Africa may help in terms of relationship building, but 

it would be very expensive and time consuming to build the needed facilities on the 

continent. Additionally, the commercial transportation infrastructure in Africa is not 

sufficiently robust to allow us to travel around the continent as readily as we need. 

In many cases, travel from one point to another in Africa necessitates routing 

through Europe. 

Being in Europe places us within similar time zones as many African nations 

which helps us in maintaining relationships. Our current headquarters is close to 

several major European transportation hubs that facilitate our ability to travel to 

and from the continent. Being proximate to our EUCOM, European Union, and 

NATO counterparts has been helpful in the conduct of operations in Libya and elsewhere across the continent. 

JOINT SURVEILLANCE TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM

49. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, press reports have highlighted the Joint 

Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) use in the AFRICOM theater 

to support current/ongoing U.S./coalition operations over Libya. JSTARS battle management and very wide area surveillance capabilities make it key for air operations 

as the airborne forward air controller to develop, detect, and help identify targets 

on the ground. JSTARS can monitor movement over land and water of 20,000+ 

square miles from 200 miles away, detecting tanks, trucks, ships, and individuals 

916 

walking. As you assessed your intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements and the various systems available to you to fulfill these requirements 

for operations over Libya, how critical was JSTARS? Specifically, how has the wide 

area surveillance, targeting, and command and control flexibility of this weapons 

system contributed to your ongoing operation? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

50. Senator CHAMBLISS. General Ham, if more JSTARS aircraft were available in 

your theater, could our warfighters and tactical intelligence units benefit from its 

battle management, wide area surveillance, and target attack capability? 

General HAM. The current allocation of JSTARS platforms supporting AFRICOM 

is adequate to support the command’s ongoing missions. We continually assess our 

intelligence collection posture based on enduring and emergent requirements and 

have found that JSTARS capabilities have been and remain a useful platform for 

the command. 

51. Senator CHAMBLISS. General McNabb, I understand there are now five operational C–5M Super Galaxies in service and the Air Force is using these assets to 

support combat unit moves to locations in Afghanistan. I have heard good things 

regarding the performance of the C–5M—in fact, I’ve heard it described as a game 

changer. I would be interested in your thoughts on this new aircraft—in your words, 

how well are the C–5Ms performing and are they meeting expectations set for the 

C–5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program? 

General MCNABB. As of May 1, 2011, we have five operational C–5Ms. Of those, 

four are performing Air Force missions and the fifth is currently in scheduled maintenance and should be available for missions as early as May 23, 2011. The C–5Ms 

most recent accomplishments are actually in support of operations in Libya, where 

we used all four models of C–5s (models A, B, C, and M) to fly 118 sorties, delivering 499 passengers, and 1,444 short tons of cargo. We had all four available C– 

5M Super Galaxies involved, delivering 38 percent more cargo for every hour flown 

than the other C–5 models. This is a significant savings in time and fuel, so yes, 

the C–5Ms are definitely meeting our high expectations, and their operational capabilities and significantly higher reliability are allowing us to use the C–5 fleet in 

new ways. During the earlier Rota NAS surge operation the C–5M provided 59 percent of flown sorties and moved 59 percent of the cargo with an 88.7 percent mission 

capable rate. At this time, I am confident that we will reach our goal of a wartime 

75 percent MCR by fiscal year 2015 as projected. 

52. Senator CHAMBLISS. General McNabb, the United States has been relying on 

Russian built IL–76 and AN–124 transport aircraft operated by international commercial cargo operators to move cargo to support our troops. These operations include moving cargo within CENTCOM, transporting Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and other equipment from the United States, and most recently backfilling C–17 CENTCOM missions when those C–17s were used to support 

the humanitarian relief effort in Haiti, Chile, and other countries. In fact, I understand that Air Mobility Command spent $2 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to lease 

foreign aircraft between fiscal years 2004 and 2010. Recently, DOD used the AN– 

124 heavily to deploy MRAPs to Iraq and Afghanistan because the U.S. strategic 

airlift fleet was involved in other taskings such as earthquake relief efforts in Haiti 

and Chile. The use of IL–76 and AN–124 is a unique solution to relieve the pressure 

on our strategic airlift fleet when it is supporting other contingencies. However, 

Russia and many of its old satellite nations seldom have policies that align with 

U.S. foreign policies and national security objectives, and it would be a mistake for 

the United States to count on these aircraft, particularly in an emergency or in a 

situation where we’re taking action that some countries don’t support. With this in 

mind, I question DOD’s desire for Congress to repeal the requirement for DOD to 

retain 316 strategic airlift aircraft. It seems to me that, while we’re relying on the 

Russians to make ends meet in the strategic airlift arena, that we shouldn’t be 

downsizing our own force. Could you comment on this issue? 

General MCNABB. The MCRS–16 analysis identified a peak demand of 32.7 million ton miles/day as sufficient capacity for the Air Force’s strategic airlift aircraft 

inventory. Our planned strategic airlift fleet of approximately 300 aircraft (the current program consists of 222 C–17s, 52 C–5Ms, and 27 C–5As) will achieve this capacity. 

There is a distinction between what resources we use for our planned wartime capability and what we use in current operations. Our planned wartime capability 

does not rely upon any foreign source of airlift. However, when not operating at full 

wartime capability and utilization rates, without the Guard and Reserves mobilized 

917 

and CRAF activated, it makes good business sense to use commercial contracted airlift via our CRAF carriers and their networks. We are always looking to provide the 

best value, given all our requirements. Periodic use of commercial aircraft, to include B–747, IL–76s, and AN–124s, allow us do so, while providing the additional 

benefit of freeing up our military aircraft to handle missions for which they are better equipped. Accommodating these short-term surges is more cost-effective to do 

with use of commercial assets than maintaining additional force structure that is 

not required full time. 

53. Senator CHAMBLISS. General McNabb, is relying on foreign airlift capacity the 

right option to choose for guaranteed reliable air movement of America’s military 

might and to support U.S. foreign policy? 

General MCNABB. There is a distinction between what resources we use for our 

planned wartime capability and what we use in current operations. Our planned 

wartime capability does not rely upon any foreign source of airlift. However, when 

not operating at full wartime capacity and utilization rates (as in current operations 

today without the Guard and Reserves fully mobilized and CRAF activated) there 

are a few limited times when certain requirements slightly exceed our oversize/ 

outsize cargo capability. Accommodating these short-term surges is more cost-effective to do with use of commercial assets than maintaining additional force structure 

that is not required full time. 

54. Senator CHAMBLISS. General McNabb, what impact have foreign carriers had 

on operations security and other security concerns, especially considering they do 

not have access to secure communications systems and networks? 

General MCNABB. A foreign carrier’s lack of secure communications systems does 

not seriously hamper security. The great majority of all airlift missions, military 

and commercial, take place entirely within an unclassified environment, including 

identification of the mission requirement, contractual mission assignment, flight following, and the use of unclassified flight plans within the International Civil Aviation Organization flight regime. Foreign carriers are not used for sensitive missions 

or to carry sensitive or classified cargo. 

55. Senator CHAMBLISS. General McNabb, what are the potential threats of allowing foreign aircraft onto U.S. bases and facilities, and how do you mitigate that risk? 

General MCNABB. TRANSCOM has instituted a very aggressive safety and audit 

oversight program as part of our Theater Express and Worldwide Express contracts 

in the CENTCOM AOR. We require our CRAF prime contractors to screen all aspects of their subcontractors, from hiring practices to flight and maintenance operations, for both safety and security. Beyond this, we shared with our CRAF members certain other non-operational concerns we uncovered with other potential subcontractors, and have therefore attempted to prevent exposure of our operations to 

foreign air carriers which could reflect badly on our U.S. business practices or pose 

a safety risk. CENTCOM also has its own safety and security procedures in place 

to protect its installations from the potential risks posed by allowing access by commercial operators. TRANSCOM requires compliance by its contractors and subcontractors to CENTCOM security requirements. 

56. Senator CHAMBLISS. General McNabb, what mitigation plan do you have 

should that foreign airlift source not be available in the future? 

General MCNABB. The primary mitigation is that our wartime planning does not 

include any reliance on foreign sources of airlift. Instead, we rely upon mobilization 

of our Reserve and National Guard, flying at our wartime utilization rates and activation of our CRAF. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE

TERRORISM

57. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, you state that the driving factors of terrorism 

in Africa are lack of good governance, education, lack of stability, security, and economic opportunity. It is difficult to find an area of greater instability, less education, 

and poorer governance than the Central African Republic (CAR), yet not many 

jihadists emanate from the CAR. What explains this fact? 

General HAM. Many factors have so far reduced the likelihood of the CAR being 

a focus of jihadist activity. There is not a significant Muslim population, except in 

the remote northeast portion of the country. Most CAR citizens strongly identify 

918 

with local, traditional, ethnic, and tribal cultures. Additionally, the country does not 

have widespread access to internet technology or the transport networks which 

would support the flow of jihadist ideology into the country. 

58. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, what role do the Saudis and the Persian Gulf 

states play in Islamic radicalization in North and East Africa? 

General HAM. [Deleted.] 

59. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, in responding to my question regarding the 

misalignment of AFRICOM’s and DOS Bureau of African Affairs’ borders, you said, 

‘‘I’m not so sure that necessarily equal alignment is the best way ahead.’’ If this is 

the case, why is there such discontinuity between DOS FMF spending, which is 

overwhelmingly focused on Near East states like Tunisia (pre-revolution), and 

AFRICOM priorities in sub-Saharan Africa. As Senator Graham pointed out, the 

primary AFRICOM tools in Africa are non-military, yet there appears to be a significant mismatch between AFRICOM’s priorities and the priorities of DOS. Do the 

different boundaries exacerbate AFRICOM’s efforts to direct U.S. Government funds 

in support of the command’s priorities? 

General HAM. My preference would be to increase FMF in Sub-Saharan Africa 

rather than to reduce funding for important engagements with friends and allies in 

North Africa. North Africa does benefit from its association with engagement in the 

neareast but we should consider the issues of sub-Sahara Africa separately. Sub-Sahara Africa FMF has doubled since the establishment of AFRICOM. This is a good 

start and we hope to build on that. However, we have also benefitted greatly from 

DOS programs that recognize the unique nature of our engagement on that continent. Programs such as the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Program and the 

Global Peace and Operations Initiative—with its associated Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program—have provided almost $90 million per year in support of key AFRICOM objectives. I would like to see additional 

FMF to sustain these and programs such as 1206, but because of these programs 

the balance between North Africa and Sub-Sahara Africa is somewhat more balanced than FMF figures alone may indicate. 

The differing boundaries between AFRICOM and the respective DOS bureaus 

have not affected our efforts. 

60. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, with Senator Brown, I am cosponsoring the 

No Contracting with the Enemy Act of 2011. This legislation would allow the U.S. 

Government to more quickly cut off the flow of contracting funds when it is discovered that a contract benefits enemies of the United States. How much military/paramilitary training sponsored by the U.S. Government in Africa is being done by contractors? 

General HAM. We should not be contracting in ways that benefit adversaries of 

the United States. The majority of the military/paramilitary training conducted by 

contractors is through the ACOTA program, led by the DOS. DOD sponsored training by contractors in Africa is intermittent and episodic and does not constitute a 

significant percentage of the AFRICOM effort. 

61. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, how much of this amount does the ACOTA 

program account for? 

General HAM. DOS-led ACOTA training is entirely contractor executed, with the 

exception of ad hoc military mentor support from the AFRICOM components (U.S. 

Marine Forces Africa, Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, and U.S. Army 

Forces Africa). The ACOTA budget is approximately $50 million annually, with 

roughly 55 to 60 percent of that going towards contracted training. The rest is for 

equipment and peacekeeping training center improvements. 

62. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, are you confident that there is sufficient oversight of contracting associated ACOTA? 

General HAM. To my knowledge, yes, however it should be noted that the ACOTA 

program is entirely contractor executed through DOS, whose acquisitions and legal 

personnel apply rigorous standards to all contracts executed through this mechanism. In planning and conducting activities related to ACOTA, we work closely with 

DOS to ensure our activities are synchronized and we sometimes lend assistance in 

policy oversight, subject matter expert assessments, and other military support. 

919 

CIVILIAN PARTNERSHIPS

63. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, in your statement it is clear that the 

AFRICOM mission, which focuses heavily on long-term development and stability 

issues, requires your command to work closely with civilian interagency partners— 

often in a supporting role. What controlling grand strategic guidance do you have 

from the National Security Council or the White House that guides not only your 

activities in Africa—but the activities of your civilian partners as well? 

General HAM. The National Security Strategy (NSS), the National Defense Strategy, the National Military Strategy, the Unified Command Plan, and the Guidance 

for the Employment of the Forces serve as foundational documents which guide the 

command’s activities in Africa. In support of national level strategic guidance, DOD 

and Joint Staff directives, the AFRICOM’s theater strategy (2011–2021) provides 

guidance for synchronizing command activities to improve the overall security and 

stability in Africa. The theater strategy is informed by the DOS and the U.S. Agency for International Development strategic plans, the priorities of other U.S. Government agencies active in Africa, and the respective priorities of African partner nations and regional organizations. 

The NSS and the National Security Presidential Directive-50 are the two controlling grand strategic documents that guide both AFRICOM’s and other U.S. Government agencies’ partner activities in Africa. 

64. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, do you believe the NSS provides sufficiently 

clear and detailed guidance for the interagency effort in Africa? 

General HAM. Yes, the NSS prescribes a whole-of-government approach to update, 

balance, and integrate all of the tools of American power and work with our allies 

and partners to achieve U.S. objectives. The National Military Strategy and the 

Global Employment of the Force further amplify the strategic guidance of the NSS. 

AFRICOM can better achieve these objectives when it weaves interagency efforts 

in all command activities and leverages and synchronizes the capability of the U.S. 

Government, effectively ensuring alignment of resources with our NSS. Therefore, 

the command’s strategy is heavily informed by, and carefully coordinated with, the 

embedded interagency staff and their parent agencies and departments, enabling 

the command to maintain its coordination with the other departments and agencies 

of the U.S. Government while continuing to enhance its capacity to defeat asymmetric threats, preserve access to the global commons, and strengthen partners. 

AFRICOM HEADQUARTERS

65. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, what process and criteria is DOD using to determine whether to move the AFRICOM headquarters? 

General HAM. The process is underway to pursue a full study by DOD for delivery 

in spring 2012. Specific criteria to determine whether or not to move the headquarters are under development. 

66. Senator AYOTTE. General Ham, is this process underway and what criteria 

would be used to determine the new AFRICOM headquarters location? 

General HAM. The process is underway to pursue a full study by DOD for delivery 

in spring 2012. Specific criteria to compare different locations are under development. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(921) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. FORCES KOREA 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Webb, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, 

McCain, Brown, Portman, and Ayotte. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Jason W. Maroney, counsel; and 

Russell L. Shaffer, counsel. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Christian D. Brose, professional staff member; Daniel A. 

Lerner, professional staff member; Michael J. Sistak, research assistant; and Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Christine G. Lang, 

and Brian F. Sebold. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Gordon Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator 

Hagan; Lindsay Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Joanne 

McLaughlin, assistant to Senator Manchin; Patrick Day and Chad 

Kreikemeier, assistants to Senator Shaheen; Jeremy Bratt, assistant to Senator Blumenthal; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; 

Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; Pam Thiessen, assistant to Senator Portman; and Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator 

Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. Today we will receive testimony on the posture of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00927 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
922 

gion and hear the views and assessments of our senior U.S. commanders on the many issues and challenges in this important region. 

On behalf of the committee, I first would like to welcome back 

Admiral Bob Willard, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command 

(PACOM), and General Skip Sharp, Commander of the United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command and the U.S. ForcesKorea (USFK). The committee appreciates your years of faithful 

service, gentlemen, and the many, many sacrifices that you and 

your families make for our Nation. Likewise, we greatly appreciate 

the service of all of our men and women, military and civilian, who 

serve with you in your commands. Would you please convey to 

them our admiration, our appreciation for their selfless dedication. 

General Sharp, I understand that your successor has been identified and that this will likely be your last hearing before this committee. I’d like to thank you specially for your service in this very 

important assignment and for the assistance that you’ve provided 

to the committee and to Congress as we’ve worked through the 

complexities associated with the security situation in Korea. We 

wish you and your family the very best in the future. 

At the outset, on behalf of the full committee I want to express 

our continuing solidarity with and our support for the Japanese 

people as they recover from the devastation caused by the March 

earthquake and the tsunami. Japan is one of our strongest allies 

and partners, not only in the Asia-Pacific area, but worldwide. 

Since the disaster, the U.S. military has been working alongside 

the Japanese Self-Defense Force (JSDF) to render aid and assistance to the tens of thousands of victims and to help the Japanese 

people rebuild. 

Admiral Willard and his extraordinary team have been leading 

the military efforts, and we’re very interested in your update, Admiral, on the recovery operations and in your expectations of where 

the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief effort is headed 

from the standpoint of the U.S. military. 

There are many other issues and challenges in the region that 

also command the committee’s attention. This is an important 

hearing not only because of things that are happening in the region 

today, but also because of what certain regional trends may portend for the future, and we cannot afford to take the region’s current stability for granted. 

A significant number of the world’s largest economies and democracies reside in the Asia-Pacific region, as do many of our most important allies and partners, and vital lines of commerce stream 

steadily and constantly and steadily throughout the region. Indeed, 

the importance of this region to the economic and global security 

can hardly be overstated. 

Adding to the complexity is the dynamic change the region has 

undergone in just the last 50 years. Some countries in the region 

have experienced dramatic gains in terms of social progress and 

economic prosperity, while others have to deal with oppressive regimes, struggling economies, and the scourge of human abuses. 

Our posture in the region has not changed much, however, during that same period. The 2010 report of the Quadrennial Defense 

Review states that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to 

923 

‘‘augment and adapt U.S. forward presence in the Pacific,’’ and the 

national military strategy for 2011, which has been signed onto by 

Admiral Mullen in February of this year, articulates the need to 

‘‘invest new attention and resources in Southeast and South Asia.’’ 

To this end, our military and civilian leadership in DOD is considering new arrangements with countries in the southern parts of 

the region, such as Australia, Singapore, and others, that might 

offer new opportunities, but that will also likely involve new and 

to this point largely undetermined U.S. commitments and costs. 

We’d be interested in hearing from our witnesses about what these 

initiatives might mean for U.S. force posture in the region and for 

future year defense budgets. 

One ongoing realignment initiative in the Pacific involves the 

U.S. military on Okinawa and on Guam. The United States’ alliance with Japan is longstanding and, as seen from the disaster response effort of the last month, is multifaceted. A perplexing aspect 

of the relationship in the past couple years, however, has been the 

realignment of the U.S. military on the island of Okinawa. 

Implementation of the realignment roadmap agreement signed in 

2006 as a result of the broader U.S.-Japan Defense Posture Review 

Initiative has bogged down over issues involving the establishment 

of a new Marine Corps airfield on Okinawa and over concerns on 

Guam regarding additional requirements to support the relocation 

of about 8,000 marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam. 

This Okinawa-Guam realignment of U.S. forces represents an 

important strategic adjustment to our overall future posture in the 

Pacific. The current price tag of the Guam buildup associated with 

the realignment, however, tops $10 billion, the U.S. share of which 

is about 40 percent. While the roadmap agreement may have been 

workable at one time, subsequent delays and political, diplomatic, 

and fiscal realities continue to encumber progress and may increase costs significantly. 

The details of the plans for Okinawa are many and complex, as 

are the details of the associated military buildup on Guam. That 

said, because these actions will affect the U.S. military’s strategic 

positioning well into the future, it is important that these issues 

be discussed and resolved. 

Likewise, on the Korean Peninsula the U.S. force posture is undergoing significant change over the next several years, and even 

as that change takes place, one thing that appears likely to remain 

the same on the peninsula is the belligerence and the unpredictability of the North Korean regime. While there are prospects for 

leadership transition in North Korea, its continued and unrelenting 

pursuit of a nuclear program with ballistic missile technology, and 

its recent history of deadly unprovoked military attacks on South 

Korea, there’s little reason for optimism for a prompt resolution of 

the tensions on the peninsula. 

In the meantime, our strategic alliance with the Republic of 

Korea (ROK) is only strengthened by North Korea’s behavior. 

Against that backdrop, the United States is undergoing a significant force transformation and relocation in South Korea and is pursuing plans to grow the number of U.S. military families on the peninsula substantially by moving from 1-year unaccompanied assignments for U.S. troops to 2- and 3-year accompanied assignVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00929 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
924 

ments. The details of this plan, referred to as Tour Normalization, 

are still being worked out and the costs associated with it have yet 

to be built into the defense budget. 

Another regional development that bears discussion is China’s 

growth both economically and militarily. It is important to understand and anticipate the consequences of this growth on the regional dynamic. As China’s influence and military grow, traditional 

alliances and partnerships in the region may come under pressure 

from a perception that the balance of power is shifting and certain 

countries in the region may find it necessary to grow their militaries as well. 

Some experts even warn of the potential for an emerging arms 

race in the region as countries leery of China’s intentions for its 

burgeoning military seek to shore up their own defenses. Such developments must be studied and understood if informed decisionmaking is to proceed in a thoughtful, effective way. 

To that end, a robust, meaningful, and mutually beneficial military-to-military engagement with China remains a useful goal for 

the United States. 

There are many other challenges in the vast Asia-Pacific region: 

preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, countering violent extremism, providing humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief, and protecting critical sea lanes of communication. 

Admiral and General, it’s a pleasure to have you both back with 

us this morning. We look forward to your testimony on a whole 

range of challenging topics, and I turn it over to Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me join 

you in thanking our distinguished witnesses for their many years 

of dedicated service, and we join the chairman in extending our 

deep and abiding gratitude to the men and women in uniform that 

you lead every day. General Sharp, thank you especially for your 

many years of brave and dedicated service. 

Much of our focus of late has been on the historic events in the 

Middle East and North Africa, and with good reason. That has not 

in any way diminished our concentration on the Asia-Pacific region, 

where a less tumultuous but no less transformational process of 

change continues to unfold. This massive region is increasingly at 

the center of U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic policy, and 

the growing role of the Asia-Pacific region in the global distribution 

of power will affect the future of the United States as perhaps no 

other trend in the world. 

Amid these historic changes, our bilateral alliances remain the 

cornerstone of regional security and U.S. policy. Our relations with 

the ROK has never been better. We aim to encourage Korea’s increasing emergence as not just a regional power, but a responsible 

global leader. We’re working closely with the new government in 

Australia on a host of critical security issues and it is our indivisible bond with Japan that has driven the United States, especially 

our armed forces, to lead the world’s effort to help our ally in their 

time of greatest need. 

Our prayers are with the Japanese Government and people, especially all who have lost loved ones, and we’re very concerned by 

925 

yesterday’s decision by the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission to 

reclassify the country’s nuclear crisis as a level 7 emergency, on 

par with the Chernobyl disaster. We would welcome the witnesses’ 

assessment of what this means for the safety and security of people 

in the exposed areas and beyond, including U.S. servicemembers 

participating in the relief effort. 

In addition to our close cooperation and exercise with our Philippine and Thai allies, the United States is also transforming its 

military-to-military relations with a number of emerging partners, 

including Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and India. Our strategic 

partnership with India in particular holds immense potential for 

shaping a geopolitical balance within and beyond the region that 

favors political and economic freedom. 

In short, the United States is well positioned in the Asia-Pacific 

region, both in terms of our expanding partnerships as well as our 

enduring capabilities, to promote our national interests in the dynamic 21st century. 

That’s not to say that we and our friends and allies in the 

PACOM area of responsibility (AOR) don’t face significant challenges. We certainly do, especially from the continued uncertainty 

surrounding China’s military modernization and the lack of transparency regarding the ends to which China intends to devote the 

many sophisticated capabilities it is building. Of particular concern, in this context, is China’s development of anti-access/area denial weapons, anti-satellite capabilities, a stealth combat aircraft, 

a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles, offensive cyber weapons, and 

now an aircraft carrier. Indeed, just last week the Chinese state 

news agency revealed that this carrier was nearly completed and 

would sail this year. 

Our concern over China’s military capabilities has only grown 

over the past year in light of a sustained pattern of actions that 

increase tensions in the region, from expansive claims of Chinese 

sovereignty in international waters to provocative confrontations at 

sea with neighboring countries, to threats made against Southeast 

Asian countries. 

This past year also saw a worrying freeze in our bilateral military-to-military engagement with the People’s Liberation Army 

(PLA). The recent visit by the Secretary of Defense to China suggests that our military dialogue is resuming, but we would welcome 

our witnesses’ assessment of China’s recent assertiveness. We’d 

also welcome their thoughts on whether the continued absence of 

a decision on the sale of F–16s to Taiwan serves U.S. and allied 

interests in East Asia. 

A more immediate concern is the threat posed by the North Korean regime and the prospect of instability or even conflict on the 

Korean Peninsula. The all too familiar North Korean pattern of behavior, of increased aggression followed by attempted extortion for 

international assistance and diplomatic concessions, is being exacerbated at present by the regime’s internal transition. 

Over the past year, the North Korean regime has sunk a South 

Korean ship, killing 46 sailors; it’s shelled South Korean territory, 

killing Korean marines and civilians, while wounding many others; 

and it recently revealed a sophisticated and previously unknown 

uranium enrichment facility. Thus far the United States and our 

926 

Korean allies have responded to these increasing and outrageous 

acts of aggression through a series of unprecedented military exercises, which also featured, I’m happy to say, the presence of JSDFs 

as observers. 

In the event of another attack by the North Korean regime, I 

would be eager to hear from the witnesses whether South Korea 

can and should respond with similar restraint. These and other 

challenges will require further thinking about the U.S. military 

posture in the Asia-Pacific region. As the chairman pointed out, we 

currently have an agreement with the Government of Japan to relocate 8,000 U.S. marines and their families from Okinawa to 

Guam, as well as to close other U.S. bases on Okinawa, and to relocate these forces at Camp Schwab on the north side of Okinawa. 

These agreements will require the investment by both countries of 

at least $30 billion, at last estimate, to build new bases for U.S. 

forces on the two islands. 

With the recent tragic events in Japan, combined with tougher 

budget pressures here in the United States, I have to wonder 

whether either country has the resources at this point to devote to 

this move. I welcome new ideas for diversifying and expanding the 

presence of U.S. forces in the region and I look forward to hearing 

our witnesses’ thinking about what regional presence of U.S. forces 

would best serve our and our allies’ interests. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

Admiral Willard, I think we’ll begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF ADM ROBERT F. WILLARD, USN, COMMANDER, 

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Chairman Levin. In order to accommodate the committee’s questions sooner, I’ll keep my remarks 

brief and ask that my full statement be included for the record. 

Chairman LEVIN. It will be made part of the record. 

Admiral WILLARD. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, thank you 

for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss PACOM and 

the Asia-Pacific region. I’d like to begin by recognizing my wife 

Donna, who’s been at my side for 37 years. Her brother Mike 

Yelverton, a senior Defense Intelligence Agency executive, is also 

with us today. Donna’s an outstanding ambassador for our Nation 

and a tireless advocate for the men and women of our military and 

their families. She recently accompanied me to Japan, where she 

met with Service spouses and then traveled to the tsunami-stricken 

region to visit a shelter for 1,200 displaced Japanese survivors. 

On that note, I’d like to begin by offering our deepest sympathy 

to the people of Japan, who’ve been affected by an unprecedented 

confluence of earthquakes, tsunami, and consequent nuclear accidents. In the midst of tragedy, the people of northern Honshu have 

demonstrated remarkable courage and resolve. Their ability to endure, assist one another through hardship, clean up their communities, and recover their lives should be an inspiration to all of us. 

The devastation that Donna and I observed from the 11 March 

natural disasters was staggering, and the significance of the continuing nuclear crisis adds a level of disaster response complexity 

and urgency that in my experience is without peer. 

927 

PACOM remains fully committed to supporting response efforts 

by the JSDFs. I established a joint support force in Japan whose 

mission includes humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, including support to the JSDF who are spearheading the Fukushima 

nuclear accident’s response. At the same time, we’re guarding the 

safety of U.S. Service personnel and their families, whether they’re 

operating in direct support to the relief effort or carrying out their 

normal duties at their home bases. 

A second PACOM joint task force planned and executed the voluntary departure of spouses and dependents and maintains followon departure plans should they be required. 

The level of cooperation and collaboration between the service 

men and women of the United States and Japan has been remarkable and the job they’re doing together is inspiring. Worthy of special recognition is General Oriki, Japan’s Chief of Defense Force, 

for his exceptional leadership of nearly 100,000 Japanese 

servicemembers who’ve been engaged in this effort. 

Our ability to quickly and effectively support their work is testimony to the maturity and strength of the U.S.-Japan alliance. No 

doubt Japan will emerge from this terrible combination of disasters 

a stronger nation. Our hopes and prayers continue to go out to the 

Japanese people. 

Natural disasters are but one of the many challenges facing 

PACOM throughout the Asia-Pacific region. This vast region that 

covers half the Earth is unique both in its size, diversity, and importance to the future of every other nation in the world. Containing great populations, economies, and militaries, along with 

more than $5 trillion of seaborne commerce per year, this region 

has been and will continue to be of utmost importance to the 

United States. 

PACOM’s role is to oversee its security and to help keep the 

peace, both in our Nation’s interests and in the interests of our five 

treaty allies and many regional partners. The security environment 

is never static. Rather, it’s characterized by a dynamic range of 36 

nations whose varying personalities and influence more or less affect the neighborhood. Each of our four sub-regions—Northeast 

Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Oceania—contain unique 

challenges and challengers that test our collective commitment to 

security and peace. 

Yet, in the face of actors such as North Korea, transnational extremist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jemaah 

Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf Group, and uncertainties created by a 

rapidly expanding and assertive Chinese military, multilateral organizations such as Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

(ASEAN) and East Asian Summit, and the bonds between the 

United States, its allies, and partners, serve to moderate the challenges, deter the challengers, and provide forums for advancing the 

collective security of the Asia-Pacific region. 

Overall, the prospects for continued peace, economic growth, and 

advancing security cooperation in the region remain promising, 

though we’re repeatedly reminded that only through the United 

States’ ability and willingness to underwrite that security through 

its continued presence, enduring extended deterrence, and protecVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00933 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
928 

tion of the global commons upon which the region’s livelihood depends, will regional peace and security endure. 

Every day our sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines, and civilians 

work to advance the security in the Asia-Pacific. Their success has 

been long enabled by this committee’s sustained support. You’ve 

provided the service men and women of PACOM with the most 

technically advanced military system in the world and a quality of 

life worthy of the contributions of this All-Volunteer Force. On behalf of the more than 330,000 men and women of PACOM, thank 

you, and thank you for this opportunity to testify on our defense 

posture in this most vital region of the world. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Willard follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM ROBERT F. WILLARD, USN 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to provide an update on U.S. Pacific Command 

(PACOM). Today is my second testimony as the Commander of PACOM. Since the 

2010 hearings, much has happened in this increasingly important region. I have 

travelled throughout the Asia-Pacific visiting a dozen different countries—some multiple times—and gained valuable insight into the extensive contributions by our regional Allies and partners. 

What follows is my assessment of the strategic environment and the role of 

PACOM forces assigned throughout the region. Included in this testimony is a discussion of the military construction (MILCON) programs that enable these forces to 

perform their mission effectively while sustaining the quality of life our service men 

and women deserve. 

Strategic Environment in the Asia-Pacific 

The PACOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) is vital to U.S. national interests. It 

spans half the Earth and is home to more than 3 billion people living in three dozen 

nations—five of which are allied with the United States and many more of which 

are important economic and security partners. The region contains the world’s three 

largest economies, and almost one-third (over $1 trillion) of U.S. two-way trade in 

goods and services is with nations in the region. Moreover, much of the world’s 

trade and energy that fuels the world economy moves on Asia’s sea and air lines 

of communication. 

The vastness of the region makes permanent and rotational U.S. force presence 

essential to enabling security and strategic deterrence throughout the region while 

protecting and defending the homeland. MILCON provides necessary facilities for 

new weapon systems, supports the Services’ evolution to become more efficient and 

effective, offers warfighters and their families quality-of-life facilities while at home, 

and renovates existing facilities that are beyond their useful lives. Thus the 

MILCON projects in this testimony enhance the capabilities of PACOM forces that 

underpin security in this increasingly important and dynamic region. 

While the region remains relatively secure and stable, the strategic environment 

also includes traditional and asymmetric challenges that drive the need for forward 

presence and the subsequent MILCON recommendations in this testimony. Sustaining the conditions that have underpinned unprecedented prosperity for over six 

decades remains challenging for a variety of reasons, including the following: 

• The threat to the United States and its allies posed by North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities, its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated technologies, and its potential for instability 

• Transnational violent extremist organizations (VEOs) undermine stability 

and threaten traditional Allies and emerging partners 

• China’s significant military modernization associated with its unclear intent 

• Territorial disputes, and increasingly assertive actions to resolve them, 

present the potential for conflict and instability 

• Increasingly persistent and sophisticated cyber threats that challenge 

unencumbered operations. 

929 

• Transnational criminal activity—to include piracy and trafficking in narcotics and persons—that rejects the rule of law and challenges international 

order 

• Humanitarian crises such as pandemics and famines, as well as natural 

disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes 

• Environmental degradation caused by poor resource management, the pillaging of natural resources, and disputes over resource sovereignty 

Despite these many challenges, the region remains one of immense opportunity 

for peaceful growth, cooperation, and prosperity. Realizing such opportunity relies 

upon continued U.S. ability and willingness to underwrite security, extend deterrence, and protect the global commons upon which the region’s livelihood depends. 

U.S. military strength, presence, and engagement provide the means to ensure security and peace and avoid confrontation and conflict. Secretary of Defense Gates emphasized this point in Singapore in June 2010: ‘‘The strength of the U.S. commitment and deterrent power will be expressed through the continued forward presence 

of substantial U.S. forces in the region.’’ 

PACOM thus embraces a theater strategy that leverages an evolving force posture. In concert with other government agencies, this posture is designed to simultaneously hedge against traditional and asymmetric challenges as well as advance alliance and partner-nation relationships. Extensive analyses clearly indicate a need 

to build an integrated posture framework that prioritizes adjustments by maximizing strength, balancing and biasing disposition, and sustaining readiness in all 

subregions (Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Oceania). 

Regional Force Posture Assessment 

Broadly, the U.S. military in the Asia-Pacific enjoys freedom of action, numerous 

dependable Allies and partners, and ready access to theater forces (e.g., Hawaii, 

Guam, and Japan) as well as to global and continental (especially west coast and 

Alaska garrisoned) forces. Other existing posture strengths include the collocation 

of command elements in Hawaii, pre-positioned stocks, maintenance support, and 

several distributed, forward sub-commands. 

Current force posture throughout the Asia-Pacific remains heavily influenced by 

post-World War II- and Cold War-era basing and infrastructure. While maintaining 

access and capabilities in Northeast Asia remains essential, attaining better access 

to and support from Allied and partner nations in South and Southeast Asia is increasingly important. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen stated in the 2011 National Military Strategy, ‘‘our presence and alliance commitments 

remain the key to preserving stability in Northeast Asia, [and] we must also invest 

new attention and resources in Southeast and South Asia.’’ 

PACOM strives to continuously optimize its force posture to meet emerging 21st 

century conventional and asymmetric threats. Nevertheless, forward forces remain 

potentially vulnerable to cyber attack on networks and logistics systems. Also, growing anti-access and area-denial challenges make joint capabilities and cooperation 

imperative; further development of the Air-Sea Battle concept will establish a better 

institutionalized method to address this threat. 

Northeast Asia 

Northeast Asia is a complex region with distinct challenges and a wealth of opportunities to positively influence the security environment. It contains many of the 

most significant economies and militaries in the Asia-Pacific and the world, including Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), China, and Russia. Strong U.S. presence, 

basing, access, and support in this important subregion serves to not only protect 

the homeland but also furthers U.S. interests regarding Allies, partners, extended 

deterrence, and treaty obligations. 

Northeast Asia is home to North Korea, one of the most likely and persistent 

threats to the U.S. and its Allies. This Nation presents a multifaceted problem set 

for the U.S.-ROK Alliance, the region, and the international community. In addition 

to the conventional threat it poses to the ROK, its nuclear program, missile development, proliferation activities, provoke-bargain-cheat cycles, add to North Korea’s capacity to disturb peace and stability throughout the region and globally. 

Japan and the ROK are strong U.S. Allies that host U.S. forces, enjoy U.S. extended deterrence, and stand with the United States in containing North Korea’s 

aggression and meeting other regional and global security challenges. 

Japan 

Rapid response in the Asia-Pacific region hinges on flexibility and forward basing 

of military forces. Despite some recent deliberation related to U.S. basing realignment in Japan, the military relationship and the overall Alliance remain strong. As 

930 

the Alliance enters its 51st year, it endures as relevant and as a key component 

of security in Northeast Asia and the larger Asia-Pacific. The United States and 

Japan continue to share similar security interests; therefore continued collaboration 

is vital to address challenges that include DPRK, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR), and support for freedom of action in the maritime domain as 

well as in space and cyberspace. 

Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI). To transform and realign U.S. forces in 

Japan, the Government of Japan (GOJ) and the U.S. Government agreed in 2005 

to implement changes that would allow PACOM forces to adapt to the changing regional and global security environment. The DPRI remains a key transformation 

goal of the U.S.-Japan Alliance and PACOM remains committed to its implementation. Major realignment elements include relocating two U.S. air bases from urbanized to rural areas, co-locating U.S. and Japanese command and control capabilities, 

deploying U.S. missile defense capabilities to Japan in conjunction with their own 

deployments, and improving operational coordination between U.S. and Japanese 

forces. 

DPRI implementation, in large measure, is on track due to the significant contributions provided by the GOJ. The issue lacking progress and most familiar to 

members of Congress is the development of a Futenma Replacement Facility and 

the subsequent move of approximately 8,000 marines to Guam. While this lack of 

progress is disappointing, it does not undermine the ability of PACOM to maintain 

trained and ready forces in the region or to fulfill U.S. treaty obligations to Japan. 

Meanwhile, U.S. forces will continue to operate from the existing facility at 

Futenma Marine Corps Air Station while PACOM works with Department of Defense leadership and the Japanese to find a solution acceptable to both nations. 

Guam. Like the Okinawa-based marines, Guam-based forces offer the response 

and deterrence required to enhance security to meet U.S. interests and fulfill commitments to regional U.S. Allies. Per the original agreement, U.S. MILCON funds 

will also contribute to the facility and infrastructure construction costs on Guam to 

support the relocating Marines and their dependents. In addition, investments will 

be needed to improve off-base Guam infrastructure, such as roads and bridges critical to the successful movement of materiel to the planned Marine Corps installation. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 did not include $320 

million for three projects that were submitted in the President’s budget that support 

the move of marines from Okinawa to Guam. The reasons for not funding the three 

priorities are explained in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on the 

Armed Services. Currently, the U.S. and Japanese Governments continue to reaffirm agreements and provide associated funding, including the second Japanese 

funding increment of $498 million to support the move of marines to Guam. 

Also, recent approval of the Programmatic Agreement in the National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 process will enable DPRI-related construction to begin. 

Therefore, for fiscal year 2012 the Marines are resubmitting requests for North 

Ramp Utilities improvement and Finegayan Water Utilities & Site Preparation for 

a total of $156 million to support U.S. contribution to the 2006 Realignment Roadmap. The Finegayan project was reduced by $70 million to include only the water 

distribution infrastructure. The funding for these projects is critical to the success 

of the DPRI roadmap and an important signal of U.S. commitment to treaty obligations with Japan. 

The Republic of Korea 

The U.S.-ROK Alliance remains strong and is critical to U.S. strategy and military force posture in Northeast Asia and the region. This Alliance is also transforming to ensure it matures as an effective contributor to Peninsula and regional 

security. 

Current initiatives are underpinned by the transition of military wartime operational control of the ROK to its own forces during peacetime and war by the end 

of 2015. Overall, this transformation effort is designed to improve responsiveness to 

an evolving peninsular, regional, and global security environment. To this end, the 

transformation must ensure U.S. forces, which are stationed on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea’s aggression and respond to North Korea’s hostility, are 

also accessible for regional and global employment. Further, the transformation will 

ultimately support the ROK military’s continued development of extra-peninsular 

capabilities and capacities, and enable additional contributions like those seen recently in the Gulf of Aden combating piracy, providing peacekeeping forces to Haiti 

and Lebanon, and in Afghanistan leading a Provincial Reconstruction Team. 

PACOM posture transformation in the ROK entails multiple efforts. Projects for 

the Land Partnership Plan and the Yongsan Relocation Plan include relocating U.S. 

931 

troops out of downtown Seoul, returning the majority of Yongsan Army Garrison to 

the ROK Government, and consolidating U.S. forces into two primary hubs south 

of Seoul. This effort sustains a strong U.S. combat presence on the Peninsula while 

reducing force presence in major urban centers like Seoul. Of note, this realignment 

is funded largely by the ROK, but MILCON funds are needed for some facility construction and infrastructure developments. While the Services are not submitting 

MILCON projects related to transformation in fiscal year 2012, additional, important projects will be submitted in future fiscal years. 

Trilateral Cooperation 

Trilateral security cooperation between the United States, ROK, and Japan also 

continues to improve. Building on longstanding efforts to enhance policy coordination and strategic dialogue among the three countries, Secretary Clinton met with 

Foreign Ministers Maehara and Kim here in Washington on December 6, 2010, to 

discuss ways to address enduring and emerging challenges. When the devastating 

earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, the ROK demonstrated unprecedented support 

by immediately dispatching rescue teams and sending emergency supplies. That 

said, there are outstanding political, military, and historical impediments to the 

Japan-ROK relationship that must be overcome. The shared values and common interests, as well as the financial resources, logistical capabilities, and planning potential to address complex contingencies throughout the region, make expanding this 

trilateral partnership a worthy effort. Encouraging steps are also apparent in the 

burgeoning trilateral relationships between the United States, Japan, and Australia, 

and between the United States, Japan, and India. 

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

China’s rise will largely define the Asia-Pacific environment in the 21st century. 

As noted in the 2010 National Security Strategy, ‘‘We welcome a China that takes 

on a responsible leadership role in working with the United States and the international community to advance priorities like economic recovery, confronting climate 

change, and nonproliferation. We will monitor China’s military modernization program and prepare accordingly to ensure that U.S. interests and allies, regionally 

and globally, are not negatively affected. More broadly, we will encourage China to 

make choices that contribute to peace, security, and prosperity as its influence 

rises.’’ 

In support of this broader national strategy toward China, forward-postured 

PACOM forces are focused on deterrence and reassurance missions as they apply 

to China and U.S. allies and security partners in the region. In addition, PACOM’s 

interactions with China assist the administration’s broader goals by contributing to 

an overall military-to-military relationship that is healthy, stable, reliable and continuous. Such a relationship is important to avoid misperception, miscommunication, and miscalculation while it expands opportunities for cooperation where our 

security interests overlap. However, our military relationship with China continues 

to suffer from an on-again/off-again cycle of interactions which limits its ability to 

accomplish the above tasks. China suspended bilateral military relations following 

our arms sales to Taiwan in January 2010 and restarted them in fall 2010. We look 

forward to continuing the progress made in recent months which includes Secretary 

Gates’ successful visit in January of this year. 

China’s Military Modernization Program. Beginning in the mid-1990s, China’s 

peacetime military modernization program has progressed at a rapid rate. While 

force modernization is understandable in light of China’s growing regional and global roles and accompanying requirements, the scope and pace of its modernization 

without clarity on China’s ultimate goals remains troubling. For example, China 

continues to accelerate its offensive air and missile developments without corresponding public clarification about how these forces will be utilized. Of particular 

concern is the expanding inventory of ballistic and cruise missiles (which include 

anti-ship capability) and the development of modern, fourth- and fifth-generation 

stealthy combat aircraft. In conjunction, China is pursuing counter-space and -cyber 

capabilities that can be used to not only disrupt U.S. military operations, but also 

to threaten the space- and cyber-based information infrastructure that enables 

international communications and commerce. 

Absent clarification from China, its military modernization efforts hold significant 

implications for regional stability. The region is developing its own conclusions 

about why the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) continues to expand its ability to 

project power outside China’s borders, and to range both U.S. forces and U.S. Allies 

and partners in the region with new anti-access and area-denial weaponry. Of growing concern is China’s maritime behavior. China’s recent official statements and actions in what Beijing calls its .near seas. represent a direct challenge to accepted 

932 

interpretations of international law and established international norms. While 

China does not make legal claims to this entire body of water, it does seek to restrict or exclude foreign, in particular, U.S., military maritime and air activities in 

the ‘‘near seas’’—an area that roughly corresponds to the maritime area from the 

Chinese mainland out to the ‘‘first island chain’’ (described, generally, as a line 

through Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia) and including the Bohai Gulf, 

Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea. Chinese naval and maritime law 

enforcement vessels have been assertive in recent years in trying to advance China’s 

territorial claims in the South China and East China Seas which has resulted U.S. 

partners and allies in East Asia seeking additional support and reassurance to balance and curb the Chinese behavior. Many of China’s maritime policy statements 

and claims stand in contrast to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea (UNCLOS). The United States has consistently sought the appropriate balance 

between the interests of countries in controlling activities off their coasts with the 

interests of all countries in protecting freedom of navigation. China has questioned 

whether a non-party may assert such rights under UNCLOS, a baseless argument 

but one that would be removed if the United States was a party to UNCLOS. 

The current situation in the Taiwan Strait remains stable as tensions have declined in recent years; however, the Taiwan issue remains a challenge to long-term 

regional stability. China refuses to renounce the use of force to resolve the Taiwan 

question. As China’s military modernization proceeds, the cross-Strait military balance continues to shift in the mainland’s favor. U.S. policy in support of a peaceful 

resolution remains consistent and clear. We are committed to our one-China policy, 

based on the three U.S.-China communique`s and the Taiwan Relations Act. We do 

not support Taiwan independence, and would oppose unilateral changes, by either 

side, to the status quo. 

Russia 

Russia’s Pacific armed forces have not re-emerged from their post-Cold War decline. Moscow is nonetheless attempting to reassert influence in the region through 

increased naval and strategic air force operations, cyberspace activities, and arms 

sales to the region’s emerging and rising nations. That said, PACOM enjoys a relatively positive military-to-military relationship with Russia, especially between 

each country’s Pacific Fleets. 

Mongolia 

Mongolia endures as a small but strong partner in Northeast Asia. It continues 

to demonstrate support for U.S. regional and global policy objectives—especially 

those linked to the Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative and security operations in Afghanistan—while managing positive relations with neighbors China and 

Russia. 

Northeast Asia Force Posture Assessment 

Strategic deterrence in the PACOM AOR is concentrated in Northeast Asia where 

the great majority of U.S. force posture is based. Although the overall combined 

strength in this subregion is formidable, there remain areas of concern such as ballistic missile defense and regional contingency support. While both the United 

States and its Northeast Asian Allies and partners have invested in the technical 

capabilities required to mount effective defenses against ballistic missile attack, the 

broader missile defense of the region remains problematic, especially in response to 

a large-scale attack. Further, while Taiwan’s military strength is currently sufficient 

to deter full-scale amphibious or air assault by China, Taiwan’s ability to maintain 

that capability will hinge, in large measure, on whether Taiwan continuously invests in upgraded systems. Lastly, while U.S. military posture in the Asia-Pacific 

has traditionally focused on the sea, undersea, air, and land domains, the modern 

realities of warfare demand that it defend against challenges to operate freely in 

the space and cyberspace. 

Southeast Asia 

Southeast Asia is a diverse subregion, rich in natural resources, and strategically 

located at the crossroads of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It is host to a mix of 

democratic and authoritarian governments, prosperity and poverty, disparate military capabilities, and significant human capital potential. Prospects for continued 

development, increased security, and regional integration are promising, but the 

subregion presents significant security challenges. China’s increasing engagement in 

this subregion—which, in many cases, is aimed at supplanting U.S. influence—as 

well as its expansive claims to, and growing assertiveness in, the South China Sea 

are two notable challenges. Southeast Asia is also home to transnational challenges 

and threats that include violent extremism, piracy, refugee migrations, and 

933 

transnational crime such as narcotics and human trafficking. Additionally, this subregion is particularly susceptible to natural disasters such as typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, and tsunamis. 

The myriad of challenges faced by U.S. Allies and partners in Southeast Asia converge with U.S. interests; therefore strengthening defense partnerships is important 

to regional security. To further military interoperability and build regional capacity 

to respond to these challenges, the establishment of foundational information, logistics, and technology exchange agreements with these Allies and partners is important. 

In response to the growing threat posed by VEOs, PACOM supports improving 

the CT capabilities with security assistance programs, executed in partnership with 

the Department of State and embassy country teams, designed to build host-nation 

capacity and capability. Foreign Military Financing—the program for funding the 

acquisition of U.S. military materiel, services, and training that support regional 

stability goals—has been particularly important to supporting partners engaged in 

combating violent extremism, especially the Philippines and Indonesia. Additionally, 

International Military Education and Training funding has been very valuable to establishing the network of relationships that underpin cooperative success and access 

to leadership in Southeast Asia. 

Philippines 

The United States and the Philippines share democratic values, a long and unique 

history, and a desire to contribute to regional security. Underpinned by the 1951 

Mutual Defense Treaty, the U.S.-Philippines Alliance remains important to U.S. 

strategy in the Asia-Pacific. A significant effort in the Philippines is conducted by 

Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF–P). This task force operates in support of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) against the VEO 

threat posed mainly by the Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamaiya in Southern 

Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago Region. The task force has enjoyed significant 

success advising, training, exercising with, and informing the AFP, and contributed 

to the killing or capture of a significant portion of VEO leadership, the denial of 

safe havens to extremists, and the enhancement of quality of life for local populations. PACOM engages in many other ways with the Philippines—to include the 

Joint Staff-sponsored Exercise Balikatan—to help shape the AFP into a force capable of responding to various natural disasters as well as border and self-defense 

(particularly important regarding maritime security and sea lines of communications). 

Thailand 

Thailand is an important Southeast Asian Ally and engagement partner, with 

whom PACOM intends to further strengthen and broaden the Alliance. The United 

States and Thailand have worked together to bolster regional stability and security 

through cooperation on humanitarian and disaster relief, peacekeeping training, and 

counter-proliferation. This past year, the United States and Thailand partnered to 

deploy two Thai naval vessels, with U.S. Navy personnel aboard, to join Combined 

Task Force-151 combating piracy off the Horn of Africa. The Royal Thai Army, 

working with the United States, also deployed a full battalion of peacekeepers to 

Darfur to assist with U.N. humanitarian relief operations. Our relationship has 

even broken new ground in the field of public health, where U.S. and Thai military 

medical professionals have worked to combat infectious diseases from malaria to 

HIV. Further, U.S. forces benefit from our mutually beneficial relationship with 

Thailand, which allows access and engagement in an important geo-strategic location. Further the broad access granted to U.S. Forces to logistical facilities, ports, 

airfields, and training areas is crucial to enabling regional force projection and contingency response. The premier Exercise Cobra Gold is a Thailand-hosted PACOM 

multilateral exercise that includes seven participating nations (United States, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia) and observers from 

over 15 additional nations. Cobra Gold is just one of many military exercises that 

we co-host with the Thais, each of which bolsters unique capabilities within our 

forces and develops key areas of interoperability with our Thai allies and other partners. 

Singapore 

The U.S.-Singapore relationship has matured significantly in the past 6 years and 

contributes in many ways to enhanced regional security. In 2005, Singapore and the 

U.S. advanced the relationship with the signing the Strategic Framework Agreement that identifies the two nations as ‘‘Major Security Cooperation Partners.’’ 

Singapore hosts transiting U.S. Navy ships and deployed personnel, works with U.S. 

934 

forces in Afghanistan, and plays a leading role in the multi-national, counter-piracy, 

Combined Task Force in the Gulf of Aden. 

Indonesia 

The relationship between PACOM and Indonesia—the world’s fourth most populous nation, third largest democracy, and largest Muslim-majority country—continues to mature. Following a decade of political and economic reform, Indonesia has 

emerged as a vibrant democracy, increasingly confident about its leadership role in 

Southeast Asia and the developing world, particularly in disaster risk reduction, 

HA/DR, and peacekeeping operations. Indonesia, along with Japan, recently demonstrated its leadership role in building regional capacity for humanitarian assistance by co-hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional 

Forum Disaster Relief Exercise. 

After years of limited engagement with the Indonesian Armed Forces, an increase 

in transparency and pace of institutional reforms have recently provided impetus to 

renew, advance, and broaden the U.S.-Indonesia military-to-military relationship. In 

recognition of Indonesia’s pledges to protect human rights and advance military accountability, in July 2010, Secretary Gates noted that after a 12-year hiatus, the 

United States intends to begin a measured and gradual program of security cooperation activities with Indonesian Army Special Forces within the limits of U.S. law. 

Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Brunei, and Timor-Leste 

The United States has extensive interests across the rest of Southeast Asia, and 

PACOM seeks to continue maturing military relations with Malaysia, Vietnam, 

Cambodia, Brunei, and Timor-Leste. Malaysia maintains a strong leadership role in 

the region especially combating terrorism and enhancing maritime security. Military 

relations with Vietnam continue to grow in areas such as disaster management, conflict resolution, personnel recovery, medical capability, and trafficking in persons. 

Cambodia is emerging as a strong supporter of U.S. policy in the region, and activities with Laos, Brunei, and Timor-Leste have expanded over the past year. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

Focused efforts by the President and Secretaries Clinton and Gates have set the 

conditions for increased security cooperation with ASEAN. Accordingly, PACOM 

now actively seeks opportunities to support ASEAN initiatives that complement developing coordinated, multilateral approaches to maintaining regional security. 

ASEAN and PACOM have several convergent interests that include humanitarian 

assistance/disaster relief, maritime security, terrorism, and peacekeeping. With an 

evolved scope and influence, ASEAN and its offshoots (ASEAN Regional Forum, 

ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus, and the East Asia Summit) offer a framework to guide regional efforts to secure the commons and underpin cooperation 

across governmental institutions. 

Burma 

Burma presents a number of challenges to regional security, including violence between Burmese military forces and various domestic ethnic armies which sparks significant, refugee flows into Thailand; a maritime border dispute with Bangladesh, 

narcotics and human trafficking, and the potential for rapid spread of pandemic disease. Of increasing concern is Burma’s role in regional weapons proliferation, evidenced by increasing defense cooperation and procurement from the North Korea, 

in violation of several UNSCRs. In addition, Burma’s government continues to rule 

without respect for democracy or basic human rights The U.S.-Burma military-tomilitary relationship remains suspended as a matter of U.S. policy and public law. 

Engagement Programs 

Two significant engagement programs PACOM employs are Pacific Partnership 

and Pacific Angel. They are designed to enhance regional stability by building partner-nation resiliency; focus on growing multilateral capacities and capabilities in the 

areas of consequence management, civic assistance, and HA/DR. In 2010, U.S. 

Naval Ship Mercy, with personnel from 10 nations, successfully accomplished this 

mission during a 5-month deployment to Vietnam, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, and Indonesia. The mission treated over 110,000 patients, conducted scores of community 

relations projects, and completed many engineering and infrastructure projects. In 

2011 Pacific Partnership will return to Oceania aboard USS Cleveland. Pacific 

Angel, meanwhile, utilizing C–17 aircraft, cared for tens of thousands of patients 

and completed several medical and civic action projects in the Philippines, Vietnam, 

Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. 

935 

Southeast Asia Force Posture Assessment 

U.S. force posture in Southeast Asia is achieved almost entirely with deployed 

U.S. forces, which is a costly and inefficient way to achieve presence and conduct 

the requisite security and influence activities. Singapore, which allows a modest mix 

of U.S. Service capabilities, is the only exception in the region. 

Expanding U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia is a mid- to long-term prospect. In general, the Philippines remains restrictive regarding U.S. military access, 

except for JSOTF–P CT support which operates at the invitation of the Philippine 

Government. Thailand has permitted consistent access to its military facilities for 

transient and exercise-related operations, but any additional force presence would 

require thorough discussions with our Thai allies. 

South Asia 

The South Asian subregion is dominated by India, an emerging U.S. strategic 

partner, and also includes Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan. 

While there are prospects for enduring peace and prosperity, this subregion is challenged by historical animosity between India and Pakistan, contested borders between India and China, and transnational threats that include terrorism, WMD proliferation, piracy, and narcotics trafficking. The subregion is also prone to a wide 

array of natural disasters and lacks the resources and capabilities to effectively respond. This is exacerbated by the absence of a strong multilateral security structure. 

The encroachment of piracy emanating from Somalia into the PACOM AOR in 

South Asia is a growing concern. This issue poses a particular threat to the vast 

sea lines of communication that span the Indian Ocean. As a result of this expanding problem, PACOM seeks to partner with India to counter this threat. 

India 

In July 2010 at the Asia Society, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Flournoy 

characterized the U.S.-India relationship as follows: ‘‘This bond is grounded in common democratic values and converging interests that make India and U.S. natural 

partners. The United States and India have an overarching shared interest in promoting global stability and security.’’ Given the numerous areas where U.S. and Indian interests converge, plus many shared national values, a strong India-U.S. partnership is important to future South Asian security. 

Cooperation is especially noteworthy in the areas of counterterrorism, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and maritime security. The recent removal of 

Indian defense- and space-related industries from the U.S. Entity List not only recognizes India’s record of responsible stewardship of sensitive technologies but further enables bilateral cooperation in areas of mutual interests. 

Nevertheless, India’s historic leadership of the non-alignment movement and desire to maintain strategic autonomy somewhat constrain cooperation at a level 

PACOM desires. The U.S.-India relationship remains challenged by a degree of suspicion fueled by Cold War-influenced perceptions, complicated Indian political and 

bureaucratic processes, and the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. 

Relations with both India and Pakistan are vital to U.S. national interests and 

cannot be addressed in isolation. To that end, the leadership and staffs of U.S. Central Command and PACOM continue to engage in order to ensure a coordinated 

strategic approach that best meets U.S. interests. 

Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka 

The United States has extensive interests throughout the rest of South Asia. 

PACOM is working to advance relations with Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri 

Lanka. Collectively, these countries are important collaborators with the United 

States for combating terrorism and transnational criminal activity. South Asia is 

susceptible to natural disasters, but these nations lack the national resources and 

capacity to respond and therefore require significant assistance from the international community to respond to such contingencies. Toward that end, PACOM is 

working with South Asian militaries to build capacity so that they may better address the challenges in their subregion. 

PACOM is helping the Maldives address the growing threat from Somali piracy 

and transnational crime. In Nepal, PACOM’s focus is humanitarian assistance and 

efforts to support the peaceful integration of members of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army into the Nepalese security forces. Bangladesh continues to partner with 

the United States to enhance regional security, and PACOM has initiated multiple 

programs to improve Bangladesh’s civil-military trust, transparency, and cooperation. Engagement with Sri Lanka is limited to humanitarian assistance until allegations of human rights abuses are resolved. 

936 

Violent Extremism 

Violent extremism is among the most pervasive and urgent challenges in South 

Asia. VEOs are associated with a wide-range of activities, which include supporting 

insurgencies that seek political autonomy and fomenting conflict between nucleararmed India and Pakistan as a means of spreading radical Islamic ideology. Consequently, PACOM continues to expand its relationships with host-nation militaries 

and CT agencies to increase regional capacities to counter this threat. 

Responding to VEOs requires a comprehensive and cooperative CT strategy focused on developing CT capacity with India and other South Asian partners, particularly regarding the threat posed by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT). 

LeT involvement in the November 2008 attacks on Mumbai, India, validates India’s 

concerns regarding terrorist threats originating from outside India. Significantly, 

LeT deliberately targets westerners and specifically engages coalition forces in Afghanistan. PACOM is keenly aware of the threat posed by this terrorist organization and continues to develop a coordinated multi-national and U.S. interagency approach to address this global threat. 

South Asia Force Posture Assessment 

PACOM force posture in South Asia is relatively limited, even though this subregion is significant and faces various challenges. The only continuous U.S. force 

presence in the region is at Diego Garcia. These forces are primarily prepositioned 

ships used for rapid response but are not typically used for routine training or engagement. For the most part, U.S. military engagement in South Asia is achieved 

with transient and deployed forces and PACOM Augmentation Teams (PATs); however, plans are underway to expand these teams to assist host nations in their 

counterterrorism efforts. 

Oceania 

U.S. Ally Australia and, to a lesser extent New Zealand, are the most prominent 

forces in Oceania. The subregion’s challenges are generally associated with numerous Pacific island countries spread across the South Pacific. In concert with other 

U.S. Government agencies, allies, and partners, PACOM seeks an Oceania subregion that cooperates and collaborates to solve regional and international security 

challenges, maintains capable security or defense forces that abide by international 

norms, and effectively manages resources. PACOM strives to maximize Maritime 

Domain Awareness and information sharing, assists with the development of responsive decisionmaking architectures, contributes to improved maritime interdiction capabilities, and cooperates to ensure the existence of, and adherence to, appropriate legal authorities. 

Oceania’s economies are largely reliant on fishing and other natural resources, 

and tourism. These Pacific island countries are also vulnerable to illegal activities 

such as illicit drug trade, human and weapons trafficking, smuggling of goods, illegal fishing, and other transnational crimes related to undergoverned spaces within 

the maritime domain. Subregion national capacity to conduct surveillance and police 

respective exclusive economic zones is uniformly limited. 

A coordinated effort to assist with subregional challenges is the Oceania Maritime 

Security Initiative. Under this program, U.S. Navy vessels already transiting the region embark U.S. Coast Guard shipriders to support maritime domain awareness 

and information sharing between the Coast Guard and five Pacific island countries 

(Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Tonga, 

and Kiribati). PACOM and the Coast Guard are currently reviewing the possibility 

of embarking law enforcement representatives from these five Pacific island countries. 

Natural disasters are frequent and challenge domestic and regional HA/DR capacities and require coordinated international response assistance. In that vein, the 

2011 Pacific Partnership mission will deliver assistance to the people of the Micronesia, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and Timor-Leste. 

Australia 

The U.S.-Australia alliance, which marks its 60th anniversary this year, comprises the most significant partnership in the Oceania subregion, and indeed one of 

the most significant in the entire Asia-Pacific. Australia remains a resolute, capable 

Ally that is firmly committed to enhancing global and regional security—it is the 

largest non-NATO contributor of forces to the coalition efforts in Afghanistan—and 

to providing assistance throughout the Pacific. Australia is significant to the entire 

AOR; its stature throughout the region is expanding in multiple ways. An especially 

promising relationship is developing between Australia, Japan, and the United 

States, which will advance multilateral security efforts throughout the region. 

937 

Australia values advancing defense cooperation with the United States, particularly through training events and acquisition programs. This year, Talisman 

Sabre—a large-scale, biennial, combined-arms exercise that focuses on strengthening U.S.-Australia military-to-military capability—will occur with the participation of over 20,000 U.S. and Australian military personnel. U.S. and Australian 

militaries also collaborate extensively in areas such as information sharing; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; HA/DR; and most recently space and 

cyber security. 

New Zealand 

New Zealand is also a recognized leader in Oceania. Our two nations share many 

security concerns such as terrorism, maritime security, transnational crime, and 

proliferation of WMD. While New Zealand’s nuclear policies preclude a formal resumption of our alliance, we have close defense cooperation and information sharing 

with New Zealand, and value New Zealand’s contribution of its forces to security 

operations throughout the Asia-Pacific as well as Afghanistan. New Zealand remains active in security initiatives, from stabilization efforts in Timor-Leste and the 

Solomon Islands, to operations in Korea, Sudan, and throughout the Middle East. 

New Zealand has also contributed its multi-role maritime patrol vessel to regional, 

multilateral HA/DR operations. Additionally, the New Zealand Defense Force supports National Science Foundation efforts in Antarctica by serving as the primary 

staging area for the multinational Operation Deep Freeze. 

Compact Nations 

PACOM partners with three Compact Nations: the Federated States of Micronesia, The Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. U.S. obligations to these nations under the Compacts of Free Association are met through implementation of Homeland Defense planning and preparation. The Compacts provide these nations with critical economic assistance. In return, the U.S. gains strategically important access. Within this framework of authority and responsibility, the 

United States is entitled to significant access privileges in these nations and retains 

the right to deny access to the military forces of other nations. 

Oceania Force Posture Assessment 

Current U.S. military force posture in Oceania is limited, but it includes facilities 

in the Marshall Islands, joint facilities in Australia, and operations by occasional 

transiting or deployed forces. Due to the subregion’s geography, U.S. force presence 

is largely limited to maritime forces and occasional HA/DR efforts. Australia is supportive of extensive visitation and engagement by U.S. forces and has recently indicated an interest in doing more to facilitate PACOM regional posture. The U.S. and 

Australia are considering forms of access, supply support, joint training, and rotational presence. 

Exercise and Engagement Programs 

In order to maintain ready forces and to plan, train, and exercise to accomplish 

the full range of military contingencies, PACOM requires annual congressional support for its Joint Training and Exercise Program (JTEP). This essential program is 

comprised of 18 major exercises and involves joint military forces, interagency activities, and 27 of 36 PACOM partner nations. JTEP is funded by the Combatant 

Command Exercise and Engagement Program Fund, more commonly known as CE2, 

which directly influences PACOM’s ability to conduct directed and opportunitybased Joint training exercises and theater security engagement events in the Pacific 

region. Thus, congressional support for the CE2 program plays a vital role in maintaining security not only in the PACOM AOR, but in combatant commands worldwide. PACOM also supports improving and enabling realistic joint training through 

the Pacific Joint Training Strategy. The Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex 

(JPARC) is used to conduct training and to support joint exercises and mission rehearsals. 

A new interagency program is the Global Security Contingency Fund, which will 

provide an integrated State and Defense capacity-building tool for Allies and partners. By joining resources of both Departments, the United States can more effectively and efficiently align priorities and integrate planning to enhance U.S. Ally 

and partner capabilities. 

Military Construction Sustainment 

MILCON is another important enabler of ready forces in the Pacific. Because of 

the MILCON Subcommittee’s support in the past, the PACOM MILCON program 

continues to meet transformation, operational readiness, and quality-of-life requirements. MILCON projects for readiness and quality of life are discussed below. The 

938 

two other significant MILCON programs—DPRI and ROK transformation—are included in the previous Japan and ROK sections, respectively. 

Readiness 

In addition to the MILCON required to implement transformation initiatives in 

the Pacific, PACOM Service components continue efforts to sustain readiness at 

their major installations (i.e., those facilities with a military-civilian population of 

more than 2,500 personnel). For fiscal year 2012, the Service components in the Pacific seek a total of $1.6 billion to sustain the readiness capabilities of their installations. The items included below are the significant MILCON requests for fiscal year 

2012. 

U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC). USARPAC maintains 10 major installations 

throughout the Pacific, including those in Alaska, Hawaii, ROK, and Japan. 

MILCON funds will help ensure USARPAC soldiers are trained and equipped to enable full spectrum operations. Thus USARPAC seeks $297 million for fiscal year 

2012 readiness-related MILCON programs, of which $114 million is requested for 

an aviation task force hangar at Fort Wainwright, AK. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK, requires $78 million for phase two of an engineer brigade complex and 

for tactical vehicle parking. Wheeler Army Airfield in Hawaii requires $73 million 

to complete the first phase of a combat aviation brigade complex. Schofield Barracks 

in Hawaii requires a $32 million military vehicle wash facility. 

U.S. Pacific Fleet (PACFLT). PACFLT manages five major naval facilities 

throughout the AOR and has operational forces at several installations on the West 

coast of the U.S. mainland. PACFLT installations provide vital forward presence for 

the world’s largest fleet, including the homeport of the only forward-deployed aircraft carrier (in Japan). Readiness MILCON requirements total $229 million in fiscal year 2012. Two naval bases in Washington State require $160 million in support 

of the strategic weapons facility. California’s requirement totals $77 million at the 

naval bases in Coronado and Ventura County for an aircraft maintenance facility 

and aircrew training facility, respectively. Finally, a $10 million electrical upgrade 

and a $7 million electronics shop conversion in Hawaii are essential for PACFLT’s 

readiness requirements in fiscal year 2012. 

U.S. Pacific Air Forces (PACAF). Nine major PACAF installations are located in 

the region, stretching from Alaska through Hawaii and Guam to Japan and Korea. 

This web of air bases provides PACOM integrated expeditionary Air Force capabilities to conduct their many peacetime and wartime missions. The Air Force continues its plan to make Guam the hub for strike and refueling assets in the AsiaPacific and requests $212 million for fiscal year 2012. Guam has also been building 

projects to establish the Pacific Regional Training Center and seeks $29 million to 

continue this effort. 

U.S. Marine Forces Pacific (MARFORPAC). MARFORPAC manages nine major 

installations located in Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Japan. MARFORPAC installations in the Asia-Pacific provide the launching point for forward deployed combat ready Marine forces both ashore and afloat. MILCON projects supporting 

MARFORPAC readiness is expected to cost $788 million. Vehicle Maintenance, a 

Mountain Warfare Training Center and Land Expansion will cost $44 million in 

Twentynine Palms, CA. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, AZ, requires $162 million 

for two aircraft maintenance hangars and infrastructure improvements. A total of 

$287 million for construction at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, CA, is requested to include projects to support the arrival of the MV–22 and a $29 million 

Infantry Squad battle Course Defense Range. Finally, $57 million will be used to 

construct an airfield operations complex at Marine Corps Base Hawaii. 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The vastness of the Pacific AOR increases the 

importance of providing and sustaining sufficient forward-based logistics infrastructure. The services and materiel that DLA provides to the Pacific is a critical enabler. 

DLA requests $105 million for readiness related projects. Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam in Hawaii requests $14 million to upgrade refueling truck parking and to 

reconfigure a warehouse to operate more effectively, which will result in long-term 

cost savings. Eielson Air Force Base, AK, requests $17 million to upgrade a rail line 

to improve refueling capabilities. Naval Base Coronado, CA, needs $22 million to replace fuel storage tanks and pipelines. The fourth increment of funding to replace 

a fuel storage facility at Naval Base Point Loma, CA, requires $27 million. 

Quality of Life 

Quality of Life for active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their dependents continues to be a key enabler and retention factor for these Americans serving 

overseas—often thousands of miles and many time zones away from family and 

loved ones. In fiscal year 2012, $620 million will ensure adequate housing, medical, 

939 

education, family support, and recreation opportunities are provided to these men, 

women, and their families. The following include the significant projects: Bachelor Housing. In fiscal year 2012, PACOM requests $254 million for five barracks projects. Specifically, the Air Force plans to construct barracks in Osan, 

Korea, and Eileson Air Force Base and Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK, worth 

$165 million. The Army requests $89 million for new barracks at Camp Henry and 

Camp Carroll in Korea. 

Family Housing. PACOM Service components have made tremendous strides 

using MILCON and the Military Family Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) to 

renovate and replace antiquated housing throughout PACOM. While MHPI has accelerated the pace of modernization, MILCON is still required overseas in Japan 

and Korea since privatization is not authorized in these foreign countries. In fiscal year 2012, PACOM requests $113 million for family housing. Specifics for each Component are as follows: PACAF seeks $45 million to improve over 1,300 

homes at Misawa and Kadena Air Bases in Japan. The Navy requests $45 million 

to improve 219 homes at Yokosuka, Atsugi, and Sasebo Naval Bases in Japan. 

MARFORPAC requests $23 million to completely renovate 76 homes at Iwakuni Air 

Station in Japan. 

Medical. Providing outstanding medical care in high-quality facilities continues to 

be an important priority. Although no medical projects are being submitted in the 

PACOM AOR due to more pressing needs in other areas, several non-MILCON-level 

projects will be executed in fiscal year 2012. Additionally, a comprehensive medical 

needs assessment for all services in Hawaii is currently being conducted to better 

enable joint planning of future projects. 

Family Support and Recreation. The Army requests $26 million in Hawaii to expand an existing fitness center and build a new pool and $18 million for a new Child 

Development Center for elementary school children. The Marine Corps seeks $19 

million for a multi-use recreational field and $24 million for a child development 

center at Twentynine Palms, CA. The Navy asks for $47 million to build a new fitness center at Naval Base Coronado, CA. 

PACOM Organizations 

The following units uniquely contribute to the PACOM mission: 

Joint Intelligence Operations Center (JIOC) 

The PACOM JIOC is the central hub for intelligence across the theater, responsible for managing intelligence requirements at the strategic level and providing 

operational support to Components and Subordinate Commands. The size and complexity of the Asia-Pacific demand a federated intelligence approach, leveraging the 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance contributions of all PACOM intelligence enterprises. The JIOC also partners with the offices of the Director of National Intelligence, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and national 

and allied intelligence agencies and centers. In addition to traditional sources and 

methods, open source Intelligence is an area that can provide critical insights and 

understanding with modest, targeted resources. 

Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) 

APCSS supports PACOM multi-national security cooperation and capacity-building efforts through international executive education and tailored assistance programs that educate and connect key regional security practitioners. APCSS brings 

together military and interagency civilian representatives to identify cooperative solutions to security challenges. These communities of interest include vice presidents, 

ministers of defense and foreign affairs, chiefs of defense, and ambassadors. 

Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) 

JPAC’s mission is to achieve the fullest possible accounting of all Americans missing as a result of past conflicts. JPAC successfully accomplished 75 investigation 

and recovery operations globally last year and is projected to execute 75 investigation and recovery operations in 2011. Expanded operations will begin in fiscal year 

2012 as JPAC begins the path to the congressionally-mandated 200 annual identifications. Discussions between JPAC and the Governments of India and the Philippines continue in an effort to resume investigation and recovery operations in 

those countries. Meanwhile, operations in North Korea and Burma remain suspended. 

Joint Interagency Task Force West (JIATF-West) 

JIATF-West is the PACOM Executive Agent for countering drug-related 

transnational crimes in the Asia-Pacific. This unique mission provides intelligence 

support and partner-nation capacity building. JIATF-West currently supports U.S. 

940 

law enforcement agencies through Task Force initiatives focused on Iranian, Eurasian, and South Asian drug trafficking organizations that pose a regional and national security threat. 

CONCLUSION

The preceding testimony outlines the Asia-Pacific strategic environment, addresses the optimal force posture in each of the four subregions, and outlines MILCON 

recommendations necessary to properly support PACOM forces and their families. 

Among the many notable challenges are a belligerent DPRK and dangerous VEOs, 

which remain dangerous concerns for which the U.S. must be prepared. China’s 

rapid military expansion coupled with its unclear intent poses a concern to the 

United States and many regional nations; however, opportunities for collaboration 

between the U.S. and China are also apparent. Overall the region remains ripe for 

peaceful growth, cooperation, and prosperity, due in large measure to mutual interests shared by our five regional U.S. treaty Allies and many more security partners. 

Longstanding support from the American people and Congress for the first-rate resources in use by the 330,000 men and women of U.S. Pacific Command enable 

these forces to protect and defend the homeland while advancing U.S. interests 

throughout the Asia-Pacific. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

General Sharp. 

STATEMENT OF GEN WALTER L. SHARP, USA, COMMANDER, 

UNITED NATIONS COMMAND/COMBINED FORCES COMMAND/ 

U.S. FORCES KOREA 

General SHARP. Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of this committee, I welcome this opportunity 

today to discuss the current state of United Nations (U.N.) Command, Combined Forces Command, and USFK and to answer your 

questions. I also want to thank the committee for your support of 

our servicemembers, DOD civilians, and families living and working in the ROK. 

The ROK-U.S. alliance ensures security and stability in Northeast Asia. The ROK is also a great global security partner, with a 

Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan, anti-piracy 

operations off the coast of Somalia, the participation in several 

U.N. peacekeeping operations around the world, and in their assistance in tackling proliferation. 

Most importantly, the ROK and U.S. alliance continues to deter 

a North Korea that threatens both regional and global peace and 

security. Last year, the ROK was the victim of two unprovoked attacks by North Korea. On 26 March 2010, a North Korean submarine attacked the ROK naval ship Cheonan; and on 23 November 2010, a North Korean artillery barrage on the island of 

Yeonpyeong. These brutal attacks resulted in the death of 48 South 

Korean servicemembers and 2 civilians. 

The command’s mission is to deter North Korean provocations 

and aggression and, if deterrence fails, to fight and win. The alliance stands ready to address the full spectrum of conflict that 

could emerge on the Korean Peninsula. Maintaining this preparedness is accomplished through the development and the refinement 

of our bilateral plans to deter and defeat provocations, attacks like 

we saw last year, and all-out aggression, while maintaining the 

ability to respond to other destabilizing conditions that could affect 

the Korean Peninsula. 

Successful execution of these bilateral plans requires a welltrained force. Three annual joint combined and interagency exerVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00946 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
941 

cises—Freedom Guardian, Key Resolve, and Foal Eagle—serve as 

key enablers for maintaining the combined command’s fight tonight 

readiness while also preparing for the future transition of wartime 

operational control (OPCON). 

Our second priority is strengthening the ROK-U.S. alliance. This 

better deters North Korean provocative actions and promotes a 

peaceful, secure, and prosperous future for the Korean Peninsula, 

the Asia-Pacific region, and the world as a whole. 

Last year, President Obama agreed with the ROK President Lee 

Myung-bak’s request to adjust the timing of the transition of wartime OPCON from April 2012 to December 2015. They also agreed 

to develop a plan to better synchronize all of the ongoing transformation initiatives, of which OPCON transition is just one. 

Called Strategic Alliance 2015, this plan was affirmed and signed 

by Secretary Gates and then Minister of Defense Kim Tae-young 

at the 42nd security consultative meeting last October. 

Key elements of Strategic Alliance 2015 include: the refining and 

improving of the combined defense plans; defining and developing 

new organizational structures and capabilities required by the 

ROK to lead the warfight; implementing more realistic exercises 

based upon the North Korean threat of today and tomorrow; preparing for the transition of wartime OPCON to the ROK joint 

chiefs of staff in December 2015; and finally, by consolidating U.S. 

military forces in the ROK onto two enduring hubs under the 

Yongsan Relocation and Land Partnership Plan. This repositioning 

of U.S. forces in the ROK improves force readiness and quality of 

life, which is our third priority. It realizes stationing efficiencies 

and signals a continued American commitment to the defense of 

Korea and the engagement within the broader region. Restationing 

also enhances force protection and survivability. 

Normalizing tours in Korea was reinforced in October 2010 when 

the Secretary of Defense directed the USFK and the Services to 

proceed with full tour normalization as affordable. A force multiplier, tour normalization keeps trained and ready military personnel in place for longer periods of time. It improves readiness, 

combat capability, lowers turbulence in units, and reduces the 

stress placed on our troops, units, and families. 

In closing, the men and women assigned to U.N. Command, 

Combined Forces Command, and USFK remain committed and 

stand ready. Our ongoing efforts to implement Strategic Alliance 

2015, the Yongsan Relocation and Land Partnership Plans, and 

tour normalization demonstrate a long-term U.S. commitment to 

not only the security of the ROK, but to the broader region of 

Northeast Asia as well. 

I am extremely proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, 

DOD civilians, and their families serving our great Nation in the 

ROK and your support for them which is greatly appreciated. 

This concludes my remarks and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Sharp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN WALTER L. SHARP, USA 

I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to provide my statement to you. As the Commander, United Nations Command (UNC); 

942 

1The region of Northeast Asia is defined to include the following countries and special administrative regions: China, Hong Kong, Japan, Macau, Mongolia, North Korea, ROK, Russia, and 

Taiwan. 2 In terms of number of personnel in the armed forces, the world’s six largest militaries during 

2010 were: China (2.28 million personnel); United States (1.58 million); India (1.32 million); 

North Korea (1.1 million); Russia (1.02 million); and the ROK (633,000). Personnel data obtained 

from The Military Balance 2010, produced by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. 3Population percentage calculated with data obtained from the CIA World Factbook. Percentage is as of July 2010. 4 Country rankings based on gross domestic product measured at purchasing power parity and 

obtained from the CIA World Factbook. 5Trade percentage was calculated with data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

6The May 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy identifies the security of allies as an enduring 

American interest. 

Commander, U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command (CFC); and Commander, U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), it is a privilege to represent the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, Department of Defense (DOD) civilians, and their families, 

who serve our great Nation in the Republic of Korea (ROK). On behalf of these outstanding men and women, I want to thank the committee for support it has provided to American forces stationed in the ROK and the ongoing commitment it has 

made to improve the quality of life for command personnel and their families. Sustained support from Congress has allowed us to deter aggression against the ROK 

and promote peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Peace and stability on 

the Korean Peninsula, in turn, has promoted peace and stability in the broader region of Northeast Asia. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to report on the state 

of affairs in Korea. Specifically, this statement will address the security situation 

on the Korean Peninsula, priorities of the commands that I lead, recent developments at UNC, and how programs and initiatives currently being implemented will 

strengthen the U.S.-ROK Alliance and America’s presence in Asia. 

The Korean Peninsula sits at the heart of Northeast Asia—a dynamic region 

whose global influence is growing and has significant national interests for the 

United States.1 The growing influence of Northeast Asia can be seen in diplomatic, 

military, and economic terms. In diplomatic terms, the ROK successfully hosted the 

Seoul G–20 Summit last year, the first time a G–20 Summit was conducted outside 

the west and in an Asian nation. The ROK will also host the 2012 Nuclear Security 

Summit. From a broader perspective, states in the region have assumed a more 

prominent role at a variety of international organizations and institutions. Northeast Asia is home to four of the world’s six largest militaries when measured in 

terms of personnel as well as two nuclear powers (China and Russia).2 The region 

contains 23 percent of the world’s population and is an economic powerhouse.3 In 

2010, Northeast Asia housed 5 of the world’s 19 largest economies, where the region 

collectively accounted for 25.6 percent of global gross domestic product during that 

year.4 Countries in Northeast Asia accounted for 26.7 percent of U.S. trade in goods 

during 2010.5

While Northeast Asia’s international influence is growing and it has become a 

major economic region, it is also a region characterized by uncertainty, fast-paced 

change, lingering historical animosities between states and peoples, territorial disputes, competition over access to resources, and in some cases struggles for regional 

hegemony. These characteristics have combined to pose difficult and long-term security challenges not only for states in the region but for the international community 

as well. The ongoing security challenges posed by events in Northeast Asia can be 

exemplified by North Korea’s unprovoked attacks on the ROK naval ship Cheonan 

in March 2010 and on Yeonpyeong Island in November 2010 as well as Pyongyang’s 

continued pursuit of nuclear programs. By maintaining U.S. military forces in the 

ROK, a stabilizing presence is maintained that allows for the implementation of 

strategies that promotes peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia, contributing toward the de-escalation of security crises when they do 

occur. U.S. military forces in Korea are a long-term investment in regional peace 

and stability. The role played by these forces in Northeast Asia are particularly important because, unlike the case in Europe with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union, there are no regional-based security institutions designed to prevent and resolve interstate conflict. 

U.S. force presence in Korea is also a vital part of maintaining security commitments to the ROK established under the Mutual Defense Treaty.6 An ongoing American military presence in the ROK helps set the conditions for the verifiable 

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner as well as peaceful 

reunification of the two Koreas. By having U.S. military forces forward-stationed in 

Korea, engagement is enhanced not only with this key alliance partner, but with 

943 

7Members of the UNCMAC special investigation team came from the countries of Australia, 

Canada, Denmark, France, New Zealand, ROK, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United 

States. 8 Established by the Armistice Agreement, the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission 

(NNSC) acts as a neutral and impartial body between all parties to observe and report on compliance with the Armistice Agreement. Observers from the NNSC came from Poland, Sweden, 

and Switzerland. 9Members of the UNCMAC special investigation team came from the countries of Australia, 

Canada, Denmark, France, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the 

United States. Observers from the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission came from Poland, 

Sweden, and Switzerland. 

other states and actors throughout Northeast Asia as well. A meaningful U.S. force 

presence on the Korean Peninsula is essential to meet treaty requirements with the 

ROK and to address security challenges posed by the dynamic, developing—but potentially unstable—region of Northeast Asia. 

II. SECURITY SITUATION ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA

ROK 

The ROK was the victim of two unprovoked attacks by North Korea in 2010. The 

first attack occurred on 26 March and resulted in the sinking of a ROK naval ship 

(Cheonan) and the death of 46 sailors while the ship was patrolling off the west 

coast of Korea in the vicinity of Paengnyong Island. In the aftermath of the 

Cheonan tragedy, the ROK led a joint civilian-military investigation group to determine the cause of the Cheonan’s sinking that included the participation of experts 

from foreign governments. The group concluded that the Cheonan was sunk due to 

a torpedo launched by a North Korean submarine. This conclusion was assessed by 

a special investigative team from the United Nations Command Military Armistice 

Commission (UNCMAC), which determined that North Korea’s action constituted 

serious violations of the Armistice Agreement.7 UNCMAC’s determination was endorsed by the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission.8

The second unprovoked attack occurred on 23 November 2010 when North Korea 

unleashed an artillery barrage on the island of Yeonpyeong. Firing approximately 

170 rounds in total with about 80 shells hitting the island, this attack was particularly brutal because it struck not only military facilities but civilian areas as well. 

Two South Korean marines and 2 civilians were killed during the barrage while 16 

marines and 52 civilians were wounded. An investigation into the attack conducted 

by an UNCMAC special investigation team, which was composed of representatives 

from nine countries and whose work was observed by representatives from the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, reached the following key findings: 

• North Korea’s attack was a hostile act and an act of armed force against 

the ROK; 

• The attack was a deliberate and premeditated action; and • North Korea’s failure to enforce a complete cessation of hostilities in 

Korea, execution of an armed attack against areas legitimately under military control of the Commander United Nations Command, and execution of 

an attack that caused considerable damage to military facilities and the destruction of civilian homes and property, constituted serious violations of 

the Armistice Agreement.9

In response to these unprovoked attacks by North Korea, the United States, and 

ROK engaged in a series of combined military exercises designed to send Pyongyang 

a clear message that its irresponsible and belligerent behavior must stop and that 

both countries remain committed to enhancing their combined defense capabilities. 

The first exercise held in this series, a combined maritime and air readiness event 

held from 25–28 July 2010, was called Invincible Spirit and occurred in the seas 

east of the Korean Peninsula. The exercise conducted extensive training in the areas 

of anti-submarine warfare, battle group air defense, surface warfare training to include live-fire exercises, and included a robust component of aircraft that flew a variety of missions in the skies over and around the ROK. 

Invincible Spirit was followed by the Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise held from 

16–26 August 2010. This annual exercise, like all other training events conducted 

by the CFC, was designed to improve the U.S.-ROK Alliance’s ability to defend the 

ROK. The exercise was focused on ensuring readiness to prepare for, prevent, and 

prevail against a full range of provocations that could occur on the Korean Peninsula both now and in the future. It helped teach, coach, and mentor Command personnel on staff and leadership decisionmaking processes. 

Following Ulchi Freedom Guardian was a U.S.-ROK anti-submarine warfare exercise conducted from 27 September to 1 October 2010. Focused on practicing antiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00949 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
944 

10 In addition to the exercises discussed above, USFK sent a 19-person liaison officer team to 

observe the 20 December 2010 ROK live-fire exercise at Yeonpyeong Island. The task of the liaison team was to advise and assist. The UNC/UNCMAC also sent an observation team to the 

20 December live-fire exercise to ensure that the event was defensive in nature and did not violate terms in the Armistice Agreement. The UNC/UNCMAC team was composed of members 

from Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, United Kingdom, and the United States. 

submarine warfare tactics, techniques, and procedures, the exercise occurred in the 

waters west of the Korean Peninsula. This anti-submarine warfare exercise was followed by a U.S.-ROK naval and air training event from 28 November to 1 December 

2010. Held in waters west of the Korean Peninsula, the exercise provided training 

in the areas of fleet protection, alerts/intercepts and defensive counter air/combat 

air patrols, air defense, surface warfare readiness, basic seamanship maneuvers, logistics sustainment, and communications. When viewed in their totality, the set of 

combined exercises conducted since North Korea’s unprovoked attack on the 

Cheonan have been designed to demonstrate U.S. and ROK resolve to enhance their 

defense capabilities and readiness, improve force interoperability, and show U.S. 

commitment to regional security. It should be noted that our Korean partners and 

friends greatly appreciated the resolutions passed by the House of Representatives 

and the Senate expressing condolences to those killed and their families following 

North Korea’s attacks on the Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island.10

North Korea 

North Korea continues to threaten both regional and global peace and security. 

Over the past year, Pyongyang continued its two-pronged strategy of provocation 

and charm to achieve regime objectives with the ROK, the United States, and the 

international community. This strategy included the Cheonan sinking, the attempted assassination of a high-profile defector, and the artillery attack against 

Yeonpyeong Island. Simultaneously, North Korea continued to develop its nuclear 

and long-range missile delivery capabilities, initiated construction of a light water 

reactor, and revealed the existence of a uranium enrichment program at the 

Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center. Pyongyang continues its ‘‘military first’’ policy 

and maintains a massive, forward-deployed conventional force. Plans for succession 

of Kim Jong-il’s third son appear to be accelerating. Absent a commitment to institute fundamental, systematic reform—which appears unlikely in the near term— 

North Korea will remain a serious security threat in the region and a significant 

concern for the United States and the international community. 

Strategy, Goals, and Internal Dynamics 

Kim Jong-il’s ultimate strategic goal is the survival of his regime. To achieve this 

end, the Kim Regime must maintain control over the population and prevent external powers from threatening its interests. As part of its ‘‘self-reliance’’ philosophy, 

Pyongyang’s foreign policy attempts to divide regional alliances and minimize external influence over its affairs. North Korea balances a reliance on Chinese support 

and patronage with a desire for maintaining independence. Concurrently, North 

Korea engages the United States with the likely goal of garnering financial, food, 

and energy assistance, as well as security guarantees. Internally, the regime maintains the facade of a significant external threat, primarily from the United States, 

to maintain control and justify sacrifices associated with its ‘‘military first’’ policy. 

A key component of this multi-dimensional strategy is North Korea’s nuclear program. This program serves as a diplomatic tool, a means to capture international 

attention, a deterrent against regional interference, a point of domestic prestige, and 

a potential source of hard currency. This was exemplified by last year’s light water 

reactor and uranium enrichment program announcements and public proclamations 

regarding plutonium reprocessing and weaponization. These efforts, along with development of a complementary missile delivery system, are paramount to regime 

survival. North Korea, which is assessed to have enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons, ultimately seeks international recognition as a de facto nuclear 

weapons state. 

Another key element of North Korean strategy is to maintain a large conventional 

military force. Although aging and technologically inferior, North Korea’s massive 

army and vast artillery forces continue to threaten the ROK. North Korea continues 

to focus on its asymmetric capabilities by sustaining and improving Special Operating Forces and their insertion methods. Whether directed toward regional neighbors and U.S. sovereign territory, or as an export item, Pyongyang’s missile capabilities remain a regional and global threat. Like its nuclear program, North Korea 

views its theater ballistic missile program as a source of international power and 

prestige, a strategic deterrent focused on the United States, a means of exerting regional influence, and a source of hard currency. For these reasons, despite chronic 

945 

and severe fiscal difficulties, North Korea continues to spend millions of dollars annually to develop and produce ballistic missiles, although missile sales have been 

hampered due to enhanced international sanctions. North Korea’s inventory of ballistic missiles currently exceeds 800 airframes, which are capable of ranging targets 

from the ROK and Japan to Guam and the Aleutian Islands. The regime continues 

to invest in research and development of an intercontinental ballistic missile capability that could threaten the continental United States. 

Domestically, Kim Jong-il remains in control despite reports of lingering heath 

issues. Over the past year, there are indications that he has focused on setting the 

stage for his third and youngest son, Kim Jong-un, as his successor. In September 

2010, Kim Jong-un was publically promoted to four-star general in the North Korean People’s Army and appointed as Vice Chairman of the Korean Workers Party 

Central Military Commission. Since then, the younger Kim has made several civil, 

military, and economic public appearances with his father. North Korea’s ruling 

elite, whose position depends upon the status quo, appears unwavering in its loyalty 

to the Kim Regime and will likely support the succession process. 

For most North Koreans outside major cities, life remains focused on survival in 

a poverty-stricken state. North Korea’s annual domestic food production remains insufficient, with the country dependent upon Chinese and outside assistance to meet 

basic subsistence requirements. Despite this shortfall, Pyongyang continues to divert precious national resources from the civil sector to conventional and asymmetric military forces in support of the regime’s military first policy. 

Provocations and Posturing 

The past year served as another unfortunate example of North Korea’s strategy 

of alternating provocation with gestures of reconciliation. Early in the year, 

Pyongyang signaled renewed interest in reaching a peace agreement and returning 

to Six-Party Talks. During ensuing dialogue, the North sought to restart Kumgang 

Mountain and Kaesong City tours; however, subsequent bilateral working-level 

talks made little progress. 

When these negotiations failed, the North shifted to belligerence. In March, North 

Korea threatened to attack ROK and U.S. forces participating in the annual Key 

Resolve exercise, closely followed by the sinking of the ROK ship Cheonan on 26 

March. Following this attack, Pyongyang announced plans to build a light water reactor on 30 March. While North Korea claims this reactor is for power production, 

experts believe the North’s true motive is to produce highly enriched uranium for 

its nuclear weapons program. 

April witnessed yet another spate of provocative acts. On the 21st, ROK authorities detained three North Korean assassins on a mission to assassinate North Korea’s most senior defector, Hwang Jang-yop. Then, on 23 April, North Korea announced it would seize and freeze ROK Government and private assets at the 

Kumgang Mountain resort. 

Over the summer, North Korea’s multiple attempts at dialogue failed due to the 

Kim Regime’s refusal to acknowledge the Cheonan attack. The North turned to 

provocation once again, with threats made against U.S.-ROK military exercises, 

ROK loudspeakers along the Demilitarized Zone, and vessels and aircraft operating 

in waters and airspace along the Northern Limit Line. These threats were followed 

by a Korean Workers’ Party meeting in October and official installment of Kim 

Jong-un to key high-level positions of leadership for future succession. There was 

a brief pause in tensions for family reunions at the Kumgang Mountain Resort from 

late October to early November; however, North Korea tried unsuccessfully to tie 

these reunions to increased aid and assistance to which the ROK Government would 

not agree. The provocation cycle continued in November with the North Korean announcement of a uranium enrichment program and the attack on Yeongpyeong Island. 

Since the Yeongpyeong Island attack, North Korea has resumed its ‘‘charm campaign’’ in an attempt to obtain economic aid. Pyongyang has proposed Red Cross 

talks, engagement with major ROK political parties, military-to-military talks, and 

an appeal to many countries and nongovernmental organizations for food aid. InterKorean military talks have not progressed beyond the colonel level as the North Korean People’s Army delegation walked out of negotiations. 

North Korean Threat Outlook 

I have two main concerns regarding the future of North Korea. My first concern 

is the potential for instability. The country’s disastrous centralized economy, dilapidated industrial sector, insufficient agricultural base, and malnourished populace 

could lead to a destabilizing situation that could unfold rapidly and unpredictably. 

My second concern is Pyongyang’s focus on developing its nuclear and missile capaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00951 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
946 

bilities. If left unchecked, North Korea will likely develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capability, which could threaten the United States and its allies. North 

Korea’s proliferation record exacerbates the threat that these programs pose to the 

international community. 

Pyongyang will likely continue its attempts to entice and/or coerce the community 

of nations into providing aid and concessions. North Korea will also likely continue 

a strategy of heightening tensions to capture the world spotlight, re-establish its negotiating baseline, and gauge regional resolve. We must never be complacent about 

the danger that Pyongyang might make a major miscalculation and launch an attack on the ROK. To address this threat, UNC/CFC/USFK maintains a high level 

of readiness through the rigorous pursuit of three command priorities, as discussed 

in Section III below. 

III. COMMAND PRIORITIES

The Command mission is to deter North Korean provocations and aggression 

and—if deterrence fails—to fight and win. This mission is accomplished through the 

employment of forward-stationed, agile, and well-trained forces that are located on 

the Korean Peninsula and operate together with our ROK ally. My Command vision 

is to maintain trained, ready, and disciplined combined and joint commands that 

are ready to fight and win. These commands lead, integrate, and direct all available 

forces during times of Armistice, crisis, and war. 

In support of this mission and vision are three Command priorities. These priorities have remained constant over time and serve as the guiding principles for all 

key initiatives pursued. The three priorities are: (1) be prepared to fight and win; 

(2) strengthen the U.S.-ROK Alliance; and (3) improve the quality of life for 

servicemembers, Department of Defense (DOD) civilians, and their families. As 

Command initiatives are developed and implemented, they are executed in accordance with and in support of these three priorities. I will next address each of these 

priorities in order and discuss some key initiatives that are being pursued within 

them. 

Prepared to Fight and Win 

My first priority as Commander of UNC, CFC, and USFK is to maintain trained, 

ready, and disciplined combined and joint commands that are prepared to fight and 

win. This has been the focus of U.S. forces stationed in Korea for more than 50 

years and for the CFC since it was established in 1978. Maintaining ‘‘fight tonight’’ 

readiness is a key reason U.S. forces are stationed in the ROK, supporting the alliance between the American and Korean people in defense of the ROK. The Alliance 

stands ready to address the full spectrum of conflict that could emerge with little 

warning on the Korean Peninsula. This spectrum of conflict ranges from major combat operations under conditions of general war or provocation, to multiple possibilities of destabilizing conditions on the Peninsula, to humanitarian assistance operations, and even the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Given these varied 

potential security challenges, it is imperative that our forces maintain the highest 

possible level of training and readiness. 

In order to address the full spectrum of conflict that could emerge on the Korean 

Peninsula, the Command has developed and constantly refines plans to deter provocations and aggression against the ROK, defeat aggression should deterrence fail, 

and respond to other destabilizing conditions that could affect the Korean Peninsula. Successful execution of these plans requires a well trained force that can execute tasks across the spectrum. Thus, warfighting skills are developed and maintained through the conduct of tough, realistic, combined, and interagency exercises. 

In the past, the CFC and ROK military have almost exclusively focused training 

on defense against an all-out high intensity attack by North Korea. However, as the 

CFC has broadened the scope of its planning, it is also doing the same with respect 

to training and exercises. The CFC and ROK military now exercise one North Korean attack scenario and one limited attack/provocation/instability scenario per 

year. The CFC has also added considerable weapons of mass destruction elimination 

training into its exercise scenarios to fortify plans in support of combined policy objectives. In addition, the CFC is increasing counter-provocation training with the 

ROK military, both in the regularly scheduled major theater exercises and in other 

training events throughout the year as well. 

Three annual joint and combined exercises warrant special mention: Ulchi Freedom Guardian, Key Resolve, and Foal Eagle. Ulchi Freedom Guardian and Key Resolve are computer-simulated theater command post exercises conducted by CFC 

that focuses on ensuring ‘‘fight tonight’’ readiness to prepare for, prevent, and prevail against the full range of current and future provocations, attacks, and instability on the Korean Peninsula. In the future the Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise 

947 

11Taeguek is a command post exercise that reinforces operational capabilities of the ROK 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and derives requirements for joint forces and unit structure development. 

Hoguk focuses on improving interoperability between the military branches and is a live-maneuver joint event. Finally, Hwarang is an integrated defense headquarters-led rear area training 

exercise that includes civilian, government, and military elements as participants. 12The document also notes that American national security depends on vibrant alliances and 

that these alliances are force multipliers (the effects of cooperation and coordination are greater 

than if states act alone). Secretary of State Clinton added during a 28 October 2010 speech on 

American engagement in the Asia-Pacific that U.S. bonds with regional allies to include the 

ROK remains the foundation for American strategic engagement in the region, describing the 

U.S.-ROK Alliance as a lynchpin of stability and security in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. 

will be used to support transition from a CFC-led command and control warfighting 

structure to one where the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) becomes the supported 

headquarters. Foal Eagle consists of a series of joint and combined unit level field 

training events that exercise ground maneuver, air, naval, expeditionary, and special operations capabilities. These events are conducted throughout the Korean Peninsula. Ulchi Freedom Guardian, Key Resolve, and Foal Eagle are supplemented 

throughout the year by a host of other challenging training activities that are designed to sustain Command readiness. 

The ROK military’s capabilities and posture is a key component of our fight and 

win preparedness. Numbering 633,000 Active Duty personnel, it is a modern, mobile 

network centric warfare capable force that fields an array of advanced weapon systems. The ROK military is led by a professional officer corps and the force as a 

whole has gained operational experience through deployments to places such as 

Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf of Aden, Lebanon, and participation in a host of United 

Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance operations. This battle tested 

force and its leaders understand the requirements for military readiness in addition 

to accomplishing tasks under adverse conditions. 

Real world operational experience is continually supplemented by the conduct of 

a realistic and tough exercise program. In addition to participation in the Ulchi 

Freedom Guardian/Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercises discussed above, other key 

training events include the annual Taegeuk, Hoguk, and Hwarang exercises as well 

as a series of events that have been conducted in response to North Korea’s recent 

attacks.11 The ROK military’s capabilities will only get better over time as it refines 

and implements its defense reform initiative. Designed to address the future security environment, it will develop an information and technology-intensive military 

force that can better address a comprehensive set of security threats to include 

North Korea’s asymmetric capabilities and enhanced participation in operations 

sponsored by the international community. 

Strengthen the U.S.-Rok Alliance 

My second priority is to strengthen the U.S.-ROK Alliance. As stated in the May 

2010 U.S. National Security Strategy, American alliances with key regional partners 

to include the ROK are the bedrock of security in Asia and a foundation for prosperity in the Asia-Pacific area.12 This priority supports the June 2009 U.S.-ROK 

Joint Vision statement that commits both nations to build an Alliance that ensures 

a peaceful, secure, and prosperous future for the Korean Peninsula, the Asia-Pacific 

region, and the world as a whole. A key feature of Alliance evolution is the transition of wartime operational control. 

At the request of ROK President Lee Myung-bak President Obama agreed at the 

G20 Summit in June 2010 to adjust timing of the transition of wartime operational 

control (OPCON) from CFC to the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff. The transition will 

now occur in December 2015. Under OPCON transition, the United States and ROK 

will disestablish CFC and stand up separate but complementary national commands 

consistent with the Mutual Defense Treaty to focus on combined defense of the 

ROK. Once OPCON transition is completed, the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) will 

become the supported—or lead—command and the newly created U.S. Korea Command (KORCOM) will be the supporting command. The ROK JCS will retain full 

control of ROK military forces while the KORCOM commander will have control 

over U.S. forces. 

Although the United States and ROK were on track militarily for OPCON transition in 2012, the adjusted timeframe will provide the Alliance additional time to 

synchronize a variety of ongoing transformation initiatives of which OPCON transition is just one. As stated last June by President Obama during a joint press conference with ROK President Lee Myung-bak, the revised December 2015 transition 

date provides appropriate time to—within the existing security context—better manage OPCON transition because the U.S.-ROK Alliance is the lynchpin of security 

not only for the two countries but for the Pacific region as a whole. During this exVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00953 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
948 

13 Annexes contained in the plan include: plans; organizations; capabilities and systems; exercises; force management and tour normalization; U.S. force relocation; strategic documents; strategic communications; milestones; and governance. 14 As stated in the Defense Guidelines, the United States remains committed to providing extended deterrence for the ROK using the full range of its military capabilities to include the 

nuclear umbrella, conventional strike, and missile defense capabilities. 

tended period of time the ROK will strengthen and reinforce its intelligence, operations planning and execution, and joint battlefield management capabilities. Indeed, the ROK is already in the process of procuring the equipment, conducting the 

training, and making the organizational changes needed to lead the warfight. Until 

all these actions are completed, however, the United States will provide agreed upon 

bridging and enduring capabilities. By adjusting the date of OPCON transition to 

late 2015 the ROK has more time to field many of the critical systems that are part 

of its ongoing defense reform initiative. 

At the U.S.-ROK Foreign and Defense Minister’s Meeting in July 2010 agreement 

was reached to develop a comprehensive Alliance transformation plan that includes 

and goes beyond merely OPCON transition. Called Strategic Alliance 2015, the plan 

was affirmed and signed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and then ROK 

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young at the 42nd Security Consultative Meeting in October 2010. The Strategic Alliance 2015 plan will synchronize multiple U.S. and 

ROK transformation efforts that are designed to build adaptive and flexible capabilities to deter aggression against the ROK and to defeat aggression should it occur. 

Key elements of the comprehensive plan include: refining and improving combined 

defense plans; defining and developing the new organizational structures required 

for ROK lead of the war effort; implementing more realistic exercises based on the 

North Korean threat of today and tomorrow; preparing for the transition of wartime 

OPCON to the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff in December 2015; and consolidating U.S. 

military forces in the ROK onto two enduring hubs under the Yongsan Relocation 

Plan and Land Partnership Plan.13

The goal of all initiatives under the Strategic Alliance 2015 construct is to build 

adaptive force capabilities that deter and defeat future provocations against the 

ROK and fight and win on the Korean Peninsula should deterrence fail. While Alliance evolution will occur under Strategic Alliance 2015, one thing that will not 

change and remain constant is U.S. commitment to ROK security and the maintenance of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. The Strategic Alliance 2015 

plan as a whole synchronizes ongoing transformation efforts to ensure they are 

aligned and mutually supporting. It reaffirms U.S. commitment to ROK and regional security and better postures both nations to deter, counter, and defeat North 

Korean provocations and aggression. The Strategic Alliance 2015 plan moves the 

United States and ROK toward building an Alliance that ensures a peaceful, secure, 

and prosperous future for the Korean Peninsula, the Asia-Pacific region, and the 

world, as called for in the June 2009 Presidential Joint Vision for the U.S.-ROK Alliance. 

The military aspect of Alliance development will continue through the Guidelines 

for U.S.-ROK Defense Cooperation that were agreed to by the U.S. Secretary of Defense and ROK Minister of Defense in October 2010. Established to direct the future 

course of the U.S.-ROK defense relationship, they are based on and serve to advance 

the June 2009 Joint Vision Statement and the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty. 

The guidelines are rooted in a bilateral commitment to provide mutual security and 

to build a comprehensive strategic Alliance of bilateral, regional, and global scope, 

founded on common values and mutual trust. Under the guidelines the United 

States upholds a firm commitment to ROK defense by maintaining an American 

military presence on the Korean Peninsula that works with ROK forces to deter 

North Korean aggression. American commitment is demonstrated by an enduring 

force presence, the tour normalization initiative (discussed later), provision of bridging and enduring capabilities, the supply of augmentation forces in contingencies, 

and the continued provision of extended deterrence.14

In order to meet the broad strategic vision of the Alliance, the defense guidelines 

specify that the United States and ROK will implement a set of enabling measures 

needed for an effective combined defense posture. These enabling measures are: to 

enhance intelligence and information sharing; strengthen operational planning; further develop capabilities to address the ballistic missile threat from North Korea; 

institutionalize an extended deterrence policy committee; enhance interoperability; 

enhance the combined exercise program; and to collaborate on lessons learned. The 

defense guidelines also recognize the importance of close bilateral cooperation to 

promote regional and global peace and stability. With this recognition in mind, the 

guidelines list measures that will be taken to strengthen the Alliance’s role in enVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00954 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
949 

15 It should be noted that the ROK is already participating in about eight international peacekeeping operations and supporting disaster relief and recovery operations in Haiti, anti-piracy 

efforts in the Gulf of Aden, and operates a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan. The 

ROK established a 1,000 person International Peace Support Force military unit in 2010 that 

is capable of deploying to international peacekeeping operations within 1 month of being ordered 

to do so. The ROK has also become an active participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative 

(PSI). After endorsing the PSI principles in May 2009, the ROK organized the Eastern Endeavor 

PSI maritime interdiction exercise in October 2010, hosted the PSI Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop from 28–29 October 2010, and joined the PSI’s Operational Experts Group in November 

2010. ROK President Lee Myung-bak stated during a Korean War anniversary speech on 28 

September 2010 that Korean armed forces must ‘‘become one that contributes to the betterment 

of mankind, to global peace and stability, and prosperity.’’ 16 U.S. dollar figure calculated by using a forecasted average 2011 Korean Won/$U.S. exchange rate of 1,094. This forecasted exchange rate was obtained from the December 2010 

monthly economic report published by the Korea Development Institute. 

hancing regional and global security. These measures are: strengthening capabilities 

to contribute to regional and global peace and stability; supporting the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, related materials, technologies, and their 

means of delivery; enhancing bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral defense relationships; strengthening cooperation for international security and peacekeeping efforts; 

and cooperating closely on other transnational and non-traditional security challenges.15 The defense guidelines recognize the importance of close policy and strategic consultation between the United States and ROK for the enhancement of common interests and further development of the Alliance. 

The ROK continues to provide financial and in-kind support to help offset the cost 

of stationing U.S. military forces on its territory. Known formally as burden sharing 

contributions, the annual value of these contributions is dictated by terms established in a 5-year (2009–2013) Special Measures Agreement currently in effect. During calendar year 2011 the ROK will provide USFK with 812.5 billion won ($743 

million) of burden sharing support.16 This support will be distributed between three 

categories: labor (338.6 billion won; pays salaries and benefits of USFK’s Korean national employees); logistics (140.6 billion won; covers logistic equipment, supplies, 

and services); and ROK Funded Construction (333.3 billion won; used for USFK’s 

military construction and military construction-like requirements). Burden sharing 

contributions helps ensure that the Command maintains its fight tonight readiness 

and builds the infrastructure needed for a transformed and long-term U.S. military 

force presence in the ROK. Burden sharing expenditures also stimulate the ROK 

economy through the payment of wages to Korean national employees, Korean service contracts, and Korean construction contracts, serving as a source of economic 

growth for communities that host USFK facilities. Future increases in the ROK burden sharing contribution through 2013 are tied to changes in the ROK consumer 

price index. 

The Command’s Good Neighbor Program continues to make great progress in 

strengthening the U.S.-ROK Alliance. The purpose of the program is to conduct 

community outreach events that engage and connect the Command with the local 

Korean community, government, media, business, and educational institutions in 

order to create understanding and appreciation for the mission of USFK. Good 

Neighbor Program events educate, inform, and familiarize Koreans with the role 

USFK plays on the Korean Peninsula. This direct engagement allows Americans 

and Koreans to develop mutual understanding of one another’s cultures, customs, 

and lifestyles, often leading to the formation of lifelong friendships between members of the two communities. 

Examples of events conducted by the Good Neighbor Program include English-language camps, speaking engagements by U.S. military personnel, and security education programs which include tours of the Joint Security Area/Demilitarized Zone 

and USFK installations. The program promotes two-way exchange between USFK 

personnel and people of our host country. It also helps foster exchange, understanding, and cooperation between members of USFK and the Korean communities 

that exist alongside USFK facilities. Some 2,595 events were conducted during 2010 

with the participation of 146,543 local nationals. It is also noteworthy that the ROK 

Ministry of National Defense operates a similar program called Friends Forever. 

Having a purpose of strengthening the U.S.-ROK Alliance and nurturing friendships 

between Americans and Koreans, the program gives USFK personnel the opportunity to experience Korean culture by participating in various host-nation sponsored events and tours. Both the Good Neighbor Program and Friends Forever 

strengthen the Alliance at the professional and personal levels. While it is hard to 

empirically identify effects of the Good Neighbor Program, opinion surveys done by 

the Department of State show that since the program was established in 2003, the 

950 

percentage of Koreans that have a favorable opinion of the United States has increased from 47 percent to 74 percent. Additionally, the percentage of Koreans that 

believe USFK is important grew from 75 percent to 87 percent. 

Finally, although not under the purview of USFK, the United States maintains 

a robust Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and a Defense Armaments Cooperation Program with the ROK that helps strengthen the Alliance. These programs promote interoperability between U.S. and ROK forces and thus create a more capable 

combined force. As of March 2011, the ROK has 587 active FMS cases that were 

valued in total at $13.5 billion. During fiscal year 2010 the ROK purchased $966.9 

million in FMS, making it the 11th largest FMS buyer in that year. The ROK registered $7.1 billion in FMS agreements over the 2002–2010 time period. FMS sales 

were augmented by a robust military training program. In 2009, the ROK paid to 

send 648 students to the United States for training in a variety of courses. Total 

expenditures by the ROK for FMS training were valued at $60.7 million during the 

2002–2009 timeframe. 

Improve Quality Of Life 

Improving the quality of life for servicemembers, DOD civilians, and their families 

is my third priority. My overall objective is to establish the infrastructure and operational climate that makes Korea the assignment of choice for DOD personnel. In 

order to achieve this objective and support this priority, the Command is currently 

implementing two key initiatives: the repositioning of U.S. forces stationed in the 

ROK and tour normalization. 

Repositioning of U.S. Forces in the ROK 

The U.S. and ROK Governments have agreed to consolidate and relocate American forces stationed in South Korea onto two enduring hubs south of the capital 

city Seoul. The relocation decision was prompted by two key factors. First, prior to 

2005, the Command had 107 installations of various sizes in locations more or less 

where they had been when the 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement went into 

effect. Second, the headquarters installation of U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) 

Yongsan is located in the center of Seoul, a city of some 10 million people that is 

highly congested. Over the years this basing arrangement created a host of problems for USFK. These problems included civilian encroachment, declining quality of 

life for Command personnel due to aging and deteriorating facilities, and base locations that were no longer optimally located for the conduct of military operations 

today. All of these problems made it harder for the Command to train and maintain 

readiness. 

The U.S.-ROK Alliance addressed these problems by developing two separate relocation plans for USFK. The first plan, called the Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP), 

will move most forces currently stationed in and around Seoul and Headquarters 

United Nations Command activities to USAG Humphreys (about 40 miles south of 

Seoul). The majority of costs associated with this relocation plan will be paid by the 

ROK. Under the YRP, however, a residual Command element remains in Seoul to 

facilitate communications and maintain relationships with the ROK government 

and other organizations and actors in the capital area. The second relocation plan, 

named the Land Partnership Plan (LPP), consolidates U.S. forces in locations north 

of Seoul to areas south of this capital city and expands infrastructure at Osan Air 

Base and Camp Mujuk as well. Costs associated with the LPP will be shared between the ROK and United States. Provisions in the LPP help ensure continued 

readiness by providing U.S. forces dedicated time on ROK training areas and 

ranges. 

Forces being repositioned under the YRP and LPP will be moved onto two enduring hubs south of Seoul: a southwest hub and a southeast hub. The southwest hub 

is centered on Osan Air Base and USAG Humphreys. It will be the future centerpiece of U.S. military force structure in Korea. This hub is already home to the 

headquarters of 7th Air Force and over time, as the repositioning plans are executed, will also house the future KORCOM, 8th Army Headquarters, and 2nd Infantry Division. The southeast hub will include USFK installations located in the cities 

of Daegu, Chinhae, and Busan. This hub will serve as the logistics distribution center and storage location for wartime and contingency prepositioned stocks. When 

completed, the two enduring hubs will be world-class installations that create a host 

of operational efficiencies and quality of life improvements for Command personnel. 

The hubs also increase force protection and survivability by moving a majority of 

personnel and equipment outside the tactical effective range of North Korean artillery. 

The repositioning of U.S. forces in Korea will occur in two distinct phases: consolidation and relocation. Phase I—consolidation—is currently underway. The ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00956 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
951 

17 It should be noted that in August 2009 the standard length of tour for USFK civilian personnel was also normalized. Civilians now serve an initial tour of 3 years in length, as opposed 

to the 2-year tour that previously existed. 

mand has returned 36 installations to the ROK so far, in the process giving over 

12,000 acres of land back to the Korean people. In turn, the ROK has acquired 

about 2,300 acres of land around USAG Humphreys in order to support development and expansion of that hub. The ROK has so far granted 1,017 acres of this 

acquired land to the United States for garrison development. This initial land grant 

allows the U.S.-ROK Alliance to begin planning, designing, and coordinating for the 

necessary construction. The remaining 1,300 acres of land will be granted as needed 

to support repositioning under the YRP and LPP. At the end of 2010, there were 

24 projects under construction at USAG Humphreys, which had a combined value 

of $1.3 billion. Facilities under construction included barracks, vehicle maintenance, 

family housing, an airfield hanger and operation building, fire stations, and upgrades to utility infrastructure. An additional $3.5 billion worth of facilities and infrastructure were under planning and design. Phase I consolidation should not be 

viewed in any way as a lessening in U.S. commitment to ROK security—the current 

U.S. troop level in Korea (28,500) will be maintained, as affirmed in the October 

2010 U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting Joint Communique`. Phase II of repositioning will involve the movement of forces onto one of the two 

enduring hubs discussed above. Once this phase is completed, U.S. forces will utilize 

48 separate sites (many of which are training ranges and ammunition depots), well 

below the 107 facilities maintained prior to 2005. Movement under the repositioning 

initiative will not reduce the Command’s ‘‘fight tonight’’ readiness. Moves in the relocation plan will be packaged and executed in manageable components that will 

allow units to maintain their full spectrum of operational and support capabilities. 

Completion of the repositioning initiative will be of great benefit for the U.S.-ROK 

Alliance because it improves readiness and soldier quality of life, realizes stationing 

efficiencies, signals continued American regional commitment, improves the combined capability to deter and defend against aggression directed at the ROK, improves command and control, optimizes use of land in Korea, and enhances force 

protection and survivability. 

Tour Normalization 

The U.S. DOD approved an increase in the tour lengths for servicemembers permanently assigned to the ROK in December 2008. As noted in the 2010 Quadrennial 

Defense Review, DOD’s long-term goal is to phase out all unaccompanied tours in 

Korea and change the status of U.S. forces in the ROK from being one of forwarddeployed to one of being forward-stationed with family members. The decision to 

‘‘normalize’’ tours in Korea was supplemented in October 2010 when the Secretary 

of Defense directed that USFK and the Services proceed with full tour normalization 

as affordable but not according to any specific timeline. Once completed, tour normalization will create an environment where most USFK servicemembers are either 

on a 3-year accompanied (with family members, also known as command sponsored) 

or a 2-year unaccompanied tour (including those without dependents), a significant 

change from the current operational environment where the majority of Command 

military personnel serve on 1-year unaccompanied assignments. This policy change 

better aligns USFK tour rotations with those practiced at other forward-stationed 

locations such as Europe and Japan.17

Initial implementation of the tour normalization initiative is currently under way. 

Since 2008, the number of families in Korea has increased from 1,600 to over 4,000 

at the end of 2010, with an expectation that this figure will grow to 4,636 by the 

end of fiscal year 2011. Once tour normalization is completed all military personnel 

with dependents (about 14,000) assigned to the ROK will able to be accompanied 

by their families. In order to effectively and fairly manage the distribution of command sponsored positions amongst Command personnel, a three-category positionbased prioritized allocation system was established in November 2010, where the 

difference between categories is based upon factors such as the importance of a 

given position to mission accomplishment and continuity. The position-based allocation system improves force readiness by giving priority to those occupying key leadership billets or performing jobs that require critical and special skills and training. 

Expansion in the number of command sponsored families in Korea is directly tied 

to growth in the necessary infrastructure to support these families. Necessary infrastructure includes housing, medical facilities, and—in particular—schools. 

Tour normalization provides a host of benefits. First and foremost, it improves 

force readiness and combat capability by keeping trained military personnel in place 

for longer periods of time, decreasing the annual turnover of Command personnel 

952 

18This year 7th Air Force and 8th U.S. Army forces will participate in the exercises Cobra 

Gold (Thailand) and Balikitan (Philippines). This is the first time that forces from 8th U.S. 

Army will participate in these two annual exercises. 19The 16 UNC member countries are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, 

France, Greece, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, 

Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. 

and thus lowering turbulence in the organizational environment and permanent 

change of station costs. About 85 percent of USFK servicemembers currently rotate 

each year. By normalizing tours, force stability and continuity will be improved, allowing for the retention of trained and ready personnel and reducing the stress 

placed on troops, units, and military families that emanates from frequent rotations. 

Normalized tours promote the operation of sustainable personnel rotation rates that 

protect the force’s long-term health and provide military families with greater clarity and predictability regarding servicemember deployments as called for in the 

2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. It will create a training and stationing environment in Korea similar to that faced by units located in Europe and Japan. In the 

process, the interoperability of U.S. and ROK forces will be improved and the cultural awareness of American military personnel serving in South Korea will be enhanced, thus strengthening the U.S.-ROK Alliance. 

Tour normalization also improves the quality of life for Command personnel. By 

eliminating needless family separations (currently about 10,000 per year) and providing servicemembers with facilities that meet modern DOD standards, readiness 

and troop morale will be improved. The initiative also signals a long-term U.S. commitment not only to security of the ROK—a key Alliance partner—but to the broader region of Northeast Asia as well. Although it will take time to build the appropriate infrastructure needed to support a larger number of family members in the 

ROK, the Command is dedicated to making full tour normalization a reality in 

South Korea. Now is the right time to effectuate tour normalization because of the 

ability to leverage off other Command transformation initiatives underway such as 

infrastructure being constructed under the YRP and LPP programs. 

Although defense of the ROK is our number one priority and will never be compromised, given the lengthened time of tours under tour normalization, U.S. forces 

stationed in the ROK will become available to support regional exercises and global 

operations. Prior to tour normalization, providing this type of support was limited 

due to dwell time requirements and considerations related to repeated unaccompanied deployments. This aspect of tour normalization supports the Army Force 

Generation Model, reduces uncertainty for servicemembers and their families, enables a more adaptive and flexible U.S. force posture on the Korean Peninsula, and 

provides a defense capability with long-term capacity for regional and global defense 

and security cooperation.18 It needs to be emphasized, however, that a more regionally and globally flexible U.S. force in South Korea will in no way jeopardize or lessen U.S. commitment to defend the ROK. In its totality, tour normalization will enhance force readiness, provide greater stability for military personnel and their families, improve quality of life, and demonstrate in no uncertain terms U.S. commitment to an enduring force presence in the ROK. 

IV. UNITED NATIONS COMMAND

The United Nations Command (UNC) continues to exercise its responsibilities for 

implementing and enforcing compliance with the Armistice Agreement. In this regard, the UNC component of the Military Armistice Commission conducted two key 

special investigations over the last year, one related to the March 2010 sinking of 

the ROK naval ship Cheonan and the other related to North Korea’s artillery attack 

on Yeonpyeong Island in November 2010. As discussed earlier, in both cases the 

UNC Military Armistice Commission found that North Korea’s unprovoked attacks 

constituted serious violations of the Armistice Agreement. The Commission’s investigative work showed that until the Armistice Agreement is superseded by a peace 

agreement, the UNC will continue to faithfully execute its Armistice Agreement implementation mission and endeavor to resolve through negotiations violations of the 

Armistice Agreement. 

The number of countries actively participating in UNC expanded during 2010. On 

23 November of that year, the Republic of South Africa officially rejoined UNC, becoming the command’s 16th active participating nation.19 The Republic of South Africa fought in defense of the ROK during the Korean War and its decision to become 

an active participant in UNC once again was most welcomed by the Command. Joining a ready-made coalition of now 16 countries, South Africa stands firm with the 

other UNC nations to defend the ROK from aggression. The nations of UNC symVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00958 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
953 

bolize an international commitment to deter aggression against the ROK and the 

respect held for this nation as a key member of the international community. 

The UNC continues to maintain a rear headquarters in Japan. Unique to that 

presence is a status of forces agreement that allows the UNC Commander to use 

seven UNC-flagged bases in Japan for the transit of UNC aircraft, vessels, equipment, and forces upon notification to the government of Japan. During 2010, four 

naval vessels and four aircraft called on ports in Japan under the auspices of the 

UNC. Almost 1,000 military personnel participated in these visits. The multi-national nature of the UNC rear headquarters is reflected in its leadership. Last year 

for the first time, a senior officer from Australia assumed command of the headquarters, while the deputy is an officer from Turkey. 

V. SUMMARY

The Korean Peninsula sits at the heart of Northeast Asia, a dynamic region whose 

global influence is growing and has significant national interests for the U.S. North 

Korea’s unprovoked attacks on the Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island last year and 

its nuclear programs show the ongoing security challenge posed by events in Northeast Asia and the threat North Korea remains to regional peace and stability. By 

maintaining a U.S. military force presence in the ROK, a stabilizing presence is 

maintained that allows for the implementation of strategies to de-escalate crises 

should they occur and thus promote peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula 

and in Northeast Asia as a whole. Forward-stationed U.S. military forces in the 

ROK also create opportunities for enhanced American engagement with a key alliance partner as well as with other states and key actors throughout the region. 

My three command priorities of being prepared to fight and win, strengthening 

the U.S.-ROK Alliance, and improving the quality of life for Command personnel are 

enduring and serve as guiding principles for all key initiatives pursued. The Strategic Alliance 2015 plan—as a comprehensive plan for evolution of the military component of the U.S.-ROK Alliance—synchronizes American and Korean transformation efforts designed to build adaptive and flexible force capabilities to deter 

provocations and aggression against the ROK and to defeat aggression should it 

occur. The repositioning of U.S. forces in the ROK improves force readiness and soldier quality of life, realizes stationing efficiencies, signals continued American commitment to defense of the ROK and engagement with the broader region, and enhances force protection and survivability. Tour normalization keeps trained and 

ready military personnel in place for longer periods of time, improving combat capability, lowering turbulence in the organizational environment, and reducing the 

stress placed on troops, units, and families. 

I am extremely proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, DOD civilians, and 

their families serving our great Nation in the ROK. Their selfless service promotes 

peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula as well as in the broader region of 

Northeast Asia. Your support for them and the U.S.-ROK Alliance is greatly appreciated. I am certain you will agree that our men and women in uniform deserve the 

very best working, living, and training environment that can be provided, and that 

we should do everything in our power to provide it. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Let’s have a 7-minute round of questions for our first round. 

General, you just made reference to the full tour normalization 

for our troops and their families in South Korea as subject to being 

feasible and affordable. As I understand the plan, about 12,000 

American families would be living in South Korea when it’s fully 

implemented and full tour normalization is brought about. That 

would be an increase from about 1,700 families, that’s a huge increase in the number of families. 

The timing of this seems to me to be questionable, given the belligerence of North Korea and the fact that we have, for instance, 

delayed the transfer of OPCON of troops from ourselves to the 

South Koreans. We’ve delayed that shift again, this time by 2 or 

3 years. I do have concerns about the timing of this increase of 

families to South Korea and the cost. 

Putting aside the timing just for a minute in terms of North 

Korea behavior, let’s focus on the cost for a moment. What would 

954 

be the estimate for the cost of completing all phases of tour normalization, including the amount of money that would have to be paid 

for the additional housing? It’s my understanding, for instance, 

that the overseas housing allowance would need to be set at about 

$4,200 a month at Camp Humphreys, which is a significant increase over the rate of housing that we pay in Seoul, where it’s 

$3,200 a month, and way above what we pay at other camps, comparing to other barracks and housing facilities such as the ones at 

Camp Casey, it’s $1,600 a month, Osan it’s $1,400 a month. 

It looks like our housing cost with the influx of these 10,000 or 

so additional families will go way up. There’s also moving costs involved. Can you tell us, General, what your estimate is of the additional costs from the full implementation of tour normalization? 

General SHARP. Thank you, Senator Levin. First off, at full tour 

normalization you are correct, it would be about 12,000 families 

there. But today we have 4,400 families that are there in command-sponsored tours. The number 1,700 families is the number 

we had back in 2008. With the infrastructure that is currently 

there, we will be able to support 4,400 families there. 

It’s also important to note that we also have, in Korea, about 

1,600 non-command-sponsored families, those families who have 

said, ‘‘I’m not going to spend another year separated from my 

servicemember, I’m going to come to Korea because I want to be 

with my servicemember, and because of the quality of life that we 

have there.’’ 

Everyone is aware of the importance of tour normalization with 

the increase of the readiness that it brings to our units that are 

there, with the fact that it shows our commitment, which I think 

is a great deterrent value to North Korea, and because of the fact 

that it reduces stress on our families. 

Secretary Gates has directed that the Services and I bring to him 

a plan that is affordable to get to full tour normalization. We are 

looking at many different options in order to be able to reduce the 

costs and looking at many different options as far as how long it 

will take. 

For example, there are cost drivers whether we build military 

construction (MILCON) houses or whether we use public-private 

ventures in order to be able to fund what we need for the housing 

in the ROK. The same thing applies to schools, which are the other 

major cost factor there. 

Secretary Gates is getting the report and our estimates this 

week. He will look at those and make his decisions and recommendations over the spring and into early summer and then direct the Services to include that in the budget that will be submitted to Congress next February. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are there any budget impacts for the 2012 

budget? 

General SHARP. There are not. 

Chairman LEVIN. There are no additional families, no additional 

MILCON, no additional costs at all. 

General SHARP. Included for 2012? For 2012 itself, no, there will 

not. 

Chairman LEVIN. The advantages are clear, and you’ve outlined 

them very clearly. But there’s also some very heavy costs that are 

955 

involved here, as well as the question of the security issues when 

you have a lot more families that are there in this tense time. 

There’s also a cost issue, Admiral, relative to the move of marines from Okinawa to Guam, and I want to ask you about that as 

well. As I mentioned in my opening statement, there are two major 

costs. One is the establishment of a new Marine airfield on Okinawa, and there’s also the relocation of about 8,000 marines and 

their families from Okinawa to Guam. 

I used a figure of $10 billion and said the U.S. share was about 

40 percent of that. I said that that would be growing because of all 

the uncertainties and the delays. Senator McCain used a figure 

that was very different from mine and may indeed be right. I’m not 

at all challenging the number that he used, but I’m curious about 

what will the cost be for these major changes to build an airfield 

and relocate about 8,000 marines? What would be the cost to the 

Japanese Government, assuming that they’re still in a position to 

make these expenditures, given their present economic challenges? 

What would be the cost to our taxpayers? 

Admiral WILLARD. Senator, the agreed-to amount when we established the framework in 2006 was as you suggested in your opening 

remarks. It was about $10.3 billion, of which $4.2 billion was 

United States commitment and $6.1 billion was the commitment of 

the Government of Japan. 

As a consequence of the delays that we experienced last year and 

the discussions regarding training requirements for the marines 

that would lay down in Guam, and for the various infrastructure 

needs of the island of Guam outside the fence line of any relocation, there is a level of uncertainty regarding the end game resource consequence to that that lies outside the framework of the 

Defence Policy Review Initiative (DPRI). So DPRI, about $10.3 billion, and other uncertainties, depending on the investments made 

in Guam funding, training ranges, and so on. 

As you suggest, there’s some uncertainty in all of this and continued delay as a consequence of the Futenma replacement facility 

and other negotiations ongoing with Japan. The likelihood of the 

amount being precisely what was agreed to in 2006, is not great. 

There are definitely uncertainties that will drive that figure higher. 

Chairman LEVIN. I am concerned, given our budget situation, 

about both these situations and their costs. We have to take a very, 

very close look at both the Korean situation as well as the Okinawa-Guam situation because of the costs involved. If you can give 

us an update for the record of the best estimate you have of these 

costs, including anything that’s in the 2012 budget request, that 

would be appreciated. 

Thank you both. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The 2012 budget request includes two Guam projects to support the Marine relocation from Okinawa to Guam. The first is $79 million for Phase II Andersen Air 

Force Base North Ramp Utilities. The first phase was funded in the fiscal year 2010 

budget and this project is the second and final phase. The second project is $77 million for Finegayan Water Utilities, which will install the water distribution infrastructure at the Marine Corps Main Cantonment Site. Regarding the overall costs 

to relocate marines to Guam in accordance with the 2006 bilateral agreement, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) is in the process of conducting an analysis to provide 

an updated cost estimate incorporating new data and associated costs factors now 

available since the original estimate was developed for the 2006 agreement. The reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00961 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
956 

cent completion of the Environmental Impact Statement provides more fidelity on 

costs, such as environmental mitigation requirements, impacts to civilian infrastructure directly associated with the Marine Corps relocation, and additional land acquisition to execute preferred alternatives for family housing and live-fire training 

ranges. This new data is being incorporated into an updated cost estimate to be provided by DOD to Congress. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on 

your questioning, we’ve gotten a lot of different information and 

I’m sure that our military is doing the best they can. Perhaps we 

need to have a hearing on this whole issue and try and sort a lot 

of it out here. It’s a lot of uncertainty. As you pointed out, the 

budget pressures are far more intense than they’ve been in the 

past. 

General Sharp, again thank you for your service. You have the 

benefit of some years of experience with dealing with the issues regarding North Korea. It seems to me that we’ve been through this 

cycle for many years now of confrontation, acts of aggression, 

heightened tensions, then outreach, negotiations, on and on, and 

we always seem to end up where we were, but unfortunately, it’s 

been coupled with North Korean increased capabilities of both acquisition of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. 

Has that been your experience, and what would you say to American policymakers if you agree with that cycle that’s been going on 

for many years? How do we break that cycle? 

General SHARP. Sir, first off, I do agree with it, that is the cycle 

that has been going on over the last several years. Unfortunately, 

we see no signs of that cycle changing. We’re in a cycle right now 

where North Korea is asking for concessions in food, and you put 

that on top of what they did last year, it does not paint a good future for where North Korea is going, especially for their people. 

Then put on top of that the issues that they’re working through 

with succession. I do worry that there could be continued provocations in the future, based upon the cycles that we’ve seen in the 

past. 

Having said that, both ROK and the United States are working 

very hard to take the lessons that we have learned from the previous provocations, especially those of last year, and working to 

make sure that we have a solid plan that will hopefully deter, but 

if not deter be prepared to very strongly respond to future North 

Korean provocations. 

The attack on November 23 that killed ROK civilians and 

servicemembers as well as the attack on the Cheonan in March 

2010 truly changed our relationship with the ROK to say that we 

have to work together to better deter and respond very strongly to 

North Korean attacks. That will hopefully change their calculus in 

the future that they will not do these attacks on ROK. 

The last thing I’ll say is, North Korea does have an opportunity 

to change. The world has made that very clear. If they 

denuclearize, if they promise to not do the attacks in the future 

and apologize for their previous acts, the world will come to their 

assistance. But they have to show and demonstrate that commitment before the world is willing to do anything in the future because of the cycle that we’ve seen so many times in the past. 

957 

Senator MCCAIN. Can you envision a scenario in which the North 

Korean regime is willing to give up its nuclear weapons capability? 

General SHARP. Sir, not without a whole bunch of pressure from 

everyone around the globe. North Korea has clearly said that they 

are developing this nuclear capability. It is clear that Kim Jong Il 

believes he has to have it for regime survival. I don’t believe that 

to be true, but it will take people convincing him that the regime 

is not at risk. 

To answer your question directly, no, I do not see that he will 

give up his nuclear capability. 

Senator MCCAIN. Finally on this issue, earlier this year Secretary Gates on a trip there, said that the intercontinental ballistic 

missile (ICBM) program of North Korea is ‘‘becoming a direct 

threat to the United States’’ and forecasted that North Korea 

would develop an ICBM within 5 years. Is that your assessment? 

General SHARP. Sir, we see the continuing development of their 

ballistic missile capability. The second Taepodong launch in 2009 

was much more successful than the one before. We continue to see 

their continued growth and development, and that’s where they’re 

putting their money, instead of supporting the people in North 

Korea. They’re putting their money in their military and developing nuclear capabilities, ballistic missile capabilities, and Special 

Operating Forces. 

The timeline that Secretary Gates gave is reasonable and feasible. Again, we tell North Korea that there are better ways to be 

able to spend their money in North Korea in order to be able to 

help their people. 

Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, how would the successful deployment of a Chinese aircraft carrier change the perception of balance of power in the Pacific? 

Admiral WILLARD. Based on the feedback that we receive from 

our partners and allies in the Pacific, the change in perception by 

the region will be significant. We recognize that when their rebuilt 

aircraft carrier begins its sea trial period and test and evaluation 

period, as early as this summer, that there will be a long period 

of training and development and eventual exercising preceding any 

operational capability that it could demonstrate. As a symbol the 

feedback that we receive in our dialogue throughout the region is 

that the regional partners regard this step by the Chinese in the 

midst of what has otherwise been remarkable growth in their military capability as significant. 

Senator MCCAIN. It’s advertised they have increased their defense spending by some 12.5 percent. Isn’t it pretty clear that that 

masks a lot of the spending that they’re making on defense? 

Admiral WILLARD. We don’t know what their overall defense expenditures are, Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Isn’t it your estimate that it’s more than the 

12.5 percent that’s advertised? 

Admiral WILLARD. Definitely. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is there any truth to speculation that the 

stealth technology that went into the J–20 could have been acquired or stolen from the United States? 

Admiral WILLARD. I read an account that indicated that perhaps 

there was an exchange of information as a consequence of the 1999 

958 

Kosovo campaign and the loss of a F–117 that occurred there. I 

don’t know that that’s the case. We’re viewing the outline of that 

aircraft and attempting to ascertain its low observable characteristics. But to answer your question directly, Senator, we don’t know. 

Senator MCCAIN. Wouldn’t you welcome our involvement in this 

whole issue of Guam, Okinawa, all this issue? Sometimes it may 

appear that you’re operating under some parameters that perhaps 

have been overtaken by time and events. 

Admiral WILLARD. There are many complexities involved in that 

particular aspect of the DPRI. Recalling that DPRI has 19 different 

parts to it, some of which are being executed today, so much of the 

realignment within Japan is occurring. This particular aspect of it 

has been particularly complex, and I would welcome overview of it. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses again. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to both of you. General Sharp, I want to come back to 

the quote by Secretary Gates when he was in China in January 

that Senator McCain referenced. He said: ‘‘With the North Koreans 

continuing development of nuclear weapons and their development 

of ICBMs, North Korea is becoming a direct threat to the United 

States.’’ 

I assumed when I read that that he was saying to his hosts in 

Beijing that the North Korean threat to the United States is not 

just growing, but it’s changing in nature, and that Beijing should 

not expect that the United States would have limitless patience 

with North Korea’s behavior. I wanted to ask you, and then I’ll ask 

Admiral Willard if you want to add, whether, one, you believe that 

North Korea is becoming a direct threat to the United States; and 

second, whether you think that China gets the message that, and 

this is where I’ll invite you in, Admiral Willard, whether our patience with regard to the Six Party Talks and the rest is limited? 

General SHARP. Sir, I do agree that North Korea is becoming a 

direct threat to the United States, and it’s continuing to develop capabilities that are also a threat against the alliance and our 

servicemembers, not only in ROK but in the whole region. 

Admiral Willard I think could better answer the question on 

China. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Admiral? 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Senator. You summarize it very 

well. We have both a threat that has emanated from the Korean 

Peninsula, that began as a peninsular threat, later to range its 

neighbors, and now to the extent that they’re attempting to 

weaponize an ICBM becomes an international threat, and for sure 

a potential future threat to the United States. 

It’s important to note that the People’s Republic of China are 

treaty allies to North Korea. It’s appropriate that they understand 

the United States’ impatience and recognition that what is occurring on the Korean Peninsula is not static or stable, but rather we 

have seen an advancing nuclear capability being developed in the 

midst of what are very traditional conventional provocations and 

the cycle that was described earlier. 

959 

We have a significant challenge on the Korean Peninsula, one 

that we cannot allow to fester longer. From the standpoint of a reflection of impatience, that’s a fair statement. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate the answers from both of you. 

Of course, I agree that North Korea is becoming, by its developments, technological, nuclear weapons, ICBMs, a direct threat to 

the United States. Of course the leadership of the country is unpredictable and hostile toward us. 

Incidentally, I just want to share with you something that you 

may have seen that I was shown. It was a recent report in North 

Korea’s central news agency that said that western military action 

in Libya demonstrates that Qadhafi was mistaken to disarm 

nuclearly, in terms of his nuclear program, and that North Korea 

therefore will maintain its deterrent. 

I know there’s always a lot of rhetoric spewing out of there, and 

we always come back, when we’re dealing with North Korea, to the 

Chinese who have the most influence on them. As this threat 

comes together and more directly threatens the United States, 

what more can we do to convince the People’s Republic of China 

that they too have an interest in curtailing this belligerent behavior by the North Korean Government? 

Admiral WILLARD. Senator, that dialogue is occurring. As you 

suggest, it is directed at Beijing. China is the closest partner that 

North Korea has. China is North Korea’s only treaty ally. Unquestionably, given the services that China has performed on behalf of 

North Korea in the past, China has influence in Pyongyang. How 

much influence is a subject of debate and often discussion between 

China and its international partners. 

The focus of the dialogue and making it clear in Beijing that the 

situation on the Korean Peninsula has changed both in South 

Korea and their willingness to tolerate the continued provocations 

that have become deadly and compressed a timeline, as well as the 

impatience of the international community over the nuclearization 

piece, that China’s understanding of the acuteness of both those 

things is an important factor in generating what influence they can 

exert over Pyongyang in order to change this calculus. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I agree. Obviously, we’re all concerned about 

U.S. overreach and pressures on our budget now, and it bears saying that in our reaction and our concerns about North Korea’s 

growing capabilities, we are joined with even more intensity because of their geographic location by our two, I would say, two closest allies in the region, South Korea and Japan. I’m right, I assume 

you’d agree? 

Admiral WILLARD. Yes. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I know in response to the Cheonan and the 

Yeonpyeong Island incidents the leadership of South Korea has 

made it clear that it’s not going to tolerate that kind of behavior 

again and that we’ve strengthened our combined response capabilities. 

I wanted to ask you, General Sharp, in the event of another such 

attack by North Korea do you believe that South Korea and the 

United States are prepared to deliver an effective response? 

General SHARP. Sir, I do. Since November 23 we have been working on a whole range of possible provocations from North Korea 

960 

with General Han, the ROK Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

and the Minister of Defense, on plans that in self-defense, ROK 

will immediately strike back in a proportionate manner, and then 

looking at what bilateral responses we would need and potentially 

do to deter future provocations. 

I do believe we are prepared, yes, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. I thank you for it, and I 

hope that the leadership in North Korea understands that. 

Thank you both very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Ayotte is next, and then after her would be Senator 

Reed. Senator Reed is able to stay for a while. I must leave now 

and I very much appreciate Senator Reed taking over for that period of time. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Willard and General Sharp, I want to share the sentiments of others on the committee and thank you for your distinguished service to our country. Please express our gratitude to all 

that serve underneath both of you. 

I wanted to follow up on the questions that Senator McCain and 

Senator Lieberman asked you with respect to North Korea developing an ICBM capability. Just my follow-up would be, in order to 

defend the United States, do we have enough ground-based interceptors to be able to? We’re obviously dealing with a threat to 

South Korea. When you hear about them developing an ICBM capability, do we have sufficient resources to protect our country, and 

Hawaii, who would probably be one of the closet areas? 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Senator. The answer is yes from 

the standpoint of capabilities. From the standpoint of capacities, I 

think we have to continue to look at those very carefully. Particularly in our sea-based systems, there are a limited number of ballistic missile defense (BMD) missiles in production, and we are accruing them at a fairly modest pace. 

The answer is that against the types of threats that we believe 

North Korea poses our BMD system, to include our ground-based 

interceptors, is sufficient. In terms of future capacities and future 

contingencies, we’re going to have to continue to study the strategic 

landscape in the western Pacific, especially in northeast Asia and 

on the Korean Peninsula, understand it, and adjust those capacities accordingly. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. 

I also wanted to ask you, Admiral, questions about the capabilities of LeT and the growth of LeT, which originally was a terrorist 

organization focused on Kashmir in India. Based on your written 

testimony, you’ve said in your statement that LeT is also now deliberately targeting westerners and engaging coalition forces in Afghanistan, presenting a problem for our troops in Afghanistan. 

Can you let us know what your assessment is in terms of LeT 

becoming a global terrorist organization and what threats they 

present to us, and in particular what more we should be doing to 

address those threats? 

961 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Senator. Within the confines of an 

unclassified hearing, I’ll attempt to characterize it. 

Senator AYOTTE. Of course. 

Admiral WILLARD. LeT, as you are aware, is a Pakistani-based 

terrorist organization that’s been in place for many years. It has 

declared jihad against the west and specifically against the United 

States in the past. 

Also as you suggest, it has historically been focused on the Kashmir region, particularly in order to conduct attacks inside India, 

and it was responsible for the attack in Mumbai that we’re all very 

familiar with. 

We know that LeT is currently laid down throughout South Asia. 

We’re currently working in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the 

Maldives, and India in order to build those nations’ capacities or 

assist in building their capacities to attempt to contain LeT in 

those areas. 

But also in your question you allude to my testimony, which 

states that they are a broader organization than that. They’re conducting attacks against our people in Afghanistan today. We have 

evidence of LeT’s presence in Europe, in Asia, the broader Asia-Pacific, and in the past even in Canada and the United States. Unquestionably they have spread their influence internationally and 

are no longer solely focused in South Asia and India, although that 

continues to be their main training ground and India continues to 

be their main target. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much, Admiral. Just as a follow-up, I know it’s outside your area of command, however, when 

you look at LeT and the relationship with the Pakistani Government, that’s an important relationship to us in terms of engaging 

in the war against terrorism and the war in Afghanistan. At the 

same time, their existential enemy is India. 

I’m sure working with your counterpart that has responsibility 

for Pakistan, but what thoughts do you have in terms of that dynamic and working together between our relationship with India 

and Pakistan and managing LeT and getting Pakistan to really act 

to root out terrorism within its own country? 

Admiral WILLARD. We have a partnership with both these nations. From a military-to-military relationship standpoint, the U.S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander, General Mattis, is 

my counterpart that covers the military relationship with Pakistan. 

Our two staffs work very closely and continually reinforce one another’s knowledge of the Asia-Pacific, India, and South Asia in particular, as we exchange with CENTCOM and they share their perspectives with regard to our relationship with Pakistan and the 

rest of CENTCOM’s AOR in those exchanges, so that we understand that dividing line that exists between our two respective regions. 

That said, the discussion regarding the government of Pakistan’s 

relationship to LeT is a very sensitive one. It continues to be a discussion item between the U.S. Government and the Pakistan Government in Islamabad, and will continue to be. LeT is historically 

linked in that capacity. The Government of Pakistan has denounced that linkage between LeT. The Indian Government would 

offer that it still exists. 

962 

Given the United States’ relationship with both India and Pakistan and the importance that we place on those relationships, it’s 

important that this particular discussion continue to take place and 

that we continue to work with the Government of Pakistan, as you 

say, to root out terrorism that exists inside their borders. 

Senator AYOTTE. I know that my time is up. Admiral, it obviously is going to be very difficult for us to really root out the actions of LeT without the Pakistan government actually getting the 

terrorism outside of their own country really acting within their 

own country, with our assistance. 

Admiral WILLARD. The center of gravity exists there, I agree with 

you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you both. 

Senator REED [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Gentlemen, thank you not only for your testimony today, but for 

your service. Particularly, General Sharp, thank you for your extraordinary service. We’ve met in several different places, Bosnia 

and elsewhere. Thank you very much, General. 

As a point of departure, we understand that the Chinese are increasing their military capacity, Admiral. Do we have a rough estimate of their budget for defense? I know it’s hard to definitively 

say how much they’re spending, but roughly do you have any idea 

how much they’re spending on an annual basis? 

Admiral WILLARD. I don’t, Senator. I’d prefer to collect the best 

of the statistics that we think we do have, perhaps at a classified 

level, and provide that on the record. 

Senator REED. Okay, that’s fair. It’s just that it strikes me that 

they have over the last decade or more been able to not only expand their economy, but also increase in more sophisticated weapons, while we have been committed to struggles in many different 

parts of the world, while still in their capacity maintaining trade, 

sea lanes open, all of which they take great advantage of. They’ve 

been able to do things because of our involvement and commitment 

and resources directed elsewhere. But let me take those numbers 

for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

[Deleted.] 

Senator REED. Let me turn to another issue. There have been increasing reports, almost daily reports, of computer intrusions in 

many different guises emanating from China, and no clear indication whether these are individuals, institutions, or sponsored, et 

cetera. We recognize too, the doctrine of the PLA calls for rather 

aggressive offensive and defensive cyber operations, which could be 

akin to these. 

Let me just pose a general question on the cyber threat emanating from China, what you and your command are trying to do 

about it and the seriousness that you see this dimension of conflict 

or potential conflict? 

Admiral WILLARD. The dimension of warfare is perfectly stated. 

This is a common area that the entire world now is dependent on. 

There are international protocols, laws, and policies that eventually 

will have to be put into place in order to enhance the defensibility 

of cyber space. 

963 

From a military standpoint, we rely on it very heavily for our 

command and control capabilities. To your point, we defend against 

attacks into our system every day. I personally think the advent 

of Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the linkage that PACOM 

has with CYBERCOM, which is a very close one, was a great initiative. It has not only focused our attention on cyber space and its 

defensibility, but it’s built the capacities that we require and personnel that are skilled in this particular area, and it’s established 

the command relationships that I require in order to appropriately 

fight in that particular commons domain. 

I have no question, as you suggest, that in any future major conflict that the attacks into information systems and command and 

control systems are paramount to anyone’s campaign strategy and 

that we must be proficient in dealing with warfare in this particular area. You’re spot on. Again, this is something that we’re 

working on and have been for a number of years, and we’re becoming more and more aware of what’s in this domain and more proficient at dealing with both the defense of the domain and the active defense should it be required. 

Senator REED. I presume from what you’ve said that you have 

constant exercises among all of your commands to test both offensive and defensive capabilities? 

Admiral WILLARD. I have a major exercise occurring within the 

next 4 weeks, where CYBERCOM is coming in in some strength to 

Hawaii in order to work a broader contingency plan, but with a 

cyber dimension, just as you suggest. 

Senator REED. Let me take this down to North Korea, General 

Sharp, because there have been reports that they are persistently 

using Global Positioning System (GPS) jammers against systems in 

South Korea and presumably against our forces, too. Can you tell 

us what kind of an impact that is having and are the South Koreans and allied forces prepared to respond if this jamming is not 

sporadic and annoying, but persistent and disruptive? 

General SHARP. Sir, there have been some GPS jamming incidents up along the North-South Korean border. They have, as you 

pointed out, been sporadic over the last several months, that have 

caused some disruption, but not major disruption. South Korea has 

called on North Korea to stop this GPS jamming, and if we ever 

went to conflict we are very confident that we could destroy those 

jammers very quickly so that they would not affect any of our war 

plans. 

Senator REED. A related question, which the Admiral’s insight is 

very persuasive, that electronic, cyber dimension is part of every 

major country’s war planning, including, I presume, the North Koreans. Can we assume that you feel confident that the South Koreans and allied forces are able, at this juncture, to defeat an offensive operation, cyber operation, by the North Koreans? 

General SHARP. By the North Koreans, yes, sir. In fact, in our 

exercises, as Admiral Willard talked about, with CYBERCOM, we 

are working to make sure that they are part of our exercises. ROK 

is also standing up their equivalent to CYBERCOM because they 

understand the importance of being able to defend all of their networks. We are working very closely together in order to be able to 

counter this growing threat. 

964 

Senator REED. Let me ask a question which I raised with Admiral Stavridis. I’m confident of everything you’ve said, but I presume 

also that your troops and the South Korean forces are prepared to 

fight with compasses and maps, not sophisticated GPS devices? 

General SHARP. We are, sir. We work very hard to make sure 

that we have some redundant backup capability. I don’t want to 

minimize the effect that a strong cyber attack, if we’re not properly 

prepared to defend against it, would have. Our capabilities have 

really enhanced significantly because of our capabilities in the 

cyber arena. That’s why I think it’s so important that we really do 

dedicate all the work that we’re doing worldwide in order to be able 

to defend our networks. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here today and for your service, 

Admiral, General, and for all the men and women who are serving 

under you. 

We’ve talked about a lot of interesting things here today. I 

missed some of the testimony, but I know you got into some of the 

issues that are directly affecting both of your commands. I want to 

turn to Japan for a second, if I could, and the continuing devastation to one of our strongest allies in the world and the strong U.S. 

response by our military, which I know is greatly appreciated. 

Specifically, of course, focused on what’s going on with the 

Fukushima site, which continues to concern the Department of Energy and our Nuclear Regulatory Commission, based on testimony 

last month before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee which I’m also on. Admiral Willard, if you could give us an 

update on what you’re doing in relation to Japan, how you’re helping. I’d also like to know what they’ve asked for and have they 

asked for things that we have not been able to provide? 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Senator. The current state of the 

Fukushima Daiishi plants has been properly characterized by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission today as static, but not stable. 

Japan experienced another 6.6 magnitude aftershock last evening, 

this one on an island and very close to the coastline. As a consequence, it not only shook up the area that has already been devastated by earthquake and tsunami, but took power down in the 

Fukushima Daiishi plants for about 50 minutes last night until it 

could be again restored. 

It remains a tenuous condition at the plants. There are six located there, three of which were operating plants at the time of the 

earthquake and are currently the focus of much effort, Plants 1, 2, 

and 3, 4, 5, and 6 had been defueled for maintenance, but there 

are spent fuel pools, swimming pools essentially with tons of spent 

nuclear fuel in them, across all six of these plants. 

We’re maintaining oversight of the status of all six and very 

closely watching what is ongoing with the three that were formerly 

operating and that are now in a damaged and very tenuous state. 

I would characterize the progress being made as steady and 

we’re continuing to see incremental improvement day-to-day as not 

only the decay heat problem is dissipating, but the Japanese are 

achieving, through their actions, incremental technical advances 

965 

and stabilizing the plants. They recently introduced nitrogen to 

Plant No. 1 containment vessel, which was a major milestone, and 

they’re pursuing the same thing in Plants No. 2 and 3, and that’s 

designed to keep the prospects of a next hydrogen explosion down. 

We’re supporting the JSDF in their support to Tokyo Electric 

Power Company (TEPCO), all of the nuclear agencies, and experts 

that are now devoted to stabilizing these plants. We have offered 

a number of capabilities to General Oriki. He in turn requested 

consideration for several that they felt would fulfill gaps. 

For example, we’ve had unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) flying 

over the plants and providing thermal imagery, optics imagery, and 

other sensors as well, every day to the Japanese in support of this. 

We deployed a UAV that assesses surface contamination and we fly 

it every day the weather will permit. We’re maintaining a continuous mapping of the surface contamination around the plant area, 

such that we’re able to share that with the Japanese and, frankly, 

with others, so that we all have the same information that we’re 

working from. 

Another example, and a more recent one, is General Oriki requested that we execute a prepare-to-deploy order for 150 marines 

in a special radiological unit, who have now laid down in Japan to 

support the JSDF in the radiological areas, such as decontamination and radiological monitoring and so forth. They’re conducting 

work together to exchange views, standards, and are prepared to 

work together as necessary to continue to advance this stabilization 

work against the plants. 

Senator PORTMAN. Admiral, is there anything that the Japanese 

have asked that we have not been able to provide? 

Admiral WILLARD. No, Senator, there hasn’t been. There’s a 

barge that handles contaminated water that the Japanese actually 

built for Russia, that they have asked for support with, and we 

don’t have a capability like that. There are some capabilities they 

have sought that perhaps weren’t U.S. technologies that were readily accessible. We have by and large fulfilled every request they’ve 

made, and we have many other capabilities on standby right now 

in the event that they require more. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. 

General Sharp, I just have a minute here. I’m not sure. My clock 

doesn’t seem to be working, which is a dangerous thing for a Senator. 

Senator REED. You have a minute at least. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Admiral, a number of us are very interested in 

what’s going on in Japan, and you need to focus on your primary 

mission at the same time. As a great ally, we would hope that we 

could continue to provide that kind of expertise and resources. 

General, what concerns you most right now on the Korean Peninsula? I know we’ve talked about the ballistic missile capability and 

Senator Reed’s talked about the jamming capability. What is your 

biggest concern today on the peninsula? 

General SHARP. Senator, it is the continuing development in 

North Korea of a nuclear capability and a ballistic missile capability, and the history that they have had over the past many decades of provocations and attacks. I hope Kim Jong Il sees that 

966 

South Korea has changed and that these provocations and attacks 

stop. Unfortunately, I continue to worry whether they will continue 

or not. 

My major concern is the continued provocation from North 

Korea. 

Senator PORTMAN. My time has now expired, but maybe we’ll 

have a chance to pursue the sentence you started at some future 

date. Thank you, General. 

Thank you, Admiral. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Willard and General Sharp, I want to say aloha and 

welcome to the committee. 

Admiral WILLARD. Aloha, Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. I thank both of you for being here today. I know 

the men and women you lead have worked hard and sacrificed to 

keep our region stable. 

General Sharp, let me add my congratulations and appreciation 

as you retire. Your departure will be a significant loss to the Army 

and our country, and I want to wish you the best in your future 

endeavors. 

Admiral Willard, I want to thank you for going to Japan to see 

for yourself the destruction caused by the tsunami and the need for 

assistance. I also want to tell you that I appreciate you and your 

wife Donna for meeting with the service men and women and their 

families and helping them through this stressful period that 

they’ve been in. That really brought the human touch to our forces 

in Japan. 

Admiral Willard, the Law of the Sea Treaty has been on the 

table for years. Recently, Admiral Roughead stated that the most 

important thing regarding activity in the Arctic is for the United 

States to become party to the U.N. Convention for Law of the Sea 

(UNCLOS). If the United States becomes a signatory to the treaty, 

how would that affect our national security policy and influence in 

the region? 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Senator Akaka. It’s a great question. As you have stated, we have not yet ratified the UNCLOS. We 

took receipt of it in about 1984 and we have been adhering to its 

legal tenets ever since, so on the maritime domain my forces adhere to the legal framework that the UNCLOS represents. 

Not having ratified it is both a perception challenge within the 

region, it is a messaging issue, with our partners and allies within 

the region that we haven’t, and generates uncertainty as to why we 

haven’t. More importantly, it has kept the United States from the 

table in advancing the Law of the Sea framework over time. 

It is undoubtedly the international norm right now for resolving 

sea space territorial issues, sovereignty issues, economic exclusion 

zone issues, resource disputes, as well as establishing the legal 

framework for conducting our business on the maritime domain 

and in that environment. As Admiral Roughead suggests, it’s very 

important that Congress ratify the UNCLOS. Not only will it then 

establish the United States as party to the framework agreements 

that UNCLOS connotes in sorting through the challenges in the 

967 

Arctic and other regions of the world, but most importantly it 

keeps us at the table as the signators determine where the treaty 

will go in the future. 

Senator AKAKA. General Sharp, with almost 37 years of service, 

the last few as Commander of USFK, this question has been asked, 

but if you can add to this: What are the most important keys to 

ensuring stability on the Korean Peninsula? 

General SHARP. Sir, thank you for that question. I think the most 

important is the continued strong alliance between ROK and the 

United States and the continuing development as an alliance of the 

capabilities that we have there from a ROK and a U.S. perspective 

to deter North Korea and then be prepared for the full range of 

possible actions that North Korea could take in the future. 

Over the last 3 years, as has been said, we’ve made great 

progress in that line, with the leadership of President Lee, President Bush, and then President Obama, to form and strengthen the 

alliance to be able to counter what we have seen North Korea do 

to become more and more provocative. I am very confident that the 

alliance now is strong and will grow stronger in the future. 

We can’t stop. We see North Korea continuing to develop capabilities and we must constantly adjust our plans, both in our exercises and our capabilities there. As we move towards OPCON transition, the continued demonstration of commitment of the United 

States to Northeast Asia is going to be very important to continue 

to deter North Korea and really to shape Northeast Asia for the 

foreseeable future. 

Senator AKAKA. General Sharp, recent news articles from ROK 

indicate that there has been an agreement in principle to allow the 

Korean chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to command U.S. support troops in case of a provocation from North Korea. Can you tell 

us your thoughts about this agreement, as well as what the Korean 

chairman would have under his control? 

General SHARP. Sir, the press articles are not correct. If the 

USFK are going to support the ROK chairman as the lead for countering provocations, they would be under my command and we 

would be in a supporting-supported relationship with the ROK if 

both governments agreed to that type of response. 

Clearly, in a provocation response, the lead for that is the ROK 

and the ROK chairman. The United States supports those type of 

responses from a wide variety of different possibilities, but again 

that would be agreed to by both of our national authorities. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. Senator Webb. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, Admiral, I’d like to echo other comments up here and particularly those of Senator Akaka in expressing my appreciation and 

gratitude to you and your wife and other people in your command 

for the level of assistance and attention that’s been paid to the situation in Japan. There’s an old saying that the big part of leadership is showing up, and the fact that we showed up so quickly and 

the fact that your wife actually went among the people who were 

in these shelters is an enormous signal from our country to such 

a vital friend and ally as Japan. 

968 

I’d like to also express my admiration for the leadership that you 

have shown in overseeing the security threats of our country in 

this region that is so vital to our national interest. You’ve been a 

breath of fresh air in my view, a clear head, calm style, and a 

steady hand on the rudder. That’s what we need out there in this 

part of the world that can become so volatile if things aren’t handled in that fashion. 

Senator McCain mentioned that he thought we should perhaps 

have a hearing on the issues of base realignments and the realignment within ROK. Rather than asking a lot of questions on those 

issues today, I worked as a defense planner in the region looking 

at these exact issues many years ago, in the 1970s. I was able to 

revisit Okinawa, Guam, Tinian, and Saipan last February. When 

I returned, I asked for a full committee hearing, at that time. 

I will restate my view that it’s extremely important that we get 

this up at a higher level on the Senate’s radar screen. We need to 

get some solutions in this area for the clarity of our relationships, 

particularly with Japan, but with all players out there in the region. 

I have a concern that we are, at this point, allowing the process 

to be determined in many ways simply by the momentum of defense planners at a time when a lot of these pieces are in question. 

I hope we can have a hearing. I’m going to be traveling to ROK, 

Guam again, and Okinawa in the coming weeks, and Chairman 

Levin is going to accompany me to Guam and Okinawa. It will be 

a very important set of visits and perhaps we can try to find ways 

to at least clarify this matter and move forward. 

Admiral, you have mentioned many times your concern with respect to increased Chinese naval activity in this part of the world. 

I know after my visit last February there was an increase in the 

operational tempo in the region, the Cheonan incident in ROK, the 

incident in the Senkaku Islands off of Okinawa. I would like to get 

just your views on the dynamic behind this increase in activity. 

It’s pretty apparent that the Japanese have begun to adjust the 

positioning of their military, or at least made some initial decisions 

in that area. Could you fill us in on that? 

Admiral WILLARD. Yes, Senator, I will. To answer the last question first, the Japanese have determined that over the next several 

years they will re-bias their ground forces from what is currently 

a focus in northern Japan, the Hokkaido area and northern 

Honshu, to be more balanced. We’ll see their ground forces be laid 

down further south over time. 

Their naval forces continue to advance and they are, in all respects, becoming more influential throughout the region with many 

of the allies and partners that the United States enjoys. Japan is 

advancing and adjusting. 

With regard to the Chinese and the challenges that we witnessed 

last year, the assertiveness that was demonstrated in the South 

China Sea and in the Senkaku Islands near Japan, we believe the 

motive behind that was a declaration by the Chinese regarding 

both their sovereign claims over the contested areas within the 

South China Sea region and over the Senkaku Islands. As well as 

a declaration regarding Chinese security, and what they termed 

the near seas, and an assertion that military activity, foreign miliVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00974 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
969 

tary activity, within those near seas should only come with their 

permission. This is a desire to influence foreign militaries and particularly the U.S. military from the region. 

I would offer that since the discussions that occurred in the 

ASEAN forums and the very strong statements by Secretaries Clinton and Gates over the course of their participation in the ASEAN 

regional forum, ASEAN defense ministers meeting, plus the East 

Asia Summit and the Shangri-La Dialogue, there has been a retrenchment a bit by the Chinese navy. Such that while we continue 

to experience their shadowing some of our ships that are operating 

in these waters, we have not seen the same level of assertiveness 

in 2011 that we witnessed in 2010. Which I take as a positive, particularly given the fact that we have military-to-military relations 

that have recommenced to a modest extent, perhaps we can make 

an advancement in that regard. 

There is no question regarding their aims to have great influence 

over that maritime space, and especially over the contested areas 

that they’ve laid claim to both the South China Sea and the East 

China Sea. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Admiral. 

My time has expired, but I would like to get a quick comment, 

General, from you with respect to this proposed relocation of our 

military people in Korea. There’s a lot of arguments still about the 

notion of keeping a large American military presence in Korea if 

it were to be there for the local defense of one nation. I would just 

like to get your comment quickly on the ability of these forces to 

deploy to other crisis points outside of Korea. 

General SHARP. Sir, we have 28,500 troops in ROK today and 

Secretary Gates and the President have said that’s the right force 

level, which I agree with, for the foreseeable future. The focus of 

those troops is number one, every single day, on the defense of the 

ROK. For the foreseeable future, that is the purpose of our troops 

there. 

As we do move into the future with full tour normalization, if you 

can have troops there in ROK that have their families there, depending upon the situation in North Korea and what we need 

based upon what North Korea is doing, it can bring additional options to our Nation as to what to do with our troops. 

Senator WEBB. I wish I had more time to discuss that. I may 

want to in a future discussion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both for being here and for your excellent service to 

our country. 

I wanted to ask about the Chinese military capabilities in cyber 

space. The Chinese cyber intrusions have reached a new level of 

concern. I understand that the Chinese military is becoming increasingly capable in cyber space operations. It’s also a concern of 

mine, especially with respect to our integrated network-centric defense systems. 

Would you please describe, Admiral Willard, your concerns regarding cyber security and how best we can reduce our vulnerability? Does PACOM have any plans in place to approach the 

970 

problem in a multilateral fashion, including partner countries, 

interagency, and public-private entities? 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you, Senator. A great question, especially on the multilateral side of it. We certainly have concerns in 

cyber space. As I’ve mentioned many times, both to partners in the 

region as well as in my interactions in Washington, we are defending our networks every day, not solely against Chinese intrusions, 

but against many intrusions that come from a whole host of global 

sources. 

I depend entirely on cyber space for the command and control of 

the broader Asia-Pacific and our forces there. I know that General 

Sharp would say the same thing about his capability to command 

and control on the Korean Peninsula. 

In broader doctrine statements across the board, to include 

China, in unclassified documents that describe their military goals, 

the ability to affect the information systems and command and control networks of an adversary are an important basic tenet in all 

of that. There’s no doubt that there’s a need to be able to defend 

cyber space. 

The advent of CYBERCOM has been a great initiative on the 

part of the United States and we’re working with CYBERCOM over 

the coming weeks in a large-scale exercise in Hawaii to advance 

our ability to both characterize cyber space, the domain that we’re 

operating in, and to sense attacks in cyber space, and to be able 

to defend in cyber space. 

It’s critically important to my work and unquestionably there are 

global challenges, both state actors and non-state actors, that are 

challenging this particular domain. 

The last point I would make is an appeal that the United States 

in conjunction with the international community must address this. 

Our allies and partners are coming to us asking for help in this 

area, to your point regarding multilateral issues, and we have bilateral partners. We have treaty alliances with five nations in the 

Asia-Pacific: ROK, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia. 

There are cyber space concerns among all those bilateral parties. 

It’s a very important issue for the international community, and 

an important alliance issue that we need to deal with. 

Senator HAGAN. Do you think more of these threats are actually 

coming from China than other places around the globe? 

Admiral WILLARD. There is a sizable percentage of pressure coming from China, yes. 

Senator HAGAN. I’m always concerned about the people that we 

hire from a technology standpoint, to be sure that we have the resources in our science, technology, education, and math education, 

we are growing the highly-educated, qualified people to run this. 

Are you using mostly military or are we contracting a lot of this 

expertise? 

Admiral WILLARD. We’re doing both. Right now we’re attempting 

to recruit cyber expertise into our military and then grow that capability inside our military. Undoubtedly, as our economy continues to improve, we’ll see pressures to go after that expertise. 

We’re in competition with many that are concerned about information technology experts. 

971 

We’re attempting to grow from the ground up a capacity within 

our military, both uniformed and civilian, but uniformed for sure, 

that will give us this capability. 

Senator HAGAN. It’s very important for our whole future. 

Let me ask a question now on India and Pakistan in a regional 

context. I know, Admiral Willard, Pakistan is not in your AOR, but 

I believe it’s important to talk about Pakistan and India in a regional context. Securing Pakistani regional cooperation while placating India is a difficult task. Pakistani officials seek a long-term 

bilateral partnership with the United States based on a regional vision conducive to Pakistani strategic interests and that’s going to 

be difficult to develop as long as there continues to be an IndiaPakistani impasse on Kashmir. 

Progress is possible if the United States carefully reduces India’s 

expectations for influence in Afghanistan, facilitates the Pakistani 

movement to reduce its proxies in Afghanistan, and gets India and 

Pakistan to the negotiating table. Of great importance is the 

United States making every effort to restore the balance of power 

between these two South Asian rivals. 

How do you see the Pakistani and India impasse regarding Kashmir and the competition over Afghanistan playing out? 

Admiral WILLARD. It’s an excellent question. There are certainly 

dynamics between India and Pakistan that are based on historical 

animosities that we’re all aware of, and Kashmir has often been a 

focal point for that antagonism to play out. The recent concerns in 

Kashmir that manifested both in demonstrations within the valley 

and have resulted in some of the accusations that have gone back 

and forth regarding Chinese presence in the region and so on. Terrorist activity across the line of control are also making this particular challenge acute for the moment. 

The Indians have made overtures to attempt to work more closely, at the ministerial level, with Pakistan in terms of ongoing discussions. Unquestionably there remains a level of tension across 

the border that is very hard to impact. Given the turmoil that has 

been in Pakistan for the past couple of years, it’s hard to imagine 

that the fragile governance in Islamabad is going to rise to a level 

where the impasse can be broken in the near term. 

To your point, it’s important that the United States continue to 

work with both these partners very carefully and thoughtfully in 

order to encourage them to come to the table. India has very firm 

views on this and are sometimes quick to remind us that in their 

view Kashmir is a bilateral issue and theirs alone to deal with. 

The way in which we handle this challenge, the way in which we 

deal with the two militaries, the way in which we encourage their 

respective governments to engage, is very important, not just to 

India and to Pakistan, two nuclear-powered countries, but to all of 

South Asia and, as you suggest, to the dynamic in Afghanistan that 

is of great concern to us. 

Senator HAGAN. General Sharp, my next question was for you 

and my time has expired. I will submit that for the record. Thank 

you. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Manchin. 

972 

Senator MANCHIN. Admiral Willard and General Sharp, thank 

you so much. I appreciate it. I know this is going to be a long 

morning. 

Real quick, Admiral Willard, if you will. At a previous Armed 

Services Committee hearing in March, National Intelligence Director Clapper said he believed that China posed the greatest threat 

to the United States. Do you agree with Director Clapper’s views? 

Admiral WILLARD. I don’t, although there’s a great deal of qualification before the question that was posed could be answered. In 

terms of the context around the question of what poses a great 

threat to the United States in the Asia-Pacific, we’ve discussed the 

imminent threat that North Korea poses to the Korean Peninsula. 

The levels of provocations that we’ve witnessed in a year and the 

growing threat of nuclearization and advancements in missile technologies on the Korean Peninsula are of grave concern to both General Sharp, myself, and our government as well. 

There are many challenges in the Asia-Pacific. China’s military 

advancements are certainly a great challenge. If I were asked what 

is the biggest challenge I face as the PACOM Commander, I would 

tell you it’s the relationship between the United States and China, 

and to advance that relationship by becoming a constructive partnership, if that’s possible. 

I would focus on the more acute threats in answer to a question 

that didn’t have a great deal of context surrounding it. 

Senator MANCHIN. General Sharp, at every Armed Services hearing I learn about the efforts of DOD to build capacity of friendly 

nations, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our ultimate goal is 

the independence and professionalism of the Nations’ security 

forces so they can defend themselves. It begs the question with 

Korea. We’ve been there for quite a while, since 1954. Is there any 

end in sight of our involvement in that task? 

General SHARP. Sir, to begin with, the ROK military is very 

strong and they are growing stronger every day. If you look at 

what they are producing internally for their military, what they 

buy from us from foreign military sales (FMS), the exercises that 

we work together on, the plans that we have developed, and the 

most recent defense reform plan that Minister Kim and General 

Han put out. It’s going to make them even a stronger joint capable 

organization to be able to deter and defeat the threats of North 

Korea, they are very strong. I don’t want to underplay their capability. 

Second, we have vital national interests in Northeast Asia that 

we should protect. If you look into the future, I think that our commitment and what our Armed Forces bring to the plans that we 

have for the Korean Peninsula, we ought to keep them for the foreseeable future. Not only from a deterrent perspective, but if North 

Korea were to miscalculate and do an attack, to be able to as quickly as possible stop that attack and defeat the North Korean military. 

Senator MANCHIN. Would you know what percentage of South 

Korea’s budget is currently contributing to the U.S. force structure 

in South Korea? 

General SHARP. Sir, they pay about 47 percent, 46, 47 percent of 

our nonpersonnel stationing costs in Korea. We get approximately 

973 

somewhere between about $800 million, depending upon the won 

rate of the day, in burdensharing money each year. The ROK 

signed up for a 5-year agreement with inflation on it back in 2009 

that goes to 2013 to help defray our personnel stationing costs 

there. 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you think they will be able to contribute 

more. As we can see, the financial burden that we have right now 

taking care of America is getting ever more increasing. 

General SHARP. Sir, that will be up to the negotiations in 2013, 

as this goes through. I will say that the ROK support is, not just 

monetary, but along all avenues, our troops in the ROK. We feel 

it on a day-to-day basis and it is fantastic. I’ve never been stationed anywhere in the world where the support from the people, 

from the military, is as strong as it is in the ROK. 

Senator MANCHIN. Admiral Willard, for the last 2 decades China’s been building its regional and world influence by spending 

money on large infrastructure projects in impoverished countries 

and buying up the rights to natural resources in those countries, 

which are very, very alarming to me. How does this strategy affect 

PACOM’s efforts to exert our influence with the countries in your 

AOR? How do you see them moving in? That’s a follow-up to the 

first question I was asking about, the ultimate threat or intimate 

threat. 

Maybe it’s alarming from the military buildup, but also economically what they’re doing and the control they’ll have of nations by 

using their economic might more than their military might. 

Admiral WILLARD. I might answer it two ways. Unquestionably, 

the economic influence of China throughout the Asia-Pacific region 

is profound. I might offer, the economic influence of China globally 

has been remarkable in the last couple of decades. 

On the one hand, there is great benefit to that to this region. 

This is a region that has its share of poverty, misshapen militaries, 

challenged governances, and to some extent the benefits of China’s 

economic boom have become larger Asia’s economic boom, and 

that’s of benefit to the security and stability in the region. 

On the other hand, the influence they attempt to exert and in 

that way exact favor from some of these countries is the influence 

that we might be concerned about. I would offer that as China was 

exerting its influence last year in a very assertive way that we 

were receiving general appeals across the Asia-Pacific from among 

our partners and our emerging partners with regard to a desire for 

more U.S. influence in the region. They’re asking for the United 

States to be present and asking for our influence to in some ways 

I think counterbalance what they are being challenged with from 

China. 

But make no mistake, the economy of Asia has benefited greatly 

from the economic achievements of China. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Willard and General Sharp, thank you both for your 

service, as I’m sure you’ve heard numerous times, but we can’t 

thank you enough, and the men and women serving with you and 

974 

sacrificing away from their families, most of them, and thank their 

families as well for their service. 

I’d like to ask both of you about the balance of power insofar as 

submarines are concerned, and specifically whether you are troubled by the increasing numbers and capabilities of submarines on 

the part of the nations within the area that you have jurisdiction. 

Admiral WILLARD. I can start. I think General Sharp can talk a 

little bit about North Korea’s order of battle, its submarine force, 

which is unique in its various types. 

Within the Asia-Pacific region I would offer two points. First, 

there is an advancing submarine force in the region with regard to 

China. They’ve made advancements not just in submarine numbers, but in submarine capabilities as well, both nuclear-powered 

and conventionally-powered. We have been observing that for some 

time that this is a sizable submarine fleet. 

The second point is what that has generated is a view by the 

neighboring nations to counterbalance China through acquisition of 

their own military systems. We’ve seen, now, neighbors in the region developing and purchasing submarine capabilities with increasing pace, nations such as Indonesia expressing interest in acquiring submarine capability; Malaysia with the Scorpene. Right 

now Vietnam is acquiring Kilo submarines. Frankly, even the 

white paper in Australia indicates that the Australians will sizably 

increase their submarine force. 

We’ve seen submarines proliferate at the same time that we’ve 

seen the Chinese inventory grow. 

General SHARP. Sir, from the North Korean perspective, we are 

very concerned about the North Korean submarine capability and 

the money that they continue to put into their asymmetric threats, 

especially the special operations versions of their submarines give 

them that capability. Also and probably most importantly because 

the North Koreans have demonstrated a willingness to use them, 

as last year they did when the Cheonan was sunk by their submarine. 

We are working very hard with the ROK to be prepared to 

counter, deter, and properly respond to North Korean submarine 

attacks, and that has been demonstrated through a series of antisub warfare exercises that we’ve done with the ROK. The ROK is 

buying more capability to be able to detect North Korean submarines. They understand the importance of that. We are continually focusing our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaisance efforts to be able to watch what North Korean submarines are doing. 

Yes, we have an increasing concern over that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Are you satisfied that the United States 

is building adequately in its submarine program, at the rate now 

of two a year, to meet those threats so far as our defense is concerned, and also to protect our allies against the threat, even 

though it may be asymmetric, as you’ve described it? 

General SHARP. Sir, Admiral Willard and Admiral Walsh have 

been outstanding to be able to help work together, as I said, on exercises to increase our capability. The overall naval one, I’d defer 

to Admiral Willard on. 

Admiral WILLARD. All of us in the Navy and as a combatant commander, I am very encouraged when the Virginia buy was inVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00980 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
975 

creased to two per year, and I’m very satisfied with the bias of our 

submarine force into the Pacific. Given time, distance factors, and 

the description that I gave earlier of the increasing numbers of 

submarines throughout the region, we’re appropriately served with 

both our classes of submarines that are located in the Pacific. 

I’m satisfied. I’m continually looking for ways in which the operational availability, the forward presence of those submarines, can 

be increased. I’m assured that I’m about maxed out, but I can certainly always use more. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I assume, without putting words in your 

mouth, that you would be dissatisfied and concerned if the two per 

year program were reduced? 

Admiral WILLARD. I would be concerned about the U.S. submarine inventory, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Aside from China, where do you think the 

greatest potential threat in terms of submarine building is among 

those nations within your command? 

Admiral WILLARD. North Korea has remained, with the exception 

of the small submarines that they export, relatively modest. China’s is obviously very sizable. The remainder throughout the region 

are nations that we are either allied or partnering with and, frankly, so is China. At the end of the day, provided that China emerges 

more a partner than a competitor in the Asia-Pacific, we’ll be well 

served with the submarine fleet that exists out there. 

Russia is a supplier of submarines globally. As a FMS provider, 

nations in Europe, and Russia in particular, are the big manufacturers of the world’s submarines. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I apologize for what probably is an overly 

simplistic question, but how would you compare the capabilities of 

the Chinese submarines to the most advanced submarines that 

we’re producing? 

Admiral WILLARD. Unquestionably, the United States produces 

the finest submarines in the world. When we look at China’s capabilities, they are improving. Frankly, that’s true globally. The ability to quiet a submarine, the ability to keep conventionally powered 

submarines submerged longer, are all technologies that are advancing. 

The margin inevitably closes in terms of quiet machinery, endurance, and so forth. There is no question in my mind where the finest submarines in the world are produced. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Willard and General Sharp, thank you both very much 

for being here. I apologize for missing your testimony earlier. I had 

to preside over the Senate. 

I was pleased to hear your responses to Senator Blumenthal’s 

questions about our submarine fleet. Connecticut isn’t the only 

State that has a great interest in what’s going on there. We follow 

that very closely in New Hampshire as well because of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, I was pleased to hear your very positive responses. 

976 

I wanted to ask you, I should direct this first at Admiral Willard, 

but, General Sharp, you may also have some perspective. Over the 

last year and a half the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) has been debating what its future role in the world would 

be and has developed its latest strategic concept. One of the subjects of debate during that whole process was what its future relationship would be around the world, and Asia of course is one of 

the very key areas that was discussed. 

NATO obviously has a good partnership with Japan, Korea, and 

Australia. I just wonder if you have any views about what the perspective is among other countries in Asia, and particularly China? 

Admiral WILLARD. Thank you. That’s a great question and one 

that we frankly haven’t been exploring with our allies and partners 

to a great extent. I would offer two points. The United States is a 

NATO ally and very comfortable working across NATO and, as you 

suggest, with NATO having influence in the region already, the 

United States welcomes multilateral opportunities globally. It only 

strengthens our ability to respond to a disaster or respond to a contingency. It’s a great enabling function. 

Within Asia, I would offer that ASEAN, East Asia Summit, some 

of the multilateral forums that exist in Asia, are favored greatly by 

the Asian nations. We’ve seen a strengthening of those multilateral 

forums over the past couple of years in particular. I was greatly encouraged by ASEAN’s advances last year. 

Without having polled my allies and partners in the region, I 

would offer that, while some level of influence and partnership by 

NATO in the region would be welcome, there is also an affinity for 

these Asian multilateral groups and their own ability to handle 

both the security issues and economic issues within the neighborhood. 

General SHARP. The only thing that I would add, from an ROK 

perspective, President Lee has very strongly said that he understands the importance of global security and the ROK’s responsibility to contribute to that. Hence the ROK has a PRT in Afghanistan. They are in eight or nine U.N. peacekeeping missions around 

the world. They are establishing a peacekeeping force in order to 

be able to help with peacekeeping issues around the world. They 

clearly understand the importance of these type of organizations, 

security, and stability around the world, which they are contributing to. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Do you have any perspective on how China 

views NATO and whether it views it as a threat or a rival? 

Admiral WILLARD. Without having discussed NATO with the 

Chinese, studying the Chinese as we do, the Chinese would offer 

that they’re most focused on multilateral forums with Chinese 

characteristics ideally, if not Asian characteristics, associated with 

them. As a consequence they would view a western alliance in 

through that optic. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I don’t think anybody today has mentioned 

the Strait of Malacca, but we hear a lot of concern about what’s 

happening in the Middle East with Hormuz and the Suez Canal, 

but very little about the Strait of Malacca. It’s one of the world’s 

most critical shipping lanes. 

977 

I wonder if you’re concerned about potential threats to the Strait 

and what those might be and whether, given China’s continued 

naval modernization, if we should be concerned about how they’re 

viewing the Strait? 

Admiral WILLARD. Interestingly, I think China would offer that 

one of the motives for their naval advancements is their concern 

over the strategic nature of the Strait of Malacca. In fact, in the 

Asia-Pacific we have a dozen strategic choke points similar to the 

Strait of Malacca, none quite that dense in terms of shipping population, but these are strategic choke points that in history have 

been fought over and continue to be viewed as critical for the movement of commerce in Asia. 

But to your point, the Strait of Malacca is handling the bulk of $5 trillion a year in commercial trade for the region and more than 

$1 trillion a year of U.S. bilateral trade in and out of the region. 

It’s the choke point that empties into the South China Sea, which 

is so critical and strategic for all of the partners there. 

The Strait of Malacca security is important to everybody in the 

Asia-Pacific. We are fortunate that Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, 

and Thailand have joined together to commit to securing the Strait. 

They did this some years ago when piracy was a particular problem, and they did a good job of quelling that particular threat. 

As we view the importance of that particular choke point in the 

region, were a conflict in the region to ensue, the Strait of Malacca 

and its importance in terms of providing resource to the region becomes focal. In the past as Middle East wars have been fought and 

PACOM has flowed forces in that direction, we’ve had concerns in 

the past regarding the security of the Strait as our forces inevitably 

have to flow through there to get to the Indian Ocean. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Does China cooperate on the effort to keep the 

Strait open? 

Admiral WILLARD. They do. They acknowledge the role that the 

four nations that I mentioned are playing in terms of maintaining 

the security in the Strait. Again, they’re a huge user, as is the 

United States. They’ve been the beneficiary of the security that has 

been provided across the region, at times by the United States, but 

most recently by the nations that are contiguous themselves. 

Senator SHAHEEN. My time has expired, but I’d be interested, 

whether there are lessons to be learned from the efforts to prevent 

piracy in the Strait, if there are lessons that could be learned for 

the Horn of Africa and the piracy threat there? 

Admiral WILLARD. The number one lesson in this is the four nations that have joined together to quell piracy in the Strait of Malacca are all successful nation states with strong governance and 

some level of military power. When we look at the Horn of Africa 

and Somalia, it is an ungoverned state, without the ability to secure itself, and the center of gravity of those pirates are ashore in 

that particular area of the world. We are endeavoring to fight them 

at the far end, at sea, with mother ships and small boats, but we 

can’t get to that center of gravity. 

You have the difference between governed states dealing with a 

piracy issue and an ungoverned territory. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

978 

Just a few additional questions. The interrelated elements involved in the Okinawa-Guam realignment, is that there be tangible 

progress under the agreement, towards completion of the Futenma 

Replacement Facility on Okinawa. Admiral, has there been any 

such tangible progress yet as it applies to the replacement facility? 

Admiral WILLARD. Senator, if progress toward the landfill permit 

being signed and progress toward a discussion or a decision on airport configuration by the time of the upcoming two-plus-two forum 

between the United States and Japan can be considered to be significant and tangible, then yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. Has the landfill permit, which is required to 

begin construction of that replacement airfield, been signed by the 

governor? 

Admiral WILLARD. It has not. 

Chairman LEVIN. Isn’t that the meaning of ‘‘tangible progress’’? 

Isn’t that a term under that agreement, at least that’s always been 

our understanding, requires that that permit be signed? 

Admiral WILLARD. There are six criteria right now that were 

written into our National Defense Authorization Act last year with 

regard to the fiscal year 2011 appropriation, and among those six 

criteria, as you suggest, the ‘‘tangible’’ word is used in each. 

Whether or not progress toward the signature or the signature 

itself is regarded as tangible, sir, I would defer to you to decide. 

We believe that progress is being made toward the governor signing that document. We believe that subsequently the landfill itself 

and the seawall need to follow fairly quickly, and as we progress 

toward the two-plus-two we’re hopeful that the final runway configuration debate can be put to rest. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral, the next question has to do with the 

force mix for the marines, whether or not, as it’s been reported, the 

marines would prefer to change the force mix to include more operational troops and fewer headquarters units. Is that true? This is 

relative to the movement to Guam. 

Admiral WILLARD. Senator, there is a Marine Corps preferred 

laydown. We’ve looked at Guam in particular and, our entire 

laydown of marines across the Pacific, to include marines elsewhere in Japan. A Marine Corps air wing is located in Hawaii, and 

the prospects that rotational forces of marines could be located in 

northern Australia or other locations proximate to Southeast Asia. 

The headquarters elements are an important part of that and 

there are preferences that the marines have expressed with regard 

to how to distribute the headquarters elements across those Marine 

Corps air-ground task force units in order to optimize them. 

Chairman LEVIN. As it relates to Guam, is there a preference? 

Admiral WILLARD. There is. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do you know what it is offhand? Is it for a 

greater number of headquarters units? 

Admiral WILLARD. It is for a redistribution of the headquarters 

that were originally planned. 

Chairman LEVIN. To reduce the number of headquarters units, is 

that what their preference is on Guam, relatively proportionate to 

the operational? 

Admiral WILLARD. It would reduce them, but that’s not the purpose. The purpose is to distribute the headquarters so that we have 

979 

senior leadership in the appropriate places where marines are laid 

down. 

Chairman LEVIN. I understand. 

On the transfer of power issue going on allegedly in North Korea, 

recently Kim Jong Il’s son was not given the position that apparently he was expected to get, a week ago or so. Is that significant 

in your judgment? 

Admiral WILLARD. Go ahead Skip. 

Chairman LEVIN. I should have addressed that to you, General, 

of course. 

General SHARP. I don’t think it’s significant. The continued progression of grooming Kim Jong Eun and putting people in positions 

of power within North Korea that support the eventual change is 

continuing. 

Chairman LEVIN. General, is there any recent development relative to gaining access to North Korea to account for our Service 

personnel who are still missing from the Korean War? Any 

progress on that? 

General SHARP. Sir, with the way that North Korea has been 

conducting provocations last year and continuing the safety of our 

recovery teams going into North Korea would be of great concern, 

and we have not moved forward in that. That recovery team really 

comes under Admiral Willard. He may want to add something to 

that. 

Admiral WILLARD. General Sharp states it correctly. It’s the security for those humanitarian-associated teams that we would be 

concerned about and the conduct of North Korea over the past 

many months has not been conducive to restarting it. 

Chairman LEVIN. Well, the time is out for our vote and we must 

run along. I want to thank you both again. Good luck to you, General Sharp, on your future endeavors; Admiral, to you and your 

family. We’re delighted you have them with you today. We thank 

you both for your great testimony. 

We’ll stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY R. HAGAN

REPUBLIC OF KOREA OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE

1. Senator HAGAN. General Sharp, in your prepared statement, you indicated that 

the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) military has gained operational experience through 

deployments to places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf of Aden, Lebanon, as well 

as participation in various United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping and humanitarian 

assistance missions. Can you describe how these deployments have assisted the 

readiness of the ROK military forces to prepare for full-spectrum conflict? 

General SHARP. Full spectrum operations have four elements: offense, defense, 

stability, and civil support (where U.S. Army doctrine defines civil support as the 

support provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) to U.S. civil authorities for 

domestic emergencies and designated law enforcement and other activities). By deploying forces to the operations identified in your question above, sustaining those 

forces over time, establishing and operating the appropriate command and control 

arrangements and systems, developing intelligence, and creating a secure environment and protecting identified populations, critical assets, and infrastructure, ROK 

military forces have gained real world operational experience in the conduct of tasks 

associated with offensive and defensive operations. Additionally, by providing civil 

security, the restoration of essential civil services, and support for economic and infrastructure development in places such as Afghanistan, Haiti, Lebanon, and elsewhere, ROK military forces have obtained real world experience in the execution of 

tasks associated with the conduct of stability operations. Thus, when viewed as a 

980 

whole, ROK participation in the operations identified in your question above have 

helped it maintain readiness for the conduct of full spectrum operations. 

2. Senator HAGAN. General Sharp, can you describe how they have institutionalized what they have learned from these operational experiences? 

General SHARP. The ROK military has institutionalized a process to identify, collect, and disseminate lessons it has learned through the participation in various operations over the last decade or so. Each military unit that deploys to an operation 

establishes a Lessons Learned Analysis Officer within its S3 staff section. This officer collects lessons learned type information from staff sections across the deployed 

unit. Once collected, this information is integrated into reports that are provided to 

the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff Operations Support Center and a separate organization called the Peacekeeping Operations Center. In addition to the information provided by deployed units, the Peacekeeping Operations Center—which is under the 

ROK National Defense University—collects material related to the dispatch of 

troops to various types of operations from other sources such as academia, think 

tanks, and foreign militaries. The Peacekeeping Operations Center also has academic personnel and various subject matter experts on staff as well as a library that 

stores and makes accessible lessons learned type material. 

Information collected, reviewed, and assessed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 

Peacekeeping Operations Center is provided to the International Peace Support 

Force (IPSF). The IPSF utilizes lessons learned information provided to it for the 

purpose of educating and training in preparation for deployment to an operation. 

The ROK currently is in the process of constructing a deployment training facility 

near the city of Incheon. Once completed, this facility will have separate training 

areas for urban operations, garrison protection, check point security, search and rescue, improvised explosive devices, as well as firing ranges for small arms and crewserved weapons. The facility will also house a library stocked with material related 

to operational lessons learned. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

BASE REALIGNMENT TO GUAM

3. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, do you believe that the current posture of 

U.S. forces in the region, including the planned realignment to Guam, is desirable? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

4. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, are there other sites in the region that could 

be more advantageous for locating or rotating U.S. forces and would welcome such 

a presence? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

5. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, you mentioned in a hearing last week regarding the realignment of marines from Okinawa to Guam that the recent disasters in Japan have created uncertainties in the future of the Guam build-up. Can 

you elaborate on the nature of the uncertainties? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

6. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, you mentioned in your testimony regarding 

the efforts by the Japanese Government to resolve the closure of Marine Corps Air 

Station Futenma on Okinawa that, ‘‘I feel confident that progress—tangible 

progress—is in fact being made.’’ How do you define tangible progress? 

Admiral WILLARD. Tangible progress is best described as a series of milestones. 

Obviously the landfill permit is a key piece, and it continues to be a significant step; 

but the Guam Master Plan Agreed Implementation Plan states that ‘‘planning must 

establish clear milestones in the construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility. 

When achieved, those milestones will prompt associated actions by the U.S. Government in the movement of marines to Guam. . . . ’’ As such, there is no single moment 

in time that constitutes tangible progress; the point is rather that both the Futenma 

Replacement Facility and the Guam move should proceed broadly in parallel, synchronized at a strategic level. 

7. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, can you explain your observations? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

981 

8. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, in your view, should the movement of marines to Guam take place without a viable solution to the issues regarding 

Futenma? 

Admiral WILLARD. No. According to the Guam International Agreement and the 

Realignment Roadmap, the Okinawa-related initiatives are interconnected, specifically, consolidation and land returns south of Kadena depend on completing the relocation of marines from Okinawa to Guam, and the Marine relocation is dependent 

on: (1) tangible progress toward completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility, 

and (2) Japan’s financial contributions to fund development of required facilities and 

infrastructure on Guam. 

9. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, from your perspective as the combatant 

commander responsible for writing operational plans for the Pacific, is the use of 

Kadena Air Base on Okinawa a reasonable alternative for basing Marine Corps 

aviation assets on Okinawa as opposed to constructing a new airfield at Camp 

Schwab? 

Admiral WILLARD. No. The United States has explored this multiple times since 

1996 and on each occasion determined that consolidation is operationally unworkable and politically untenable. The U.S. longstanding position has been to insist 

upon Japan building Futenma Replacement Facility before any move from Futenma. 

10. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, with the Air Force drawdown of F–16s 

worldwide, have you considered moving Air Force aircraft from Kadena to Misawa 

Air Base in Japan to make room for Marine Corps aviation on Okinawa? 

Admiral WILLARD. Yes. We explored moving Navy and Air Force aircraft to 

Misawa, as well as to other locations like Yokota and Iwakuni, Japan; Anderson Air 

Force Base, Guam; and Osan and Kunsan, South Korea. 

11. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, the Navy is still in the progress of developing a plan for Marine Corps training ranges on Guam that may include trading 

properties or the need to acquire private property on Guam. What is your position 

on the need for live fire training ranges for the marines on Guam? 

Admiral WILLARD. The presence of live fire training ranges on Guam is a prerequisite for the relocation. This is a red line and absolute requirement for successful relocation. 

Marine Corps training requirements are generally characterized as individual, collective, and Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) skills training. The live-fire 

ranges proposed on Guam are for individual training of the marines (and other 

members of the joint force) that are stationed on Guam. This training serves as the 

first in a series of building blocks, e.g., individual skills are necessary before the 

collective training, which is necessary to be completed before the most complex 

MAGTF skills training. The live fire ranges envisioned on Guam itself are not for 

the larger required Combined Arms training used for collective and MAGTF skills 

training. 

As key elements of individual training, the marines conduct live fire training 

using known distance rifle and pistol ranges, machine gun ranges, and conduct further individual training using facilities such as a ‘‘gas chamber’’, physical fitness 

fields, and other such types of training. Currently, all of these facilities for individual training used by Okinawa-based marines are located on Okinawa, and are 

accessible either by foot or by ground transportation. Most of these ranges do not 

currently exist on Guam itself, and those that do are antiquated or no longer meet 

the safety requirements. 

Not having these ranges for individual training on Guam itself would have severe 

negative impacts on the individual marines’ readiness. This in turn will negatively 

affect the readiness of Marine units on Guam and their ability to rapidly respond 

to crises. To compensate for these facilities not being on Guam, the marines would 

have to deploy an additional two weeks or more during the year off Guam to another location, such as back to Okinawa to complete the training. This adds additional and unnecessary operational tempo to the individual marines and additional 

costs, both in transportation and temporary duty funds, to the Marine Corps. Because of the nature of this individual training, this would also likely require additional barracks spaces on Okinawa or the alternate training location to house these 

marines while they were participating in the live-fire training. 

The need for these training ranges was identified early in our efforts to locate marines on Guam, and has been designated as a U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) Priority 1 training requirement (PACOM Joint Guam Development Group Required 

Capabilities and Force Flow Priorities, 5216, Ser: J01, 26 February 2007). 

982 

My position is, we need these individual live-fire training ranges on Guam for 

both the marines who will be stationed there and for the remainder of the joint force 

that lives and trains on Guam, to include the U.S. Navy SEAL (Sea, Air, Land) 

forces stationed on Guam. 

12. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Willard, should we resolve this issue completely before we continue to invest in the construction of a new Marine Corps base on the 

island? 

Admiral WILLARD. No. While resolution of this issue is ongoing, and will take 

some time, we are confident the issue will be successfully resolved. However, contracts must be awarded now to avoid exponential cost increases in the future. 

TOUR NORMALIZATION IN KOREA

13. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, in your hearing statement, you detail two 

unprovoked attacks on South Korea by North Korea in the past year that killed 

South Korean sailors, marines, and civilians. You also cite a report that concluded 

the acts were hostile, deliberate, and premeditated. Did you have any intelligence 

or warning of the attacks? 

General SHARP. [Deleted.] 

14. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, in your opinion, can this happen again? 

General SHARP. [Deleted.] 

15. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, one of your top priorities in your statement 

is to change the policy for U.S. military members to be accompanied by their families on extended tour in Korea, known as tour normalization. For the past 50 years, 

only a limited number of U.S. servicemembers were allowed to bring their families, 

due to the security situation on the Peninsula and the lack of supporting facilities. 

Considering your statement that North Korea will remain a serious security threat 

in the region and a significant concern for the United States and the international 

community, why do you believe it is prudent to station 14,000 families in Korea for 

3-year tours? 

General SHARP. Of the benefits of Tour Normalization improved readiness stands 

out as my highest priority. Currently, about 85 percent of U.S. Forces-Korea (USFK) 

servicemembers rotate each year just as they have completed our Korea specific 

training and exercise cycle. This limits our ability to achieve the same level of readiness enjoyed by our forces in the Continental United States, Japan, and Europe. 

Conversely, as we increase the proportion of trained military personnel in place with 

3-year accompanied and 2-year unaccompanied tours, we will see benefits such as 

improved understanding of the region and operational environment, the strengthening of relations with our ROK ally, and enhanced ability to support the transfer 

of Wartime Operational Control to the ROK. Simultaneously, USFK is in the process of relocating the majority of U.S. forces in the ROK south of the city Seoul, 

thereby reducing the immediate threat to family members and simplifying the execution of noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO) if such operations should ever 

become necessary. 

16. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, your statement details extensive efforts and 

exercises to strengthen the U.S.-ROK alliance, which I strongly support. Why then 

do you believe we need to station 14,000 military families on Korea in order to 

‘‘demonstrate in no uncertain terms U.S. commitment to an enduring force presence 

in the ROK’’? 

General SHARP. By having families forward stationed alongside their 

servicemember in the ROK, it sends an unambiguous signal to North Korea and the 

Asia-Pacific region at large that the United States remains committed not only to 

ROK security but to maintaining a long-term and stabilizing presence in Northeast 

Asia as well. A signal such as this is important to not only our ROK Alliance partner but also to other allied and friendly states in the region as the balance of power 

evolves in the Asian-Pacific. Just like forward stationing American military families 

in Europe has demonstrated U.S. long-term commitment to the security and stability of that region and deterred Warsaw Pact aggression during the Cold War Era 

(because of that shown commitment), establishing a similar stationing policy in the 

ROK will signal to Asian allies, partners, and friends that the United States is committed to maintaining a long-term stabilizing presence in the region, a factor that 

in turn will help deter North Korea from engaging in aggressive behavior. 

983 

On a day-to-day basis, the ROK is a very safe place for our military families to 

live. North Korea’s actions and behavior are closely monitored by the command. If 

there is a perceived threat or a crisis should occur, the command has in place detailed NEO plans that can be readily implemented if the situation requires such action. These NEO plans are exercised and practiced on a regular basis. While conducting a NEO in the ROK would be no minor task, I am confident that the necessary plans, procedures, and processes are in place to successfully conduct such an 

operation. Risk to military families living in the ROK will be further mitigated by 

the relocation of U.S. forces onto two enduring hubs located well south of the city 

of Seoul. These hubs lie outside the tactical effective range of North Korean artillery. 

17. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, do we really need to station families in an 

area near an unstable and unpredictable adversary? 

General SHARP. The benefits tour normalization will provide to force readiness 

and combat capability serve to deter North Korean aggression and thus promote stability on the Korean Peninsula. In turn, this enhanced capability will help deter 

North Korean aggression and as a result promote stability not only on the Korean 

Peninsula but in the wider region of Northeast Asia as well—a region that is vital 

to U.S. national interests. About 85 percent of USFK servicemembers currently rotate each year. By keeping trained military personnel in place for longer periods of 

time and thus decreasing the annual turnover of command personnel, organizational 

turbulence will be lowered, trained and ready personnel will be retained for a longer 

period of time, and the stress placed on troops and units will be reduced. Additionally, by enabling the development of stronger relations between soldiers and families at the individual level, the interoperability of U.S. and ROK forces will be improved and thus the U.S.-ROK Alliance strengthened even further. All of these factors will enhance force readiness and combat capability. 

Lengthened tours in the ROK also make U.S. forces stationed there available to 

support regional exercises and global operations. Without tour normalization, providing this type of regional and global support is limited due to dwell time requirements and considerations related to repeated unaccompanied deployments. This aspect of the tour normalization initiative supports the Army Force Generation Model 

and enables a more adaptive and flexible U.S. force posture on the Korean Peninsula. It will create a defense capability with long-term capacity for regional and 

global defense and security cooperation. A strong signal will be sent of not only U.S. 

commitment to security of the ROK—a key Alliance partner—but also to the broader region of Northeast Asia. 

Tour normalization also improves the quality of life for command personnel. By 

eliminating needless family separations, giving families greater clarity and predictability regarding servicemember deployments, and providing servicemembers and 

their families with facilities that meet modern DOD standards, force readiness and 

troop morale will be improved. In its totality, tour normalization will enhance force 

readiness and combat capability, demonstrate U.S. commitment to an enduring force 

presence in the ROK, provide greater stability for military personnel and their families, and improve quality of life. Enhanced readiness and combat capability promotes stability on the Korean Peninsula. 

18. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, in the event that a war with North Korea 

breaks out unexpectedly, as reflected in your command’s longstanding commitment 

to be ready to ‘‘fight tonight’’, will the priority of U.S. forces be focused on turning 

back the North Korean assault and supporting ROK’s armed forces, or conducting 

a non-combatant evacuation of the 14,000 U.S. military families from the Korean 

Peninsula? 

General SHARP. [Deleted.] 

19. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, you also discuss the need for necessary infrastructure including housing, medical facilities, and schools. Do you have an estimate 

of the total cost to be incurred by DOD for tour normalization? 

General SHARP. In September 2010 the Secretary of Defense directed implementation of full Korea tour normalization as affordable and according to no specific 

timeline. The Secretary further directed that a plan be provided to him on how to 

proceed with tour normalization no later than 31 March 2011. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Services, Joint Staff, and USFK have developed various 

cost options for implementation of the Tour Normalization initiative that the Secretary of Defense is currently reviewing. The Secretary of Defense will forward his 

recommendation to the President as part of his fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

984 

20. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, you state that units built under the Humphreys Housing Opportunity Program ‘‘will be rented to servicemembers using their 

Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) as the means of payment.’’ At one time we 

heard the monthly OHA needed to finance this program would exceed $4,000 a 

month. What is the projected monthly OHA rate, and has this been approved by 

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? 

General SHARP. The projected monthly OHA for Humphreys Housing Opportunity 

Program (HHOP) homes will be initially set at $4,200. The HHOP OHA will be a 

special rate for HHOP units only. Establishment of the rate requires joint approval 

by the Secretary of the Army and the Chairman of the Per Diem and Entitlements 

Committee who works within OSD (Personnel and Readiness). The Secretary of the 

Army approved the rate establishment on 29 March 2011 and forwarded the request 

to the Chairman of the Per Diem Committee for action. As of today, the request is 

still within OSD (Personnel and Readiness). 

21. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, are these costs captured in the current 5- 

year plan for DOD? 

General SHARP. During the initial phase of tour normalization the number of command sponsored accompanied positions in Korea increased from about 1,700 in fiscal 

year 2009 to over 4,000 in fiscal year 2011 and is included in the baseline budget. 

Last September, the Secretary of Defense directed full Korea tour normalization. 

The OSD provided the Service Secretaries with options on how to proceed but without a specific plan and costs. The Secretary of Defense further directed that a plan 

be provided to him no later than 31 March 2011 on how to proceed with tour normalization as it is affordable and according to no specific timeline. At this time, 

though we do not have an approved plan on how USFK will proceed with tour normalization and the estimated costs, we do believe doing so is in the best interests 

of USFK and the military servicemembers serving in Korea. Once a decision is made 

on how to proceed, a request for appropriate funding will be incorporated into a future budget request. 

22. Senator MCCAIN. General Sharp, do you anticipate that the host nation support currently provided annually by the Korean Government will increase equitably 

to support the additional families? 

General SHARP. The ROK has been providing host nation support to help offset 

the cost of stationing U.S. military forces on its territory since 1991. Since 1991, 

there has been progressive growth in the nominal value of ROK host nation support 

provided to USFK. The specific arrangements of ROK host nation support are established in a document called the Special Measures Agreement. Over the years, Special Measures Agreements have covered periods of time ranging from 1 to 3 years. 

On 15 January 2009, the United States and ROK signed a 5-year Special Measures 

Agreement that is in effect during the 2009 through 2013 time period. Specific host 

nation support arrangements for the post-2013 time period have yet to be negotiated 

and will be specified in a future Special Measures Agreement concluded between the 

U.S. and ROK Governments. It is my belief that the ROK will continue to provide 

appropriate host nation support to accommodate the stationing of U.S. military 

forces to protect its territory, to include the rising number of command sponsored 

families in Korea. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS

U.S. SECURITY POSTURE REGARDING CHINA’S MILITARY POWER

23. Senator CHAMBLISS. Admiral Willard and General Sharp, Admiral Willard discussed the rise of China and their increasing military power in his written statement. Specifically, he stated that ‘‘the scope and pace of [China’s] modernization 

without clarity on China’s ultimate goals remains troubling.’’ He went on to discuss 

China’s challenge to accepted interpretations of international law and established 

international norms with respect to restricting or excluding foreign military maritime and air activities in what it refers to as its ‘‘near seas’’. 

It’s noted that both the U.S. and China’s regional neighbors speculate about what 

China’s intent is. Can you comment on what you believe China’s intent is, and how 

that might affect U.S. security posture and interests in the area? 

Admiral WILLARD and General SHARP. [Deleted.] 

985 

CHINA’S CHENGDU J–20

24. Senator CHAMBLISS. Admiral Willard, the U.S. military’s current top-of-theline fighter is the F–22 Raptor, the world’s only operational fifth generation fighter. 

In 2009, DOD capped production of F–22s at 183. Experts call the FF–22s the only 

real challenger to China’s J–20. Richard Fisher, a senior fellow on Asian Military 

Affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center concluded that: ‘‘this 

aircraft [J–20] does have great potential to be superior in some respects to the 

American F–22, and could be decisively superior to the F–35.’’ Fisher in particular 

pointed to the Chengdu J–20’s stealth technology and ability to super cruise, or fly 

supersonically without using fuel-guzzling afterburners. He said it has super maneuverability due to its thrust-vectored engines that allow for sharp turns. While 

the J–20’s engine is still in development, Fisher said it’s supposed to deliver 15 to 

18 tons of thrust, more powerful than the F–22. While other experts say it’s hard 

to predict exactly what the J–20’s capabilities are, especially in a fire fight—they 

offered a dire prediction: ‘‘With China having a fifth generation fighter, the United 

States will lose F–22s faster than previous estimates.’’ With the J–20 likely to start 

entering service in serious numbers by the end of this decade and the Chinese capable of accelerating this event by purchasing new Russian engines and settling for 

a lesser capability, ‘‘the presence of the J–20 in the PACOM area of responsibility 

(AOR) will arguably alter the balance of power in the region.’’ 

This is your AOR and your air space, and I know that the J–20 is a new airplane 

and we have very little data on it. But it does concern me personally that it flew 

its first test flight earlier than expected and that the U.S. Intelligence Community 

is predicting its Initial Operational Capability date may be at least 2 years earlier 

than originally predicted. What I see happening, at some point in the future, is options the United States currently has in terms of defending U.S. interests and providing deterrence to U.S. allies in the Pacific region may not be available. When 

those options are no longer available, it will fundamentally change the balance of 

power in that part of your AOR. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue and 

your thoughts on what the United States needs to do to preserve its options and 

ability to defend U.S. interests in the region. 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

MILITARY PARTNERSHIPS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

25. Senator CHAMBLISS. Admiral Willard, you discuss basing and access issues in 

your statement and the need to attain better access, particularly in South and 

Southeast Asia. I agree that this is critical. Looking forward 10 years or so, what 

relationships can we cultivate and what nations do you think would be willing to 

build closer partnerships with the United States such that our military could have 

access to their ports and airfields and with whom we could move toward the possibility of basing agreements? 

Admiral WILLARD. DOD intends to enhance its presence in South and Southeast 

Asia. This does not mean, however, that we are looking to create new U.S. bases. 

Rather, we will work cooperatively with our allies and partners in these regions to 

identify an appropriate range and scale of security cooperation activities—including 

training, exercises, security force assistance, visits, et cetera—and then develop the 

access and other agreements needed to support this cooperation. 

In South Asia, potential candidates for enhanced U.S. presence include Bangladesh and Maldives, two countries that are eager for greater bilateral defense engagement and have expressed a willingness to allow a rotating U.S. presence for 

training purposes. Another option that we as a country should be fostering is in Sri 

Lanka. Our current relationship with Sri Lanka is on a negative trend, primarily 

due to sanctions levied as a result of alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by 

the Government of Sri Lanka during their final push to eradicate the insurgency 

threat from the Tamil Tigers. The Government of Sri Lanka sees the United States 

as an unreliable partner and has turned to other benefactors, namely the Peoples 

Republic of China. Building a stronger relationship with Sri Lanka will truly be a 

long term project, but the strategic consequences of not engaging could potentially 

plague us in the coming decades if we are excluded from the region in favor of India 

and China. 

PACOM engagement in Southeast Asia is focused towards expanding our relationship with the region by strengthening existing alliances and partnerships and cultivating new ones. PACOM is looking to our allies and partner (Australia, Thailand, 

Philippines, and Singapore) to assist with near-term (2–5 years) enduring presence. 

These countries share stated common security interests with the United States so 

they are the most likely to cooperate with PACOM to enhance regional stability. 

986 

PACOM is also looking to cultivate new relationships with Indonesia, Vietnam, 

Cambodia, and Malaysia. These countries have not traditionally leaned towards 

U.S. engagement, but the rapidly changing world order is aligning their interests 

closer with ours. These emerging partnerships are still in the nascent stages and 

will require further cultivation before they can grow to the level of our regional allies and partners. 

Within Oceania, relationships with Republic of Palau and Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) are two that should be further cultivated. The Compacts of Free Association (treaties) that we have with Palau and FSM have allowed us to maintain 

close ties with these two countries, and develop a possible receptiveness to the establishment of basing agreements. Among Oceania countries, Palau is particularly 

well-situated geographically. It is relatively close to Guam as well as other Southeast Asian nations. They have an international airport with a 7,200 foot runway 

able to accommodate most large jet aircraft and an international deepwater seaport. 

26. Senator CHAMBLISS. Admiral Willard, how do we go about building those relationships? 

Admiral WILLARD. The strategic engagement for each respective nation with 

whom we are seeking relations must be tailored towards leveraging our mutual interests. 

The Government of Bangladesh has been very supportive of U.S. military engagement including U.S. Navy port visits. We can best cultivate this relationship by continuing at the current level of military to military engagement. 

PACOM has allocated resources to maintain a modest level of military to military 

engagement with Maldivian maritime forces including assistance to help them develop a Marine Corps type capability. 

Building a stronger relationship with Sri Lanka will truly be a long-term project, 

but the strategic consequences of not engaging could potentially plague us in the 

coming decades if we are excluded from the region. Building this trust starts with 

using International Military Education and Training (IMET) Funds to get mid- and 

lower-level military officers to attend U.S. military schools in the United States. 

They then become our ambassadors to their own military that will slowly but surely 

rebuild our military to military relationship. 

Indonesia has come a long way since the repressive regime of Suharto. It is not 

only the world’s largest Muslim country; it is also the world’s second largest democracy and is experiencing challenges and difficulties associated with their decade long 

transition into a democratic nation. Indonesia’s common interests with the United 

States are regional stability, maritime security (especially in the South China Sea), 

counter-violent extremism operations, and multilateralism for regional issue resolution. The primary obstacle to PACOM engagement is Indonesia’s past Human 

Rights abuses (which occurred during the Suharto regime). Since making its transition to democracy, Indonesia has made herculean gains towards reform and accountability in Human Rights. It can be expected that the U.S.-Indo relationship will 

flourish over the next couple of years into a strong and lively partnership between 

two democracies. 

Vietnam is experiencing unprecedented growth and development. However, the 

Vietnamese government lags behind in liberalization and decentralization. This exacerbates Vietnam’s already challenging geo-political situation with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). It is this strain with China that drives the Vietnamese towards engaging the United States. The PRC’s aggressive expansionism in the South 

China Sea is the common interest shared by Vietnam and the United States and 

will be the cornerstone of future Vietnamese relationship building. In the short 

term, this relationship is still new and trust through increasing contact and engagement must be established before we can move on to more critical issues; trust that 

the United States will remain active in the region and will not abandon Southeast 

Asia and other commitments crop up around the world. 

Traditionally, the PRC has significant amounts of influence with Cambodia, but 

recently Cambodia has been reaching out towards U.S. engagement. This shift in 

principle may be the result of increased indications to the region that the PRC’s intentions are not benign. Regardless of the reason for this shift, PACOM should capitalize on this opportunity and cultivate a constructive and fruitful relationship with 

Cambodia. The present border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand (a U.S. ally) 

presents a challenge for PACOM engagement because it must balance assistance to 

Cambodia with its alliance with Thailand. The obstacle to cultivating this relationship is the inability of both Thailand and Cambodia to satisfactorily resolve their 

disputes. Until then, PACOM must temper its engagement with an eye towards our 

security commitment to our ally; otherwise the significance of a U.S. alliance would 

be greatly diminished. 

987 

Malaysia is another Muslim country in Southeast Asia with whom PACOM desires a partnership. Malaysia already has the second largest per capita income in 

Southeast Asia behind Singapore. Malaysia is deeply concerned with the PRC’s aggressive assertion of its South China Sea claims. A U.S. relationship will provide 

Malaysia added security which it can use to engage the PRC in a multilateral 

forum. PACOM is increasing its mil-to-mil engagement with Malaysia with an eye 

towards cultivating them into another high-capability, reliable regional partner like 

Singapore. 

In Oceania, relationships that would provide access to ports and airfields and facilitate basing agreements are already in place with Palau and FSM. The Compact 

Agreements require the United States to provide for the defense of Palau and FSM 

as well as provide economic assistance. In return, the United States has been granted certain access privileges which are spelled out in the Compacts. Both countries 

have expressed an interest in hosting U.S. military bases. 

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

27. Senator CHAMBLISS. Admiral Willard, India is without question a key country 

in the region, whose population may soon exceed that of China. Our relationship 

with India is complicated by its historic non-alignment and desire to maintain strategic autonomy, and also by the U.S.-Pakistan relationship—all of which you discuss 

in your written statement. Nevertheless, India is the world’s largest democracy with 

a growing trade relationship with the United States and represents an important 

market for U.S. goods including U.S. defense and aerospace goods. How do you 

think we might grow this relationship and how might we encourage India to use 

their influence in the region to establish and preserve stability? 

Admiral WILLARD. The key to our growing the relationship between the United 

States and the Republic of India is to support India’s efforts to exercise leadership 

not only in South Asia but globally. As a democracy with a thriving market economy, India is dependent on a stable and secure South Asia region as much as, if 

not more, than the United States. Therefore encouraging India to establish and preserve stability in South Asia and the Indian Ocean Region is not the issue, the issue 

is to influence India to do so in partnership with the United States and other like 

minded nations who depend on a secure and stable Indian Ocean region to ensure 

the safe and cost-effective transport of raw materials and finished goods that support and foster a rising global economy that benefits all players. 

The foundation for fostering this influence had already been established when 

both states pledged to develop an enhanced strategic partnership in 2009. To further 

develop this partnership the United States, through our actions, needs to demonstrate strategic convergence on regional and global security issues. At PACOM we 

are working with India to promote a shared vision for cooperation on the global commons—the shared domains of sea, air, space, and cyberspace—domains that are 

available to every nation to use to promote economic growth and improve the quality of life for their people. This cooperation must stretch across the interagency to 

include all U.S. Government departments and agencies. Efforts are already well underway in the realm of maritime security cooperation with India especially regarding counter piracy operations in the Arabian Sea through the cooperative efforts of 

the Indian Ministry of Defense and the DOD and Department of Homeland Security. Continuing to promote and encourage high level visits from the U.S. Government carrying this message of cooperation and like minded goals will help encourage India’s further efforts to move our partnership forward. Other areas where the 

United States can positively influence India include mutual support in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, support for India’s long standing 

contributions to global peacekeeping, and developing an open and transparent mechanism to share intelligence and cooperate in combating terrorism. 

A major impediment in establishing increased trust between the United States 

and India is our relationship with Pakistan amidst the historical animosity between 

India and Pakistan. With India, our actions speak louder than words; our actions 

should not counter India’s strategic autonomy or historic non-alignment but should 

instead respect their viewpoint and their position as an equal among nations. Additionally, our actions with respect to both India and Pakistan must clearly convey 

the desire that India and Pakistan continue to dialogue and seek common ground 

to resolve their differences peacefully and with mutual benefit. A difficult task, but 

lasting security and stability in South Asia cannot be achieved until this long standing dispute is resolved. 

988 

AUSTRALIA

28. Senator CHAMBLISS. Admiral Willard, I have heard some rumblings over the 

past few years about Australia perhaps not being as confident in the ability or desire of the United States to provide security and maintain the balance of power in 

South Asia in the future. Therefore, it is argued, Australia may need to look beyond 

the United States for security partners and not assume that the United States will 

play the role it has played for the last 60 years in that part of the world. Do you 

think this is an accurate portrayal of Australia’s perspective? 

Admiral WILLARD. Australia has expressed increased uncertainty in the South 

Asia strategic environment, but I have not seen any indication that Australia is 

looking to diversify its strategic orientation in a way that would negatively impact 

the United States. In terms of our bilateral relationship, the U.S.-Australia Alliance 

is closer now than at any point during my Pacific tenure. I do not see that changing. 

That said, Australia is actively seeking to deepen its partnerships with other U.S. 

Alliance partners—Japan and the ROK—and has prioritized building its defense relationships with India and Indonesia. These are all positive developments. 

In their Defense White Paper, Australia predicts that the primacy of the United 

States will be increasingly tested as global and regional power relations change 

through 2030. Australia is concerned about China’s growing economic influence and 

ambitious military modernization-key drivers that, if mismanaged, could upset the 

regional stability the Pacific has enjoyed over the past 60 years. In addition, Australia faces increasing economic challenges as the Chinese market gains a larger 

portion of their trade, a pressure that may challenge their historical strategic hedging policy. Australia has managed to have a relatively stable mil-mil relationship 

with China in which it delivers many of the same messages that the United States 

delivers in its interactions with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), including the 

importance of transparency. 

Although it is important to understand Australia’s concerns, it is more important 

to highlight their actions. Australia used their Defense White Paper to reaffirm the 

centrality of the alliance relationship with the United States, lauded as their most 

important defense relationship. Australia also used their Defense White Paper to 

identify new strategic capabilities required to deal with the emerging environment, 

vowing to do more to protect common strategic interests. Most recently, Australia 

has partnered with the United States to discuss ways to enhance our combined force 

posture, which could lead to an greater U.S. military presence in Australia and expanded U.S. access to Australian facilities for training and exercise. 

Overall, no, I do not think that this is an accurate portrayal of the Australian 

perspective. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

29. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Willard, has PACOM established present and future requirements for both missiles and launchers regarding ballistic missile defense 

in your AOR? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

30. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Willard, do you expect that the PACOM requirements for these assets will be fully satisfied now and in the future? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

SOUTH CHINA SEA

31. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Willard, last year, Secretary of State Clinton told 

a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Hanoi that the United 

States had a national interest in freedom of navigation and respect for international 

law in the South China Sea, to which China’s Foreign Minister response to her 

statement was ‘‘in effect an attack on China.’’ China’s attempts to enforce its interpretation of international navigation laws in the South China Sea has resulted in 

several dangerous encounters between U.S. and Chinese ships and aircraft in the 

last several years. Further, China has opposed joint military exercises between the 

United States and South Korea in the Yellow Sea using similar national claims to 

international waters. Do you anticipate further navigation discord with China? 

Admiral WILLARD. Despite policy differences between the United States and the 

PRC with respect to interpretation of international navigation laws, it is critical 

989 

that all efforts are made to ensure that dangerous behavior does not undermine the 

overall U.S.-China relationship or endanger the lives of sailors or airmen from either nation. Additionally, as China increases its military operations around the 

globe, it will find greater utility in partnering with the United States and adhering 

to international maritime standards to achieve common security interests. Although 

we do not foresee a change in the PRC’s position on international navigation laws 

in the near future, PACOM is continuing to focus on maritime issues with the PLA, 

especially operational safety, in all venues of engagement as a means to avoid future incidents and prevent unforeseen crises. 

32. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Willard, what role does PACOM play in defending 

the rights of foreign allies to use the waters in dispute? 

Admiral WILLARD. PACOM recognizes the rights of all nations to appropriately 

use the South China Sea consistent with the U.N. Conventional on the Law of the 

Sea (UNCLOS) regardless of their treaty status with the United States. PACOM 

plays an active role in ensuring accessibility to the South China Sea and other excessive claim maritime areas. In keeping with this principle, PACOM continues to 

challenge the excessive claims over the South China Sea by conducting Freedom of 

Navigation Operations (FONOPs) which reasserts our rights and the rights of all 

nations to the global common. FONOPs using Navy ships operating within the accepted norms of the international community and UNCLOS. FONOPs also take into 

consideration the possible response from the disputing claimants and does not antagonize the recognized sovereignty of any disputing nation. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

TAIWAN

33. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, in your prepared testimony, you acknowledge that the Cross-Strait military balance continues to shift in the mainland’s 

favor. According to DOD’s 2010 report, Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC, ‘‘China’s military build-up opposite the island continued unabated. The 

People’s Liberation Army is developing the capability to deter Taiwan independence 

or influence Taiwan to settle the dispute on Beijing’s terms, while simultaneously 

attempting to deter, delay, or deny any possible U.S. support for the island in case 

of conflict.’’ Under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the United States is statutorily 

obligated to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services ‘‘as 

may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.’’ 

In your opinion, how could the Cross-Strait balance have shifted in favor of China, 

if the United States has been upholding our obligations under the TRA? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

34. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, it is my understanding that DOD conducted its own assessments of Taiwan’s defense needs from 1997 through early 

2004, producing over a dozen studies. Since that time, DOD produced a 2010 study 

on Taiwan’s air defense forces that was mandated by Congress, and reports indicate 

DOD recently resumed more detailed studies of Taiwan’s joint defense transformation. What is the status of each of these reports? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

35. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, why did DOD virtually cease production 

of these valuable studies after 2004 and just resume it last year? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

36. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, according to DOD’s 2010 report, China has 

approximately 2,300 operational combat aircraft, including 330 fighters and 160 

bombers, stationed within range of Taiwan. A January 2010 Defense Intelligence 

Agency report on Taiwan’s air force concluded that although Taiwan has an inventory of almost 400 combat aircraft, ‘‘far fewer of these are operationally capable.’’ 

What is PACOM’s view on whether Taiwan needs replacement fighters to maintain 

a credible air force? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

37. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, in your opinion, does this deterioration of 

Taiwan’s air force indicate that the United States has failed to uphold our obligations under the TRA? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

990 

38. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, how does Taiwan’s airbase survivability 

compare to other air forces in the region? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

39. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, what scenarios does PACOM use in its assessment of Taiwan’s requirements? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

40. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, since 2006, the Taiwanese government has 

made clear its desire to purchase F–16 C/Ds from the United States to augment 

their aging air force and regain dominance of the airspace over the Taiwan Strait. 

How have you responded to Taiwan’s requests for the F–16 C/Ds? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

41. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, in your opinion, would additional F–16s 

bolster Taiwan’s ability to conduct maritime interdiction in a blockade scenario? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

42. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, if the administration continues to stall on 

Taiwan’s pending request, and Taiwan becomes unable to purchase these F–16s, 

what would be the impact on Taiwan’s ability to defend its own skies? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

43. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, what would be the impact on U.S. interests 

in the region? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

44. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, according to DOD, in 2010, the PLA Navy 

had the largest force of principal combatants, submarines, and amphibious warships 

in Asia. This fleet includes 54 diesel attack submarines and 6 nuclear attack submarines. In contrast, Taiwan currently has four diesel attack submarines and zero 

nuclear attack submarines. What is your assessment of the current status of Taiwan’s submarine fleet and the ability of Taiwan’s navy to defend against an amphibious attack? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

45. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, what is your assessment of how long it will 

be before Taiwan’s viable submarines must be replaced? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

46. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, should we be contemplating the sale of new 

submarines to Taiwan in the near future? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

47. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, do you believe we have met our obligations 

under the TRA to ensure that Taiwan has the opportunity to upgrade its fleet? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

48. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, what risks would we face if Taiwan cannot 

protect itself? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

49. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, if hostilities were to break out between 

China and Taiwan, is the United States currently able to provide an air deterrent 

over Taiwan, if Taiwan proves unable to protect itself? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

CHINA

50. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, in January, China demonstrated its clear 

intent to attain a fifth-generation fighter aircraft with the initial test flight of the 

J–20. This fighter, if news reports are accurate, could potentially rival our own fifthgeneration fighters. In your opinion, would the United States be able to maintain 

air dominance against a sizeable Chinese fleet of J–20s with a U.S. fleet of only 187 

F–22 fighters? 

Admiral WILLARD. The United States faces significant challenges in posturing a 

credible air deterrent due to geographic challenges and multiple requirements in 

991 

comparison to the volume and capability of PRC forces. However, air dominance is 

not achieved or maintained through fighter aircraft alone. Fighter aircraft are only 

components of the full joint capabilities of the U.S. military in the region and oneon-one comparisons provide an incomplete picture of the ability of the U.S. to respond to threats to regional security. 

51. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, according to DOD’s 2010 report, Military 

and Security Developments Involving the PRC, ‘‘China is developing an anti-ship 

ballistic missile (ASBM)’’ with a ‘‘range in excess of 1,500 km’’ that is ‘‘intended to 

provide the PLA the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the 

western Pacific Ocean.’’ If fully developed and fielded, what threat would this ASBM 

pose to U.S. carriers in the Pacific Ocean? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

52. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, what steps are being taken to counter this 

threat? 

Admiral WILLARD. [Deleted.] 

53. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, according to DOD’s 2010 report, DOD is 

pursuing invigorated Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) talks with 

China. What progress has been made in the MMCA talks regarding confidencebuilding measures and safe maritime security practices? 

Admiral WILLARD. Since its inception, the MMCA has operated as a forum for addressing issues of operational safety in the maritime environment, to include airspace. Along with the recent restart of military-to-military relations with the United 

States, the PRC has expressed an interest in reinvigorating the MMCA talks as a 

forum for addressing issues of operational safety in the maritime environment, to 

include airspace. PACOM welcomes China’s attention to what we view as a critical 

means for avoiding dangerous behavior that could undermine the overall U.S.-China 

relationship or endanger the lives of sailors or airmen of both countries. Additionally, as China increases its military operations around the globe, it will find greater 

utility in partnering with the United States and adhering to international maritime 

standards to achieve common security interests. PACOM will continue to use the 

MMCA as a forum to focus on maritime issues with the PLA, especially operational 

safety, in all venues of engagement as a means to avoid incidents and prevent unforeseen crises. 

54. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, according to DOD’s 2010 report, ‘‘U.S.- 

China military-to-military relations improved in 2009, based on the commitment of 

President Obama and President Hu to deepen and improve ties, and to take concrete steps to advance sustained and reliable military-to-military relations.’’ Given 

that the Chinese readily terminated this contact over political issues, as we saw in 

January 2010 following the Obama administration’s announcement of intent to sell 

defensive arms and equipment to Taiwan, what is your assessment of the value 

China places on this type of engagement? 

Admiral WILLARD. The U.S.-China military-to-military relationship supports the 

President’s vision for a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive U.S.-China relationship. We have made progress in our military-to-military relationship with 

China, but it continues to lack a solid foundation sufficient to weather turbulence 

in the bilateral relationship. Stability in the U.S.-PRC military-to-military relationship decreases the likelihood of potentially dangerous misunderstandings as China’s 

capabilities grow and our two militaries operate more frequently in close proximity. 

PACOM fully supports the DOD’s ongoing initiative to develop a bilateral framework with the PLA to steer U.S.-PRC military-to-military engagements and provide 

stability to the overall relationship. Additionally, PACOM welcomes the PRC’s recent favorable response to increased bilateral exchanges on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief as well as acceptance of maritime safety events as part of 

scheduled military events this year. Maintaining sustained and cooperative militaryto-military relations with the PRC remains a priority for PACOM. 

55. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, how is China benefitting from the contact, 

and what does the United States gain? 

Admiral WILLARD. The complexity of the international security environment calls 

for greater cooperation between the United States and China, at all levels and in 

all areas, including in the military realm. Continuous open and substantive dialogue 

about strategic issues is an important element of expanding cooperation, improving 

mutual understanding, and reducing the risk of miscalculation. As China’s political 

and economic interests and influence expand, so too do the international commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00997 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
992 

nity’s expectations that China will cooperate responsibly in all global domains. It 

is in the best interests of both the U.S. and the PRC to make every effort to ensure 

stability in our military-to-military relationship which effectively decreases the likelihood of potentially dangerous misunderstandings as China’s capabilities grow and 

our two militaries operate more frequently in close proximity. 

SOUTH KOREA

56. Senator CORNYN. General Sharp, North Korea’s growing dependence on China 

means that South Korea is forced to factor China into its North Korea policy. What 

consultations has the United States had with the Chinese regarding this issue? 

General SHARP. PACOM consistently engages the PLA on the issue of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) at every possible occasion. Most recently, 

the DOD and PACOM discussed the issue of the DPRK with PLA interlocutors at 

the 11th Defense Policy Consultative Talks held in Beijing. We remain committed 

to working with China to bring peace and stability to the Korean Peninsula. We 

seek to continue to work with China on fostering an improvement in North-South 

relations, since we have agreed that sincere, constructive inter-Korean dialogue is 

an essential step in resuming diplomacy on the denuclearization of the peninsula. 

57. Senator CORNYN. General Sharp, what do we know about Chinese contingency 

plans in the Korean Peninsula, and how much relevant information are they sharing with us? 

General SHARP. [Deleted.] 

58. Senator CORNYN. General Sharp, in your opinion, does South Korea have the 

right to retaliate when its people are killed by North Korea? 

General SHARP. Every sovereign nation, including the ROK, has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens. I believe the ROK has the right to respond in selfdefense when attacked. 

59. Senator CORNYN. General Sharp, what is the United States doing to ensure 

that South Korea maintains a retaliatory capacity that enables it to protect its own 

interests? 

General SHARP. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked attacks on the ROK last 

year, the United States has participated in a series of combined exercises with the 

ROK that were designed to enhance both countries capabilities in the Korea Theater 

of Operations. These exercises have included training in the areas of anti-submarine 

warfare, battle group air defense, surface warfare, combat air patrols, communications, and ensuring readiness to prepare for, prevent, and prevail against a full 

range of provocations that could occur on the Korean Peninsula. This series of combined exercises has improved the readiness of ROK military forces and their ability 

to address the range of security challenges that could emerge. 

The United States also stands ready to support the ROK’s implementation of its 

‘‘307’’ defense reform initiative. A key objective of this defense reform program is 

the enhancement of active deterrence capabilities. As a part of this objective, the 

ROK will bolster its sea and air capabilities by: speeding up planned deployment 

of high altitude unmanned aerial vehicles and the FX–III next generation fighter 

in order to increase surveillance capabilities; acquire advanced artillery detecting 

radar systems and precision guided weapons such as Joint Direct Attack Munition 

to neutralize North Korean artillery; and reinforce the personnel and capability of 

its Cyber Warfare Command. The ROK will also soon establish a division-sized command to protect the Northwest Islands. The mission of this command will be to 

maintain a strong deterrence capability against North Korea and to counter attempts to neutralize the Northern Limit Line. Under the command, additional 

troops and weapon systems will be deployed to observe North Korean forces and to 

launch accurate and effective counterstrikes in the case of future provocations by 

Pyongyang. The United States stands ready to support this defense reform plan in 

a variety of ways to include the foreign military sales program and additional combined exercises and training programs. 

60. Senator CORNYN. General Sharp, on March 26, 2010, a North Korean torpedo 

sank the Cheonan, a vessel of the South Korean Navy, killing 46 sailors. If that had 

been a sovereign U.S. warship, would you have considered this to be an act of war? 

General SHARP. The attack on the ROK ship Cheonan was a violation of the Korean War Armistice Agreement and an armed attack on ROK forces in violation of 

the United Nations Charter. I would consider an attack on a U.S. warship the same. 

993 

Whether or not it constitutes an act of war is a decision for the Commander in 

Chief. 

VIETNAM

61. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, the United States began providing foreign 

military financing (FMF) to Vietnam in fiscal year 2009. According to Vietnam’s 

2009 Defense White Paper, Vietnam’s defense budget increased by nearly 70 percent 

between 2005 and 2008. Reports indicate that in 2009, Vietnam signed contracts to 

purchase billions of dollars worth of military equipment from Russia. A strong Vietnam has the potential to increase security in the South China Sea. What plans are 

there to sell arms to Vietnam, and when will these sales take place? 

Admiral WILLARD. Currently, there are no plans to sell arms to Vietnam. According to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Vietnam can only receive non 

lethal items, considered on a case-by-case basis. 

The U.S. Army Security Assistance Command is in the process of drafting an 

FMF letter of authorization for four English Language Labs and a training instructor for Vietnam. 

INDONESIA

62. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, some speculate that the development of 

military-to-military relations between Indonesia and China was fostered because the 

United States was sanctioning Indonesia for past human rights abuses. In 2005, the 

United States removed restrictions on IMET, FMF, and foreign military sales programs for Indonesia, which many viewed as a step toward normalizing the U.S.-Indonesia military relationship. What is your assessment of the current status of the 

U.S.-Indonesia military-to-military relationship? 

Admiral WILLARD. The U.S.-Indonesian Strategic Partnership is one of the most 

significant in Southeast Asia with over 140 engagement activities scheduled for fiscal year 2011 and Indonesia recently assuming the Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations Chairmanship. After years of limited engagement with the Indonesian 

armed forces, the increased transparency and pace of institutional reforms initiated 

has provided impetus to renew and advance our military relationship. Secretary 

Gate’s July 2010 decision to resume military ties with Indonesian Army Special 

Forces after a 12 year hiatus, represents one such significant advancement that we 

are pursuing in a measured and gradual fashion. We are also looking forward to 

supporting the newly signed ‘‘Comprehensive Partnership,’’ and expanding cooperation in HA/DR, Maritime Security, Peacekeeping Operations, and enhancing professionalism and reform efforts. 

63. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Willard, are there plans to sell arms to Indonesia, 

and if so, when would these sales take place? 

Admiral WILLARD. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has slowly re-engaged Indonesia using an ever increasing collection of Security Cooperation tools. Through the 

National Defense Authorization Act 1206 program, Congress has provided nearly 

$80 million of maritime domain awareness and interdiction equipment, including 

weapons. This significant investment is geographically focused in the Tri-Border region bordering Malaysia and Philippines, as well as near the Strait of Malacca. 

In addition to our 1206 investments in Indonesia, we are currently exploring options to transfer U.S. Navy and Air Force excess defense articles, most notably the 

F–16A/B. In this case, Indonesia wants to invest some $500 million to upgrade its 

existing fleet of 10x F16A/B, and a yet to be determined number of excess USAF 

airframes, to F16 C+/Block 30 capability. Although not formalized, Indonesia has 

also shown interest in excess KC–135s and P–3 Orions, as well as the hydrographic 

surveying ship USNS John McDonnell. Using FMF funds, we have provided logistics resources and expertise to rotary wing assets, as well as assisted Indonesia’s 

existing F–16 and C–130 fleet. Indonesia is also considering the procurement of medium and heavy lift rotary wing aircraft through direct commercial sales. 

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(995) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2012 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE 

PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room SD– 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

McCain, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, and Cornyn. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Creighton Greene, professional 

staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; and Peter K. Levine, general counsel. 

Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority staff 

director; Pablo E. Carrillo, minority investigative counsel; Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member; and Michael J. Sistak, 

research assistant. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Christine G. Lang, 

and Breon N. Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Gordon Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Tressa 

Guenov, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Casey Howard, assistant 

to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Lindsay 

Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Chad Kreikemeier, assistant to Senator Shaheen; Jeremy Bratt, assistant to Senator 

Blumenthal; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; 

Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Joseph Lai, assistant to Senator Wicker; Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator 

Brown; Brent Bombach, assistant to Senator Portman; Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator Ayotte; Dave Hanke, assistant to Senator Cornyn; and Joshua Hodges, assistant to Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

996 

Today we will seek a better understanding of what the Department of Defense (DOD) found in various reviews of the Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) program after the Nunn-McCurdy certification last 

year and what actions DOD has taken to ameliorate problems that 

it found with the program, as well as the best judgment available 

as to how effective these actions will be in preventing further problems with the program, including cost overruns and delays. 

I want to thank Senator McCain for suggesting that we have this 

hearing today. 

Joining us today on our first panel is a distinguished group of officials: Ash Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics; Christine Fox, Director of the Office of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE). That is the 

CAPE office. Michael Gilmore, Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation (OT&E); and David Van Buren, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, and in that capacity, Mr. Van Buren also serves as the Service Acquisition Executive for the JSF program. 

I want to extend a welcome to our witnesses and thank each of 

you for appearing before the committee this morning. Another important member of DOD JSF team, Vice Admiral David Venlet, 

Program Executive Officer (PEO) for the JSF program, is in the audience and he will be appearing formally as a witness on the second panel. 

We held a closed briefing for the committee on the JSF program 

in December 2009 where Secretary Carter and Director Fox briefed 

the committee. 

We held an open hearing last year where we discussed the JSF 

program, the potential scope of the problems facing DOD, and some 

of the options that DOD had for dealing with these problems. 

The F–35 JSF program is currently the largest acquisition program within DOD’s portfolio. Perturbations to the cost, schedule, or 

performance of a program that intends to buy more than 2,400 aircraft for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will have significant implications for the rest of DOD’s acquisition program and for 

the DOD budget as a whole. 

I would also note that this committee’s strong effort on acquisition reform, which became the law on May 22, 2009, including 

those changes to the acquisition procedures required by implementation of the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 

2009, will not be judged well unless we can demonstrate some success with the largest of DOD’s acquisition programs, even though 

this program, the F–35 program, started before we enacted acquisition reform. 

Last year, delays in producing the F–35 developmental aircraft 

have caused an estimated 13-month slip in the program for completing testing. Some, including the CAPE office, had been predicting that development could slip by as much as 30 months. It 

now appears that the CAPE estimate may have been much closer 

to the mark of how long it will really take to complete development 

than that 13-month estimate. 

We know that DOD intends to release additional information on 

the new baseline and on a new initial operational capability (IOC) 

997 

later this month after conducting a Defense Acquisition Board review of the program. 

The additional delays that we see in the revised plan have both 

cost implications for the F–35 program itself and cost implications 

for the Services as they try to manage their current force structure 

of legacy aircraft. The Services have had to come up with more research and development funds, since we are now looking at an increase of more than $4 billion in the cost to complete the system 

development and demonstration (SDD) program. What this means is that we now have roughly $13.8 billion left to go just on the SDD program, with total SDD costs now at $51 

billion. Indeed, they are costs to us and to the taxpayers of the 

United States. 

The most recent SDD cost increase is somewhat offset by procurement reductions in the near term, but that just simply 

postpones costs to future years where these costs will add pressure 

to those budgets. 

This year, we know that Secretary Gates announced that he is 

putting the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) model of the aircraft known as the F–35B on probation, and he drastically cut the 

planned procurement for the F–35B in the near term. We want to 

hear more about that situation and when DOD will define what the 

F–35B test aircraft must demonstrate for that model to graduate 

from probation. 

We also know that recent revelations of the new estimates of 

total life cycle costs for the JSF program exceeds $1 trillion. We 

need to understand what that estimate reflects, what assumptions 

DOD has made to derive the estimates, and how those estimates 

might compare to a similar estimate for the aircraft that we are 

currently operating. 

Last year, we raised concerns about the JSF program having lost 

focus on affordability. That was not our assessment alone. That 

was an observation of the DOD-chartered Independent Manufacturing Review Team (IMRT) report on the JSF program. The report 

stated: ‘‘Affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar.’’ We 

need to hear today, specifically, how DOD has responded to that 

erosion in focus. We also need to hear what steps DOD has taken 

or plans to take to ensure that operating and support (O&S) costs 

are reduced as a part of a renewed emphasis on affordability. 

This committee has been a supporter of the JSF program from 

the beginning. Nonetheless, people should not conclude that we will 

be willing to continue that kind of support without regard to increased costs resulting from a lack of focus on affordability. We 

cannot sacrifice other important acquisitions in DOD’s investment 

portfolio to pay for this capability. 

Those are a few issues that I know this committee will hear more 

about today. 

Now I call on Senator McCain with, again, our thanks for his 

focus on this issue. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing and our continued oversight 

over this incredibly troubled defense program. 

998 

This hearing furthers this committee’s obligation to the American 

taxpayers to ensure that we are training and equipping our fighting men and women in the most fiscally responsible manner possible, and that every effort is being made to eliminate waste and 

unnecessary costs wherever possible. 

The facts regarding this program are truly troubling. Originally, 

the JSF program was supposed to deliver an affordable, highlycommon, fifth generation aircraft that, by leveraging proven technologies, could be acquired by warfighters in large numbers. Acquiring these jets was supposed to cost a total of $233 billion, or 

an average of $69 million each, when adjusted for inflation. The 

program was supposed to, first, deliver operational aircraft to the 

Services back in 2008. 

None of these promises have come to pass. The program first delivered operational aircraft in 2010. When the Services will get 

their JSFs with real combat capability is anyone’s guess. As of 

today, the total cost to acquire these planes will be at least $385 

billion, or an average of $133 million each, and will likely go higher. 

Again, I repeat, originally, they were supposed to be $69 million each; now they have reached $133 million each and will likely go 

higher. 

The fact is that, after almost 10 years in development, 4 years 

in production, according to outside experts, the aircraft’s design is 

still not stable. Manufacturing processes still need to improve, and 

the overall weapons system has not yet been proven to be reliable. 

Notably, it has taken Lockheed Martin about 10 years and cost the 

taxpayers $56 billion to produce and deliver 9 of 12 test aircraft. 

Over that period, Congress has authorized and appropriated funds 

for 113 F–35 jets. Lockheed has, however, delivered just 11. 

In my view, the program is now at a watershed moment. With 

austere defense budgets for as far as the eye can see, the JSF program must show now it can deliver JSF aircraft as needed, on 

time, and on budget. 

Since 2009, Secretary Gates significantly restructured the program twice, an indication of how serious this program’s problems 

have become. Those efforts have, rightly, focused on reducing the 

risk of trying to develop, test, and procure cutting-edge aircraft 

that have plagued this program since it started. Cost and schedule 

changes that accumulated over the last few years resulted in critical breaches of the initial cost thresholds. Put simply, JSF is estimated to cost about 80 percent more than when the program started and about 30 percent more than the current baseline set in 

2007. No program should expect to be continued with that kind of 

track record, especially in our current fiscal climate. 

I understand that soon DOD will announce new baselines for cost 

and schedule to reflect a total of $7.4 billion in additional funding, 

a cut of 246 aircraft from the near-term production ramp, and the 

addition of 33 months to complete development prescribed by Secretary Gates’ restructuring efforts. 

As for the future, daunting obstacles remain. Estimates have the 

early production facing cost overruns of between 11 percent and 15 

percent. That is between $700 million and $960 million over the 

original estimate of $6.4 billion for 28 aircraft. Also, while there 

999 

has been improvement in decreasing the number of design changes 

on the manufacturing floor, which tends to be a sign that the design is more stable, such changes are still being done more frequently than desired. Lockheed Martin still needs to improve how 

efficiently it moves parts through its manufacturing processes and 

how it manages its global supply chain. 

Additionally, developing the software that is vital to making JSF 

work as intended is lagging behind schedule. Plus, the new helmet 

display system that JSF will use is still not on track. Moreover, 

even after these production problems are solved, we still have to 

contend with potentially huge costs to maintain all three versions 

of the JSF. As the chairman mentioned, right now it is estimated 

to be about $1 trillion, adjusted for inflation. This jaw-dropping 

amount may be about twice as much as the cost to maintain other 

roughly comparable aircraft. I understand that this estimate is still 

early and subject to change. But we need to know that the program 

is going to bring that number down. 

Finally, I am also keenly aware that the Marine Corps needs to 

start replacing their aging combat aircraft soon, and yet the Marine Corps variant has had the most difficulty in development so 

far and is facing a 2-year probation after which the Marine Corps’ 

version must show improvement or faces cancellation. Of all the 

Services, the Marine Corps faces the most drastic consequences of 

further delays or cost increases due to age of their legacy aircraft. 

I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

We will call on Secretary Carter to kick it off. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ASHTON B. CARTER, UNDER SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS 

Dr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

McCain, other members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to come before you to talk about the JSF. 

I have submitted a written statement jointly with Mr. Dave Van 

Buren, our excellent Air Force Acquisition Executive, who is with 

me here today, and Admiral Dave Venlet, our PEO for JSF. We 

three are the chain of command under Goldwater-Nichols for this 

important program, and we are responsible to the Secretary of Defense and to you for it. 

I am sorry Dave is not at the table here with us, but he is here 

behind me. I want to thank him in front of all of you for not retiring, as he had planned, but for agreeing to the Secretary’s request 

a year ago that he take over management of this important program, as well as for all he is doing to put it on a stable and realistic course for which Dave Van Buren and Sean Stackley, who is 

the Navy Acquisition Executive, and I are very grateful. 

I would ask that the joint statement of the three of us be entered 

into the record. 

Chairman LEVIN. It will be made part of the record. 

Dr. CARTER. With your leave, I would just like to hit some of the 

main points, specifically to answer some of the questions raised by 

you, Mr. Chairman, and by Ranking Member McCain. 

1000 

The main thing I want to convey to you today is the contrast between this appearance before you and my appearance before you in 

December 2009, which Chairman Levin referenced, in terms of the 

management information available to me to convey to you and the 

confidence I am able to have in it, this in contrast to the limited 

insight DOD leadership had into the program before that. 

Back in late 2009, in preparation for last year’s budget, I received the first reports of the Joint Estimating Team, which you 

referenced and which Christine Fox’s organization led; a Joint Assessment Team, which looked at the engine for the JSF; and the 

IMRT, which you also referenced which looked at the activity on 

the Fort Worth final assembly line. They all indicated to me and 

to the Secretary of Defense at that time that JSF, our largest program and a vital one, needed management attention. Senator 

McCain’s word was troubled. 

While these reports did not contain good news, as I indicated, I 

believe they were credible at the time, more credible than the information provided by the program office. Based on the work of a relatively small group of analysts, I believe them because when I look 

back on their track record of predicting the performance of the JSF 

in the 2008–2009 period, I found that they had done a better job 

of predicting the program than the program office had itself. 

I, therefore, used them as the basis to recommend to the Secretary of Defense a restructuring of the program’s development 

phase, also new program management in the person of Admiral 

Venlet, to withhold award fees from the performers of the work, 

and in the restructuring, to slow production over the 5 years by 

122 aircraft. These were important actions. They were based on the 

analysts’ reviews. 

When I was here last year, I did not have the depth of technical 

information a program of this complexity and importance deserves. 

Now the contrast to this year. 

I asked Dave Venlet, when he came in to conduct a technical 

baseline review of the JSF program, I said: ‘‘no holds barred. Tell 

it like it is.’’ He did that. He will describe that technical baseline 

review, but it was 120 subject matter experts going through each 

and every aspect and activity of the program. 

Beginning in the fall of 2010, 1 year after I first met with you 

about the JSF, Dave and I began to receive data from the technical 

baseline review and began discussions with the Secretary of Defense and other DOD leadership about what management actions 

to take this year, and those we will be describing today. 

If you ask, as you might reasonably do, why should you believe 

what I am about to tell you, it is the depth of the technical baseline 

review that gives me confidence this year compared to when I appeared before you last year. 

Secretary Gates and this committee have, as you noted, Mr. 

Chairman, insisted on performance. Senator McCain rightly said 

we cannot support programs that do not perform. Nowhere is this 

more important than the JSF. It is our largest. It is a vital program. 

Let me now summarize the changes we made to the program this 

year as a result of the technical baseline review and that are reflected in the President’s budget for 2012. I will organize my comVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01006 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1001 

ments, if I may, Mr. Chairman, in the same way you did, namely 

development, production, sustainment or lifetime ownership cost, 

and then the particular issues associated with the STOVL variant. 

First, for development. In the development phase, we made two 

principal changes. 

First, we decoupled testing of STOVL from the conventional 

takeoff and landing (CTOL) and the carrier-based variant (CV), the 

Air Force and Navy variants respectively, so that all are proceeding 

as rapidly as possible and STOVL is no longer delaying the other 

variants. 

Second, the technical baseline review indicated additional time 

and funding would be needed to complete development, extending 

development by a number of months and adding an estimated $4.6 

billion to the previously estimated $9.2 billion to complete. 

There are two reasons for these adds. First, the plan test performance has consistently been behind projections, indicating that 

it will cost more to complete the plan testing than the contractors 

had forecast. Second, the testing plan fell short of what we believe 

will be needed. The plan that was there is going to cost more, and 

we believe more testing will be needed than was in the plan. Test 

points had been imprudently removed over the years and need to 

be restored to the program. This adds time and cost. For example, 

we borrowed 6 of the low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft for 

flight test, adding them to the 12 that had been previously planned 

to be part of the flight test program, as an example of more investment in the test program. 

So much for development. 

For production, also two things. First, a decision to delay the 

ramp-up to full production, and second, our determined efforts to 

control unit costs. Let me start with the first one. 

In deciding at this difficult inflection point when you are going 

from development into production, you are trying to balance two 

things. You are trying balance going too fast and going too slow. 

If you go too fast, you build airplanes before you are sure of all of 

the changes that will be necessary in them to make them right, 

and you run the risk of having to rebuild them after you built 

them. That is called concurrency. That is the first risk. On the 

other hand, going too slow delays the airplanes and drives up their 

costs. You are always trying, in deciding when and by how much 

to ramp up production, to balance those two things. 

Extending the development phase meant that it made sense to 

reduce the ramp rate so that program concurrency remained in the 

proper balance. We, therefore, decided to hold at 32 aircraft in fiscal year 2012, which was the same number as in 2011, because 

quite honestly that is the limit of the ability of Fort Worth to deliver finished aircraft. I just cannot tell you that they can deliver 

more. One can want more, but that is the number that we can actually deliver. 

Thereafter, a ramp rate of 1.5, meaning that in each succeeding 

year you build 1.5 times the number you built in the preceding 

year, is about the right rate to expand production, starting in fiscal 

year 2013. That is what the management review team, which 

looked again this year at the program, recommended to us and we 

accepted that. 

1002 

That is how we are handling the question of ramp rate. 

With respect to cost, you spoke of an ‘‘erosion of focus on affordability,’’ and that is an accurate phrase. Senator McCain gave you 

the numbers that over the lifetime of this program, the decade or 

so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft we want has doubled 

in real terms. That is our forecast for how much the aircraft is 

going to cost. Said differently, that is what it is going to cost if we 

keep doing what we are doing. That is unacceptable. It is 

unaffordable at that rate. That cost growth has been in every aspect of the production of the airplane, the airframe, the engine, and 

so forth. It is just too much. 

What we are asking is not what the aircraft will cost, if we keep 

doing what we are doing, but what it should cost, and we call that 

a should-cost analysis. We are beginning that. That is underway 

now and it is a very simple thing. It involves scrutinizing every aspect of the bill, every aspect of the cost of the airplane, work by 

prime contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, direct costs and indirect costs, and seeing how they can be driven out over time of the 

program. They have crept in. We need to drive them out. My office, 

the Services, and the Joint Program Office (JPO) under Admiral 

Venlet, are all involved in that. 

Those are the two things we are doing. We have adjusted the 

production rate and the ramp, slowed it and stayed at 32 airplanes 

this year, and we are aggressively managing cost. 

I just want to make one point. Our decision to delay the onset 

of the ramp-up to full-rate production by year does not increase the 

average unit cost over the entire program appreciably, as some 

have suggested. That is actually not true. Still, we get the airplanes a little bit later. 

One sign of our early efforts to get cost under control was the 

LRIP 4 contract we signed last year. We negotiated that as a fixedprice incentive contract rather than a cost-based contract as an indication of the necessity to get stability in the Fort Worth line such 

that a fixed price could be named, and we are now aggressively 

working on the LRIP 5 contract with the same should-cost aim in 

mind. 

We now go to sustainment. Sustainment is having the plane. I 

remind you that for all our programs, having the thing costs much 

more than buying the thing. 70 cents of the cost of every program 

is having it; 30 cents is getting it. Beyond this, as I said, already 

unacceptably large projected acquisition bill, is a sustainment bill. 

I will just tell you what I said to the partners in Fort Worth. 

They meet every year in Fort Worth, and about a month ago, I met 

with all the JSF partners from around the world. I said I am going 

to show you the estimates for sustainment, and I said they are unbelievable in two senses. First of all, they are unbelievable. They 

are huge. But second of all, you should not believe them because 

we have not really begun to manage them yet. They are parametric 

forecasts. Nobody is going to pay that bill. I said, if you thought 

that was really going to be the bill for sustaining the airplane, we 

might as well all get up and go out and leave now. 

What we have now is a parametric estimate of sustainment 

costs. There is nothing wrong with that. It is accurate based upon 

the information that goes into it, but it is way too high. Even as 

1003 

we go into production, we need to start driving production costs 

down. Sustainment seems like years away, but now is the time to 

face that bill and begin to get that under control. 

Last note on the STOVL. The Secretary decided to put the 

STOVL on probation for 2 years, by being held at a production rate 

of six aircraft per year in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The reason 

for probation is that the STOVL is experiencing technical issues 

unique to this variant that will add to its weight and cost. The probation period is 2 years because that is the time we figure it will 

take to engineer solutions to these issues and assess their impact. 

We will fix all these problems. I do not doubt that. The question 

is how much the fix will cost and how much it will add to the aircraft’s weight. Weight is important for the STOVL variant because 

it has to take off on a 500-foot amphibious ship and it has to land 

vertically. It is all about gravity and the weight really matters. 

At the end of probation, we will assess the cost and the weight, 

then an informed decision can be made about whether and how to 

proceed with the STOVL. 

In the meantime, six-per-year is the minimum number required 

to ensure continuity in the engineering workforce involved in assembly of the STOVL at Fort Worth without loss of learning and 

to sustain the supplier base of the STOVL-unique parts. 

I should say, as we work on the STOVL variant, we are successoriented. We, as the Secretary said, expect success and want success. General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps who is 

the customer for this aircraft, is taking briefings on it very frequently and has a strong interest in it. I very much appreciate 

that. That is the story on the STOVL probation, and I can walk 

through any of those technical issues with the STOVL as you wish, 

as can either of the Daves. 

Let me just close by saying that as part of the Nunn-McCurdy 

process, this year we were asked whether there were any better alternatives to the JSF, and we did not come up with any better alternatives to the JSF. We want it. At the same time, it has to be 

affordable, and at the moment in its projections, it is not. We are 

determined to make it affordable, and those who are performing 

the work for us share in that objective. We owe you that and we 

will be working to that end both for production and sustainment. 

Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Carter, Mr. Van Buren, and 

Admiral Venlet follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. ASHTON CARTER, DAVID M. VAN BUREN, AND

VADM DAVID J. VENLET, USN 

Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, and distinguished members of the 

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee regarding the 

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). 

The F–35 is the Department of Defense‘s (DOD) largest acquisition program, and 

its importance to our national security is immense. The F–35 will form the backbone 

of U.S. air combat superiority for generations to come. It will replace the legacy tactical fighter fleets of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a dominant, multirole, fifth-generation aircraft, capable of projecting U.S. power and deterring potential adversaries. Furthermore, the F–35 will effectively perform missions across the 

full spectrum of combat operations. For our international partners who are participating in the program, the F–35 will become a linchpin for future coalition operations and will help to close a crucial capability gap that will enhance the strength 

of our security alliances. 

1004 

The multi-role F–35 is the centerpiece of DOD’s future precision attack capability. 

The F–35 is designed to penetrate air defenses and deliver a wide range of precision 

munitions. This modern, fifth-generation aircraft brings the added benefit of increased allied interoperability and cost-sharing across Services and partner nations. 

It will also serve to fulfill our commitment to North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 

dual-capable aircraft mission. The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $9.7 billion for 

continued system development, test and procurement of 32 F–35 aircraft. In January, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) model has been placed on probation for 2 years, pending further successful development. The probation period limits the procurement to six F–35B aircraft in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. This 2-year period will provide additional time to resolve the engineering and technical challenges. At the end of the 

2-year probation, DOD leadership will make an informed decision on how to, and 

whether to, proceed with STOVL. 

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP

The F–35 program continues to be DOD’s largest cooperative program, with eight 

partner countries participating under Memorandums of Understanding for System 

Development and Demonstration (SDD) and for Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development. The eight partner countries include the United Kingdom, Italy, 

the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway. In October 

2010, Israel signed a letter of agreement to purchase 19 F–35A variants for $2.75 

billion, with deliveries scheduled to begin in 2015. Through fiscal year 2010, the 

nine international partners will have provided approximately $4.45 billion of their 

$4.9 billion commitment to the SDD phase of the program. The United States has 

commitments from our allies to purchase in excess of 500 F–35 aircraft. Our first 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case; Israel, is underway, and additionally, studies are 

in progress to determine other FMS possibilities for nations outside the partnership. 

PROGRAM STATUS

The F–35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments over the past 

year, including the first flight of the first mission systems aircraft. It also saw the 

arrival of the first four F–35A (CTOL) test aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base 

(AFB), CA, delivery of two additional F–35B (STOVLs) and the first F–35C carrier 

variant (CV) test aircraft to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, and the completion of the F–35A static structural testing 5 months ahead of schedule with no failures. The program rolled out the first low rate initial production (LRIP) F–35A and 

completed 410 total F–35 test flights in 2010. In addition, 2010 saw the successful 

negotiation of the first fixed-price production contract which resulted in significant 

Department of Defense efficiencies (LRIP Lot 4). Finally, the first two F–35A production aircraft (AF–6 and AF–7) have been delivered to Edwards AFB to support 

SDD and an operational utility evaluation prior to initial operational training at 

Eglin AFB this fall. 

REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN 2010 AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE F–35 PROGRAM

Program restructure 

The program continues to experience challenges as it transitions from development to production despite the significant accomplishments. The Secretary of Defense announced a program restructure in February 2010. The restructure resulted 

in increased funding for development and production in accordance with Joint Estimate Team II estimates, reduced procurement by 122 aircraft over the Future Years 

Defense Program (FYDP) in the fiscal year 2011 PB and extended development by 

13 months. It further added an additional LRIP lot prior to entering full rate production, reduced the ramp rate to less than 150 percent of the previous year’s production, and upgraded the Program Executive Office position from a two-star to 

three-star flag rank. Program cost growth, including growth from the restructure, 

resulted in a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach in March 2010. The Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics subsequently certified the program in accordance with the Nunn-McCurdy statute, allowing the F–35 program to 

continue. 

We believe the cost estimates for production and sustainment developed during 

the Nunn-McCurdy process are credible, but simply unacceptable in this fiscal environment. We continue to scrutinize the F–35 Program, in addition to all programs, 

in order to target affordability and control cost growth. DOD has already seen 

progress in controlling the cost through should cost methods, one of Dr. Carter’s recent Better Buying Power initiatives. Should cost estimates are allowing DOD to 

1005 

build the correct strategy and form the basis for contract negotiations and contract 

incentives. 

Technical Baseline Review 

Following the F–35 Nunn-McCurdy criteria certification in June 2010, the F–35 

Program Office conducted the most comprehensive review of the F–35 program ever 

accomplished. A Technical baseline review (TBR) assessed the cost, schedule and 

technical risk of the work required to complete the F–35 SDD program. The TBR 

was heavily dependent upon the technical strengths of Naval Air Systems Command, Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

The TBR involved more than 120 technical experts and differed from previous 

Joint Estimating Team (JET) assessments conducted by DOD’s Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation office in 2008 and 2009. While the JET reviews were topdown technical program cost and schedule assessments, the TBR was a bottoms-up 

technical review of detailed plans at the lowest levels. It also drew on knowledge 

from the aircraft and engine contractors as well as the government test bases, to 

gain a thorough understanding of the content of the work required to complete the 

development program. 

TBR subject matter experts formed sub teams across the various technical disciplines of test and engineering. They completed assessments of approximately 80 

percent of the remaining SDD costs via interviews and detailed analyses of program 

data and performance artifacts. 

The TBR became the basis for additional program restructuring in the fiscal year 2012 PB. The fiscal year 2012 PB called for an additional $4.6 billion to complete 

the development effort, held F–35 procurement in fiscal year 2012 at 32 aircraft, 

and reduced procurement by 124 aircraft over the FYDP in the fiscal year 2012 PB. 

This restructure puts the program on solid ground, with realistic development and 

production goals and significant reduction in concurrency. As a result of the fiscal 

year 2012–2016 restructuring, the Air Force F–35A variant has been reduced by 57 

aircraft, and the Department of the Navy F–35 B and C variants have been reduced 

by 67. 

The TBR drove several program changes to lower schedule risk associated with 

testing. The program has adjusted the flight test program to make temporary use 

of 5 LRIP aircraft, in addition to the original 12 planned SDD aircraft. The flight 

science portion of flight test has decoupled the three variants so that they may all 

proceed at their best pace and not impact any of the others. However, the mission 

system avionics (radar, electro optical/infrared sensor, data links, communication 

and navigation) is common for all three variants and is not being decoupled. Development testing of the common mission system and flight sciences for CTOL and CV 

is now scheduled to complete in the first quarter of 2016. The flight science testing 

for STOVL extends into the last quarter of 2016. 

Manufacturing Review Team 

In 2010 the same team of experts that conducted the 2009 Independent Manufacturing Review Team (IMRT) assessment, now under the direction of the F–35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) and referred to as the Manufacturing Review Team 

(MRT), evaluated the contractor’s plans and readiness to manufacture aircraft at 

the production rates outlined in DOD’s program of record. The MRT concluded that 

the contractors could produce the programmed rates if certain process and planning 

improvements, identified previously in their 2009 IMRT report, continued as 

planned. 

The 2010 TBR and the MRT were conducted with full awareness and benefit of 

information contained in the 2008 and 2009 JET reviews, the 2009 Joint Assessment Team review of the Pratt & Whitney engine program, and the 2009 IMRT. 

The 2010 TBR and MRT reviews are the updated assessments of all the previous 

years’ reviews and constitute the combined body of information that contributed to 

program adjustment recommendations to DOD leadership. We believe these changes 

were critical to placing the program on solid ground, and are confident that these 

adjustments will ultimately result in program success. 

STOVL DURABILITY TESTING AND AIRCRAFT CHANGES

Concurrency is a major element of the strategic framework of the program. Calendar year 2011 is an important year for progress. The program is performing flight 

test, delivering its first production aircraft, and performing sustainment of those aircraft. To manage the effects of concurrency, and any schedule and cost impacts, 

there is close attention and tracking of sources of change, and change integration 

to identify and close on overall program performance goals. 

1006 

At this point in the development program, the costlier changes are primarily driven by discovery, in flight test, in static tests, in durability tests, and in line replaceable component qualifications. The TBR took into account the historical rate of 

change, the cost of each change, and the projected rate of change given the extension of the test program. TBR findings have been incorporated into the program’s 

plan for the remainder of the development effort. An example of change driven by 

discovery in the structural test program is the STOVL durability fuselage station 

496 stress cracks. In November 2010, durability testing on the STOVL fatigue test 

article, BH–1, found stress cracks on the Station 496 bulkhead. In LRIP lots 1 

through 4, there are 29 U.S. STOVL aircraft in production flow. Different modifications (a blend, strap modification or new design dimensions) based upon access to 

the target location are required for STOVL aircraft depending on the state of manufacturing of each aircraft. Durability testing will re-commence in October 2011 after 

the fatigue test article is repaired. The delay in durability testing will not impact 

the flight test schedule, and the changes for production are anticipated to be incorporated in the current manufacturing plan and delivery schedule. 

As the test program progresses, the risk of change driven by discovery is reduced. 

It is difficult to predict what discovery will occur in 2011. However, the TBR and 

development test plan contain realistic assumptions of discovery, which have fed 

into realistic assumptions of change and change integration, and their associated 

cost and schedule impacts to the program. 

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING

The development of F–35 mission systems software, a component of the air system 

software, is proceeding according to a schedule adjusted as an outcome of the TBR. 

As a matter of fundamental process discipline, no new software blocks were created, 

no functionality was pushed to later blocks, and no capabilities were removed as a 

result of the TBR. The mission systems Block 1 software has demonstrated stable 

performance in flight test, and will be delivered with LRIP 1, 2, and 3 aircraft. We 

have demonstrated, in the initial Block 1 release to flight test, expected 

functionality of the primary sensors, including radar, electronic warfare, Electro-Optical Targeting System, Distributed Aperture Sensor, and Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Identification. Block 1 maturation will continue through 

2011, with an update this fall to include multi-level security capability. Block 2 software, planned for delivery in LRIP 4 and 5 aircraft, introduces multi-ship network 

functionality, with the first release to flight test planned at the end of 2011. Block 

3 software, having just completed requirements review, will complete the SDD development stream and provide full Operational Requirements Document-compliant 

capabilities. Final Block 3 software is planned to deliver to flight test in 2015, to 

allow completion of the mission system development in August 2016. 

ENGINE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Pratt & Whitney F135 engines have completed in excess of 17,237 hours of testing 

(ground and flight), and more than 965 hours of flight testing on all three variants 

of F–35 aircraft. In addition, the F–35B variants have completed more than 87 

vertical landings to-date. Pratt & Whitney is currently supporting flight test on all 

3 variants at 3 locations and has delivered 13 production F135 CTOL engines and 

8 production STOVL propulsion systems to date. Based on the TBR, the Pratt and 

Whitney contract will be adjusted to support the extended testing required to complete SDD and to resource the resolution of integration issues in development up 

to this point. 

DOD has initiated termination for convenience of the F136 engine. We believe the 

financial risks associated with a single source engine supplier are manageable, and 

are less than the investment required to fund a competitive alternate engine. 

F–35 AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION AND DELIVERIES

The F–35 aircraft manufacturing plan, as adjusted in September 2010, remains 

as the current baseline, and is currently on track as measured by earned hours and 

station flow. The final Air Force CTOL development test aircraft was delivered to 

Edwards AFB in January 2011. There are six CTOL aircraft now at Edwards AFB 

in flight test. Three SDD test aircraft remain to be delivered, one STOVL and two 

CVs. After the delivery of those three aircraft, there will be a total of eight aircraft, 

(five STOVL and three CV) in flight test at Patuxent River by the summer of 2011. 

The original contract delivery dates for the first 3 years of production are all late 

to their original schedules. New delivery dates based upon the September 2010 adjusted manufacturing plan have 16 production aircraft projected for delivery in 

2011. All 16 of these aircraft have their weight on their landing gear in the factory 

1007 

in Fort Worth and are tracking on schedule to the current manufacturing plan. The 

first two production aircraft (both CTOLs) were delivered to Edwards AFB and will 

contribute to flight test as planned. 

The JSF Program Office provides a large number of metrics to Congress on a 

monthly basis. We have increased attention to manufacturing quality metrics including supplier quality, assembly and test. Additionally, we have incorporated oversight into the contractor’s supplier risk management process to ensure timely 

awareness of problems in the supply chain. 

F135 ENGINE PRODUCTION AND DELIVERIES

While timely delivery of the F135 has presented schedule challenges in the past, 

Pratt and Whitney is expected to meet the projected schedule delivery in the near 

future. The first seven 2011 F135 engine deliveries were each 3 weeks late to Lockheed Martin desired need dates. One more will deliver late; however, current projections indicate the remaining year’s engines to make schedule targets. Slightly late 

engine deliveries are not predicted to delay 2011 aircraft deliveries based upon the 

delivery schedule in the September 2010 adjusted manufacturing plan. 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 FIXED-PRICE AIRFRAME CONTRACT

The Government awarded a fixed-price contract on 19 November 2010 to Lockheed Martin Corporation; Lockheed-Martin Aeronautics Company (LM Aero) valued 

at $3,887,418,000 (target price) for the purchase of 30 JSF aircraft for the United 

States, plus 1 for the United Kingdom, and an option for 1 more for the Netherlands. This is the fourth low-rate initial production (LRIP Lot 4) contract, which 

brings the total aircraft procured to 63. 

More specifically, this airframe contract provides for the procurement of 10 CTOL 

for the U.S. Air Force, 1 CTOL aircraft (option) for the Netherlands, 16 STOVL aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, 1 STOVL aircraft for the U.K. Royal Navy, and 4 

CV aircraft for the U.S. Navy. The per-variant price is $111.6 million for CTOL, 

$109.4 million for STOVL, and $142.9 million for CV. In addition, this contract provides for the procurement of associated ancillary mission equipment, flight test instrumentation, and manufacturing support equipment. 

During negotiations, this effort to manufacture and deliver F–35 JSF LRIP Lot 

4 aircraft was converted from a cost-plus-incentive-fee to a fixed-price-incentive-fee 

(firm target) (FPIF) contract. This contract-type conversion occurred 2 years earlier 

than envisioned in the acquisition strategy. 

Any overrun to the target cost will result in an equal sharing of overrun costs 

between the Contractor and the Government up to the ceiling price of the contract. 

Above the ceiling price of the contract, Lockheed Martin bears the burden of all 

costs. Should the contractor under run the target cost, the Government and contractor will share equally in the under run savings. 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 FIXED-PRICE ENGINE CONTRACT

The fiscal year 2010 engine contract was initially awarded via an undefinitized 

contract action (UCA) in July 2010 with Pratt & Whitney at a not-to-exceed value 

of $949 million. The UCA incorporated FPIF terms for the procurement of 32 engines (11 CTOL, 17 STOVL, and 4 CV, including 1 UK STOVL and 1 NL CTOL 

as options) and retained cost plus incentive fee (CPIF) terms for production non-recurring (PNR) tooling and logistics/sustainment efforts. The procurement of PNR 

tooling and logistics/sustainment efforts continued on a CPIF basis since the Government does not currently have sufficient cost data to adequately price and allocate 

risk for a FPIF-type contract. This UCA did not provide coverage for spares since 

delivery timelines were not sufficiently urgent at the time the UCA was executed. 

A preliminary settlement agreement was reached between the Government and 

Pratt & Whitney in February 2011 for the above effort, including the procurement 

of five spares (three CTOL and two STOVL). Contract award occurred on 13 May 

2011. The per-variant price is $14.99 million for CTOL/CV and $32.07 million for 

STOVL. 

Any overrun to the target cost (FPIF effort) will result in an equal sharing of 

overrun costs between the Contractor and the Government up to the ceiling price 

of the contract. Above the ceiling price of the contract, Pratt & Whitney bears the 

burden of all costs. Should the contractor under run the target cost, the Government 

and contractor will share equally in the under run savings. 

1008 

COST PLUS CONTRACTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 F–35 PROCUREMENT APPROPRIATION

In addition to the above-referenced LM Aero Airframe and Pratt & Whitney Engine acquisitions, the F–35 Program Office is currently in negotiations with LM 

Aero for the procurement of logistics/sustainment efforts and PNR tooling. At 

present, the Government does not have sufficient cost data on logistics/sustainment 

or PNR tooling efforts to adequately price and identify risk for a FPIF-type contract. 

As a result, the Government determined that these efforts will continue to be procured under cost reimbursement type contract(s). 

The LRIP Lot 4 F–35 Logistics/Sustainment effort (recurring sustainment support, training, support equipment, and spares) was initiated 16 September 2010 by 

means of a UCA with a NTE value of $511 million. Negotiations for the recurring 

sustainment support, training, support equipment, and spares are anticipated to 

conclude in late May 2011. 

F–35 PNR tooling for lead-time-away procurement to support F–35 production 

ramp rate was initiated via a UCA awarded to LM Aero on 19 July 2010 with a 

NTE value of $820 million. Negotiations for the PNR tooling are anticipated to conclude in late summer 2011. 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 CONTRACTS

The F–35 Program Office has received the LRIP 5 proposal for the fiscal year 

2011 procurement. This proposal was delayed due to uncertainty in the aircraft 

quantity being procured in the absence of a fiscal year 2011 Appropriation Act. Proposal analysis is underway with negotiations expected to conclude by the end of the 

calendar year. 

Similar to fiscal year 2010, the F–35 Program Office will apply the majority of 

fiscal year 2011 procurement dollars to FPIF-type contracts for F–35 aircraft and 

F135 engines. For the reasons cited above, PNR tooling and logistics/sustainment 

efforts will be procured using a cost-reimbursement-type contract. 

SUSTAINMENT FOCUS

One of the key issues facing the department is driving down the overall unit cost 

of the airplane and getting our collective (joint) arms around the sustainment of this 

weapon system. We know that 70 percent of overall life cycle cost is in sustainment 

and the department is examining the major drivers of sustainment cost and aims 

to capitalize on opportunities to reduce cost. DOD is working to provide knowledgeable estimates of the 10 largest cost drivers of sustainment: (1) maintenance 

manhours per flight hour and meantime between repair; (2) establishing a joint 

sustainment system; (3) balancing modern sustainment capabilities with legacy capabilities; (4) striking the right balance of government and contractor capabilities; 

(5) getting the right division of labor in international sustainment capabilities; (6) 

aircraft bed down plans; (7) spares costs; (8) support equipment costs; (9) manpower; 

and (10) training. We are analyzing each of these cost drivers to place a laser focus 

on ultimately fielding an affordable system. 

PEO EVALUATION OF COST, SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE RISK TO THE F–35 PROGRAM

The schedule and resource adjustments to the remaining development program 

create a plan with realism to deliver the required capability. We have confidence 

in the resilience of the plan to absorb further learning and discovery and expect the 

program to stay on track, so long as it remains resourced as recommended by the 

TBR. 

While still early in the year, the pace of testing is increasing flight test hours and 

test point accomplishment at higher rates from January 2011. Concurrency of testing and delivering production aircraft for fleet training operations in 2011 demands 

assessment of the system maturity to enable each Service’s systems command granting air worthiness clearances for unmonitored fleet operations. The test points are 

planned with realistic refly margins to progress in a deliberate way to support this 

maturity assessment. Progress to initial sea trials for STOVL is tracking solidly to 

support operations at sea in October 2011. For each technical issue unique to the 

STOVL model apparent today, there are engineering solutions leading to sound mission performance. Weight will be under closest scrutiny and management attention. 

The four highest development risks on the program risk management board are 

software development concurrency (TBR replan has assessed and extended the 

schedule, and early code writing and lab integration testing performance measures 

are being closely monitored), pilot vehicle interface, STOVL vertical lift bringback 

and Helmet Mounted Display. We have put in place a detailed risk management 

process to address these and all program risks. 

1009 

Production emphasis continues on dependable delivery schedule, quality and 

lower cost. The manufacturing plans will be managed to optimize delivery rates as 

they change due to U.S. and foreign partner procurement adjustments. While not 

a long record, the program has shown the ability to keep a tight manufacturing flow 

for 8 straight months since the last adjustment. Previous manufacturing plans were 

sliding aircraft deliveries by approximately 2 weeks every month. We believe the details are being managed, and span time improvements and margins in place are all 

bringing realism and resilience to improving schedule performance in manufacturing. In-process manufacturing quality metrics are being tracked and illuminating 

the need to improve on a continual improvement basis. The external result of product quality in the fleet’s hands will come into view as production aircraft begin to 

support training later in fall 2011. 

CONCLUSION

The enhanced capability of the F–35 will provide the backbone of the US combat 

air superiority for generations to come. The technological capabilities of the aircraft 

are sound. The program’s management over the past year has put in place the right 

fundamentals and realistic plans using sound systems engineering processes, and 

we are monitoring and tracking performance using detailed metrics. Overall, there 

is much work still ahead of us, but through the multiple reviews and adjustments 

in the past year we believe we have put the program on sound footing for the future. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the F–35 Lightning II program. 

We look forward to answering any questions you have. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Secretary Carter. 

Director Fox. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINE H. FOX, DIRECTOR, COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE 

Ms. FOX. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and distinguished 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss the JSF program. Since I last testified before 

you in March of last year, as you have been hearing, there have 

been many updates to the program. Today I would like to focus on 

three of the most significant ones. 

First, when I testified last year, there was a considerable difference in the cost and schedule estimates between the JPO and 

CAPE. Since then, Dr. Carter has assigned a new Program Director, Vice Admiral Venlet, who directed an in-depth technical baseline review, bringing us much closer in our estimates and adding 

valuable data that better informs the JSF assessments across 

DOD. 

Last year, I told you that we predicted the average cost per aircraft would be somewhere between the JPO estimate at the time 

of $80 million per aircraft in fiscal year 2002 baseline dollars and 

our estimate of $95 million per unit. Our current estimate is approximately $95 million per unit. Our estimate of average cost per 

aircraft has been at this approximate level since 2008 and it continues to hold there. This translates to $113 million per aircraft in 

fiscal year 2011 dollars and, as Senator McCain noted, $103 million 

per aircraft when adjusted for inflation. 

The estimate that continues to change is the estimate for development cost and schedule. As a result of the insights from the 

JPO’s technical baseline review, CAPE now estimates that development will take an additional 1.5 years and cost approximately $4.5 

billion more than we estimated in the spring of 2010. These estimates are in line with the current JPO estimates. 

1010 

As with all of our estimates, it is equally likely that this estimate 

will be too high as too low. We continue to update our estimate as 

we learn more from ongoing testing. 

There are two key drivers behind the increase in development 

cost and schedule. The first is software and mission systems integration. CAPE has long said that software would be a driving factor in the time necessary to complete development. However, we 

underestimated how significant a driver it would be. Software development is proving more difficult than we previously estimated. 

The second reason for the increase in development cost and 

schedule is the Marine Corps’ STOVL variant. The STOVL variant 

accounts for approximately 40 percent of the increase in development costs. This is why Secretary Gates put this variant on probation for 2 years. 

Second, I would like to discuss our estimate of the JSF O&S 

costs. CAPE conducted an extensive independent analysis of the 

O&S costs of the JSF this past year. Experts from the Navy and 

Air Force participated in our effort. Our estimate, while developed 

independently, is consistent with that of JPO. 

Our analysis indicates that the costs to operate and sustain the 

JSF are less than the F–22, about the same as the F–15C/D, but 

more than the F–16 and F–18. Given the significant increase in capability, it is not unreasonable that the JSF costs more to operate 

and sustain than some legacy aircraft. However, the fact that it 

will cost about 33 percent more to operate the JSF relative to the 

F–16 and F–18 aircraft it is replacing gives DOD a significant bill. 

Third, I would like to report on the JSF shortfall. Last year, I 

stated that CAPE would conduct an in-depth study of the JSF 

shortfalls, and working with the Services, we completed that study 

this past year. 

For the Air Force, their engineering analysis showed that the F– 

16s have significantly greater service life than previously estimated, reducing the Air Force’s estimated shortfall to a manageable level. 

The Navy’s aircraft shortfall was of greater concern, and the restructuring of the JSF program increased the magnitude, so additional measures were needed to ensure continued capability for the 

operational fleet. The Navy is addressing the shortfall with several 

management and investment measures to include a fully funded 

service life extension program for approximately 150 F–18 aircraft. 

Additionally, Secretary Gates added 41 F/A–18E/Fs to the President’s 2012 budget request. These aircraft, when combined with 

the additional 9 aircraft added by Congress in 2011, reduce the 

previous shortfall of about 100 aircraft in half. Navy and CAPE assess that the latest shortfall projection is manageable. 

That concludes the updates I have for you today. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fox follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. CHRISTINE H. FOX

Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Since I last testified before you in March of last year, there have 

been many updates to the program. Today I would like to focus on three of the most 

significant updates. 

1011 

First, when I testified last year, there was a considerable difference in the cost 

and schedule estimates between the Joint Program Office and Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation (CAPE). Since then, Dr. Carter has assigned a new Program 

Director, Vice Admiral Venlet, who directed an in-depth technical baseline review. 

This review, conducted by literally hundreds of individuals over a period of 6 

months, has significantly changed the program office estimates and provided indepth information to the entire Department of Defense (DOD) including my office. 

In addition, DOD has developed greater insight into the contractor’s production performance, as initial low rate production lots near completion. As a result, the program office life cycle cost estimate is now consistent with our estimate. 

Last year, I told you that we predicted that the average cost per aircraft would 

be somewhere between the Program Office estimate of $80 million per aircraft in 

fiscal year 2002 dollars and our estimate of $95 million per unit. Our current estimate is approximately $95 million and has been in the low $90s since 2008. This 

translates to $113 million per aircraft in fiscal year 2011 dollars. 

The estimates that continue to change are for development cost and schedule. As 

a result of the insights from the Program Office’s technical baseline review, CAPE 

now estimates that development will take an additional 11⁄2 years and cost approximately $4.5 billion more than we estimated in the spring of 2010. These estimates 

are in line with the current Program Office estimates and are funded in the PB12 

Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

There are two key drivers behind the increase in development cost and schedule. 

The first is software and mission systems integration. CAPE has long said that software would be a driving factor in the time necessary to complete development; however, we underestimated how significant a driver it would be. The F–35 is a sophisticated aircraft with many new mission systems that require integration. The software necessary to seamlessly integrate these systems is taking longer to develop 

than previously estimated. 

Another reason for the increase in development cost and schedule is the Marine 

Corps’ Short Takeoff and Landing (STOVL) variant. The STOVL variant accounts 

for approximately 40 percent of the increase in development costs. This is why Secretary Gates put this variant on ‘‘probation’’ for 2 years. 

Second, I would like to discuss our estimate of the JSF operating and support 

costs. CAPE conducted an extensive independent analysis of the operation and 

sustainment costs of JSF this past year. Experts from the Navy and Air Force participated in our effort. Our estimate, while developed independently, is consistent 

with that of the Program Office. 

Our analysis indicates that the costs to operate and sustain the JSF are less than 

the F–22, about the same as the F–15C/D, and more than the F–16 and F–18. Given 

the significant increase in capability, it is not unreasonable that JSF costs more to 

operate and sustain than some legacy aircraft. However, the fact that it will cost 

about 33 percent more per flight hour to operate JSF relative to the F–16 and F– 

18 aircraft it is replacing gives the department a significant bill. CAPE is engaged 

in supporting Dr. Carter and the Program Office in their efforts to get these operating and support costs down before the aircraft are fielded in numbers. 

Third, I would like to report on the strike-fighter shortfall. Last year I stated that 

CAPE would conduct an in-depth study of the strike-fighter shortfall. Working with 

the services, we completed that study this past year. For the Air Force, their engineering analysis showed that the F–16s in particular have significantly greater 

service life than previously estimated. The net result of the F–35 procurement ramp 

associated with the 2012 President’s budget and the most recent projections of legacy aircraft lifespan drop the Air Force shortfall down to between 40 and 100 aircraft as we reported in the 30-year aviation plan. This shortfall is relative to a 2,000 

plane inventory total. Air Force and CAPE agree that this shortfall is manageable. 

The Department of Navy’s aircraft shortfall was of greater concern, and the restructuring of the JSF program increased the magnitude, so additional measures 

were needed to ensure continued capability for the operational fleet. The Department of Navy is addressing the shortfall with several management and investment 

measures to include a fully funded service life extension program for approximately 

150 F/A–18 aircraft. While these management measures help address the shortfall, 

we judged that they would not be sufficient so Secretary Gates added 41 F/A–18 E/ 

Fs to the PB 2012 FYDP. These aircraft, combined with the additional 9 aircraft 

added by the Congress in 2011 reduce the previous shortfall of 100 aircraft about 

in half. Navy assesses and CAPE agrees that the latest shortfall projection is manageable. 

That concludes the updates I have for you today. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. 

1012 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Ms. Fox. 

Now we will have Director Gilmore. Dr. Gilmore. 

STATEMENT OF HON. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. GILMORE. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the 

committee, the two restructuring efforts that have already been referenced, the one leading up to the Nunn-McCurdy certification that 

added about 13 months to the program and additional aircraft and 

some additional flight test points and flight test hours, as well as 

the restructuring that is still ongoing that Admiral Venlet is conducting as part of his technical baseline review which will probably 

yield another 16 to 18 months’ extension in the program, have, in 

my view, yielded a realistic program for completion of the development of the JSF. 

Why do I say that? One key reason is that the test program now, 

both for flight sciences testing and mission systems testing, is consistent with our historical experience, including the inevitable discoveries that occur and have already occurred when testing aircraft 

as complex as the three variants of the JSF. 

The recent rate at which flight tests have been conducted is exceeding the technical baseline review plan somewhat, and that is 

good news. That pace is still less than had been projected previously. Those previous plans were not credible. 

Then I would note also that there are difficulties. In particular, 

even though the pace of flight testing, the number of flight tests 

that are conducted per month per aircraft are somewhat above the 

plan, the achievement of mission systems test points are still lagging somewhat. That is not a surprise because mission systems 

testing in all these aircraft is a challenge. 

Although good progress is being made in the program, there are 

many challenges that remain. For example, flight testing at high 

angle of attack at high speed between Mach 1.2 and Mach 1.6 and 

at low altitude and transonic speeds. The problems that have been 

occurring in the transonic regime, all those flight test regimes are 

not well-predicted by modeling and could yield to additional discoveries. 

Weapons integration, in particular, multiple releases from both 

the aircraft’s bays, could yield discoveries. 

Flights with heavy external stores have yet to be done and could 

reveal additional structural issues. We hope not, but it is possible. 

Continued durability testing of the aircraft’s structure must be 

done. It was stopped at 2,000 hours of an 8,000-hour life because 

problems were discovered in some of the structures. It will resume 

shortly. 

Then, of course, as I already mentioned, mission systems integration and testing, which is already a challenge, will only grow more 

complex because the very complex warfighting capabilities are yet 

to come and will be introduced particularly in Block 3 of the software and currently we are in Block 1. 

My concerns for conducting Initial OT&E include the following. 

Assuring that 18 aircraft are available, incorporating all modifications that are going to be needed to make them fully producVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01018 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1013 

tion-representative, there are going to be modifications needed as 

a result of the discoveries that have already been made. We need 

to make certain that all those modifications are incorporated in the 

aircraft used for operational testing. 

Weapons certification has to be accomplished in a timely manner, 

enabling operationally realistic employment during operational 

testing. 

We have to have full air vehicle clearance for all three variants 

throughout the flight envelope. 

We have to have a fully accredited verification simulation. 

Again, we have to have timely completion of mission systems 

testing and subsequent testing of something called a full mission 

data load which will actually be done in the run-up to operational 

testing after a lot of the contractor work has been completed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilmore follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Joint 

Strike Fighter (JSF) program. 

TECHNICAL BASELINE REVIEW AND REPLANNING FLIGHT TEST

The Technical Baseline Review (TBR), which began approximately a year ago, recommended changes to mission systems development, as well as to developmental 

flight test plans and resources that yield a realistic and credible program for completion of the system design and development (SDD) phase of the program. The 

schedule developed during the TBR extends the SDD phase about 16 months beyond 

the end-date used during the Nunn-McCurdy certification of JSF. Three reasons underlie this extension: 

• More flight test sorties, including re-fly and regression sorties, were needed; the current number of sorties is consistent with historical experience. 

• The short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft had proven to be 

more complex than assumed previously and its performance was different 

than pre-test predictions. 

• Progress in developing and integrating mission systems software was less 

than previously understood, requiring more time and effort. 

A final flight test schedule that incorporates the TBR recommendations is being 

developed; I expect it to be completed by late July. I will be working with the operational test agencies and the program office to adjust plans for conducting operational testing accordingly. For example, because the three different JSF variants 

will complete developmental flight testing on different schedules, operational testing 

of all three variants conducted simultaneously will probably no longer occur. Currently, I expect an operational assessment of aircraft with Block 2 mission systems 

capabilities to begin early in 2015, and initial operational test and evaluation of aircraft with the final set of Block 3 mission systems capabilities to begin during 

spring 2017. There are a number of prerequisites to conducting operational testing, 

including that development of all Block 3 capabilities is complete and they are certified for use by operational pilots, that all airworthiness certifications are complete, 

and a full mission data load is available. 

FLIGHT SCIENCES PROGRESS

Over the last 6 months, four more flight test aircraft have been ferried to the test 

centers and flight rates have improved for the STOVL and conventional takeoff and 

landing (CTOL) aircraft. An additional three flight test aircraft, expected to be delivered by the end of last month, had not been delivered as of 11 May, but are expected 

to arrive at the flight test centers soon. 

STOVL Flight Test 

The STOVL variant flight rate has improved from an average of approximately 

four sorties per aircraft per month to approximately eight sorties per aircraft per 

month against a plan of five sorties per aircraft per month. The test team has acVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01019 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1014 

complished STOVL mode testing on four test aircraft, an improvement over the single aircraft available for this testing last year. This has resulted in a significant increase in the amount of STOVL mode flight testing. Completing needed modifications to test aircraft (e.g., stronger STOVL auxiliary air inlet doors), adding test aircraft, increased staffing at the flight test center, an increase in the envelope available for flight test, and improvements to parts supply and maintainability have contributed to this improvement in the pace of flight testing. The test team has accomplished nearly all of the vertical landings and short takeoffs needed in preparation 

for amphibious ship integration trials planned later this year, as well as for the 

start of STOVL pilot training at the training center early next year. 

Conventional Takeoff and Landing Flight Test 

The flight rate of CTOL test aircraft continues ahead of the post-TBR planned 

rate. In the last 2 months, the 3 flight sciences test aircraft have averaged approximately 11 sorties per month against a plan of 9 sorties per aircraft per month. Increased staffing and logistics support have enabled this higher flight rate to be 

achieved. 

Carrier Variant Flight Test 

The single carrier variant (CV) aircraft at the flight test center continues to fly 

at about the planned pace. A second CV flight sciences aircraft, which is the final 

remaining SDD flight sciences test asset, has completed its first flight at the contractor facility in Fort Worth, TX. Flight sciences testing of the CV aircraft is in 

the very early stages of flight envelope expansion. 

Constraints on available flight sciences test points have, however, begun to challenge the program. The ability to open the available flight envelope and make productive use of the achievable pace of flight testing is dependent on completing analysis and/or modifications required to relieve aircraft operating limitations (e.g., 

clearance to fly in conditions causing greater structural loads and at higher maximum speed), incorporating additional instrumentation, incorporating design 

changes, and making changes to control laws. 

PROGRESS ON DISCOVERIES IN FLIGHT SCIENCES AND DURABILITY TESTING

The program continues to address previous flight sciences test discoveries of undesirable handling characteristics and higher than predicted structural loads in the 

CTOL and STOVL aircraft. Flight test results during transonic flight and maneuvers with elevated g-forces have resulted in the need to change control laws in the 

vehicle systems software to address undesirable roll-off, side-slip, and yawing. Flying qualities in the CTOL aircraft at medium altitudes have improved with these 

changes. More flight test and analyses are needed to characterize and resolve these 

problems in the STOVL aircraft, which experiences more severe undesirable handling qualities in a greater area of the transonic envelope than the CTOL aircraft. 

A risk exists that software modifications to control laws may be insufficient to improve the handling characteristics of the STOVL aircraft, in which case mechanical 

fixes (e.g., a spoiler system) could be needed. The program is working to develop 

operationally relevant criteria with which to make final assessments of the efficacy 

of the software changes to control laws that are possible before examining hardware 

modifications to the aircraft. The structural loads on the vertical tail fins of both 

the CTOL and STOVL aircraft, which stem from the side-slip control problem, are 

higher than predicted and require further analysis. Testing in lower altitude flight 

operations, of weapons integration, and in high angle of attack environments has 

yet to be done for any variant and may result in new discoveries. 

The program also continues to make progress in addressing problems with STOVL 

aircraft components that enable vertical lift operations. The roll post nozzle actuator, lift fan clutch and clutch housing, and lift fan driveshaft are being redesigned. 

The current designs meet the original design specifications, which have proven to 

be insufficient and can impose limitations on flight operations. The test team is able 

to safely conduct flight test and STOVL mode operations using flight monitoring 

systems in SDD test aircraft. The program is adding thermal blankets and better 

potting material in early low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft to the roll post 

nozzle actuator components to handle greater than anticipated heat experienced inside the roll post nozzle bay below 60 knots; and has started a nozzle actuator component redesign effort to enable the nozzle to withstand higher temperatures. The 

program is adding driveshaft spacers in early LRIP aircraft to compensate for the 

unanticipated expansion and contraction of the shaft during flight while a new shaft 

design is being developed for cut-in to later production. Higher than expected drag 

on the lift fan clutch during CTOL mode flight heats the clutch to unacceptable levels that affect the ability to transition to STOVL modes for landing. The program 

1015 

is adding a temperature sensor to the clutch housing so that the pilot can monitor 

and be aware of increasing temperature inside the clutch housing. Pilot procedures 

in response to high clutch temperatures are being developed for flight test, training, 

and operational scenarios. The clutch may be cooled by changing flight regimes (e.g. 

lowering the landing gear, changing altitude and airspeed), before engaging STOVL 

modes, fuel and operational conditions permitting. Modifications to the STOVL aircraft auxiliary air inlet doors to address higher than predicted loads and dynamic 

conditions in SDD test aircraft enabled the pace of vertical lift operations in flight 

test to be increased. Retrofit and redesign changes are planned to auxiliary air inlet 

doors on production aircraft. 

As mentioned above, the test team is able to safely conduct flight test and vertical 

lift operations using flight monitoring systems installed in the STOVL SDD test aircraft. However, these problems must be corrected in aircraft that are to be used for 

training and operational testing because those aircraft will not be monitored inflight. The schedule for implementing these corrections is currently driven by the 

planned dates for initiating CTOL-only mode training operations in early 2012, as 

well as unmonitored STOVL mode flights, which may potentially be needed as soon 

as late 2012 if the ability to conduct unmonitored flights is desired commensurate 

with the delivery to the Marine Corps at Yuma, AZ, of STOVL aircraft from the 

fourth LRIP lot. If testing of the changes is not complete by late 2012, aircraft at 

Yuma, which will have limited capability, will fly in CTOL mode only. 

Late last year, fatigue cracks occurred in a wing carry-through bulkhead on the 

STOVL durability test article after approximately 1,500 hours of test. Root cause 

analysis showed that high stress concentrations occurred at the location of the 

cracks; those concentrations were not predicted by the finite element modeling that 

had been conducted. The CTOL and STOVL durability test articles, SDD flight test 

aircraft, and early production aircraft will be modified according to a retrofit plan 

that includes blending edges in the areas where the stresses are concentrated and 

adding structural ‘‘straps’’ to strengthen the bulkhead. A redesigned bulkhead will 

be incorporated in later production aircraft. The STOVL durability test article will 

be modified with both the retrofit and the redesigned parts and is expected to resume durability testing late this year or early in 2012. The CTOL durability test 

article may re-enter testing as early as next month. However, the bulkhead problem 

generated a thorough review by the program office of the durability of the design 

for all three variants. This effort identified additional candidates for modifications 

to assure aircraft are durable through at least two structural fatigue lives (16,000 

hours). For example, a wing root rib in the CTOL variant was identified as needing 

a re-design. Early LRIP CTOL aircraft will require retrofit of modifications of this 

structure and a re-designed component will be incorporated into later production 

aircraft. 

MISSION SYSTEMS

Mission systems development and flight test plans were restructured as a result 

of the TBR. Block 0.5, the first mission systems software version, began flight test 

in mid-2010. Though more stable than initial versions of the mission systems software released in the F–22 program, Block 0.5 experienced too many problems to 

complete its assigned flight test objectives. Fixes for the problems discovered with 

Block 0.5 were subsequently incorporated into an initial Block 1 software version 

which began flight testing early this year. Block 1 flight test execution and integration of final software elements is slightly behind the current post-TBR plan. Efforts 

in the last 6 months have focused on completing the regression testing generated 

last year by problems discovered with Block 0.5 and supporting the fielding of a portion of the Block 1 capability needed to begin initial pilot training later this year. 

Approximately 40 percent of original Block 1 test points have been deferred to the 

next block, Block 2, because of aircraft limitations in the Block 1 configuration. I 

estimate there is likely to be at least a 1-month to 2-month delay in completing 

flight testing of the remaining available Block 1 capability, which is currently 

planned to conclude in October of this year. The potential exists for a further delay 

because in order to meet this year’s goals, flight test productivity must be significantly greater in terms of mission systems flight rate and test point completion than 

has been the case during the last year of mission systems flight testing. The addition of the first two LRIP production aircraft, AF–6 and AF–7, to the SDD test fleet 

will be helpful, but before these aircraft can contribute to missions systems flight 

testing, they must be loaded with the latest Block 1 software and then participate 

in a maturity demonstration needed to support the beginning of pilot training later 

this year. The maturity demonstration is required to assure CTOL production airVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01021 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1016 

craft can be flown safely without control room monitoring, as will be the case during 

training and operational testing. 

The development and integration teams are essentially on the TBR-adjusted 

timeline for releasing the first Block 2 capability to flight test in November of this 

year. Testing will be done initially of software incorporating about one-half of the 

full set of capabilities planned for Block 2. The deferred Block 1 test points will also 

have to be flown. Block 2 integration and flight test is planned to complete in late 

2013. Block 3 development and integration is in an early stage; it is slightly lagging 

planned levels of completion by 10–15 percent, and is planned to continue until mid2015. Producing and integrating the software that provides the complex capabilities 

in these later blocks of mission systems will be a substantial challenge. 

Successful development of the Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) presents 

one of the more significant challenges to providing combat capability. It is integral 

to the F–35 mission systems architecture and the concept of operations—it displays 

key aircraft handling/performance information as well as tactical situational awareness and weapons employment information on the pilot’s helmet visor. In the F–35, 

the HMDS replaces the conventional heads-up display (HUD) found in other fighter 

aircraft. Problems include integration of the night vision capability, symbology jitter, 

and latency. These stem in turn from problems with camera hardware, insufficient 

computer processing power, inaccurate head position tracking, and poor helmet fit, 

complicated by vibration-inducing airframe buffet experienced at high angles-of-attack in some dynamic maneuvering regimes. The program is pursuing a dual path 

to resolve the technical issues and provide a system that will enable flight test to 

proceed and meet operational mission needs. One path is to complete development 

of the original HMDS system by the end of SDD Block 3. The alternate path is to 

integrate a technically mature, existing helmet mounted display system that addresses the symbology stability issues that have been discovered, but requires an 

additional night vision system (such as existing night vision goggles) to provide 

night combat capability. As a further risk reduction strategy, the program continues 

to investigate the possible incorporation of a conventional HUD, should some of the 

current problems prove to be unsolvable with either the original HMDS or an alternate helmet. If a HUD is, in fact, required, this would involve significant modifications to the current cockpit design. 

MODELING AND SIMULATION—VERIFICATION SIMULATION

The program has continued planning of validation efforts for F–35 modeling, development of the virtual battlespace environment, and integration of the two into 

one simulation intended for integrated test and evaluation. Several staff members 

were added over the last several months to the verification simulation (VSIM) 

verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A) management team. More work is 

needed to determine the adequacy of the current VSIM VV&A effort, with regard 

to manpower, integration with the lab and flight testing programs, and timing of 

verification and validation efforts with respect to the points in the program where 

the different components of VSIM need to be accredited for use. Although the VSIM 

VV&A management team may now be adequately manned, the detailed analytical 

work of model validation will have to be performed by experts in the individual subsystems and subsystem models, and the program has yet to clearly identify the 

manpower and other resources required to perform this detailed analysis. Furthermore, robust model validation is based on comparison of model performance with 

lab and flight test results. The program has only begun the process of matching validation data requirements to test events that can provide the required data. The upcoming integrated master schedule needs to assure that adequate time is allotted 

for the correction of model deficiencies identified in the validation process, including 

the required turnaround time for deficiency identification and correction, between 

the collection of data to analyze given models and dates at which fully validated 

versions models are required for use. 

MODELING AND SIMULATION—OTHER MODELS AND CORPORATE LABS

The program’s latest modeling and simulation accreditation planning indicates a 

total of 34 models and virtual laboratories (including VSIM) for use as test venues 

in developmental testing need to be accredited. The program had originally planned 

to accredit 11 models by the end of fiscal year 2010, but delays and the current 

replan are moving most of those accreditations to completion at later times, with 

a new schedule awaiting the replan results. Three accreditations have been completed so far. The need dates for model accreditation are, in many cases, tied to delivery dates for capabilities in the jet. That is, as mission capabilities shift from one 

configuration block to another, the dates at which the capabilities will be verified 

1017 

move accordingly; likewise the dates at which the models used in verifying those 

capabilities need to be accredited. In other words, the schedule for modeling and 

simulation accreditation is currently dynamic, and will remain so until the schedules for delivering capability to which accreditation is tied have stabilized. 

PROPULSION TESTING

Ground testing for production qualification is completed for the F135 STOVL propulsion system, and CTOL ground testing is planned to complete in July. Flight test 

of the production-representative F135 initial service release (ISR) engine has continued in all three variants and is making progress consistent with the post-TBR 

plans: STOVL ISR flight test has accomplished approximately 25 percent of the 

total SDD test points required; CTOL flight test has completed approximately 33 

percent of the total test points required; and CV flight test has completed approximately 27 percent of ISR test points. Two CTOL flight sciences test aircraft engines 

have been modified to correct the engine afterburner ‘‘screech’’ problem that was reported last year. Engine afterburner screech did not slow flight test. A small number of test points were attempted last year and could not be achieved due to the 

screech-driven limitation. Flight test planners deferred testing in the regimes where 

screech limits operations, and have instead been conducting other testing—essentially re-sequencing test events. One of the recently modified CTOL test aircraft has 

flown test points in the regime that could not be sustained last year due to screech 

and was able to achieve the desired test conditions. Continued flight test will determine the efficacy of the modifications to the engine made to correct screech. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Gilmore. 

Do you want to add anything here, Mr. Van Buren? The statement included your remarks, but would you like to add anything? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. VAN BUREN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION 

Mr. VAN BUREN. I would, Senator. Very short comments. 

Thank you very much, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member 

McCain, and other distinguished members of the committee. 

I would like to start by echoing the sentiment of Dr. Carter’s testimony in that our visibility into the program has become much 

clearer in the past year. 

Since April 2009, I have been the Service Acquisition Executive 

for the JSF program. Upon taking on that new responsibility, I observed a significant and unpredicted amount of changed traffic 

growth that occurred in the first half of 2009. This changed traffic 

was primarily in the subsystems hardware elements of the aircraft, 

such as line replaceable unit redesign, tubing, and wiring. This affected the ability of the prime contractor to ensure that all major 

sections of the aircraft, whether built by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or BAE Systems, seamlessly fit together. 

Because of the volume of this changed traffic, it was impossible 

to truly predict the overall impact to the delivery schedule of the 

flight test aircraft and early LRIP production deliveries. These 

changes were not driven by JPO scope increase, but rather by design and build execution. As a result, late deliveries of the jets delayed the flight test program and early LRIP deliveries were impacted by out-of-station work, late parts, and general inefficiency 

in the production line. As Senator McCain notes, this created an 

overrun condition to production lots 1, 2, and 3. 

The good news is that the change traffic disruption and inefficiency are coming down now. The manufacturing leadership in Fort 

Worth is now executing to a production schedule that they can 

1018 

commit to. I must say, however, that this is a delivery schedule 

that delivers jets at a rate of 1 to 1.5 per month for 2011. 

The next step in this production maturity is to achieve a steady 

production rate of 4 aircraft per month, which I believe can occur 

in 2013. This will require continued further improvements in section build span times, subcontractor performance, and other various efficiencies. It will also require a continued reduction in 

change without major discovery issues of flight or structural tests 

that impact the configuration. 

We in DOD leadership, as you noted, came to the conclusion in 

very early 2010 that the LRIP contract should be a fixed-price incentive contract based on JPO and contractor assessment of risk. 

We successfully negotiated this fourth production contract significantly under the CAPE independent cost estimate (ICE), which is 

our job. We are now working with the contractor team on a shouldcost of LRIP 5 to continue this drive for affordability. 

Much is always made of the detailed measurement of manufacturing labor efficiency or learning on the production line and how 

it impacts overall program cost. In the case of LRIP 5, the Fort 

Worth manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly labor cost portion 

is less than 1.5 percent of the overall proposed aircraft price. 

Therefore, the proper emphasis of our should-cost team will be to 

evaluate labor, support labor, material, subcontracted equipment, 

and all elements of overhead costs. The focus of our affordability 

effort is to maximize the percentage of manufacturing cost, the 

overall delivery price, to minimize sustaining support labor cost, 

and minimize the period of performance for each production lot 

build. 

In summary, we have great confidence that the technical baseline review has addressed program risk in detail. While the production line has become more stable, significantly increased delivery 

rate execution has yet to be proven. In fact, during the LRIP 4 negotiations last year, deliveries moved to the right by 8 months on 

that contract. I can assure you that DOD has detailed oversight of 

execution to ensure that the program plan by profile is aligned 

with the industry’s team ability to manufacture and deliver aircraft. In the same light, we strive to achieve the most affordable 

JSF on a daily basis for our warfighters and the taxpayers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Buren. 

Let us try an 8-minute first round. 

You indicated, Secretary Carter, that there has been a significant 

increase just in this 1 year in the estimate for completing the development and demonstration program, the SDD. The total cost of 

development I believe now is going to be over $50 billion, just on 

development. There is a $4 billion increase in the estimate to complete it just in this last year, and you have explained the reasons 

for that. 

Secretary Gates last year announced that you have asked Lockheed Martin to share in some of the cost increases in SDD that 

now the independent reviews are predicting for this F–35 program. 

Has Lockheed agreed to share in these cost increases? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes. Agreed is not exactly the right word. When it 

comes to an award fee in a contract of this kind, the award fee is 

1019 

really in our hands. Last year, at the Secretary’s direction, we removed an award fee that was awardable to Lockheed Martin and 

just took it away. This year, we said here are some targets which, 

if you achieve each of these targets, you will get a portion of the 

award fee. Lockheed Martin hit just a few of those targets and 

therefore received a very small fraction of their possible award fee. 

Chairman LEVIN. Before you go any further, can you tell us for 

the record, each of those award fees, what they could have earned 

and what they were awarded? 

Dr. CARTER. I would be happy to do that. In fact, I can give you 

that data throughout the lifetime of the SDD. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

[Deleted.] 

Chairman LEVIN. Some of those have already been reached or 

not reached. Right? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes. The reality is this year they reached hardly any 

of them. 

Chairman LEVIN. Before you continue, is that part of the $4 billion increase? 

Dr. CARTER. No. There is no award fee in the increase. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is that part of the estimated $13 billion to complete the SDD? Are those award fees included in that? 

Dr. CARTER. They are. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now you wanted to go forward. 

Dr. CARTER. Yes. What I am saying is you have the numbers exactly right. $9.2 billion was our estimate for how much it would 

cost to complete development. We added $4.6 billion to that. That 

is almost exactly a 50 percent increase. That is additional cost that 

we think is realistic that we will have to incur. We are not adding 

an award fee to that because, needless to say, we are not pleased 

to have to pay the extra money in the first place. 

Chairman LEVIN. If those award fees are given, will that increase 

that $9 billion? 

Dr. CARTER. No. It is included within. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. Keep going. 

Dr. CARTER. When you get to LRIP, the early LRIP contracts 

were cost-plus contracts. As I said, starting with LRIP 4, with an 

eye to instilling discipline, we insisted on a fixed-price incentive 

contract. 

Fixed-price is good discipline for both us and for contractors who 

work for us because we have to be able to specify exactly what we 

want. That is good discipline on us. They have to be able to specify 

a price, which means they need to have control over their processes 

and their suppliers. That is good discipline for them. The earlier 

we can get into that kind of discipline in production, the better. 

LRIP 4 was early to do that but we wanted to force the issue and 

we did. We negotiated the LRIP 4 contract last year, as Dave indicated, at a price that was lower than CAPE had estimated, and 

that was good news. 

We are now entering into the negotiations for LRIP 5. That too 

will be a fixed-price incentive contract. 

The way that works is good discipline again for both the government and the contractor. Every dollar of underrun is shared. That 

1020 

is an incentive to the contractor. They get a piece of every dollar 

that is underrun; and every dollar that is overrun, they have to pay 

part of. 

Chairman LEVIN. Going back to those award fees just for one moment. You say that is something that is not technically an agreement. That is something that you will award if they reach a certain 

target. Were targets changed since your last testimony? 

Dr. CARTER. No. They were the ones that we established a year 

ago for this past year, and we set them up like a slalom course. 

I said, they only got through a few of the gates. 

Chairman LEVIN. There has really been no change in that since 

the testimony. 

Dr. CARTER. Correct. 

Chairman LEVIN. Then how are they sharing in cost increases? 

In other words, Secretary Gates said you are going to ask Lockheed 

to share in the cost increases. There has been no change in the 

award fee system since he said that he would ask Lockheed. There 

has not been a cost-plus contract but the kind of contract going forward for the LRIP 4 that you just described. But where are they 

sharing in the cost increases? 

Dr. CARTER. In the SDD phase, the SDD contract, the extant contract, contains only award fee. It does not have a provision otherwise for cost sharing. We shoulder the entirety of that cost growth, 

and they lose the award fee part. 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes, but my point is here that there has been 

really no change in the award fee system since then. 

Dr. CARTER. That is correct for the SDD, because that contract 

was already negotiated many years ago. 

Chairman LEVIN. Have you requested Lockheed to share in the 

cost increases here in a way that they have not agreed? 

Dr. CARTER. No. I think that, obviously, they have sacrificed considerable award fee in SDD. They will be on a share line in LRIP. 

Chairman LEVIN. They have not sacrificed. They have not met a 

target which had been previously set. That is not a sacrifice. That 

is not a change. That is something that they had agreed to. 

Dr. CARTER. It was an award fee that was—— 

Chairman LEVIN. It was a system they had agreed to. They did 

not meet the award. 

Dr. CARTER. That is correct. 

Chairman LEVIN. What I am looking for is where are we going 

to get some savings from Lockheed here. Where are they going to 

share in this big headache that you folks clearly have and you are 

trying to solve? What is their piece of the solution? 

Dr. CARTER. The most important piece of the solution right now 

for them and the others who work for us on the JSF program is 

going to be in the should-cost for production. Dave Van Buren indicated some of the drivers of cost. He gave you a number, which is 

worth focusing on, that the actual assembly at Fort Worth is a very 

small fraction of the overall bill. What is the rest of the bill for? 

Just like you go out to dinner and you get the bill after dinner and 

you want to say, ‘‘well, why did I pay this much for a side of broccoli? I did not realize if I ordered another iced tea, I had to pay 

twice,’’ and so forth. We are going through the bill that way with 

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems so that 

1021 

we are only going to be paying costs that we understand and are 

willing to justify. Where they have grown in the last 10 years, we 

are going to ask ourselves why is it larger than it was 10 years ago 

and what can we do to begin to drive it back to where it was when 

the program started. That is the short should-cost exercise, and we 

will do that both for production and for sustainment. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Carter, I would like to begin by saying I appreciate the 

outstanding work that you are doing. Your work has been exemplary, and a great example of that is the process you went through 

in the awarding of the tanker process. I do not think anybody could 

complain that the bidding and award for the tanker was not a fair, 

open, and transparent process. I thank you for the good work that 

you are doing. 

Obviously, all of us are deeply disturbed about the progress—or 

lack of progress—and these incredible cost overruns that we have 

been experiencing. To start with, as briefly as possible because I 

do not have a lot of time, what happened? 

Dr. CARTER. A couple of things happened over the last 10 years. 

You try to ask oneself why we have the numbers that you gave, 

which showed a doubling in our forecasts for the cost of the airplane. I would say two things. 

First, in the decade of ever increasing defense budgets which we 

have just enjoyed, it was always possible for our managers, when 

they ran into a technical problem or a difficult choice, to reach for 

more money. The money was available in the decade after September 11. It is natural that some fat crept into all of our activities 

over that period. It is identifying that and beginning to work that 

out, that is what should-cost is all about. 

Second, the thing that happened that is specific to the JSF is 

that it was, because of its novelty and its joint nature, put in an 

organization, the JPO, separate from the Navy’s normal Naval Air 

Systems Command (NAVAIR) and the Air Force’s normal Aeronautical Systems Center, centers of expertise, in order to allow it 

to be new, novel, and joint. That was probably a good decision at 

the time, but 10 years later, I think we had overdone that. 

One of the things that Admiral Venlet and Dave Van Buren are 

doing now is restoring to the program the technical expertise resident at Pax River, Dayton, and elsewhere. Infusing this program 

office with it so that the government side of the program is strong. 

I told you I did not have good management information a year ago 

because the program office was not strong. It did not have our very 

best people looking at this airplane, and all of our information 

came from the performers of the work and not from us. That went 

on for a long time in the JSF program, and the JPO was not as 

strong technically as it should have been. 

Those are the two causative factors. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you for that explanation. 

I am sure you understand the frustration that members of this 

committee feel. We have received testimony after testimony over 

the 10-year period that you are describing. Things were going pretty well, that we were pretty well on track, that yes, there were 

1022 

some cost overruns. In all candor, we had to rely to some degree 

on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for the facts, and 

many of us—or at least some of us—saw this train wreck coming, 

which has led me to your comment. Is this accurate from what you 

said? Right now it is not an affordable program and the 

sustainment costs are not affordable. Is that correct? 

Dr. CARTER. That is correct. If we live the estimates, we cannot 

afford to pay that much. I do not think we have to live those estimates, and our objective is to make sure that those estimates do 

not come true and that we do have an affordable program. 

Senator MCCAIN. It seems to me we have to start at least considering alternatives. If the situation right now is not acceptable, we 

have to do two things, it seems to me: make it acceptable but also 

think of alternatives if we cannot do that. 

Dr. Gilmore, did I hear you say the previous plans under your 

area of supervision were not credible? 

Dr. GILMORE. First, I advise on developmental testing. My focus 

is operational testing. I am not actually responsible for planning 

the program. 

What I did do, when I first took office, is take a look at the planning factors that were being used. For example, there are planning 

factors for reflying sorties, test sorties, when you do not get all the 

information that you originally hoped you would get when you fly 

a sortie in the test aircraft. There are planning factors for what are 

called regression sorties. That is, you have made a change to the 

aircraft. For example, they are making changes in the flight control 

system now in order to deal with something called transonic wing 

roll-off, which is an unexpected loss of lift on one wing in the transonic regime where models cannot predict very well what the chaotic air flow is. You make a change to the flight control system software. You want to go back and refly previous points you have already flown to make sure you understand the behavior of the aircraft. That is a regression sortie. 

The original planning factors for refly and regression were 15 

percent and 20 percent, 15 percent for refly and 20 percent for regression. Now we stand, as a result of the technical baseline review, at 35 percent and 66 percent. That is one of the reasons that 

we now have 14,000 hours in the flight test program as opposed 

to 8,000 hours before all of the restructuring. 

That is just one example of assumptions that were made that 

were clearly out of line with our experience with programs like the 

F–18E/F and the F–22. You want to be somewhat aggressive. You 

do not want to put yourself in a position of repeating mistakes that 

were made before, assuming that you will repeat those mistakes. 

You can see that those planning factors were well out of line with 

historical experience. 

Senator MCCAIN. It is too bad that we cannot, Mr. Chairman, 

ask those people who made these estimates and made assumptions 

before this committee to explain that. That would probably be a 

waste of time. 

According to the GAO, software providing essential JSF capability is not mature and releases to the test program are behind 

schedule. Is that true, Ms. Fox? 

1023 

Ms. FOX. That is our understanding, sir. The software is behind, 

yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. What do we do? 

Ms. FOX. Sir, I do not have an answer for what we do. We are 

tracking it. I know that the program office is on it. The software 

development is proving to be much more difficult, as I said, even 

than CAPE estimated originally. 

Dr. GILMORE. Senator, Ms. Fox already mentioned one of the reasons that the software is behind schedule. It is a hard job to develop all this mission systems software. The mission systems software by source lines of code in JSF is going to be between two and 

three times the number of source lines of code in the F–22. This 

is a very complex job. We are just beginning. 

One of the reasons that the achievement of mission systems 

flight test test points is behind schedule is because we have one 

dedicated mission systems flight test aircraft. Two or three of the 

other aircraft can do mission systems testing, but a couple of those 

aircraft are STOVL aircraft and right now they are being used primarily for STOVL flight sciences testing. There are two additional 

Air Force variant aircraft that have just been delivered that can do 

mission systems testing, but they are not going to be able to start 

doing that for about 4 months because they are going to be used 

to do what is called a maturity demonstration in order to enable 

training to start using unmonitored flights later this year down at 

Eglin. 

The problem is we only have one dedicated mission systems 

flight test aircraft. In another 4 or 5 months, we will have three, 

and that may enable us to catch up and drop the next block of software later this year as planned. It is planned in November. According to my estimates, it may slip a couple of months. Right now, we 

are limited by test aircraft. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. Secretary, I hope that you would, for the record or in conversation, ascertain what is being done on the issue of the unacceptable sustainment costs, what action or plans we have for that. 

I would share the chairman’s concern about what Lockheed Martin has done to absorb some of the costs of these overruns. I am 

not sure that all of these costs, Mr. Chairman, should be borne by 

the taxpayers when it is clear that Lockheed Martin has done an 

abysmal job, in not keeping with their original contract obligations 

which they had the luxury of cost-plus contracts at the time. That 

is an area we need to look at more seriously. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Currently, F–35 sustainment cost is an estimate produced by models of standard 

elemental cost categories used for all programs. To reduce the estimates, the program will conduct a series of design reviews on each element of sustainment activity 

(supply, transportation, repair and overhaul, et cetera). These design reviews will 

produce F–35 specific data on cost drivers for various strategy options in each activity. These strategy options, with costs illuminated, are then evaluated in war games 

by flag and general officers of each Service and international partners. The series 

of design reviews and war games will continue into 2012 until all sustainment cost 

center activity is examined and the lowest cost choices are in view. These choices 

will produce updated reduced estimates with sufficient F–35 specific fidelity for 

planning, budgeting, and execution. 

1024 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Carter, a few times in your testimony this morning you referred to the JSF as a vital program, and toward the end of your 

testimony, you said you have raised the question about whether 

there were any better alternatives. Your answer is no. Of course, 

the program, as you said, and I agree, needs to be affordable. 

It may be helpful at this point, at least in summary fashion, if 

you describe why DOD still feels this is a vital program and there 

are no better alternatives. 

Dr. CARTER. That was part of the Nunn-McCurdy certification, 

and in this Nunn-McCurdy certification, I was required to and did 

look at alternatives to the JSF program and found none that met 

the full spectrum of needs represented by the JSF. I just remind 

you for each of the Services, the needs are somewhat different, but 

the Marine Corps really does want a STOVL aircraft, and the Harriers are going out of the fleet. This is it. 

The Navy has the F/A–18s and we did decide, the Secretary decided, to buy more F/A–18s. For the Navy in the near term, there 

is an alternative. We are availing ourselves of that alternative. 

For the Air Force in the long run, after the F–16 and the F–15 

go out of the fleet, it will be the mainstay of the Air Force’s air 

fleet. 

In that sense, for each of the Services, the Navy a little bit less 

so, but only in the near term, are relying on the JSF to come 

through. In that sense, we do not have any alternative to it. We 

need to make it succeed. To make it succeed, we need to make it 

affordable. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. In the consideration of alternatives, I know 

this is hypothetical, but would it include unmanned aerial vehicle 

(UAV) which is a fascination of people right now? 

Dr. CARTER. It does. UAVs can do some of the missions of 

manned aircraft. We are not in a position to say at this juncture 

that in the time frame that the JSF would be delivered, that its 

missions could be accomplished by UAVs. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I know that there has been significant interest among our allies around the world. Of course, they have bought 

into the program, in the JSF. Does that continue to be so? 

Dr. CARTER. The original partners are with the program. Some 

of them have slipped their buys to the right, for reasons having 

less to do with the JSF per se. In many of these countries, their 

defense budgets are under pressure and they have had to defer 

their buys. That turns out to work out well since the production 

has not ramped up and is not going to ramp up as quickly as it 

was originally forecast. But there are a number of foreign partners. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That was very helpful. That, in short, is 

why DOD concludes, notwithstanding the concern about affordability, that the JSF remains a vital and necessary program for our 

national defense. 

Let me now go to the question that would be a layman’s question 

at this point. I appreciate everything you are trying to do to make 

1025 

the program affordable. If there are these concerns about exploding 

costs, is one alternative here to try to take off some of the bells and 

whistles? 

Over the course of my service on this committee, as we have 

watched other programs go up in costs, sometimes not quite 

worked as we hoped, one of the explanations has been, we just 

tried to put too much into it. We got so carried away by advancing 

technologies, that we just tried to put too much into it. 

Is one of the ways to make this program more affordable to take 

some of its advantages off of it? 

Dr. CARTER. That is the last place I would go. Requirements 

creep has not been the driver. Requirements have been relatively 

stable. This is not like the presidential helicopter or something. 

The Services really want the capabilities that are represented by 

the aircraft that we are giving them. 

The cost growth comes from all the individual processes and 

piece parts costing more than we thought they were going to and 

more than they should. 

The last place I want to go is to dumb down the airplane. I do 

not think that is necessary. We are not at that point yet. We can 

have the airplane that is on the books and just control the processes that go into it. I hope it does not come to that. I do not expect 

and we are not looking to do that. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I hope not too, but I hope we keep it in 

mind if the costs continue to escalate. 

Dr. Gilmore, in your prepared testimony, you mentioned that a 

new flight test schedule is being developed based on the recommendations of the technical baseline review, and we have heard 

others testify to that. Based on your experience with this JSF and 

other programs, how much confidence do you have as an independent observer, commentator, and judge that the new schedule 

will get the test program right? What would you say are the biggest risks that you foresee in achieving the test program as it is 

now constituted? 

Dr. GILMORE. The test program, as it is currently constituted, 

and is emerging from the technical baseline review, has a reasonable chance of being executed consistent with expectations. 

That is not a guarantee because, as I mentioned in my opening 

remarks, these are very complex aircraft. I mentioned the challenges that lie ahead that could lead to additional discovery, and 

discovery means it is something that you had not necessarily expected and therefore you cannot predict with certainty how you will 

have to deal with it and the amount of time it might require to 

deal with whatever the discovery is. There is no guarantee here. 

The current assumptions, like the two assumptions on refly and 

regression rates I was explaining to Senator McCain, affect the 

number of flight test points you need in order to build up and fully 

expand the flight envelope. Previous assumptions had been that we 

would be able to just go immediately to the edge of the envelope 

rather than building up and that was not reasonable. That is not 

the case now. 

The pace of flight testing, which the aircraft currently have been 

exceeding, and that is a good thing, is more in line with historical 

experience. Previously the program had assumed they would build 

1026 

up almost immediately to 12 flights per aircraft per months. That 

was not reasonable based on historical experience. 

I am not talking ancient historical experience. I am talking historical experience with F–22, which had its own problems, as well 

as the F–18E/F. Because those assumptions are pretty much consistent with our historical experience, I say this has a reasonable 

chance of being executed according to expectations. 

Now, with regard to the biggest challenge, is one I have already 

mentioned in my view, is integrating and testing the mission systems software. The mission systems on this aircraft are going to be 

the most complex we have ever had on any aircraft, with information from multiple sensors being fused in order to provide the pilots 

with extremely good, unprecedented situational awareness, threat 

warning, modes of attack that our other aircraft do not have that 

we cannot discuss in open session but depend on the sensors and 

other capabilities. That is going to be a challenge. It already is a 

challenge, and I would say that is probably the greatest challenge 

to come. It is not until we drop block 3 software, which will not 

occur until June 2015 on the current schedule, that we will be actually integrating all the weapons in the aircraft, all the weapons 

capability in the aircraft. Before that, we are getting increasing capability but it is not all the warfighting capability that comes with 

block 3. To me, that is the biggest challenge, and we are just at 

the beginning of that. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 

McCain, for having this hearing. 

It seems to me like it is a situation where you are taking from 

Peter to give to Paul. At first glance, I am wondering if the enormous amount of money that we are spending on this program in 

the shifting, the adjusting, and everything is affecting other military programs by cancelling other programs to pay for this. I am 

wondering is there a concern that this is going to trickle down to 

affect the safety and security of our troops at all because of the 

enormous amount of money we are going to be spending on this 

program, Mr. Secretary? 

Dr. CARTER. Senator, I have that concern. That is why I do not 

want to pay what we are forecasting we are going to pay. We can 

use that money for other military capability, other military needs. 

It is clear the country is not going to give us more money, everincreasing budget every year to accommodate this kind of thing. 

In the near term, I will say that we have not had to add money 

to the F–35 budget for the simple reason that the money we have 

added to development we have taken out of production because, as 

I indicated, we slowed production. 

Senator BROWN. Right. By slowing production, we have gone 

from an amount that was requested and projected down to an 

amount that, quite frankly, will put us at a tactical disadvantage. 

You have Britain going from 138 to 40 planes. I am presuming because they are deeply concerned about the delay and cost. Yes, 

there is pressure on their military budgets, but there is another 

1027 

message being sent which is, are you guys ever going to get this 

thing done. 

I concur with Senator McCain. 

To use a little analogy, it seems like we are going across the 

ocean. You are at that point now where you have so much fuel to 

either go here or go there. We are at that point right now. Where 

are we going? We are spending a tremendous amount of money. 

Just the fact that you are saying that they are going to be spending 

tremendously more than what was anticipated and what we can afford, at what point do we cut the cord and go in a different direction? Or can we at this point? 

Dr. CARTER. I truly believe that we can manage out a substantial 

amount of production and sustainment costs and make the aircraft 

affordable. That is the path we are on. That is what you ought to 

expect of us. You are absolutely right. If the estimates do not 

change over the years, we are not going to be able to buy 2,443 of 

these airplanes. 

Senator BROWN. As a result of that, since it is going to be the 

primary weapons system being used in the military, that puts us, 

I would argue, at a tactical disadvantage. Is that right? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes. It is less than the capability we want. You are 

absolutely right. 

Senator BROWN. Then the whole cost-plus contracts, fixed-price 

contracts. At what point do we say listen, here is a contract. You 

are working for the U.S. Government. You are getting paid top dollar, and here is what you need to do. Here is what we expect you 

to do. We hold them to the contract. I have never seen anything 

like it where we just continuously award, I am glad you have cut 

back on the award part of it. Is there a plan to go forward with 

fixed-price contracts in the future so we can prevent getting into 

these messes? 

Dr. CARTER. There absolutely is. That was, by the way, an important feature of the WSARA thinking. We have taken that on board. 

We did a lot of cost-plus contracting in the last decade, in the decade of plenty, and we are going to do a lot less of it in the coming 

decade. We are going to do more fixed-price contracting. As I said, 

that requires discipline, both on our side and on the contractor’s 

side, and we need to have that discipline. With a cost-plus contract, 

you just go in and say, ‘‘well, I will pay whatever it takes to get 

there.’’ We cannot go into that. 

Senator BROWN. We cannot do that anymore. 

I was not going to mention it, but you brought up the cost overruns of the engine associated with this. I noticed initially it had 

gone up 68 percent. Then since 2008, the engine costs have increased by 500 percent. Whereas, by the time that this program is 

fully implemented, which I believe is in 2035, the F–35 will comprise about 95 percent of our aircraft. Is that right? 

Dr. CARTER. That is correct. The 500 percent number is not correct. I have seen that number elsewhere. 

Senator BROWN. What is the number? 

Dr. CARTER. It is about the same as the aircraft overall. It is 

about a factor of two in real terms over the decade. The engine 

shares in the cost growth of the JSF. It has not been a driver of 

the cost growth. 

1028 

Senator BROWN. Are you concerned at all about the operational 

risk of having a one-engine program for the entire F–35 fleet? If 

you are not, are you telling us that there is no chance that the primary engine will fail or undergo a major malfunction ever? 

Dr. CARTER. We have one engine type for the F–22. We have one 

engine type for the F/A–18. This is normal and routine now for our 

tactical aircraft. It is something that we are very comfortable with. 

Senator BROWN. I have also heard you and others talk, competition brings great price benefits to the taxpayers. In the littoral 

combat ship (LCS) program, you have awarded two contracts to 

build the ship. Budget requests have gone up through fiscal year 

2016. I still have never really gotten a reason as to if it is good for 

the other programs, why is it not good for an engine. We are going 

to basically put all our eggs in one basket. One engine is tremendously over budget and another engine is a little bit different. I 

still have not gotten a good reason. 

Dr. CARTER. Let me try to explain our reasoning on the question 

of an alternate engine. It is simply an analytical judgment. It goes 

exactly to the point you named. If you had a second engine manufacturer, then you could compete the two engines against one another lot by lot as you built the aircraft. To get yourself to that 

point, you have to spend the money to develop the second engine, 

to get the tooling to build the second engine, and the sustainment 

for a second engine. In other words, you have to have a whole second engine infrastructure. You have to pay that bill to develop the 

competitive alternative. 

The question is whether that bill, which you pay up front, will 

ever be repaid in terms of lower prices induced by competition between the two variants. In our estimates, that bill will not be repaid, and that is why we do not favor investment. 

Senator BROWN. They are self-funding the second engine for the 

next 2 years to keep moving it along at a point where they will be 

able to provide a competitive engine so we can actually save 

money, as we have done with many other programs, whether it is 

the LCS or other weapons systems. What is your position on the 

continuation and self-funding of that engine? 

Dr. CARTER. We are in the process of terminating the contract for 

the F–136 engine. Whatever decisions the performers of that work 

make is up to them. Our estimate for the cost to prepare the alternate engine for real competition which, as I said, would not repay 

this cost in our calculations, is about $2.9 billion, a very substantial amount of money. 

Senator BROWN. It is nothing compared to what you guys have 

been spending so far, quite honestly, on this whole program. It is 

unbelievable. I have never seen anything like it. I concur with Senator McCain in asking to hold this hearing because it just seems 

like there is this go-along/get-along mentality up here where no one 

is watching the taxpayers’ money. 

My time is over, Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I would 

like to submit for the record for the second panel as well. Thank 

you. 

Senator REED [presiding]. Thank you. 

Secretary Carter, the F–35B version is on a 2-year suspension. 

When General Amos was here, I asked him about whether that 2 

1029 

years could be shortened, and he suggested that the Marine Corps 

is working very actively to try to bring that 2-year suspension 

down. Please share your thoughts on whether it is going to be a 

2-year delay absolutely or something short of that. 

Dr. CARTER. We have identified four problems so far, have a path 

to try to resolve those problems, and a timetable for doing that. 

General Amos has seen that timetable. We certainly would like to 

resolve all those issues as quickly as we can. There may be, however, more problems that emerge from flight tests. We cannot really predict that. 

Secretary Gates wanted a 1-year probation, and it was we who 

advised him that we could not resolve all these issues reliably inside of 1 year. 

General Amos is right. We would like to do it quicker. As I sit 

here right now, I could go through each of those problems with you, 

cannot promise that it will be resolved inside of 2 years. If we get 

them all resolved inside of 2 years, then we will have a clearer picture and make the decisions sooner. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

With respect to some of the issues, I will turn to Dr. Gilmore. 

One of the issues with the F–35B is a software modification in 

terms of the vertical ascent issues. You are going to have to make 

structural modifications with a spoiler. Are you any closer to 

ascertaining which approach? My presumption, I could be completely wrong, is that the software approach would probably be less 

expensive and quicker to implement. If you could give me any help 

on those issues. 

Dr. GILMORE. Yes. The answer to that question is yes. 

There is a problem with the chaotic airflow in the transonic regime which causes loss of lift on the aircraft, unpredictable loss of 

lift. It is called roll-off. It also causes the aircraft to yaw, side-slip, 

which then creates greater stresses on the structure, particularly 

in the vertical tail and other places. 

That problem has been seen on the STOVL aircraft. It has also 

been seen on the CTOL aircraft. In the CTOL aircraft, the information I have is that they have been able to deal with this problem 

satisfactorarily through changes to the flight control software, 

scheduling forward flaps and that sort of thing. 

They are trying the same sort of fixes in the flight control software on the STOVL version. They have made progress, but they 

still have not made as much progress as they would like. They are 

developing a rigorous set of criteria that they can use in order to 

evaluate the STOVL’s handling qualities, and they have not yet 

made a decision on whether they are going to try to do some more 

changes to the flight control software, do an evaluation, and then 

make a determination whether there would be any structural 

changes that would be needed. 

There is provision in the structure of the CV aircraft, jumping 

yet another aircraft, for a spoiler, but there is not in the STOVL 

version. That would be a major change if it were needed. JPO is 

hopeful it will not be needed, but they do not have the final answer 

yet. 

Senator REED. Do you have a sense of how much more delay 

would be engaged if they had to make the structural change? 

1030 

Dr. GILMORE. No, I do not know. You could ask JPO that. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

The other issue, and this goes to the F–35A. We have heard that 

the range is less than the requirements which was 590 nautical 

miles. In actuality, it goes 584. That raises a question with respect 

to the B and C models, whether we are going to see a decrease in 

range, which means increased fuel costs, reduced time on station, 

et cetera. It seems to me 6 miles is not a lot, but operationally it 

could be very significant. Mr. Van Buren, you are the designated 

hitter. 

Mr. VAN BUREN. Senator, both the B and C variants currently 

exceed the requirements with regard to range payload. Over the 

course of the last 2 years, the A model has historically been above 

that. It just recently dipped back down below. A flight test program 

over the continuation of the configuration definition, normally gets 

little fluctuations that are against this requirement number. I 

would ask Admiral Venlet in the second panel as to where he 

would proceed with the future, but our expectation is that it will 

come in and meet that requirement of 590. 

Senator REED. Very good. 

Let me shift back to Dr. Gilmore or anyone on the panel who 

feels best able to respond. Our presumption is when we start talking about trying to rein in costs, you are going to look at every system. You are doing that now. Secretary Carter pulled together lots 

of people around the table. 

One issue is the helmet mounted display system. Is there a serious consideration about abandoning that system and going to something that is a traditional system? Or is the helmet mounted system so integral that it cannot be abandoned but it has to be fixed? 

Can you give me an idea about that? Dr. Gilmore? 

Dr. GILMORE. As I explained in my written testimony, there are 

two paths that are being pursued. One is to push ahead and try 

to fix the problems with the helmet, which include latency in the 

images that are displayed, particularly the infrared (IR) images at 

night. That is a problem. 

Then there is jitter. There is symbology which is projected on the 

helmet visor that in today’s aircraft appears on the displays on the 

aircraft dash. There is jitter when it moves around and it gets 

fuzzy. 

They are trying to fix those problems, but they are pursuing an 

alternative path which would take an existing helmet with capabilities similar to the helmets that are used for off poor sight cuing 

and aiming of the AIM–9X, use that helmet in conjunction with 

night vision goggles, which would give you night capability. Then 

the pilot would have to peer down underneath the night vision goggles in order to see symbology displayed on the cockpit displays. 

But that is the way pilots do business at night now. It would not 

be an improvement, relative to what they do now, but it would be 

no worse relative to what they do now. 

Then as a very last resort, the program would consider incorporating a heads-up display that exists in current aircraft, but my 

understanding is that the program thinks that one of the first two 

approaches will work out and that probably will not be needed. 

1031 

That would be a good thing because that would be a major modification to the aircraft. 

Senator REED. Very good. 

Final question. Secretary Carter, you have already mentioned 

the international participation here. Let me not prejudge the answer. One, this international participation seems almost logically to 

reduce the cost of a copy to us. It is critical in terms of the financing. Let me ask you. Everyone seems to be in accord with the steps 

you are taking to develop the system. I know they have pushed 

back some of their acquisitions because of their budget problems. 

But they still seem to be there to buy their requisite number of aircraft and to do it in a timely manner. 

Dr. CARTER. That is right. We are going to buy a little bit north 

of 2,400 of these airplanes, and the total projected foreign buy is 

in the neighborhood of 600 to 700. It is a substantial increment to 

ours. It will drive down unit cost accordingly. 

In the main, the partners are holding numbers but sliding to the 

right under largely their own budget pressures. My counterparts 

and I talk all the time. They have the same concerns and determination about affordability that we all have. They know this aircraft very well. In the main, they are counting on it, the way we 

are counting on it. They are in the same boat we are. I talk to them 

all the time trying to keep them informed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 

Reed. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express 

my gratitude to you and to Senator McCain for holding this hearing. This is some of the most important work we can do. As money 

is tighter and people are asked to share in the sacrifices at the 

Federal Government level in terms of what we provide, DOD needs 

to be part of that analysis, but I know we all agree that we don’t 

want to sacrifice our preeminence when it comes to national security. Taxpayers ought to get their money’s worth and not have one 

penny more wasted than we can possibly avoid. 

What comes to mind when listening to some of the testimony is 

what Mark Twain said about if you are going to put all of your 

eggs in one basket, I am paraphrasing, you better take care of that 

basket. It sounds to me like that is what we have done, in large 

part, with the F–35. 

Mr. Van Buren, what is the age of our aircraft fleet? My understanding is most of the planes that our airmen fly are older than 

they are. 

Mr. VAN BUREN. Obviously, the tanker aircraft are the oldest, 

and the last tanker will be retired when it is approximately 80 

years old. We are very thankful for the proceeding on with the 

tanker contract. 

The fighters are younger, but still on the average of 20 to 30 

years old. 

Senator CORNYN. Secretary Carter, you described, I think to Senator Lieberman, this aircraft is vital. In your written testimony, 

you described it as a dominant, multi-role, fifth-generation aircraft 

1032 

capable of projecting U.S. power and deterring potential adversaries. 

Why is it important that we produce this aircraft, as economical 

as possible, for our national security and as well as to those of our 

partners who are joining us in the purchasing and the development 

of this aircraft? 

Dr. CARTER. The advance that the JSF represents over its predecessors is captured in the phrase, ‘‘fifth generation versus fourth 

generation.’’ There are a couple of key differences there. One, is 

that this is a very stealthy aircraft compared to its predecessors, 

and that is an advantage. Two, is that it has a very substantial onboard sensor suite and capacity for electronic attack. 

As it flies against enemy air defenses, both the passive stealth, 

the inability of the radar to see it in the first place, and the active 

electronic attack measures are a level of sophistication over their 

predecessors. Therefore, it has a higher probability of penetrating 

more difficult and heavily defended airspace than its predecessors. 

Then its onboard sensors allows it to acquire targets—airborne 

targets, ground targets, and so forth—with a lot more sophistication to attack them than the predecessor. Not surprising with the 

passage of time that we can build a better airplane, and it is a lot 

better airplane than its predecessors. 

Senator CORNYN. My understanding is DOD plans to field an 

operational fleet of 2,443 aircraft at this point? 

Dr. CARTER. That is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. Although, if you look at previous examples of 

the B–2 Stealth bomber and the F–22 Raptor, because of budgetary 

constraints, we saw the original projections of what the size of the 

fleet would be constrained. What would be the impact, in your 

view, of a reduction of the number of these aircraft for one reason 

or the other? What does this do in terms of our national security 

interests? 

Dr. CARTER. A reduction that is forced by the inability to produce 

the aircraft for the amount of money it was originally projected to 

cost would be really unfortunate. If we decide later we don’t need 

that many airplanes for a legitimate national security reason, that 

is one thing. If we decide we are forced to fewer than we want simply by cost, that is the outcome I am trying to avoid, we are all 

trying to avoid. 

Senator CORNYN. I appreciate your good work. I believe that we 

need to do whatever we need to do to protect our national security. 

Money that cannot be spent because of greater oversight and care 

in terms of the development and production of these aircraft is a 

critical role this committee plays and what I think the taxpayers 

expect from us. 

How would you characterize, Secretary Carter, the program’s 

overall test flight performance to date? 

Dr. CARTER. As my colleagues here have indicated, it has consistently fallen short of expectations over the last 3 or 4 years but is 

beginning to catch up. Of the issues mentioned so far, the two that 

I focus on are software. That was mentioned. We still owe you collectively an answer on what we are doing about the software. 

1033 

We have described, and I completely agree with Ms. Fox’s and 

Dr. Gilmore’s concerns about software, and I won’t try to do it myself. Perhaps later, Admiral Venlet can address that software issue. 

Then, in the STOVL variant, there are those four STOVL-unique 

issues, which are the door that opens up over the engine in the 

back when the lift fan is on; the drive shaft that connects the engine to the transmission—from the main engine to the transmission that, in turn, drives the lift fan; the heating within the 

transmission itself; and then the things that are called the roll 

posts that go into the wings. Those are the four issues on the 

STOVL variant. They are the ones that we are going to work 

through and see how much weight and cost they add to the 

STOVL. 

STOVL is inherently more complicated. It is not surprising that 

we are having more difficulty with it because it has this complex 

flight envelope and this necessity to land vertically. Those are the 

two most serious engineering concerns we have going forward. We 

have plans to address all of those, and they are realistic plans. We 

still have to accomplish those plans. 

Senator CORNYN. Currently, we have eight partner nations, and 

I understand there may be a ninth that is going to make a commitment to purchase as many as 19 of these F–35A variants. Of 

course, the goal of putting all our eggs in this one basket is to create a common multi-service platform and one where the costs could 

be spread among our partners, our allies. 

If our partner nations perceived uncertainty and potentially reduced funding on the part of the United States toward completion 

of the F–35 program, how do you think it would impact their commitment to this program? 

Dr. CARTER. They have the same attitude toward our commitment that we have to theirs. They want us to buy more because 

they know that will drive down their unit cost. They all want the 

airplane, just like we want the airplane. 

So far, the solidarity among the JSF partners has been pretty 

impressive. If we get to where we want to get to with the JSF, 

there won’t be any other airplane that you can buy that is as good 

for the dollar as the JSF, and we may see our export sales in decades ahead expand further, and that is a great thing. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. My time is up. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to have a couple of questions, but then just some quick 

follow-up. I want to follow up on the efforts with our allies in purchasing, you said 600 to 700 planes over the span. 

Just for my own edification, what is or has the contractor indicated that if they didn’t participate, what would happen to the 

price? 10, 20, 40 percent? 

Dr. CARTER. I don’t know whether Christine has done that assessment, but if you backed down the buy—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Dr. CARTER.—from the neighborhood of 3,100 to 2,600 planes, do 

you have an idea of the affect on the average procurement unit cost 

would be? 

1034 

Ms. FOX. I don’t have that answer off the top of my head. I would 

be happy to get back with you. 

Senator BEGICH. Would you? 

Ms. FOX. It would obviously increase the cost. You change the denominator, you are going to increase the cost. I don’t want to give 

you an off-the-top-of-my-head answer. 

Senator BEGICH. Could you share that with me? 

Ms. FOX. Absolutely. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

If we assumed that there are no international purchases of Joint Strike Fighters, 

the Average Procurement Unit cost would increase by approximately 5 percent. We 

provided the attached table in March 2010 based on previous Office of Secretary of 

Defense/Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation cost estimates. We can 

update this after our Milestone B recertification estimates are completed but would 

not expect the effects to change appreciably. 

1035 


519ful18.eps
1036 

Senator BEGICH. The second part, I know the pricing from costplus to fixed-price has been shifted to now happening. I know a 

year or so ago, 2 years ago, we had a subcommittee meeting about 

this issue, and we have had several other meetings. One of the concerns that I had back then is can we get to a fixed-price sooner? 

My understanding is now you are there. Can you tell me the 

positives of that? I am assuming the contractor, everyone has 

agreed to it because you wouldn’t be able to get there unless the 

contractor agreed to it. Can you tell me the positives of that, whoever could respond to that? 

Dr. CARTER. The positives of a fixed-price are that, in the first 

instance, it requires us and the contractor to both get completely 

disciplined about the design we are asking for and for them the 

processes they are delivering to. We wanted to get to that point 

earlier on the JSF and not leave it loose for another couple years, 

which was the original plan. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. CARTER. Now you can’t just wish for discipline. So just 

changing contract type doesn’t make it so. 

But we wanted to create an environment in which it was necessary for Admiral Venlet, his people on the government side, 

Lockheed Martin, and the other contractors on their side, to have 

that kind of discipline. We did that in Lot 4. We will do that again 

in Lot 5. 

What it means is everybody needs to stare in the face the fact 

that if they overrun, they pay. That is good discipline. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. Good for the taxpayers. Again, I want to 

thank you and Lockheed for doing a good job and getting that sooner rather than later. 

Let me ask a question. I wanted to follow up on a question Senator McCain was probing on, and that is how they determine the 

pricing, the estimation, and of course, where we are today and 

where we didn’t get to. It is a question I ask most departments 

when I hear this. 

Are the same people who did those estimates still within the system of the DOD bureaucracy doing more estimates on other stuff? 

The reason I ask you this is because if we don’t change that component, and you made a major change, to be very frank with you, in 

this program by changing who was running it. I give you credit for 

that. That is a strong statement. 

If you saw the same estimators estimating the same stuff, how 

am I going to be comfortable and confident? First question is, are 

those same people, the bulk of them, still working in those same 

areas of estimation? 

Dr. CARTER. Let me say at the beginning that I value the function of cost estimators. In some cases, they are excellent experts, 

many of whom work for Ms. Fox. 

When I got those estimates, it wasn’t that I didn’t believe them. 

It was that I didn’t want to live them. They were entirely credible. 

What I want our mangers to do, and this is what I and Dave tell 

our managers all the time; is just because we budgeted your program to that much money because, historically, things like this 

have cost this much, that is how we do the budgets. 

1037 

When you ask us, or in this case, this committee has required 

us to budget to the ICE performed by Ms. Fox’s office, I respect 

that process. It requires us to put an amount of money in the budget that history tells us in the past we have paid for that kind of 

program. 

I don’t want my managers to spend all that money. 

Senator BEGICH. I understand that. 

Dr. CARTER. I want them to underrun. 

Senator BEGICH. I guess my struggle is—the F–35 is one. I can 

sit here and list off other programs that have had estimates, and 

then they are off not 1 or 2 or 3 percent, but multiples. It seems 

the system of how we are going after these and trying to be more 

accurate in our estimation, which, of course, is important for us as 

we are trying to appropriate resources, creates a confidence gap. 

I am trying to resolve that confidence gap, to be very frank with 

you. There are some great steps you have done. I have been on this 

issue since the day I got here 21⁄2 years ago. I appreciate it because 

I think it is a good platform. It is a great opportunity for us. But 

we have to continue to ride, and I would show others. 

Ms. Fox, do you want to respond? 

Ms. FOX. Sir, I just wanted to say that one of the requirements 

of the WSARA is that my office work across DOD on cost estimating techniques. That is one of the things that we are doing to 

try to raise the ability to do cost estimation across DOD. 

The other thing that the act requires is that we bring those forward more visibly at the very beginning of a program, and that is 

another effort that is underway. Dr. Carter doesn’t want to pay the 

estimation that we have, and I am with him in that. 

But doing the cost estimation in a way that doesn’t make assumptions that allow us to go forward for a program where we 

have just significantly underestimated it is the goal of the legislation. We are trying to help with that. 

Senator BEGICH. At some point, I am assuming there is some 

metric of measurement that you will determine those techniques 

are working or not working? 

Ms. FOX. Sir, we always track back, how did we do? What did 

we get right? What did we get wrong? There is no one metric, but 

we keep all the historical information, and we are keeping track of 

our own estimate, as well as others in DOD’s estimates. 

Senator BEGICH. I forget what that legislation requires, does it 

require you to come back to the committee at some point and report or give some written document of the accuracy of your technical estimation? 

Ms. FOX. Sir, we owe you an annual report on our cost estimation work of the previous year. That report was provided last 

year for the first time and is about to come to you this year. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. Let me go into one other area. Secretary 

Carter, you mentioned, and I agree with you, sustainment is a big 

ticket. Let me get some refinement here on what is, and I can’t remember the exact phrase you used. The costs are acceptable or 

they are not acceptable now based on sustainment costs. 

How big a differential is it between what they are saying it will 

cost and what you want to see it? In other words, because so far 

I haven’t heard, and maybe I don’t want to. But I am curious, is 

1038 

10 percent too much, 100 percent too much? What are they saying 

it will cost and what you are trying to get to that makes it sustainable? 

Does that make sense, the question? 

Dr. CARTER. It does. I can’t give you a good answer on that now 

because my basic answer is, I want to get out as much as I can 

of the cost that is in there, and I can go through each of the drivers 

of cost. There are 10 drivers, I won’t take the time to go through 

them, of sustainment costs for the JSF. I want to get each one of 

those down. 

I am greedy. 

Senator BEGICH. Is your goal 30 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent? 

Dr. CARTER. You are in the right ballpark easily. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. It is not a small amount? 

Dr. CARTER. No. 

Senator BEGICH. It is a significant amount? 

Dr. CARTER. It is, exactly. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. My time is up. But I want to just comment. I know Senator McCain made a comment about sustainability, and if you can’t get there, what is planned? What is the 

next plan? I will leave that as an open question for the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. If you would get us that for the record, what 

are the backup plans if these goals, targets are not met? It is an 

important exercise in discipline for you and for us. 

A number of Senators have made that request. I think Senator 

McCain raised that issue, and Senator Begich and others. We need 

to know what the driver is to succeed here, and part of that driver 

is to have a backup plan. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Nunn-McCurdy Integrated Process Team #2 determined that there are no alternatives that will provide acceptable capability to meet 

the joint military requirement at less cost. None of the alternatives provide the robust basing options needed to operate from multiple environments to include land, 

sea, and austere land bases. The F–15E, F–16, and F/A–18 E/F lack the stealth features to be survivable in higher threat environments. The F–22 is the strongest alternative in terms of survivability and lethality in the air-to-air arena, but it lacks 

the sensors and weapons to meet required lethality against ground targets. With extensive upgrades, the F–22’s capability against ground targets could be improved, 

but potential design limitations, technical risk, lack of basing flexibility, and high 

cost eliminated this alternative. 

The increased capability associated with 5th generation aircraft comes at a price 

and is a major driver of both procurement and sustainment costs. Thus, JSF affordability is a major concern for the Department of Defense. Analysis indicates that 

it will cost about 33 percent more to operate and sustain the JSF relative to the 

F–16 and F–18 aircraft it is replacing. The program can make upfront investments 

to improve the reliability and maintainability of JSF. Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation assesses that these improvements, while important, will have a limited 

effect on operations and support costs. If further reductions in cost are required, our 

actions will need to address reduced JSF flying hours. Options include a smaller 

JSF force or increased use of flight simulators. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Senator Levin. Well said. 

Senator McCain, Senator Levin, thanks for holding this hearing. 

As a new member of the committee, this has been a frustrating 

1039 

process because I have heard incredible numbers in terms of the 

estimates of the cost and the timing being so far off. 

In these fiscal times we face, it is particularly concerning. We are 

talking about not just restraining spending in the DOD budget, but 

many, including your boss, have talked about reducing spending in 

programs. Here we are talking about a program that, based on the 

information we have heard today, is estimated now to cost 80 percent more than when the program started. 

Ms. Fox, you said it is $4.5 billion more expensive than it was 

just a couple of years ago, just 1 year ago. Actually, in your testimony it was $4.5 billion more expensive in the last year. It is taking years longer than originally estimated, of course. In fact, there 

has been a 4-year delay in the program just since 4 years ago. 

I share in the frustration, and we have to have a qualitative 

edge, this is our next generation, our fifth-generation qualitative 

edge. We need to get it right. We have talked about software and 

STOVL, and we have talked about the pilot helmet mounted display problem. It sounds like we are beginning to identify the problems. 

Secretary Carter, it sounds like you are on top of some of these 

specific issues, but this is a program that just cries out for reform, 

help, and competition. Dr. Carter, you have been big on this better 

buying power idea, head-to-head competition drives productivity 

and value. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Based on all the experience of previous weapon systems, having 

competition enables us not to just get the cost down, which we obviously have to do in this case. You had just said, in response to 

Senator Begich, we can’t afford it. The sustainment costs, we have 

talked about, but it also improves the quality. 

From an operational point of view, when you have 95 percent of 

our fighters, with some of these gentlemen behind you who have 

been, like Senator McCain, in a position of having to be out there 

as warfighters and wanting to have that qualitative edge, we have 

to be sure we have competition on the operational side as well. 

You know my concerns, Secretary Carter, because we have talked 

about them. I just think given these incredible cost overruns, the 

huge problems we are having with this program, that to not have 

a competitive engine makes no sense. 

In response to earlier questions about this, you said it is normal 

and routine not to have competition. I would say the GAO is going 

to tell us later how it has been normal and routine in some programs to have competition. They will talk about the F–16 program 

and the great engine wars of the 1980s and how much money was 

saved. 

You probably disagree with GAO’s estimates that they say we 

can save $10 billion to $20 billion just by having competition. 

Again, that doesn’t even get at the operational concerns of having 

95 percent. 

I don’t think there is anything normal and routine, by the way, 

about having 95 percent of our fighters depend on one engine. That 

is not normal and routine. Nor are, again, these unprecedented cost 

overruns that we have seen. We have never seen a program like 

this in terms of the amount of money we are talking about. 

1040 

You also said that it is an analytical judgment, and the analytical judgment was the upfront cost can never be repaid. The costs 

in this program so far have been about $3 billion to develop a competitive engine. That is all wasted when you terminate, as you guys 

have decided to do. You are even talking about destroying some of 

the incredible technology that has been developed with that $3 billion of taxpayers’ money. 

You said it will cost about another $2.9 billion going forward in 

order to develop a competitive engine. Again, this is in the context 

we are talking about a $110 billion program, which is going to be 

an estimate that will be increased soon. GAO said that you can 

save $10 billion to $20 billion just through competition. 

But that $2.9 billion cost, of course, others would not agree. 

What GAO says, it would cost $1.8 billion. They said that last year. 

They said that before, by the way, the competitive engine manufacturers, General Electric (GE) and Rolls-Royce, decided that they 

were going to self-fund over the next 2 years. They said it costs 

only $1.8 billion, and their self-funding is in response to your decision to terminate the competition. 

I would ask you about your $2.9 billion number, those testing 

costs, does that take into account the fact that GE and Rolls-Royce 

have committed to bear the costs for the F–136 development over 

the next couple of years? To move to a fixed-price contract, per Senator Begich’s question, which is, to me, a template that ought to 

be used in all this. 

I see a real inconsistency here between the incredible and frustrating numbers we have been talking about on costs and delays. 

Then on this one idea of competition, we are talking about 95 percent of the fighters to say that somehow our analytical judgment 

is that we can’t have competition. 

Let me just be candid about something. I started off getting interested in this particular issue with this particular program because GE Aircraft has its headquarters in Ohio, and they don’t 

manufacture as much in Ohio as they do in other States. But their 

headquarters are there, and they have a presence there that is important. 

The more I dig into this, the more I learn about it and the more 

I learn about not just this program, but other programs and what 

competition has meant, the more convinced I am that this is one 

area, relatively important area, in an airplane, the engine, where 

we can make strides in terms of the cost and on the operational 

side. 

With that, Dr. Carter, I would like you to respond to my comments and questions on the $2.9 billion testing cost. Do you still 

hold by those numbers, despite the GAO report and despite the decision in the interim of GE and Rolls-Royce to go ahead and commit to bear the cost of development over the next couple of years? 

Dr. CARTER. We do, and I may ask Ms. Fox to comment further. 

Just to be clear, the $2.9 billion that we talk about is to prepare 

the second engine for competition. That includes completing development. It includes some production tooling, everything it takes to 

have a second engine available for competition. 

1041 

That is the estimate. Actually, Christine’s people have done that 

estimate, and I believe that number is still good. It is the same 

number no matter who pays it. It is $2.9 billion. 

Senator PORTMAN. Wait a minute. It is the same number to the 

taxpayers, no matter who pays it? 

Dr. CARTER. No. It is obviously not the same number, but it is 

the same cost. 

Senator PORTMAN. Your $2.9 billion is not the cost to the taxpayers? 

Dr. CARTER. Sorry? 

Senator PORTMAN. The $2.9 billion is not the cost to the taxpayers? 

Dr. CARTER. No, $2.9 billion that I was speaking about is the cost 

to complete the development in our estimate. 

Senator PORTMAN. Okay. You weren’t talking about your cost or 

taxpayers’ cost. 

Dr. CARTER. In preparation for competition of the—— 

Senator PORTMAN. You were talking about the costs. 

Dr. CARTER. Correct. 

Senator PORTMAN. Over the next 2 years, the industry, the contractors have agreed to bear those costs and then go to a fixed-price 

contract. Does that change your $2.9 billion figure as to the cost 

to the program, meaning the cost to the taxpayers? 

Dr. CARTER. Two comments on that. First, as I said, it is $2.9 

billion, irrespective of who is paying the bill. Obviously, less to the 

taxpayers if somebody else is paying for it. 

You also mentioned a fixed-price contract, and this gets back to 

a comment I made earlier about a fixed-price contract. The F–136 

engine isn’t at a point yet where its technical specifications are 

clear. That is normal in an aircraft engine program at the early 

stage that the F–136 engine is at. 

Therefore, and at that stage, a fixed-price offer isn’t really meaningful because the engine that is offered, that is on the test stand, 

is not the engine that we intend to use. It is, instead, the engine 

that evolves from that one. Fixed-price isn’t really appropriate to 

discuss for the F–136 engine at this stage. 

Let me ask Ms. Fox to comment on the $2.9 billion. 

Ms. FOX. Certainly. We did do the cost estimate of the $2.9 billion. It does include, as Dr. Carter said, the cost to complete development, which is about $1.2 billion in our estimation. Then it includes the other things that you would have to pay to bring it up 

to a place where it could fairly compete. 

Our estimate last year and in previous work that we did, was 

that would happen in 2014. But with changes to the program, including changes to the engine, including changes to the F–136 engine development program, we now estimate that would not be possible until 2017. 

You have to continue on with your investment until then. That 

is part of it. There is procurement cost, tooling—— 

Senator PORTMAN. We have gone from 2014 to 2017, assuming 

you are going to rely on one engine? 

Ms. FOX. Sir, that is the time where we think that the two engines would be in a place where they could fairly compete. In other 

1042 

words, the time when the F–136 could have achieved all of the 

things that—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Since you terminated the other engine, why 

would you be estimating two engines? 

Ms. FOX. This is our estimate before termination, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. Okay. Could you get back to us, please, Dr. 

Carter, on what the costs are? I think it is unusual, Mr. Chairman, 

that before the committee, DOD is telling us what a cost is, and 

the assumption has to be that is the cost to the government. Then 

coming back and saying that is the cost of development that doesn’t 

include the private sector commitment here. 

I would like to know what the net cost is to the taxpayers and 

what the savings would be. Then in terms of a fixed-price contract, 

I would like to hear more about why a fixed-price contract isn’t appropriate. 

Thank you very much. My time is expired. I appreciate the chairman’s indulgence and your testimony here this morning. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

In April 2010, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 Fighter Engine Team provided the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office an unsolicited offer for a fixed-price 

contract for the developmental engine that was in testing at the time. That engine 

configuration had roughly 100 hours of ground testing (as of the offer date), and 0 

flight hours. According to the offer, the Department of Defense (DOD) would be responsible for the costs of all changes required during future development and test. 

Since a large number of such changes are inevitable as the engine is developed, the 

fixed-price is meaningless. The offer also included additional pricing terms and conditions which shifted considerable risk to the government, which is not standard 

with a true fixed-price contract. 

At termination, the F136 only completed 1,705 hours of its approximately 10,000 

hour ground test program. It takes 3,000 to 3,500 hours to build the maturity required to begin flight testing. It takes another 1,500 to 2,000 hours to attain maturity required for low rate production where the engine’s performance and initial durability have been demonstrated. The remainder of the testing demonstrates full life 

durability, environmental effects, and re-qualifies design changes to rectify specification shortfalls uncovered in ground and flight test. At termination, design changes 

were known to be needed for the F136 to meet its specification. These design 

changes were not completed and have not been tested. The F136 engine has zero 

flight test time. The level of design maturity and stability lacking in the F136 make 

it unsuitable for a successful fixed-price contract. DOD and contractors generally do 

not sign fixed-price contracts until the design has stabilized. The F135 engine has 

accumulated over 10,000 ground test hours and a significant number of flight test 

hours and its design has stabilized making it suitable for a fixed-price-type contract. 

Regarding cost, it would take $480 million, not $100 million, as some press reports have suggested, to continue development of the F136 for the next year. DOD 

continues to estimate that it would take $2.9 billion to prepare the F136 for competition. DOD cannot afford such wasteful spending, this year or in the future. 

Chairman LEVIN. Will you provide that figure for the record as 

to how the $2.9 billion will be changed, would be changed, with the 

agreement, or the decision on the part of the manufacturer to take 

the cost to themselves during the next 2 years? How does that $2.9 

billion figure change with that willingness on the part of the second engine manufacturer? 

Will you do that for the record, Secretary Carter? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The $2.9 billion estimate would be reduced by General Electric’s decision to selffund the program. The $2.9 billion estimate included approximately $0.7 billion of 

alternate engine development work over the next 2 years. The Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation’s estimate is based on the assumption that General Electric 

1043 

would conduct a fully-staffed development and test qualification program. Furthermore, it was assumed that this work would be integrated with the overall development qualification schedule of Lockheed Martin. If these operating assumptions 

were held constant, with the sole difference being that General Electric funded the 

activity and would not pass the cost back to the government via increased overhead 

rates or higher production prices, the $2.9 billion estimate would be reduced by approximately $0.7 billion. 

The additional complication is that during this 2-year timeframe, the development 

effort is being ramped down. This makes assumptions about the rate of work completion significant. Our Joint Strike Fighter program office has estimated the first 

year of this year period would require approximately $480 million. 

We do not know, however, under what assumptions General Electric would operate under a self-funded program. Until that is defined, we cannot conclude that $0.7 

billion would be reduced dollar-for-dollar from the $2.9 billion estimate. Furthermore, any presumed reductions are based on the supposition that General Electric 

would not pass these costs back to the government via increases to overhead or production prices. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Senator Portman. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To pursue that line of questioning and, first, let me thank all of 

you for your work and your expertise and the dedication of this 

project. Is there any precedent for self-funding a program of this 

magnitude in dollars and importance to our national security? Dr. 

Carter? 

Dr. CARTER. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do you have a concern that even though 

the representation is that there will be self-funding, that American 

taxpayers could, in fact, foot the bill for these expenditures? 

Dr. CARTER. $2.9 billion is a lot of money for anybody, and I 

would be concerned if the idea is that we are going to pay for it 

later by acquiring engines that, as I said, we don’t think are necessary and don’t make the cut for us in terms of their contribution 

to taxpayer value for national defense. That is why we haven’t 

wanted to invest in the second engine. 

I would certainly hope no one has it in their mind that we are 

going to pay for that later. Because whether you pay for it now or 

pay for it later, it is $2.9 billion we can’t afford for an engine we 

don’t need. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Perhaps I am just stating it in different 

terms, there may be claims down the road, and there are these 

claims all the time in defense procurement contracts, that American taxpayers may pay the increase to the cost of this project? Is 

that true? 

Dr. CARTER. I would have that concern. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you about the equipment, the 

tooling, and the property involved in the second engine. Doesn’t 

that belong to the American taxpayers? It is not GE’s, is it? 

Dr. CARTER. No. It is taxpayer property, and it is now the termination contracting officer, in our normal procedures, arranging for 

the disposition of that. But it is government property. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. DOD has decided to terminate it and, 

therefore, is entitled to have that property back. Correct? 

Dr. CARTER. That is correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Are you taking steps, you have mentioned 

a couple of them, to, in effect, take that property back, terminate 

1044 

the program, stop any potential risk to the American taxpayer so 

that the project will be completed with the least cost possible. 

Dr. CARTER. The termination contracting officer is doing precisely 

that, following the normal procedure for contract termination, taking possession of government property, and arranging for its disposition. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You have talked very credibly and persuasively about managing out and driving out the unnecessary costs 

in the range of 20, 30, 40 percent. When will we know whether, in 

fact, that goal is possible? 

Dr. CARTER. I hope and expect that you will see indications of 

that in the LRIP 5 contract negotiations, which will be concluding 

in the next few months. Then you will see them again in LRIP 6 

and more in LRIP 7. 

I hope and expect that they will be progressively better. It has 

taken time for cost to creep in. It will take time to drive it out. I 

am expecting over the years that we will get better and better, as 

all businesses do, at identifying costs and driving out costs. 

All businesses are constantly in the process of driving costs 

down, and our enterprises that are working for us on this particular project will be doing the same thing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. As your shareholders, though, if we were 

asking the question, give us a date by when we will know whether 

or not that goal can be met, what would you say? 

Dr. CARTER. We will have a much better indication in a few 

months of the cost structure of the JSF than we have ever had and 

that we have right now. It is a little bit like the difference between 

what we knew about SDD last year and what we know now. 

We are going to have a greatly improved understanding of the 

cost structure of the JSF in just a few months. We are working on 

it intensively. We have to. 

We are going through every piece of it. We have a very substantial effort. Dave Venlet is involved in it. Dave Van Buren is involved in it. I am involved in it personally. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. None of us on this committee—I can’t 

speak for others—I have no doubt about your dedication, your expertise, your skill in seeking to achieve that goal. You have just 

used the term, ‘‘over the years we would know,’’ and that is a little 

fuzzier than, ‘‘over the next few months.’’ 

If you think it will be over the next few months, that is a lot 

more comforting than over the years. 

Dr. CARTER. No, I am sorry. I don’t mean to be vague. Our understanding of the cost structure will improve dramatically in the 

next few months. 

The actual reduction of cost will occur during the period of production of the aircraft, which is some years out. We will be eliminating cost as the production process ramps up because it is in the 

future, and it will be a progressive process. 

We can’t snap our fingers and remove all that cost. It is something we need to work out over time. What we will have in the next 

few months is a much better understanding of what that path is. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. We would be able to ask you these questions with more specificity in, let us say, the next quarter? 

Dr. CARTER. I think so, yes. 

1045 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Finally, let me just turn to what I regard 

as the elephant in the room here. Senator McCain and others have 

asked you about alternatives, and the chairman asked you to come 

back as to what the alternatives are. Without asking you to speculate, are there alternatives here? 

Dr. CARTER. There are no good alternatives to the JSF for either 

of our Services or our international partners. We just went through 

that analysis, as required by law under Nunn-McCurdy. We looked 

at alternatives, and we don’t have any good alternatives. We want 

the airplane. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Is there anything that we can do to help 

you drive down cost, to manage out those costs that Congress, the 

Senate, or this panel can do in light of the fact that there are no 

good alternatives here? We need this aircraft. We need to make it 

work. We need to make it affordable. 

Most important, we need to convince the American taxpayers 

that it is necessary, affordable, and that there are no good alternatives. 

Dr. CARTER. This committee has contributed a lot to our acquisition practices over the last couple of years. That was through the 

WSARA and other provisions. I appreciate that and thank the committee for giving us many of the tools that we do use to try to deliver better value to the taxpayers and the warfighters. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to thank you and Ranking Member McCain again for 

holding this important hearing. 

Just to summarize what you are saying, this is still a very critical project for our country, and there isn’t a good alternative. The 

importance of the F–35 JSF program is one that we agree on in 

terms of getting that capability to our warfighter in a way that we 

can afford and in the production rates that we want them to be. 

I share all of the panel members’ concerns about the cost overruns and look forward to your detailed analysis as to how we will 

be able to meet the cost measures to afford this program going forward. 

I wanted to ask you about the ramp-up rates for production. Secretary Carter, as I understand it, in fiscal year 2010, 32 JSFs were 

funded. Then, in fiscal year 2011, 35 were funded, and yet, for fiscal year 2012, the proposal of DOD is actually to go back to 32 

planes. 

Just looking at what we are trying to get at in terms of overall 

production rates, I was surprised to see us creeping up and then 

go down in terms of production rates and wanted to understand 

why our production rates aren’t increasing, given what we are trying to produce overall? 

As I understand it, the goal is to produce almost 2,500 of these 

JSF aircraft in the next 25 years. We would hope that the production would be going, even if it were gradually, in the opposite direction. Senator Begich had already asked Ms. Fox about the production costs and as we produce more what that impacts on the individual cost for each fighter that is produced. 

1046 

As I understand it, you are going to get back to the committee 

on that issue, but I wanted you to comment on what the thought 

process was as to why we are not going in this direction, as opposed to that direction, in fiscal year 2012? 

Dr. CARTER. I can do that, and the difference between 35 and 32 

planes is a difference between what the United States buys and 

some additional airplanes bought by others. Our buy has been stable at 32. Your question still is, why aren’t you going up? 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Dr. CARTER. Why are you flat? The reason for that is that based 

on their performance to date, that is what I can sit before you 

today and tell you the Fort Worth line can produce. The line has 

not matured in a way that makes it reasonable for me to ask you 

to give me money for more airplanes than 32. 

That is just sort of fact of life. A second reason is that it would 

be imprudent to try to go faster up the ramp for the following reason: that risks building aircraft that we are, at the same moment 

we are building it, discovering in tests need modifications. 

You don’t want to build too many, you want to get into production as quickly as you can. You don’t want to get in there so fast 

that you end up rebuilding the early aircraft on the basis of what 

you learn in tests. 

That is the balance between going too fast and going too slow 

that I was referring to, and we think that the 1.5 factor per year 

strikes the right balance between going too fast and too slow. Those 

two things together explain why flat in 2012. Just not ready to go 

up the ramp. Then why the ramp is a 1.5 ramp in the out-years. 

We are advised by the IMRT, that that is the maximum year-onyear increase in production rate that we can prudently plan for the 

Fort Worth facility. 

Senator AYOTTE. I look forward to your getting back to us on the 

information on what you anticipate the rates in terms of if we increase production, how do we reduce cost? That goes into the cost 

analysis overall of what we are looking at, to whether we cannot 

only produce the right specifications we want for our warfighters, 

but also make sure that we can actually get production so it is a 

viable program going forward. 

Ms. FOX. Could I just add that as long as the total of 2,443 aircraft holds, the change in the ramp, it delays when we get aircraft. 

It is reflected in the cost and the development cost. But the average cost per aircraft doesn’t significantly change with regard to the 

ramp, just for your information. 

Senator AYOTTE. Since you had said earlier, so you don’t think 

that there is any change? 

Ms. FOX. The change in the ramp is not a significant driver in 

cost in any way in the average cost per aircraft. 

The reason for the change in the ramp, the increased development, is an increase in cost, as we have all already testified to. 

That is the cost that we are experiencing in the near-term, but the 

average cost per aircraft won’t change with the ramp. 

Senator AYOTTE. I just wanted to clarify, Secretary Carter, you 

were saying that the 35 planes in 2011, that some of them were 

due to international acquisitions? That is different than what I understood. 

1047 

Dr. CARTER. Let me get back to you on that, and perhaps the second panel, I am sure Dave has that at his fingertips. I could find 

it out here. I remember a couple of United Kingdom and Dutch 

planes in there. I think that explains the difference. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. If you could get back to us on that, I 

would really appreciate it, just so we can understand which way we 

are going. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Final fiscal year 2011 appropriations included funding for up to 35 total U.S. aircraft. These aircraft will be procured in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 5. 

There are no planned partner procurements in LRIP Lot 5. 

Some confusion likely resulted from the fact that the F–35 program was restructured between the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget submittal in February 2010 

and the enactment of final fiscal year 2011 appropriations in April 2011. 

The fiscal year 2011 President’s budget requested 42 total F–35 aircraft. Following the Nunn-McCurdy review and certification of the F–35 program, and the resultant Technical Baseline Review, the Secretary announced that the Department 

planned to procure 32 aircraft in fiscal year 2011. H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, signed into law on April 

15, 2011, provides appropriations for up to 35 total F–35 aircraft. 

Senator AYOTTE. As a follow-up on the extra engine issue and in 

response to what Senator Blumenthal raised, it is very important 

for the committee to understand the full costs. We have GE offering to pay for the next 2 years what it will cost to build the extra 

engine. 

There are additional costs, as I understand it, that go beyond 

those 2 years of development that taxpayers would incur. It is important for us to understand what those costs would be. As we are 

looking for, particularly when you come to us, which is quite unusual, to tell us don’t spend money here, we take that very seriously. I look forward to seeing what those numbers are. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Ayotte. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all of our panelists for being here. Hopefully, you 

are almost finished this morning. 

Dr. Carter, as the chair of the European Affairs Subcommittee of 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am particularly aware 

of the importance of the F–35 program to our international partners and to our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. As we 

are seeing in Libya and Afghanistan, interoperability is particularly important with the threats that we are facing today. 

I know there have been a number of questions about how our 

international partners are participating in viewing the program. I 

am not going to repeat those. I just want to reiterate the importance of making sure that our allies are fully aware of what is happening with the program and are updated on a regular basis. 

Dr. CARTER. They are, indeed. I make a point whenever we make 

an important decision or there is a change in data or something, 

I usually call them all. At a minimum, send them a letter. 

What they, quite understandably, do not like is to read in the 

newspapers something about an airplane that their government is 

buying. I try to avoid that. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good. Thank you. 

1048 

One area I don’t think we have talked about today is the importance of the supplier base for the F–35 and what the impact is on 

the supplier base of dramatic changes to timelines and cost estimates for many of the small companies that are part of that supplier base. We hear from companies in New Hampshire about the 

difficulties in planning when there are dramatic changes in contracts. 

I wonder if you could speak to that or Ms. Fox could speak to 

that, and how we maintain supplier stability throughout this process? 

Dr. CARTER. It is a very important point, and, in fact, turbulence 

is a serious driver of cost at the prime and the subcontractor levels, 

which is why we would like to get ourselves on a smooth glide slope 

for the JSF and hold to it because there is great economy in stability in these programs. 

You are absolutely right. Most of the cost associated with the airplane isn’t retained at the prime contractor level. It is paid down 

to the subs. The two big airframe subs are BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. They, in turn, have their chain of subs. 

Those companies that are small and sometimes very innovative 

are an important part of our industrial base. They are a conveyor 

belt of new faces, new ideas, and so forth. The supplier base is 

something very important to national defense. The whole defense 

industrial base is important to national defense, but that is an important piece of it. 

We were talking about the engine earlier. The engine is, let us 

take the Pratt & Whitney engine. The Pratt & Whitney engine, 

about 15 percent of the cost of that engine is for Pratt & Whitney 

to assemble the parts and 85 percent on a dollar is paid out to the 

subcontractors for the parts. 

The majority of the cost of these articles actually filters down to 

the supplier base. Their competence, their efficiency, are essential 

to our success. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I am pleased to hear you say that. We have 

a lot of those subcontractors in New Hampshire who are providing 

parts to BAE and to Northrop Grumman. We think they are very 

important, and we want to see them continue. 

As you point out, the innovation that they are developing is critical, as we look not just at this aircraft, but at the future needs 

that the military will have. 

We have all talked about how many times the program has been 

restructured. I want you to think about next year and imagine if 

you are testifying a year from now before this committee. What 

would you want to be able to say about where the program is? How 

will we know that it is back on track? What is the biggest obstacle 

to achieving progress over the next year? 

Dr. CARTER. I would like to take the four phases. I would like 

to tell you that SDD is executing the way we wanted it to. The biggest risk there is software. 

I would like to tell you that we had made a substantial dent in 

the projected average procurement unit cost of the aircraft, and I 

don’t think there is any risk there except stubbornness. There is 

excess cost in there. We can identify it. 

1049 

I would like to be able to tell you that our estimates for 

sustainment are realistically lower. I don’t think there is a lot of 

risk there either. They certainly will be more realistic because we 

haven’t really taken that on yet. They will be better. I hope they 

are lower also. 

Finally, for STOVL, I would like to be able to report that we are 

working through the problems on STOVL and that we are able to 

solve them at acceptable cost and weight penalty. 

Senator SHAHEEN. What do you mean by stubbornness? 

Dr. CARTER. Resistance to changing the way we are doing things 

on this airplane, the way it has evolved over the last 10 years, and 

getting it back to where it started when it was a much more affordable airplane. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Finally, how would you rate the fifth-generation stealth capabilities in the F–22 and F–35 to those that we have seen from Russia, 

their T–50, and the Chinese J–20? Where does our technology rate 

with respect to theirs? 

Dr. CARTER. In all respects, the F–35 dominates those aircraft 

and will, therefore, dominate them in the skies. We will have more 

of them, and they will be better. That is the prize here for getting 

this program right. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me make something clear here. When you just responded to 

Senator Shaheen, with respect to the other aircraft, Secretary 

Carter, she mentioned the F–22 in that mix. The F–22 is clearly 

a far superior air-to-air airplane than the F–35. Do we agree on 

that? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Okay. I listened to you back in my office a 

little while, to all of you talk about this program. Those of us who 

have been in such strong support of this program and know that 

the program has to succeed are very frustrated. I am sure some of 

that frustration exists with each of you. 

Secretary Carter, you and I have been through this, it seems like 

on an annual basis for the last few years, and we keep waiting for 

that good news to come forward. It just doesn’t seem to be there, 

and I am really concerned. 

There is no question that there is no alternative. We have to 

keep pounding away here until we get this thing right. I would just 

urge all of you to redouble your efforts, both on the IOC, on the 

costs, on all of these issues that keep coming up. This thing has 

to succeed. 

I am concerned, Secretary Carter, about the comment that Ms. 

Fox made in her statement that the O&S costs of the F–35 are less 

than the F–22, equal to the F–15 C and D, and greater than the 

F–16 and the F/A–18. This is significant because it is going to cost 

33 percent more per flight hour to operate the F–35 than it does 

the F–16, the F/A–18, and that is why you are going to experience 

a shortfall of 40 to 100 aircraft due to that cost increase. 

1050 

I understand the shortfall is a manageable shortfall, but the 

Navy has a greater concern than the Air Force with the shortfall. 

As a result of that, they have invested in, or DOD has invested in, 

150 F/A–18s. Did any of the funds used to purchase those F/A–18s 

come from F–35 funds? 

Dr. CARTER. In effect, they did. It was a change made at the 

same time, and while that wasn’t our first choice, that was what 

we needed to do to avoid the shortfall. The funding for the 41 this 

year, I think, Ms. Fox will agree with me, in effect, came from the 

F–35 line. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. That is very troublesome that we are spend- ing $6 billion, I think, on those F/A–18s, fourth-generation aircraft 

that are going to have limited utility, particularly the longer they 

stay in the inventory. We know they are going to be there 15, 20, 

25, or 30 years maybe. 

With our potential adversaries developing stealthy aircraft that 

are going to be much superior to the F/A–18 and here we are 

equipping our folks with airplanes and spending a lot of money 

that if we just waited and bought more F–35s, it just seems to me 

like it would be money better spent. 

In that vein, I am a little troubled by some press reports that I 

am seeing that our F–35 partner nations are in contact with Boeing to purchase F/A–18s to compensate for the delays in the F–35 

deliveries. Again, it is a huge mistake. 

We can’t tell other folks what to do, but here we are because of 

the delays in this program, putting our partners in a position of 

taking money they would use to buy F–35s, and they are going to 

buy fourth-generation aircraft. Is that, in fact, the case? Do we 

know whether our partners are negotiating to buy fourth-generation aircraft? 

Dr. CARTER. There are some that, like we, as a partial short-term 

mitigation to the slip in the JSF schedule, are buying other aircraft 

instead. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Van Buren, would you care to comment 

on this issue as it relates to the Air Force, the shortfall issue? 

Mr. VAN BUREN. In the short term, we will look at life extension 

programs for the F–16 to compensate for the later deliveries of the 

F–35. The Air Force understands the balance of producing these 

aircraft when the configuration is known and that the ramp that 

has been created by DOD is a prudent one with regard to making 

sure that the configuration we finally accept is one that will be 

fully capable. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Van Buren, Secretary Carter, the recent 

Selected Acquisition Report states that the F–35 will have to recertify milestone B decision later this month. Are we on track to do 

that? 

Dr. CARTER. We are. At this point, that is kind of a formality. 

We have gone through the Nunn-McCurdy process. It requires us 

to do this. We have done all the work. CAPE has done the cost estimate. Ms. Fox has presented you with that data today, or that is 

available. That will occur in the next few weeks. It is, at this point, 

a formality. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Ms. Fox, affordability is the underlying 

premise of the F–35 in Europe as I note from your statement. In 

1051 

your opinion, what can be done in the near term to help drive down 

these costs that Dr. Carter has promised before he leaves, he is 

going to come back next year and tell us is happening. 

Ms. FOX. Sir, I do think that the software is an area we all really 

do need to focus. If we can get the software development up, the 

lines of code required have been known for a long time. The difference in the estimate is how quickly the contractor can produce 

the code. 

They are producing it at a slower rate currently than we had estimated before or had been hoped. If we can figure out how they 

can produce the code more quickly and, as Dr. Gilmore said, test 

it more quickly, that will help quite a lot in getting the development cost down. I defer to Dr. Carter’s expertise in negotiating the 

average cost per aircraft through fixed-price contracting. 

O&S is hard. There are certainly aspects of O&S that we want 

to help and support Dr. Carter’s efforts to try to get those costs 

down for the long term, as we field these aircraft in numbers. 

There are certain parts of O&S, though, like the cost of fuel and 

the fuel consumption that this high-performance aircraft will use 

compared to legacy that will be very difficult to address. 

Whether we can get it all the way down to legacy is something 

that I and my office doubts. Whether we can get it down, however, 

we do believe that there are ways to get it down in some of the 

repairables, for example, the contractor logistic support, which is a 

focus area of JPO and Dr. Carter as well. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Dr. Carter, are we having problems with the 

F–22 software today? 

Dr. CARTER. We are. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Is there any relativity to the problems there 

with the problems with the F–35 software? 

Dr. CARTER. For F–22, we have software that is fully functioning 

but does not have all the functionality we want. We have basic software builds that we are now adding capability to. In the F–35 at 

this stage, we are still building the basic capability, which we will 

then add to, block-by-block, later. 

The F–22 modernization program is a concern to us. Dave and 

I talk about it a lot. Let me just ask, Dave, if you have anything 

to add about F–22 modernization? 

Mr. VAN BUREN. Increment 3.2 that we are currently embarking 

on in the F–22 to our warfighting customer is taking too long to 

implement, and we are working with the company to try to speed 

that up, make it more affordable, more economical, and get the capability into warfighters’ hands sooner. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Was the software problem with the F–22 the 

reason it was not used in the Libya operation? 

Mr. VAN BUREN. That is outside of my area of expertise. I would 

defer to the operational side. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Dr. Carter, do you know? 

Dr. CARTER. I would prefer to have General Schwartz or someone 

else respond to make sure he gets an answer to you. But that was 

an operational decision that he and General Fraser made, and I 

wouldn’t like to speak for them. If you don’t mind, I will get an answer for you. 

1052 

Senator CHAMBLISS. If you could get us an answer for the record, 

I would appreciate it. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The main reason the F–22 did not participate in the Libya conflict was its distance from the fight. During testimony with the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, General Schwartz is quoted as saying: ‘‘Had the F–22 been stationed in 

Europe, in proximity and therefore more available, it undoubtedly would have been 

used,’’ but because the Libya operation ‘‘came together fairly rapidly, the judgment 

was made to apply the various resources we had in close proximity.’’ 

Fighters already stationed in the U.S. Air Forces in Europe theater, such as the 

F–15E and F–16, were more than capable of ensuring mission success. There are 

no known software problems in the F–22 that would prevent combat employment. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

We will now excuse this panel and move to our second panel; we 

thank you very much. There are a number of questions for the 

record that you have been asked to provide. We would ask that 

those be provided within a week. 

Thank you. 

Our second panel this morning, or this afternoon now, will be 

VADM David J. Venlet, USN, PEO, F–35 Lightning II Program; 

Michael J. Sullivan, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO; and Charles T. ‘‘Tom’’ Burbage, Executive Vice President and General Manager, F–35 Program Integration, Lockheed 

Martin Aeronautics Company. [Pause.] 

Thank you, gentlemen, all of you, for coming this afternoon. We 

appreciate your being here. 

I am in an unusual situation here now where I must leave. I am 

going to leave you with a question, however, that I would appreciate your answering, Admiral, when it is your turn. 

I will leave the gavel in the hands of Senator McCain, unless 

there is someone on my side who shows up. I don’t know if you 

have opening statements or not but if you do, they will be welcome. 

I am going to have to ask you in your opening statement, Admiral, 

to answer the following question for me. I will have to ask my staff 

what your answer was. 

Last year, you completed negotiations on the F–35 aircraft in the 

fiscal year 2010 program that was called Lot 4 aircraft. That was 

a fixed-price incentive fee contract, which is a good thing. We 

would encourage DOD to move away from cost-plus contracts. I understand that the contract price, including the potential ceiling 

price of the contract, was lower than the CAPE estimate of the production cost, and that is also good. 

However, unfortunately, it was announced earlier this year that 

you are expecting overruns from $700 million to as much as $964 

million on the Lot 1 through Lot 3 aircraft, which are being bought 

with cost-plus contracts. We have also heard press reports that the 

bid prices for the Lot 5 contract are higher than the negotiated 

prices for the Lot 4 aircraft. If that is true, those facts would be 

very troubling. 

As I turn the gavel over to Senator McCain for any opening 

statement that he might have and then to recognize you for your 

opening statements, I would ask you, Admiral, if you would address that question in your opening statement? 

1053 

I want to again thank my colleague, Senator McCain, for his initiative in this matter and for taking over at this point. 

Thank you. 

Senator MCCAIN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no opening statement. I appreciate the patience of the witnesses. I know you will appreciate the lateness of the hour. Please 

proceed. 

Are you first, Admiral? 

STATEMENT OF VADM DAVID J. VENLET, USN, PROGRAM 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, F–35 LIGHTNING II PROGRAM 

Admiral VENLET. Yes, sir. Happy to go first. 

Thank you, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain. 

Distinguished members, thank you for being here today. 

My opening statement, I would like to tie three points from the 

previous panel’s questions, several that you all asked. I would like 

to start with the WSARA. 

You asked a question about what happened and what we can do, 

Senator. Senator Lieberman asked about confidence in the plan 

going forward. There is an intersection in my mind, and that intersection is the fundamentals of systems engineering. 

I would say that the mention and the emphasis in the WSARA 

on systems engineering was applauded as a systems command commander where I sat. That is what forms the basis for confidence 

in this adjusted plan going forward. There is not a record of performance for you to have confidence in, Senator. 

Right now, I am bringing you a plan with changes in it, with resilience in it, with realism in costs, and an embracing of those fundamentals of systems acquisition that has not been there. That is 

the basis for the confidence going forward. What can we do? What 

does this new plan do? 

This new plan adds time, and it adds money because of the risk 

to software. How you address the risk, is to have time for the rework, and you resource that plan with people to do the work and 

a schedule. 

One of the most significant adjustments in this new schedule was 

a 2-year extension of what we call that middle capability block of 

Block 2. That is the most powerful lever of what we can do about 

it to handle and put some resilience in this program to deal with 

the expected further discovery of issues that we need to do about 

it. 

You have a unified and aligned assessment of the program across 

GAO, Department of the Treasury, CAPE, and the program office 

like never before. There is a long road ahead to complete development and deliver aircraft at rate dependably and begin 

sustainment in the fleet. There will be setbacks and missed goals, 

as there will be advances and accomplishments. 

The firm grasp on realism and determination to live within the 

currently committed resources will go beyond keeping the independent assessments aligned. It will enable the solutions to each 

of the challenges we discover and deliver the capability that the 

Services need so critically. 

To specifically speak to Chairman Levin’s questions about the fiscal year 2010 LRIP 4 contract, the ceiling is below the unit recurVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1054 

ring flyaway cost estimate line. The issues that are at play in affecting the current costs are a combination of what you experience 

in any program and learning curve from building the aircraft. It is 

also affected by the change generated from the concurrency of 

building while we are testing, and it is also affected by the movement of quantities. 

Most of the time, programs have any one of those factors working 

singly at a point in time. This program has all three working at 

the same time. Thus, the challenge. It is what it is. We are dealing 

with it. 

The LRIP 4 fixed-price incentive contract with that 50–50 share 

line of overruns, where industry would yield fee for overrun at that 

50–50 share, and the ceiling of 120 percent does protect the exposure of the government to an overrun in the percentage range of 

approximately 6.4 to 6.5 percent. Because of that ceiling protection 

where if the costs would exceed that, they would be borne by the 

company. 

The first 3 years of production, LRIPs 1, 2, and 3, were cost-plus. 

Yes, I do see a range of possible ultimate costs between 11 to 15 

percent. We are working to get resources to pay those bills in the 

program. But that is the major lever of near-term affordability impact. That was pulled in the 2010 choice to pursue fixed-price incentive. 

We are in receipt of the contractor’s proposal for LRIP 5, and we 

are in the initial stages of fact finding. We are also conducting that 

rigorous should-cost that the previous panel spoke about. We will 

negotiate privately with the company, and the government fully expects to get the benefit of learning wherever we land. 

We will negotiate privately, sir. But the fundamentals of getting 

the benefit for the taxpayers better than what we got last year, we 

will continue with at least as good, if not stronger, incentive lines 

and ceilings as we negotiate that. 

I will stop there and look forward to your questions, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Burbage, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES T. ‘‘TOM’’ BURBAGE, EXECUTIVE 

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, F–35 PROGRAM 

INTEGRATION, LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICS COMPANY 

Mr. BURBAGE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Tom Burbage. I am the Executive Vice President and 

General Manager for the F–35 Program Integration for Lockheed 

Martin. I joined the F–35 program in the summer of 2000 and have 

spent a full third of my industrial career of 32 years with the F– 

35 team. 

Since 2005, my responsibilities have been to ensure that all requirements for the United States and our international customers 

are fulfilled and to coordinate with our international partners 

around the world to achieve the full potential of the F–35 program. 

Lockheed Martin is very sensitive to the committee’s concerns on 

ensuring predictability and discipline in the execution of our current plan and visibility of our costs, in all dimensions. I sincerely 

appreciate the time your staff has spent with us to see and understand the progress and importance of this critical program. 

1055 

Thank you for the opportunity to represent the F–35 industrial 

team. I have submitted my full statement for the record, which I 

ask to be made part of the hearing record. 

In the interest of time, I will forgo any additional opening statement. I look forward to your questions, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burbage follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY TOM BURBAGE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: On behalf of Lockheed Martin and the 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) industrial team that I represent today, thank you 

for the opportunity to participate on this panel with Vice Admiral Venlet and Mr. 

Sullivan. For the record, I would like to touch on two important points in my brief 

opening statement. The first is the value proposition of the F–35 JSF program and 

the second is the current performance of the program. 

The value proposition of the F–35 starts with the driving requirement to recapitalize the three tactical air services of the United States plus those of our closest 

allies-those nations that stand with us in coalition operations. The program will reduce the cost of the military enterprise which for the past two decades has been 

engaged in sustained, joint-service, coalition based peacekeeping and combat operations like the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. The F–35 will be a powerful enabler 

of coalition building that incorporates advanced technologies to ensure it will be effective against future threat scenarios that are likely to be far more stressing in 

other regions of the world. In the case of individual services and individual nations, 

there is real opportunity to reduce expensive infrastructure while introducing revolutionary new capabilities. The Marine Corps’s intention to replace the F–18, AV– 

8, and EA–6 with the F–35 is estimated by the marines to save $1 billion per year 

when the transition is complete. Across the current partnership, F–35 will replace 

A–10, F–16, F–18, AV–8B, EA–6B, Tornado, and Italian AMX aircraft. 

The F–35 also leverages the economies of commonality and scale in procurement 

and sustainment that come with much broader participation than traditional singleservice fleet recapitalization. From the industrial perspective, we are also recapitalizing the aerospace industry with new manufacturing technologies as we introduce 

production efficiencies across the industrial partnership. The F–35 program today 

involves more than 1,300 suppliers in 47 States and supports nearly 127,000 direct 

and indirect U.S. jobs. In addition, we are implementing global industrial partnerships as part of the government-to-government agreements. Those industrial ties 

will enhance the economic relationships between the United States and participating allied nations and will underscore the military ties that enable coalition burden sharing in the future. This international participation also makes F–35 potentially the largest program in the Department of Defense that can favorably affect 

the U.S. balance of trade. It is clear that capturing the full potential of F–35 depends on maintaining a strategic perspective and making decisions that will enable 

the future success of this program. In this new reality, the value proposition is more 

relevant today than ever before. 

Next, I would like to provide an update on the current performance of the program. I am pleased to report that we are making significant progress on the current 

plan and in just the past week we have delivered our second F–35C Navy carrier 

variant and the first two production F–35s to the Air Force. From a technical perspective, we believe the risks that are part of the introduction of this revolutionary 

F–35 weapon system are now understood. There are several critical elements still 

ahead of us, mainly in the full implementation of advanced software fusion, integration of weapons and demonstration of full shipboard compatibility. That said, early 

testing has allowed us to understand our main technical challenges and develop resolution paths for them. Examples of these are the integration of the Helmet Mounted Display into the next generation cockpit and mission system and flying qualities 

in the transonic flight regime. Where we anticipate challenges, we try to test early 

and identify shortcomings and we’ve done that on F–35. Our main issues have been 

well publicized and we are on path to resolve them. It is worth noting that the performance of the short takeoff and vertical landing variant in flight test has been 

very good since November. Our F–35B test airplanes at the Naval Air Test Center 

are all performing vertical landings and we are on track for shipboard testing this 

fall. We expect to deliver our third Navy F–35C in the next few weeks and will 

begin shipboard compatibility testing at Lakehurst this fall. In addition, all of our 

Air Force conventional takeoff and landing test jets are in active testing at the Air 

Force Test Center in California. Our mission system testing is underway and software stability and sensor performance have been exceptional. 

1056 

Since the new schedule was put in place in late 2010, our factory performance 

has been on plan. We have essentially eliminated out-of-station work in the factory 

and are now delivering complete jets to the flight line. We have recently delivered 

our first two production jets to the U.S. Air Force. 

IN THE PROCUREMENT PHASE

The initial F–35 acquisition strategy was originally structured around 6 Low Rate 

Initial Production (LRIP) lots of about 250 airplanes that would employ cost-plus 

type contracts. In 2010, the industry team agreed to move to a fixed-price-type contract with the fourth LRIP Lot, 2 years earlier than originally planned. This agreement occurred after 31 production airplanes were under contract with none delivered. 

During LRIP Lots 1 through 3, our initial performance across our supply chain 

was heavily influenced by the incorporation of changes identified in the 2004 weight 

reduction redesign, changes required for our suppliers to complete full qualification 

testing of their components and changes found in early ground and flight testing. 

This change incorporation resulted in inefficiencies in the manufacturing process 

due to late delivery of parts, incorporation of late parts out of the normal manufacturing sequence and transfer of some assembly work to the flight line where completion is much less efficient. These impacts that are due to the concurrent development, test and production activity are captured in a term called concurrency cost 

and includes future modifications that may be incorporated later in the life cycle 

of the jets in that contract. The team is focused now on any opportunity to reduce 

the concurrency estimate and improve the final cost to complete on these early production lots. All cost overruns are shared between the contractor and U.S. Government in this phase. 

In LRIP Lots 4 and 5, these are the initial fixed-price-type contracts which Lockheed Martin has agreed to take 2 years earlier than the original acquisition plan. 

Our factory performance metrics are now showing significant improvement in all 

key areas, we are experiencing excellent learning curve reductions in assembly 

hours and we have essentially eliminated all traveled work. By the end of 2011, we 

will have sufficient actual cost data to know the projected cost for the 32 airplanes 

in LRIP 4. We have recently submitted our proposal for LRIP 5 which includes 35 

airplanes and are in the initial negotiations for that contract. It is important to note 

that our LRIP 4 settlement was significantly below the government’s estimate and 

our initial proposal for LRIP 5 is also below the December 2010 government estimate. 

FUTURE PRODUCTION

Future production contracts are expected to be firm fixed-price and will combine 

both U.S. and allied partner procurements into a single contract buy. It is important 

for future affordability to provide stability in annual orders and to move to higher, 

more efficient production rates as quickly as practical. It is important to remember 

that the F–35 program has invested heavily in highly automated, precision and motion-based manufacturing infrastructure in our factories and throughout our global 

supply chain to ensure industrial capability to deliver the F–35 at the efficient production rates envisioned. However, over the last 2 years, program adjustments have 

moved approximately 240 U.S. airplanes out of the near-term production profile into 

future years. There has also been an additional movement of some planned partner 

nation procurements in response to those changes. This movement is the single largest contributor to the increase in unit cost for the F–35. We are fully cognizant of 

the risk of retrofit to airplanes procured before adequate structural testing is complete, but we believe that risk has been reduced significantly with the production 

order reductions already applied and will be further reduced when two lifetimes of 

durability testing for all three variants is completed in 2013. At some point the potential cost risk of retrofit for a limited number of airplanes is clearly much less 

than the cost benefit to all future airplanes that comes with accelerated achievement of production cost improvement with higher production volume. Our most significant cause for concern is the retention of efficient production profiles in the future to capture the economies of scale that allow affordable recapitalization of the 

U.S. and allied multi-role fighter force. 

FOR SUSTAINMENT

We are fully engaged with the F–35 Program Office and the operating services 

of the U.S. and partner nations to ensure that operating and support costs are fully 

characterized and optimized. We remain absolutely convinced that the focus on F– 

35 supportability from the beginning has resulted in real design features that will 

1057 

enhance reliability, reduce maintenance hours per task and facilitate unit-level, 

service-level, and coalition-based operations. We are also certain that moving to a 

single family of airplanes will allow significant reductions in infrastructure relative 

to the many independent logistics pipelines that support today’s variety of operational fleets. 

In summary, we understand the committee’s overarching concern to see schedule 

and cost control and predictability going forward. We share that concern and are 

fully committed to drive down costs in the face of challenging fiscal realities. Lockheed Martin is attacking every element of cost within our operation, both direct and 

indirect. We have invested over $1 billion in factory efficiencies in our facility in 

Fort Worth and another $450 million in information system improvements which 

will streamline our operations across the F–35 enterprise. As a program, we are investing in affordability initiatives in our supply chain and we are working closely 

with our Government counterparts to develop a should-cost approach to future production lots. 

Mr. Chairman, the JSF program is a first of its kind—3 variants, 9 international 

partners, more than 1,300 global suppliers. It was conceived 20 years ago for the 

exact situation we find ourselves in today—global economic pressures in an increasingly uncertain security environment that regularly requires our allies to join forces. 

Now more than ever this new reality requires a value proposition that only the F– 

35 program can deliver. While we have experienced and overcome significant challenges to date, there is no doubt that the F–35 will be the most relied upon aircraft 

for the United States and our allies for decades to come. 

On behalf of Lockheed Martin and the F–35 industry team thank you again for 

this opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Welcome back, Mr. Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is a pleasure to be here again to discuss the 

JSF program, DOD’s largest ever and so important to plans for recapitalizing our tactical air forces. 

I will make some brief comments and then be happy to take 

questions. I have submitted a written testimony for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, over the last 15 months, defense leadership has 

taken positive action to restructure the JSF program. We strongly 

support the actions that leadership has taken, many overdue, that 

we and some other organizations have previously recommended. 

We have been concerned since program start about the risks 

posed by the high degree of concurrency between development, testing, and production activities and have consistently recommended 

reducing annual procurement quantities until sufficient testing is 

completed. 

The Secretary’s substantial reduction of 246 aircraft through 

2016 certainly helps lessen the risk of concurrency. Even with that 

reduction, however, total development cost is now estimated at 

about $56.4 billion, and the development program will not be completed until 2018, a 26 percent cost increase and a 5-year schedule 

slip from the program’s baseline. 

We also note that over the next 5 years, annual funding requirements for procurement on this program more than double, and the 

annual quantities will more than triple. 

The program had mixed results in 2010 against the goals that it 

had established for itself, achieving 6 of the 12 major goals and 

progressing in varying degrees on the rest. There are some encouraging signs. The pace of the flight testing accelerated in 2010. The 

program accomplished three times as many flights as in the 3 prior 

1058 

years combined. Also, there is much more work in process on the 

manufacturing floor. 

These signs of improvement are counterbalanced with continuing 

setbacks in some areas. For example, while the Air Force’s conventional variant and the Navy’s carrier variant performed well in limited flight tests in the past year, the STOVL, essential to the Marine Corps’ future aviation plans, had numerous technical problems, and DOD has directed the 2-year probation to solve them. 

Also, the final delivery of test and production aircraft is still lagging, and improving factory throughput and the global supply 

chain are now urgent priorities for the program. Also, design 

changes on the manufacturing floor continue at higher rates than 

expected and may increase further as flight testing continues and 

the design has to be tweaked. This indicates the design is still not 

fully stable several years after the critical design review. 

Finally, integration and testing of software, which we have heard 

from most of the panelists today already, is essential for achieving 

80 percent of the fighter’s functionality, is significantly behind 

schedule as it enters its most challenging phase. 

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying the JSF program’s time 

to perform at cost and schedule targets has definitely come. GAO 

pointed out several years ago that official estimates were unrealistic, that they were based on optimistic assumptions rather than 

robust systems engineering knowledge, and that plans to cut test 

assets and reduce flight testing were ill-advised. 

We now support recent restructuring efforts and believe that the 

added funding, extended time to complete systems development, 

and a more robust flight test program provide a more achievable 

program. However, this program still lags behind expectations and 

is not out of the woods yet. Now is the time for much more disciplined decisionmaking. 

Looking forward, a focus on affordability and continued strong 

oversight is critical. With future budgets likely to be austere, the 

JSF program is planning an unprecedented amount of funding for 

a sustained period, averaging more than $13 billion of funding requests per year through 2034. 

That is why we recommended in our last report that DOD take 

measures to ensure that it does not exceed current planned funding 

limits outlined in the Future Years Defense Plan, and if it must, 

it should report the reasons for increases to Congress first. After 

10 years of product development and 4 years of production, it is 

time for the JSF program to make good on its estimates now and 

deliver aircraft in a predictable manner. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY MICHAEL SULLIVAN

Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, and members of the Senate Armed 

Services Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the F– 

35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The JSF is the Department of Defense’s (DOD) most costly and ambitious aircraft acquisition, seeking 

to simultaneously develop and field three aircraft variants for the Air Force, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and eight international partners. DOD is acquiring the conventional 

takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant for the Air Force, the carrier variant (CV) for 

the Navy and Marine Corps, and the short takeoff and landing (STOVL) variant for 

the Marine Corps. The JSF is the core of DOD’s long-term tactical aircraft recapitalVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1059 

1 Commonly referred to as Nunn-McCurdy, 10 U.S.C. § 2433 establishes the requirement for 

DOD to submit unit cost reports on major defense acquisition programs or designated major 

subprograms. Two measures are tracked against the current and original baseline estimates for 

a program: procurement unit cost (total procurement funds divided by the quantity of systems 

procured) and program acquisition unit cost (total funds for development, procurement, and system-specific military construction divided by the quantity of systems procured). If a program’s 

procurement unit cost or acquisition unit cost increases by at least 25 percent over the current 

baseline estimate or at least 50 percent over the original baseline estimate, it constitutes a 

breach of the critical cost growth threshold. When a program experiences a Nunn-McCurdy 

breach of the critical cost growth threshold, DOD is required to take a number of steps, including reassessing the program and submitting a certification to Congress in order to continue the 

program, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 2433a. 2GAO, Joint Strike Fighter: Restructuring Places Program on Firmer Footing, but Progress 

Still Lags, GAO–11–325 (Washington, DC: Apr. 7, 2011). Refer to the related products section 

for a complete list of GAO reports and testimonies. 3Pub. L. No. 111–84, § 244 (2009). 

ization plans as it is intended to replace hundreds of legacy aircraft. Total planned 

U.S. investment in JSF is now about $385 billion to develop and acquire 2,457 aircraft through 2035. Acquisition costs are expected to rise when the department establishes a new approved program baseline next month. 

With such a substantial funding commitment amidst pressing warfighter requirements for this next generation capability, DOD has lately recognized numerous technical, financial, and management shortcomings and announced a major restructuring of the JSF program in February 2010. In March 2010, the department declared that the program experienced a breach of the critical cost growth statutory 

threshold and subsequently certified to Congress in June 2010 that the JSF program should continue.1 Appendix I summarizes the evolution of JSF cost and schedule estimates at key junctures in its acquisition history through the Nunn-McCurdy 

certification. Since then, in January 2011, the Secretary of Defense announced additional development cost increases and further changes consequent to the ongoing restructure. 

GAO has reported on the JSF acquisition program for a number of years. We’ve 

identified serious and continuing problems, including escalating costs, deteriorating 

schedules, unsatisfactory performance in manufacturing and delivering aircraft, 

slow progress in testing, and concerns about not meeting warfighter requirements 

on time and in quantity. We issued our latest JSF report on April 7, 2011.2 While 

we supported the thrust and rationale behind the department’s restructuring actions, we continued to find generally slow progress across the program and serious 

affordability challenges, both in terms of the investment costs to acquire the JSF 

and the continuing costs to operate and support it over the life cycle. To sustain 

a focus on accountability and facilitate trade-offs within the JSF program, we recommended that DOD: (1) maintain annual funding levels at current budgeted 

amounts; (2) establish criteria for evaluating the progress of the short takeoff and 

landing (STOVL) variant and make independent reviews, allowing each variant to 

proceed at its own pace; and (3) conduct an independent review of the software development and lab accreditation processes. DOD concurred with our recommendations, but this has not been the usual case. Appendix II summarizes key findings 

and recommendations in our body of work from 2001 through 2010 and the department’s generally lukewarm responses and actions taken during that period. 

My comments today are focused largely on our latest review and the April 2011 

report. This was the second annual JSF report under our current mandate in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.3 For that report, we: (1) 

evaluated program cost and schedule changes and their implications on affordability; (2) identified progress made in 2010 against established goals; (3) assessed 

elements of design stability and manufacturing maturity and reviewed production 

results; and (4) reported the status of development testing and technical challenges 

facing the program. To conduct this work, we evaluated DOD’s restructuring actions 

and impacts on the program, tracked cost and schedule changes, and determined 

factors driving the changes. We reviewed program status reports, manufacturing 

data, test plans, and internal DOD analyses. We discussed results to date and future plans to complete JSF development and move further into procurement with 

officials from DOD, the JSF program office, contractor officials, and members of the 

independent review teams. We toured aircraft and engine manufacturing plants, obtained production and supply performance indicators, and discussed improvements 

underway with contractors. We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 to 

March 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

1060 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

JSF RESTRUCTURING IMPROVES PROGRAM, BUT AFFORDABILITY IS CHALLENGED BY

RISING COSTS AND DELAYS

DOD has substantially restructured the JSF program over the past 15 months, 

taking positive actions that should lead to more achievable and predictable outcomes. Restructuring has consequences—higher development costs, fewer aircraft in 

the near term, training delays, and extended times for testing and delivering capabilities to warfighters. Key restructuring changes include the following: 

• The total system development cost estimate rose to $56.4 billion and its 

schedule was extended to 2018. This represents a 26 percent increase in 

cost and a 5-year slip in schedule compared to the current approved program baseline established in 2007. 

• Resources and time were added to development testing. Testing plans 

were made more robust by adding another development test aircraft and 

the use of several production aircraft; increasing the number of test flights 

by one-third; extending development testing to 2016; and reducing its overlap with initial operational testing. 

• Near-term procurement quantities were reduced by 246 aircraft through 

2016; the annual rate of increase in production was lowered; and the start 

of full-rate production moved to 2018, a 5-year slip from the current baseline. 

• The military services were directed to reexamine their initial operational 

capability (IOC) requirements, the critical need dates when the warfighter 

must have in place the first increment of operational forces available for 

combat. We expect the Marine Corps’ IOC will slip significantly from its 

current 2012 date and that the Air Force’s and Navy’s IOC dates will also 

slip from the current dates in 2016. 

• To address technical problems and test deficiencies for the Marine Corps’ 

STOVL variant, the department significantly scaled back its procurement 

quantities and directed a 2-year period for evaluating and engineering technical solutions to inform future decisions on this variant. DOD also ‘‘decoupled’’ STOVL testing from the other two variants so as not to delay them 

and to allow all three to proceed at their own speeds. 

The fiscal year 2012 Defense budget reflects the financial effects from restructuring actions through 2016. Compared to estimates in the fiscal year 2010 Future 

Years Defense Program for the same 5-year period, the department increased development funding by $7.7 billion and decreased procurement funding by $8.4 billion 

reflecting plans to buy fewer aircraft. Table 1 summarizes the revised funding requirements and annual quantities following the Secretary’s reductions. Even after 

decreasing near-term quantities and lowering the annual rate of increase in production, JSF procurement still escalates significantly. Annual funding levels more than 

double and quantities more than triple during this period. These numbers do not 

include the additional orders expected from the international partners. 


519ful1.eps
1061 

At the time of our review, DOD did not yet know the full impact from restructuring actions on future procurement funding requirements beyond this 5-year period. Cost analysts were still calculating the net effects from deferring the near-term 

procurement of 246 aircraft to future years and from lowering the annual rate of 

increased procurement. After a Nunn-McCurdy breach of the critical cost growth 

threshold and DOD certification, the most recent milestone must be rescinded, the 

program restructured to address the cause of the breach, and a new acquisition program baseline must be approved that reflects the certification approved by the milestone decision authority. The Secretary has not yet granted new milestone B approval for the JSF nor approved a new acquisition program baseline; officials expect 

to do so next month. We expect future funding requirements will be somewhat higher than currently projected. This could reduce the quantities considered affordable 

by the United States and allies, further driving up unit costs. 

Affordability—in terms of the investment costs to acquire the JSF, the continuing 

costs to operate and maintain it over the life-cycle, and its impact on other defense 

programs—is a challenging issue. Including the funding added by the restructuring 

actions, system development cost estimates have increased 64 percent since program 

start. (Appendix III summarizes the increases in target prices and major cost drivers for the air system and primary engine development contracts.) Also, the estimated average unit procurement price for the JSF has about doubled since program 

start and current forecasts indicate that life-cycle costs will be substantially higher 

than the legacy aircraft it replaces. Rising JSF costs erode buying power and may 

make it difficult for the United States and its allies to buy and sustain as many 

aircraft as planned. 

Going forward, the JSF will require unprecedented demands for funding in a period of more austere defense budgets where it will have to annually compete with 

other defense and nondefense priorities for the discretionary Federal dollar. Figure 

1 illustrates the substantive annual development and procurement funding requirements—almost $13 billion on average through program completion in 2035. This reflects the program’s estimate at the time of the fiscal year 2012 budget submission. 

As discussed earlier, defense cost analysts are still computing the long-term procurement funding requirements reflecting the deferral of aircraft to future years. 

PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING THE JSF PROGRAM’S 2010 GOALS WAS MIXED

The JSF program established 12 clearly stated goals in testing, contracting, and 

manufacturing for completion in calendar year 2010. It had mixed success, achieving 

6 goals and making varying degrees of progress on the other 6. For example, the 

program exceeded its goal for the number of development flight tests but did not 

deliver as many test and production aircraft as planned. Also, the program awarded 

its first fixed-price contract on its fourth lot of production aircraft, but did not award 

the fixed-price engine contract in 2010 as planned. Table 2 summarizes JSF goals 

and accomplishments for 2010. 


519ful2.eps
1062 

4Flight test points are specific, quantifiable objectives in flight plans that are needed to verify 

aircraft design and performance. 

Although still hampered by the late delivery of test aircraft to testing sites, the 

development flight test program significantly ramped up operations in 2010, accomplishing 3 times as many test flights as the previous 3 years combined. The Air 

Force CTOL variant significantly exceeded the annual plan while initial limited 

testing of the Navy’s CV variant was judged satisfactory, below plans for the number and hours of flight but ahead on flight test points 4 flown. The Marine Corps’ 

STOVL, however, substantially underperformed in flight tests, experienced significant down times for maintenance, and was challenged by several technical issues 

unique to this variant that could add to its weight and cost. The STOVL’s problems 

were a major factor in the Secretary’s decision to give the STOVL a 2-year period 

to solve engineering issues, assess impacts, and inform a future decision as to 

whether and how to proceed with this variant. Table 3 summarizes 2010 flight test 

results for each variant. 

PROGRAM HAS STILL NOT FULLY DEMONSTRATED A STABLE DESIGN AND MATURE

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AS IT ENTERS ITS FIFTH YEAR OF PRODUCTION

After completing 9 years of system development and 4 years of overlapping production activities, the JSF program has been slow to gain adequate knowledge to 


519ful3.eps 519ful4.eps
1063 

5Out-of-station work occurs when manufacturing steps are not completed at its designated 

work station and must be finished elsewhere later in production. This is highly inefficient, increasing labor hours, causing delays, and sometimes quality problems. 

ensure its design is stable and the manufacturing process is ready for greater levels 

of annual production. The JSF program still lags in achieving critical indicators of 

success expected from well-performing acquisition programs. Specifically, the program has not yet stabilized aircraft designs—engineering changes continue at higher than expected rates long after critical design reviews and well into procurement. 

Engineering drawings are still being released to the manufacturing floor. More 

changes are expected as testing accelerates. Also, manufacturing cost increases and 

delays in delivering test and production aircraft indicate a need for substantial improvements in factory throughput and performance of the global supply chain. 

Engineering drawings released since design reviews and the number and rate of 

design changes exceed those planned at program outset and are not in line with best 

practices. Critical design reviews were completed on the three aircraft variants in 

2006 and 2007 and the designs declared mature, but the program continues to experience numerous changes. Since 2007, the program has produced 20,000 additional 

engineering drawings, a 50-percent increase in total drawings and about five times 

more than best practices suggest. In addition, changes to drawings have not yet decreased and leveled off as planned. Figure 2 tracks and compares monthly design 

changes and future forecasts against contractor plans in 2007. 

The monthly rate in 2009 and 2010 was higher than expected and the program 

now anticipates more changes over a longer period of time—about 10,000 more 

changes through January 2016. With most of development testing still ahead for the 

JSF, the risk and impact from required design changes are significant. In addition, 

emerging concerns about the STOVL lift fan and drive shaft, fatigue cracks in a 

ground test article, and stealth-related issues may drive additional and substantive 

design changes. 

Manufacturing and delivering test jets took much more time and money than 

planned. As in prior years, lingering management inefficiencies, including substantial out-of-station work 5 and part shortages, continued to increase the labor needed 

to manufacture test aircraft. Although there have been improvements in these factors, final acceptance and delivery of test jets were still delayed. Total labor hours 

required to produce the test aircraft increased over time. The cumulative actual 

labor hours through 2010 to complete the 12 test aircraft exceeded the budgeted 

hours estimated in 2007 by more than 1.5 million hours, a 75 percent increase. Figure 3 depicts forecasted and actual labor hours for building test jets. 


519ful5.eps
1064 

DOD began procuring production jets in 2007 and has now ordered 58 aircraft on 

the first four low-rate initial production lots. The JSF program anticipated the delivery of 14 production aircraft through 2010, but none were delivered during that period. Delivery of the two production jets ordered in 2007 has been delayed several 

times since the contract was signed and the first aircraft was just delivered this 

month. The prices on each of the first three cost-reimbursable production contracts 

have increased from the amounts negotiated at contract awards and the completion 

dates for delivering aircraft have been extended over 9 months on average. We are 

encouraged by DOD’s award of a fixed-price incentive fee contract for lot 4 production and the prospects for the cost study to inform lot 5 negotiations, but we have 

not examined contract specifications. Accumulating a large backlog of jets on order 

but undelivered is not an efficient use of Federal funds, tying up millions of dollars 

in obligations ahead of the ability of the manufacturing process to produce. 

The aircraft and engine manufacturers now have significantly more items in production flow compared to prior years and are making efforts to implement restructuring actions and recommendations from expert defense teams assembled to evaluate and improve production and supply operations. Eight of 20 key recommendations from the independent manufacturing review team have been implemented as 

of September 2010. Until improvements are fully implemented and demonstrated, 

the restructuring actions to reduce near term procurement quantities and establish 

a more achievable ramp rate are appropriate and will provide more time to fully 

mature manufacturing and supply processes and catch up with aircraft backlogs. 

Improving factory throughput and controlling costs—driving down labor and material costs and delivering on time—are essential for efficient manufacturing and 

timely delivery to the warfighter at the increased production rates planned for the 

future. 

TESTING HAS BEEN SLOW AND HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WILL

WORK IN ITS INTENDED ENVIRONMENT

Since the first flight in December 2006, only about 4 percent of JSF capabilities 

have been completely verified by flight tests, lab results, or both. The pace of flight 

testing accelerated significantly in 2010, but overall progress is still much below 

plans forecasted several years ago. Furthermore, only a small portion of the extensive network of ground test labs and simulation models are fully accredited to ensure the fidelity of results. Software development—essential for achieving about 80 

percent of the JSF functionality—is significantly behind schedule as it enters its 

most challenging phase. 


519ful6.eps
1065 

6 According to program officials completion of a test point means that the test point has been 

flown and that flight engineers ruled that the point has met the need. Further analysis may 

be necessary for the test point to be closed out. 

Development flight testing was much more active in 2010 than prior years and 

had some notable successes, but cumulatively still lagged behind previous expectations. The continuing effects from late delivery of test aircraft and an inability to 

achieve the planned flying rates per aircraft substantially reduced the amount and 

pace of testing planned previously. Consequently, even though the flight test program accelerated its pace last year, the total number of flights accomplished during 

the first 4 years of the test program significantly lagged expectations when the program’s 2007 baseline was established. Figure 4 shows that the cumulative number 

of flights accomplished by the end of 2010 was only about one-fifth the numbers 

forecast by this time in the 2007 test plan. 

By the end of 2010, about 10 percent of more than 50,000 planned flight test 

points had been completed.6 The majority of the points were earned on airworthiness tests (basic airframe handling characteristics) and in ferrying the planes to test 

sites. Remaining test points include more complex and stringent requirements, such 

as mission systems, ship suitability, and weapons integration that have yet to be 

demonstrated. 

The JSF test program relies much more heavily than previous weapon systems 

on its modeling and simulation labs to test and verify aircraft design and subsystem 

performance. However, only 3 of 32 labs and models have been fully accredited to 

date. The program had planned to accredit 11 labs and models by now. Accreditation is essential to validate that the models accurately reflect aircraft performance 

and it largely depends upon flight test data to verify lab results. Moreover, the ability to substitute ground testing for some flight testing is unproven. Contractor officials told us that early results are providing good correlation between ground and 

flight tests. 

Software providing essential JSF capability is not mature and releases to the test 

program are behind schedule. Officials underestimated the time and effort needed 

to develop and integrate the software, substantially contributing to the program’s 

overall cost and schedule problems and testing delays, and requiring the retention 

of engineers for longer periods. Significant learning and development work remains 

before the program can demonstrate the mature software capabilities needed to 

meet warfighter requirements. The JSF software development effort is one of the 

largest and most complex in DOD history, providing functionality essential to capaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

519ful7.eps
1066 

bilities such as sensor fusion, weapons and fire control, maintenance diagnostics, 

and propulsion. JSF has about 8 times more on-board software lines of code than 

the F/A–18E/F Super Hornet and 4 times for than the F–22A Raptor. While good 

progress has been reported on the writing of code, total lines of code have grown 

by 40 percent since preliminary design review and 13 percent since the critical design review. The amount of code needed will likely increase as integration and testing efforts intensify. A second software integration line added as part of the restructuring will improve capacity and output. 

Delays in developing, integrating, and releasing software to the test program have 

cascading effects hampering flight tests, training, and lab accreditation. While 

progress is being made, a substantial amount of software work remains before the 

program can demonstrate full warfighting capability. The program released its second block, or increment, to flight test nearly 2 years later than the plan set in 2006, 

largely due to integration problems. Each of the remaining three blocks—providing 

full mission systems and warfighting capabilities—are now projected to slip more 

than 3 years compared to the 2006 plan. Figure 5 illustrates the actual and projected slips for each of the 5 software blocks in delivering software to the test program. 

Schedule delays require retention of engineering staff for longer periods of time. 

Also, some capabilities have been moved to future blocks in attempts to meet schedule and mitigate risks. Uncertainties pertaining to critical technologies, including 

the helmet-mounted display and advanced data links, pose risks for more delays. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The JSF program is at a critical juncture—9 years in development and 4 years 

in limited production–but still early in flight testing to verify aircraft design and 

performance. If effectively implemented and sustained, the restructuring DOD is 

conducting should place the JSF program on a firmer footing and lead to more 

achievable and predictable outcomes. However, restructuring comes with a price— 

higher development costs, fewer aircraft received in the near term, training delays, 

prolonged times for testing and delivering the capabilities required by the 

warfighter, and impacts on other defense programs and priorities. Reducing nearterm procurement quantities lessens, but does not eliminate the still substantial 

and risky concurrency of development and production. Development and testing activities will now overlap 11 years of procurement. Flight testing and production activities are increasing and contractors are improving supply and manufacturing 

processes, but deliveries are still lagging. Slowed deliveries have led to a growing 

backlog of jets on order but not delivered. This is not a good use of Federal funds, 

obligating millions of dollars well before the manufacturing process can deliver aircraft. 

We agree with defense leadership that a renewed and sustained focus on affordability by contractors and the government is critical to moving this important program forward and enabling our military services and our allies to acquire and susVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB

519ful8.eps
1067 

tain JSF forces in needed quantities. Maintaining senior leadership’s increased focus 

on program results, holding government and contractors accountable for improving 

performance, and bringing a more responsible management approach to the JSF to 

‘‘live within its means’’ may help limit future cost growth and the consequences for 

other programs in the portfolio. The JSF acquisition demands an unprecedented 

share of the DOD’s future investment funding. The program’s size and priority are 

such that its cost overruns and extended schedules must either be borne by funding 

cuts to other programs or else drive increases in the top line of defense spending; 

the latter may not be an option in a period of more austere budgets. Given the other 

priorities that DOD must address in a finite budget, JSF affordability is critical and 

DOD must plan ahead to address and manage JSF challenges and risks in the future. 

Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, and members of the Senate Armed 

Services Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you may have. 

GAO CONTACTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For further information on this statement, please contact Michael Sullivan at 

(202) 512–4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement are Bruce Fairbairn, Charlie 

Shivers, Julie Hadley, Dr. W. Kendal Roberts, LeAnna Parkey, and Matt Lea. 


519ful9.eps
1068 


519ful10.eps
1069 


519ful11.eps 519ful12.eps
1070 


519ful13.eps
1071 


519ful14.eps
1072 

Senator MCCAIN. How long, Mr. Sullivan, have you been tracking 

this program? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I have been tracking it on and off for probably 10 

years, but solidly for probably the last 6 or 7 years. 

Senator MCCAIN. Given that experience, what is your degree of 

optimism that the sustainment costs can be brought under control 

and the cost overruns can be brought under control? What is your 

overall assessment of the prospects? 


519ful15.eps 519ful16.eps
1073 

Mr. SULLIVAN. What we have seen from GAO’s perspective is for 

years what we thought were some fairly significant risks went 

unaddressed. For example, the Mid-Course Risk Reduction Program that took place in the mid-2000s we thought added more risk. 

It didn’t reduce risk and, therefore, added more cost to the program. 

Senator MCCAIN. You testified so before this committee? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, we have. We made recommendations to DOD, 

beginning in 2001, when we were talking about technology maturity, we made many recommendations that they should reduce 

their ramp-up rate because they weren’t ready to go to production. 

Now all these things have come—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Home to roost. 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—to pass, and probably more inefficiently than if 

it would have been planned better in the first place. 

I would say with the beginning of the Nunn-McCurdy breach, 

and they came in and did the analysis, they have done a pretty 

good job of being a lot more candid. They have a lot more actual 

data to bring into it now. 

Of course, it resulted in yet again another pretty significant cost 

increase, both to research, development, testing, and evaluation 

costs and procurement costs, and significant schedule delays. What 

we got in the last 15 months with this review that has gone on, 

and what Admiral Venlet referred to, is we have a lot more sense 

of the systems engineering knowledge that we need. We have reduced risk a lot, and they have an estimate now that at least it 

is an estimate. 

Senator MCCAIN. Given your long experience, would you believe 

that perhaps alternatives need to be considered? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Alternatives should always be considered. That is 

a little bit out of my—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. SULLIVAN.—bailiwick. But yes, I think it is reasonable to assume that alternatives should always be considered, especially for 

our national security interests. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Burbage, Mr. Sullivan has just testified 

that they alerted Congress of these significant risks, which were 

unaddressed for 8 or 9 years. What is your response to that? 

Mr. BURBAGE. Sir, the process on this program is complex. It is 

challenging. We have lots of independent looks at the program. We 

try to accommodate those independent looks as we can within the 

constraints that we operate in, and those are annual budgets and 

annual schedule constraints. 

Can we accommodate all of them? No. 

Senator MCCAIN. Annual budgets? You have exceeded your annual budgets by almost double. 

Mr. BURBAGE. Sir, we have a set of requirements we are designing the airplane to meet. We mature that design as we go forward 

in time. We then bring the design into production. We then test the 

design. 

We don’t have full knowledge of how that is going to unfold. As 

it unfolds over time, we accommodate the different risks and challenges that come up. 

1074 

The contract geometry is established upfront to accommodate the 

fact that there will be unknowns in this process, and we work our 

way through those. 

Senator MCCAIN. The sad part about that is that we sit here, and 

contractors and DOD come over and tell us this is how much it is 

going to cost your taxpayers. Consistently, this isn’t unique, we 

find cost overruns with no incentives to bring those cost overruns 

under control because they are cost-plus contracts. Nowhere in our 

economy do we have cost-plus contracts except in DOD, that I 

know of. 

Yet, Lockheed Martin is doing pretty well. Do you recall what 

their profits were in 2010? 

Mr. BURBAGE. No, sir, I don’t. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could you submit it for the record? I know that 

there has been a handsome return to the shareholders, but there 

hasn’t been a handsome return to the taxpayers. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The following information is provided in response to a request of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee to provide Lockheed Martin Corporation’s consolidated 

operating results for 2010. This information is publically available data that has 

been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K dated 

April 26, 2011. 

Consolidated Operating Results Year Ended December 31, 2010 In Millions of 

Dollars 1

Percent of 

Net Sales 

Net sales ............................................................................................................................................. $45,757 - 

Operating profit ................................................................................................................................... 4,013 8.7 

Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes ............................................................... 3,742 8.2

Federal income tax expense ............................................................................................................... 1,151 2.5 

Earnings from continuing operations ................................................................................................. 2,591 5.7 

Note: 

1 Consolidated operating results for 2010, adjusted to reflect an immaterial change in revenue recognition methodology as of January 1, 

2011, as reported on Form 8–K dated April 26, 2011. 

1075 

Senator MCCAIN. If I convey a sense of frustration, it is because 

I have been a member of this committee, and I at least initially accepted the testimony of DOD and the program managers. Consistently, the GAO has come forward with testimony that would contradict that, and now we find ourselves in a situation where previous witnesses say that sustainment costs are unacceptable, and 

at the present rate, the weapon system is not affordable. 

My question is, when you entered into the original contract with 

DOD, did you anticipate these kinds of cost overruns breach of 

Nunn-McCurdy? 

Mr. BURBAGE. No, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Admiral, since the 2-year extensive review of 

the program over the JSF has estimated it cost about 80 percent 

more than when the program started about 10 years ago, what can 

you tell the committee to give us confidence that the unsustainable 

cost growth we have seen in the program is now ending? 

Admiral VENLET. Sir, the cost position in the situation of the program and Nunn-McCurdy was judged to be, as you said, 80 percent 

higher. That was on a path that was failed, basically. It did not 

have the realism in it. That is why the cost to bring this capability 

to bear was underplanned, both in content and in how it was estimated to be in price. 

The hope for discipline going forward is it was a very serious 

commitment by DOD to commit these resources of this extra $4.6 

billion, not an easy thing, not taken lightly. Very seriously understood by me, when I brought that recommendation forward. 

I told Dr. Carter that it was my estimation that this change and 

adjustment to the program had an ability to absorb the learning 

that remains, the number of flight tests, and the years of continued 


519ful21.eps
1076 

development that should because of that grounding in realism and 

refly rates, capacity to do software, resource the helmet issues that 

have been discussed, would have a high confidence of delivering 

within that timeframe and within that dollar amount. 

It is not a given that it will. It requires to deliver particularly 

in the software area. From the day I got here until the day the program declares its development complete, software will be the highest risk and the most intense focus of the program. 

In parallel with this planning with realism, and it must come, 

the cultural change to never lose that grasp on the systems engineering processes. If we stray from that, we will go back to the old 

ways, and we will not live to this plan. That is a determination 

that those here and those that follow us must not lose to deliver 

this program. 

Senator MCCAIN. I just have two more quick questions, Admiral. 

One of them is why are the sustainment costs for this system so 

much higher than others, and what can be done about that? 

Admiral VENLET. Yes, sir. In the sustainment costs, the striking 

estimate that we are facing right now is a buildup of factors that 

what we believe today about the size of the manpower that will be 

required to sustain this aircraft, the number that we will own, the 

number of hours per month that we will fly them, which goes into 

the fuel cost, the price of the aircraft drives the estimated—— 

Senator MCCAIN. The price of fuel is the same for every aircraft. 

Admiral VENLET. Yes, sir. But the size of the fleet, 2,400 of these 

would be more than the F–18 fleet, the F–15 fleet. 

Senator MCCAIN. You are saying that the F–18 sustainment 

costs are less because there are fewer of them? 

Admiral VENLET. Only one factor, sir. I am going to complete the 

factors that are in the estimate now. My duty for the Service 

Chiefs and the Secretaries are to illuminate to them the consequences of those choices: how many that we have, where we bed 

them down, how many bases, how many support equipment sets, 

simulators that we need, the number of maintenance technicians 

we believe are going to be required. 

My focus this year, if 2010 were the year we focused on the development program and the manufacturing plan, this is the year 

we were focusing on needs estimates and these parameters. I need 

to illuminate for those leaders what those drivers are and then 

bring them forward, with some choices to make those go down. 

Senator MCCAIN. I would have hoped that since we are in the 

10th year of this program that some of those decisions would have 

been made a long time ago. 

My final question is what degree of confidence do you have that 

the Marine Corps version can get off probation? 

Admiral VENLET. Sir, I have high confidence that the Marine 

Corps STOVL will succeed this period of scrutiny. Every technical 

issue is principally the propulsion system integration, that Dr. 

Carter spoke of. Every issue within our view today has an engineering solution to lead the STOVL to the air worthy, flight clearance for unmonitored operation by the fleet. 

I have high confidence that we will get the STOVL to its initial 

sea trials before the end of this year. I have high confidence that 

we will be able to achieve a flight clearance from NAVAIR for a 

1077 

conventional monitored mode of flight first while we prove out the 

engineering solutions I spoke about for the STOVL mode, and that 

will help the Commandant immensely, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for their patience. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks, Senator McCain. 

Mr. Sullivan, you said you think that looking at alternatives is 

always a good idea and in this case certainly is a good idea. Do you 

know whether or not the purchase of additional F–22s is being considered by DOD as an alternative to the problems we are experiencing here? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t think so, but I don’t know that for sure. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. What kind of alternative might be considered? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. As Secretary Carter said, I am not sure that they 

believe that there are alternatives at this point. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Going back to Senator McCain’s question to 

Admiral Venlet, I want to give you, Mr. Burbage and Mr. Sullivan, 

the opportunity to address this issue of the O&S costs. Let me first 

ask, do you disagree with Ms. Fox’s statement that the O&S costs 

for the F–35 are higher than or less than the F–22, but equal and 

greater than the F–16 and the F/A–18? 

Is that statement correct? If so, why is that the case, and what 

are we doing about that? Tom? 

Mr. BURBAGE. Senator, thank you. 

I would only begin the conversation by saying that we are given 

a very strict set of requirements at the beginning of the program 

to design an airplane that has increased reliability and addresses 

issues that have been occuring over the lifecycle of airplanes that 

have come before us. We have done that with the design. 

We have also been asked to put forward a performance-based logistics concept, which is not legacy-based. Going between how the 

airplane is designed to operate, what we think it will actually do 

in the long-run, and how it will compare to legacy, is a very complex process. The estimates for O&S over the lifetime of the program go out to about 2065, and they are susceptible to how you set 

the ground rules and assumptions that underlie that. 

The objective for all of us, and certainly the industry team this 

year, is to put a tight focus on that and try and see how we can, 

in fact, set those knobs correctly so that we get the right predictions of what the airplane is going to cost. 

There is a very rigid menu of items that are included in the cost 

of the F–35 that are not included in the cost of legacy airplanes. 

It is very important to get an equal basis for comparison. Some of 

the sensationalized numbers that come out, the trillion dollar estimate and those kinds of things, are not comparable. They are very 

sensational, but they are not comparable to what it would cost to 

maintain a legacy-type airplane over that same length of time. 

We are hard at work on those analyses right now and, hopefully, 

we will bring you a different story when we come back. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, the O&S costs on this program are going to 

be very challenging to figure out. One of the reasons right now is 

1078 

that the program is still, in many ways, defining itself. The design, 

they are churning through a lot of design changes. That will continue as the test program progresses. 

An important part of O&S cost is reliability, and there is always 

a friction between developing an aircraft and the amount of money 

you want to spend during the design of an aircraft and how much 

you are going to have to spend to maintain it. 

So right now, on the JSF program, their reliability growth curve 

still looks pretty risky to us, but it is mostly because of unknowns 

and they need more information. 

For example, if you looked at it in terms of mean flying hours 

between failure, the STOVL aircraft, and system-wide, they have 

a target of 4 flight hours mean time between any systemic kind of 

failure. Right now, they can only estimate that they are at about 

0.4 of 1 hour. 

The other aircraft are better than that, but they are all in some 

state of not quickly achieving what they need to achieve on a reliability growth curve. One of the important issues to track now is 

how well they come down that reliability growth curve. A lot of 

that depends on how much testing they can get done, what they 

find in that testing, what happens to the reliability of the design, 

and things like that. 

O&S costs, in the end it is going to be very difficult to estimate 

them until they have data like that. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Admiral Venlet, there has been some reporting that the Navy is somewhat soft on the carrier version of the 

F–35. Can you commit to us today that the Air Force is 100 percent 

behind the purchase of this carrier version? 

Admiral VENLET. Sir, I sit with the Service Chiefs at least once 

a month, and the Chief of Naval Operations is solidly 100 percent 

behind the carrier version of the F–35, as much as the Commandant is behind the F–35B, as much as General Schwartz is behind the F–35A, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Lastly, Mr. Burbage and Mr. Sullivan, both of you have had extensive experience in the field of tactical aircraft. I would like for 

both of you to give your opinion as to the long-term performance 

of this aircraft. Is it going to be able to do what it is designed to 

do, and are we going to be able to get these costs under control? 

Mr. Burbage? 

Mr. BURBAGE. Yes, sir. The airplane has revolutionary capabilities. To go beyond just stealth, as Dr. Carter said earlier, it goes 

into the innovative avionics. The sense of situational awareness 

that the pilot will have, his ability to share that awareness with 

other pilots in his flight and with other sensors and other operations, that command-and-control-type activity is unprecented. 

What is really unique is it is tri-Service and it is multi-national 

with our closest coalition allies. The ability to operate, forward deploy in long-term peacekeeping or combat operations as a joint 

Service coalition operation, significantly changes when this program gets introduced. 

There is a cost associated with that. It is a cost that is not often 

addressed, but the cost of sustaining those long-term operations 

1079 

with that kind of a force is another revolutionary change that is 

coming with the airplane. 

My personal knowledge of the airplane’s technical capabilities 

tell me that it is going to be exactly what it is designed to do. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. My experience is in reviewing performances on 

aircraft. Generally speaking, in the end, the United States always 

gets a top-flight performing aircraft. I don’t have any doubt that, 

eventually, the JSF will be a very high-performing aircraft. 

As I look at programs in the past, this program, as I said in my 

statement, I don’t think they are out of the woods yet. There is still 

significant risk in stabilizing the design, getting the manufacturing 

costs down. I really think O&S costs and software are going to be 

the big challenges. 

The software, to get the functionality that they need, the Block 

3 software especially, is still going to be a huge challenge for this 

aircraft. The O&S costs are going to be the big challenge going forward because, as everyone knows, it has been stated here that that 

is 70 percent of your lifecycle costs on an aircraft. 

Senator CHAMBLISS [presiding]. I guess I am it. Senator McCain 

has gone. [Laughter.] 

Gentlemen, thank you very much. 

As all of us have indicated here, this program has to be successful. We have a job of oversight, just like you have a job of making 

sure that you are addressing all of these issues. I sure do hope that 

when you come back next year, as we prepare for the authorization 

bill in 2012, you can come in with some positive reports about the 

success that we have had over the past 12 months. 

Thanks for being here. Thanks for what you are doing for all of 

our Services that are going to utilize this valuable weapon system. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. We are adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

F135/F136 BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS

1. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Carter, last year, Deputy Secretary Lynn presented 

the committee with a business case analysis (BCA) that provided the $2.9 billion 

estimate of costs to complete the F136 development and make it ready for competition. He stated that, in net present value terms, the costs of the option to sole 

source the F135 and the costs of the option to continue with competition between 

the F135 and the F136 were a wash, or essentially equal. 

With the F–35 procurement delays in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) 

of more than 100 aircraft and with the offer of the F136 contractor team to self fund 

the F136 development, why hasn’t the business case shifted in favor of the competition option? 

Dr. CARTER. As you note, the Department of Defense (DOD) has extensively studied the alternative engine business case. In 2007, DOD conducted a thorough comparative analysis of a single-source versus a competitive acquisition strategy for 

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) engines in response to the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. This study concluded that the net present-value comparison slightly favored a single-source strategy, but it also identified other considerations that might 

favor a competitive acquisition solution. The result was not compelling in either direction. In 2010, we updated the study, which resulted in similar conclusions. 

The JSF program continues to evolve, and it is fair to question whether these 

larger program changes significantly impact the comparative analysis for the alternative engine. Our preliminary review is that some recent program changes (e.g., 

increasingly higher sunk costs) would tend to favor competition whereas other 

1080 

changes (e.g., a later start date for when a theoretical competition would start) 

would tend to favor a single-source approach. In either event, our fundamental objection to the alternate engine remains the same: the long-term benefits of competition are speculative, difficult to quantify, and would not be realized until beyond the 

FYDP. Conversely, the short-term costs are real, quantifiable, and increasingly 

unaffordable. 

We have been made aware that General Electric (GE) has offered to self-fund alternate engine development for some period of time. DOD’s alternate engine cost estimate of $2.9 billion through the FYDP would be reduced by GE’s self-funding decision. The $2.9 billion estimate included approximately $0.7 billion of alternate engine development work over the next 2 years. The estimate of the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), is based on the assumption that GE 

would conduct a fully staffed development and test qualification program. Furthermore, it was assumed that this work would be integrated with Lockheed Martin’s 

overall development qualification schedule. If these operating assumptions were 

held constant, with the sole difference being that GE funded the activity and would 

not pass the cost back to the government via increased overhead rates or higher production prices, the $2.9 billion estimate would be reduced by approximately $0.7 billion. 

We do not know, however, under what assumptions GE would operate as a selffunded program. The F–35 program is under a contract termination phase with GE 

regarding F136 development. Until that is defined, we cannot conclude that $0.7 billion would be reduced dollar-for-dollar from the $2.9 billion estimate. Furthermore, 

any presumed reductions are based on the supposition that GE would not pass these 

costs back to the government via increases to overhead or production prices. 

PROPULSION COST INCREASES

2. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Venlet, since last year, the System Development and 

Demonstration (SDD) program cost has risen by $4.6 billion. Within that total, there 

have been reports that the propulsion system is responsible for more than $1.0 billion. How much of the $4.6 billion cost increase is related to the propulsion system? 

Admiral VENLET. Of the $4.6 billion, $893 million is related to the propulsion system. The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget submission included this amount in 

support of the JSF propulsion system over the fiscal year 2012–fiscal year 2016 

FYDP. The additional funding was identified as necessary for program success during the Technical Baseline Review (TBR). 

3. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Venlet, how much of that is real program cost growth 

versus increased costs that reflect extending the period of SDD execution? 

Admiral VENLET. Of the $893 million added for propulsion system development 

over the fiscal year 2012–fiscal year 2016 FYDP, the estimated real ‘‘cost growth’’ 

portion is $485 million. 

INDEPENDENT MANUFACTURING REVIEW TEAM—AFFORDABILITY

4. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Carter and Mr. Van Buren, last year, we noted that 

the Independent Manufacturing Review Team (IMRT) had observed that, on the 

JSF program, ‘‘Affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar.’’ What specific 

actions have you taken to restore affordability to the center of the program? 

Dr. CARTER and Mr. VAN BUREN. DOD is committed to driving affordability into 

the F–35 JSF program. We are currently in the process of conducting a should-cost 

analysis, beginning with F–35 production. Results will inform the new program 

baseline as well as negotiations on the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 5 

contract. With regard to engine affordability, the F–35 engine Joint Assessment 

Team (JAT) investigated F135 propulsion costs in 2010 and provided a should-cost 

objective. The propulsion team is in the process of implementing the JAT recommendations, with a focus on ensuring we make the necessary investments to 

achieve F135 cost reduction goals in the coming year. We are also conducting a full 

life-cycle cost BCA that will evaluate both the current sustainment strategy and potential alternatives to determine the best-value, long-term support solution for the 

program. The BCA will support the broader goals of increased affordability, transparency, predictability, and accountability for sustainment costs and performance. 

Additionally, we are formalizing potential operations and sustainment (O&S) cost 

reduction initiatives into targets, actionable tasks, and schedules under the Affordability Management Plan (AMP). 

1081 

SHORT TAKEOFF/VERTICAL-LANDING PROBATION

5. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Carter, this year, you have slipped the F–35B by delaying 63 aircraft compared to last year’s FYDP, and Secretary Gates announced 

that he was putting the F–35B on probation for at least the next 2 years. Has DOD 

defined the exit criteria that will allow the F–35B to be removed from probation, 

assuming it meets those criteria? If so, what are they? 

Dr. CARTER. DOD has not defined specific exit criteria. Cost, schedule, and development progress need to be balanced against warfighter utility. The Commandant, 

U.S. Marine Corps, reviews the F–35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) 

progress monthly, separately from the monthly Service Acquisition Executive reviews of the F–35 program as a whole. This provides the individual focus required 

to balance cost, schedule, and development progress against warfighter utility. 

These reviews assess metrics ranging from affordability, weight growth, key STOVL 

performance requirements, technical performance measures, flight test status, and 

risk burn-down plans. These metrics provide a holistic view of the F–35B progress. 

None of them provide ‘‘black and white’’ decision criteria. These metrics, taken as 

a whole, will inform the Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, and DOD on the continued F–35B progress at the end of the probation period. 

The topics and metrics that are assessed include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Cost/Affordability/Earned Value Management (EVM): A review of Acquisition Procurement Unit Cost, Program Acquisition Unit Cost, Operations 

and Support costs, and EVM cost/schedule indices. 

• Risk: Monthly assessment is conducted of ‘‘Program Risk,’’ with explanations about each risk item, their interactions, and risk burn-down plans. 

Assessments include a review of the assumptions and environment used to 

determine the risk evaluations. 

• F–35B Weight/Weight Growth: Weight assessments track each pound 

added to the airframe with an understanding of the underlying reasons for 

the growth. If there are trades that need to be made to mitigate weight 

growth, Navy senior leadership/warfighters are to be consulted. 

• Key Performance Parameters (KPPs): A review of F–35B KPPs with a 

tracking/trending methodology and monthly discussions of concept of operations considerations that might help facilitate achievement of F–35 KPPs 

and program goals. 

• Airframe Technical Performance Measurements: Assessments of reliability, maintainability, combat radius, and gross weight (with metrics that 

indicate the desired value(s), the current status, margin, and trends). 

• F–35B Flight Test: A review of F–35B flight test data includes planned/ 

scheduled test points to be flown versus achieved test points flown; scheduled test flights flown versus actual test flights flown (delineated by STOVL 

variant); and Clean-Wing Flight Envelope coverage (to assess the progress 

on the envelope cleared for flight as a result of developmental test and 

alignment with software delivery). 

As these monthly reviews mature, the Navy will refine key F–35B metrics to enable DOD to make a decision on the F–35B STOVL variant probation status. 

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

6. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Carter and Mr. Van Buren, one of the challenges the 

private sector has faced and continues to face is dealing with a new business model 

incorporating a much greater contribution of the global supply chain to build weapons systems. What steps have you taken to ensure that the contractor team becomes 

better at managing the global supply chain supporting the F–35 program? 

Dr. CARTER and Mr. VAN BUREN. The F–35 Program Office is working to design, 

develop, and deliver the most cost-effective global-supply-chain solution that meets 

the needs of the warfighter; this will be a mix of private and public sector capabilities. The recently published DOD Product Support Manager (PSM) Guidebook, has 

provided the F–35 PSM with clarity on the role of the private-sector Prime Systems 

Integrator (PSI) contractor. This has helped ensure the PSI’s role is fully understood 

and has allowed us to focus on the PSI’s ability to integrate the various sources of 

support delivery across the breadth of F–35 contract performance outcomes. One of 

the enduring challenges of the PSM is ensuring we continue to harness organic capabilities while exploring the strengths of the private sector to ensure the F–35 can 

meet the required performance outcomes at the lowest risk and cost. The Program 

Office has initiated a life-cycle cost BCA, which will examine various private sector 

1082 

and organic capabilities to determine how to deliver a prescribed level of performance in the most cost-effective manner. The BCA will provide findings by December 

2011. Beyond this, the PSM is working with the PSI to ensure they have the requisite processes and capabilities in place to be able to execute their functions as well 

as having the necessary levers in place to be able to react to performance metrics 

from either private sector or organic capabilities. 

F–35 LIFE CYCLE OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS

7. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Venlet, in my opening statement, I mentioned the new 

estimates of life cycle operating and support costs identified in the last Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) for the F–35, costs that apparently exceed $1.0 trillion. That 

is a large number. However, we need to understand the context within which DOD 

is making that estimate. What would be a comparable cost estimate for life cycle 

O&S costs for the fighter aircraft inventory that the F–35 is replacing? 

Admiral VENLET. According to the F–35 JSF December 2010 SAR, the O&S costs 

over the life of the program of 2,443 aircraft for more than 50 years are roughly 

$1.0 trillion. The JSF Program Office developed the O&S cost estimate for the F– 

35. The JSF Program Office has not conducted a comparison of the life-cycle O&S 

costs for the fighter aircraft inventory the F–35 is replacing. However the CAPE organization is developing O&S cost estimates, broken out by variant, to assist the 

Services in a one-for-one comparison to legacy aircraft costs. 

8. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Venlet, would it be roughly $1.0 trillion, more than 

that, or less than that? 

Admiral VENLET. According to the F–35 JSF December 2010 SAR, the costs over 

the life of the program for O&S of 2,443 aircraft for more than 50 years are 

$1.005342 trillion. 

9. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Venlet, what specific actions are you taking to reduce 

future O&S costs for the F–35 fleet? 

Admiral VENLET. The JSF Program Office is focused on identifying the best-value 

solution for supporting the F–35 air system and is undertaking a number of initiatives to inform sustainment decisions in order to ultimately better control the 

through life O&S costs for the F–35 fleet. We are currently implementing an affordability strategy for which we are developing an AMP, which is focused on: reducing 

the costs of support products, e.g., support equipment, spare parts and training devices; base-lining requirements with the Services and leveraging increased efficiency 

opportunities provided by JSF; and addressing reliability and maintainability. The 

JPO is creating contract and pricing opportunities to reduce the cost of the JSF support products by seeking to leverage economic order quantity buys for spare parts 

in conjunction with production buys, and implementing pricing improvement curves 

that leverage learning opportunities. In creating a common sustainment baseline 

harnessing the F–35 support system design, the JPO is articulating the optimum 

level of infrastructure and products required to support operations of the global 

fleet. By optimizing the amount of equipment procured early on, the JPO is impacting life cycle O&S costs. The Program Office is actively managing the reliability and 

maintainability of systems/sub-systems and components. Where they fall short of 

meeting design specifications, the Program Office is implementing appropriate modifications that will help us control cost growth. The Program Office is also conducting 

a full life-cycle cost BCA that will evaluate both the current sustainment strategy 

and potential options to determine the best-value, long-term support solution for the 

program. This is scheduled for completion in December 2011. We will evaluate options for supply chain management, sustaining engineering, field operations support, and fleet management. We will also conduct a series of design reviews on 

sustainment elements—e.g., the supply chain—throughout 2011 and 2012 to verify 

the technical design and identify whether there are any opportunities for redesign 

that could reduce costs. As all of these cost reduction initiatives from the AMP, 

BCA, and design reviews are matured, the results will be incorporated into the program’s lifecycle cost estimate and will ultimately be realized by the Services and 

international partners. 

10. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Burbage, what is Lockheed Martin doing to try to reduce 

the government’s O&S costs for the F–35 fleet? 

Mr. BURBAGE. Affordable O&M and Total Life-Cycle Cost considerations were 

driven into the F–35 design from the beginning. The F–35 program was designed 

to capture powerful economies of commonality and scale. For the first time ever, 

1083 

three distinct versions of the same aircraft, with a high degree of commonality, will 

serve the needs of three U.S. Services and multiple international countries. The 

economies of commonality include not only a common engine, mission system avionics, vehicle management systems, and manufacturing processes—but also a fully 

integrated and networked sustainment system. Aircraft share common parts, support equipment, and technical data, thereby also yielding long-term cost savings and 

best value for the customer. 

The F–35 is the first aircraft development program to fully integrate the air system and the training and sustainment system from design inception. Supported primarily in a performance-based logistics environment, the result is greater reliability 

and unprecedented cost visibility. 

The global sustainment system will meet the operational needs of more than 40 

land bases, 20 ships, and 150 squadrons—capturing the benefits of economies of 

scale. At the same time, we are creating the first-ever joint and combined training 

system. Integrating pilot and maintenance training for multiple Services, while 

using the same software and hardware as the aircraft, provides faster training with 

greater fidelity and at lower cost. When extended to include our closest allies, the 

cost of conducting future long-term combat or peacekeeping operations is also dramatically reduced for all participating nations. 

The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS)—the infrastructure for data 

collection, data analysis, and decision support—ties together F–35 operational planning and prognostics and health management to enhance the worldwide fleet of aircraft. ALIS complements the decision-making process, matching customer metrics 

and dollars to resources in real time. F–35 sustainment is a total life-cycle system— 

a new paradigm for fighter aircraft support that dramatically simplifies maintenance and keeps the aircraft where it belongs—in the air. 

Global sustainment products and processes are currently used in F–35 production 

and flight test, demonstrating their proof of factory-to-field commonality and confirming their cost and performance attributes. 

Annual F–35 O&S cost estimates are developed from detailed grassroots product 

and service descriptions, including cost elements often buried in legacy programs as 

infrastructure costs. In contrast to higher-level, legacy-system-based parametric cost 

estimates, these detailed F–35 O&S estimates provide the foundation for conducting 

cost/benefit analyses and enabling informed decisions. Today, the primary total ownership cost debate is about ground rules and assumptions that define what costs are 

included in the accounting. As F–35 flying hours continue to increase, data fidelity 

and accuracy improve and overall uncertainty will be reduced. This information is 

fed back into the annual O&S cost estimates to generate even more accurate analyses, decision making, and enhanced management control over total ownership 

costs. No other program has had F–35’s sustainment economies of commonality and 

scale and no other program conducts an annual cost review anywhere near the 

depth of the F–35. 

DESIGN STABILITY

11. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Sullivan, your testimony says that, ‘‘After more than 9 

years in development and 4 years in production, the JSF program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature, 

and the system is reliable.’’ Are you seeing any trend data in the program that 

would indicate that the design changes are decreasing, the manufacturing processes 

are getting closer to stability, or that initial flight testing is showing any growth 

in reliability? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. While the monthly volume of design changes is on a downward 

trend, the number of engineering drawings released to the manufacturing floor continues at higher rates and later in production than desired. The monthly rate in 

2009 and 2010 was higher than expected and the program now anticipates more 

changes over a longer period of time—about 10,000 more changes through January 

2016. The program projects a leveling off in monthly changes starting this year, but 

an up-tick in total numbers can be expected as testing accelerates and system development extends into 2018. DOD’s lowering of the annual ramp rate and reduction 

in procurement acknowledges that manufacturing maturity and capacity are behind 

plans. The aircraft and engine manufacturers are making progress in implementing 

the recommendations of the independent review teams. The aircraft manufacturer 

has lately reported a decrease in out-of-station work, more efficient work stations, 

improved quality, increased parts availability, and reduced span times. While these 

signs are encouraging, aircraft and engines continue to be delivered late and at 

higher cost than estimated. While all three JSF variants are behind in their reliVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1084 

ability growth plans, Conventional Takeoff and Landing flight test results and pace 

are encouraging. With several key test events and an accelerated pace planned this 

year, more data on CV reliability should be available. Results from the STOVL’s 2- 

year probation period should provide a better perspective on its reliability. 

12. Senator LEVIN. Admiral Venlet, what metrics are you tracking to ensure that 

the program is making progress to address these concerns? 

Admiral VENLET. On a monthly basis, the F–35 Joint Program Office (JPO) sends 

the congressional defense committees approximately 100 pages of charts containing 

metrics for the program. Included in the charts are metrics that track development 

progress (including software, system qualification, structural test, weight, and 

change management); flight test progress (including test points and cumulative 

flights); production (including engine and aircraft component parts delivery and assembly span); sustainment (including reliability, maintenance, and supplies); and 

the ALIS. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CLAIRE MCCASKILL

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER SUPPLIERS AND DELAYS

13. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, looking out for small suppliers, one of 

the areas that greatly concern me is how the production delays, program restructures, and procurement problems affecting the hundreds of subcontractors and suppliers contributing to the JSF program. We have many suppliers in Missouri, for 

example, who are doing amazing work for this program. 

Furthermore, these companies are often times three and four levels down on the 

contracting chain, but they’ve invested enormous amounts of capital in technology 

and personnel to compete for business. With each program setback these small businesses are expected to absorb financial losses and adjust to problems that, frankly, 

are miscalculations or even mismanagement. I am worried about small companies 

like Patriot Machine and Steelville Manufacturing when I hear about all these program delays. 

What would you say to the suppliers and subcontractors facing these issues and 

how much does the program leadership take the downstream contractor and supplier issues into consideration when making drastic program changes? 

Dr. CARTER. DOD recognizes the vital importance of subcontractors and suppliers 

not only for the F–35 program but for all DOD programs. On the F–35, more than 

75 percent of F–35 components are manufactured by sub-tier suppliers. The F–35 

JPO works with Lockheed Martin to conduct annual and incremental Production 

Readiness Reviews on the F–35 critical supply base. Part of these reviews is to identify potential impacts to sub-tier suppliers and guide program changes. At the DOD 

level, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics is conducting a sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier evaluation of the defense industrial base with the objective of providing insights that will improve our acquisition strategies. 

14. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, what steps can you as a program manager and leader take to mitigate the financial ripples that result when the program 

undergoes significant changes like the recent restructure of the F–35B version? 

Dr. CARTER. DOD recognizes that significant program changes, like our recent restructure of the F–35B STOVL variant, can cause adverse financial effects to suppliers. When DOD is forced to make major restructures to a program, the fundamental intent is to ensure the program remains successful. A successful program 

benefits the suppliers over the long-term. In the specific example of the F–35B restructure, the F–35 JPO worked with Pratt and Whitney to resequence the F–35B 

propulsion system deliveries and inserted spares procurements to try to, in the 

short-term, minimize as much as possible the effects of a reduced workload on suppliers. 

FOREIGN PARTNERS

15. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), our international partners are providing about $5.1 billion toward development, and foreign firms are part of the industrial base producing the 

JSF. I know that this concept has been a core pillar in the entire program, to manage cost, and, as I understand it, your funding requirements for the F–35 assume 

economic benefits from partner purchases in reducing unit costs for U.S. aircraft. 

1085 

How, if at all, have all the problems with delays and testing affected the foreign 

partner component of the program? 

Dr. CARTER. At the late May 2011 JSF Executive Steering Board meeting, the 

eight international partners expressed their ongoing support for the program, and 

none indicated a reduction in planned procurement. 

16. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, are they covering the extra costs for development, for example? 

Dr. CARTER. The JSF partners provided funds consistent with the production, 

sustainment, and follow-on development (PSFD) MOU to address emergent JSF 

needs within the scope of follow-on development. 

17. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, how much of this slack, in unit cost for 

example, is being paid by American taxpayers to cover foreign countries’ shares in 

the program? 

Dr. CARTER. None. In accordance with the F–35 PSFD MOU, each F–35 international partner is responsible for paying all aircraft costs unique to that country 

as well as its fair share of common costs, up to the mutual agreed ceiling amounts 

in the MOU. 

18. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, can you give me an example of how 

much a country, like Canada or the United Kingdom, is paying for all of these 

delays and development costs and how much of the cost the United States is shouldering? 

Dr. CARTER. The United States is paying for the increased costs associated with 

the SDD program. However, the JSF partners provided funds consistent with the 

PSFD MOU to address emergent JSF needs within the scope of follow-on development. In addition, the international partners will be responsible for paying for all 

cost increases to their production and sustainment programs associated with delays 

in the SDD program and the reduced U.S. aircraft production ramp, resulting from 

the recent restructure. 

19. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, given the global financial crisis, are all 

of the foreign partners still able and committed to weather the cost of the JSF? 

Dr. CARTER. At the late May 2011 JSF Executive Steering Board meeting, the 

eight international partners expressed their ongoing support for the program and 

none indicated a reduction in planned procurement. 

FISCAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON F/A–18S

20. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, what do you think about the recommendation from the President’s Fiscal Commission and other similar proposals 

to essentially substitute the F/A–18s and F–16s for about half of the Air Force and 

Navy’s planned buys of the F–35? They say this change could save about $9.5 billion. I have often noted we can get 80 percent of the F–35’s capability for a fraction 

of the cost by buying the most advanced F/A–18 aircraft, something the Navy has 

largely acknowledged. Now the Fiscal Commission is making a similar recommendation. 

Dr. CARTER. While substituting F/A–18 and F–16 aircraft for F–35 aircraft would 

save money, it would do so at the expense of providing DOD the 5th generation 

force structure required to address projected access threats. DOD’s tactical aircraft 

force structure requirements and plans provide an appropriate balance to fight our 

current wars and address the projected threats of the future. 

21. Senator MCCASKILL. Secretary Carter, have you considered adopting the Fiscal Commission’s option, and if not, why? 

Dr. CARTER. This specific option has not been considered because it does not meet 

our force structure requirements. If I understand it correctly, this option would require either further extending the service life of existing aircraft or purchasing 

1990s designs well into the future. Neither option is attractive. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT FOR THE F–35

22. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Van Buren, given the long lead-time for environmental 

reviews and military construction (MILCON) required to support the JSF, the ServVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1086 

ices are in the process of completing environmental studies and constructing facilities now to support the arrival of the JSF at various installations over the next 2 

years. Based on your understanding of the current production and delivery schedules for the different variants, will any of the environmental studies or MILCON 

projects planned by the Services be completed either early- or late-to-need? 

Mr. VAN BUREN. Currently, the Services have not identified any early- or late-toneed concerns for environmental studies or MILCON to support the JSF. However, 

as F–35 procurement schedules are adjusted, the Services will continue to evaluate 

and adjust their plans accordingly in order to support the planned delivery dates 

of the JSF. 

Air Force: Based on adjustments to F–35A procurement included in the fiscal year 

2012 budget, the Air Force is reevaluating the F–35A aircraft delivery schedules to 

include proper timing or infrastructure investments. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to support these investments are in progress. 

Navy: The infrastructure at Eglin Air Force Base to support the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS), such as Academic Training Center (ATC) and hangars, are 

in place. Only minor investments remain to support increased maintenance throughput and refurbish some existing infrastructure. The EIS will evaluate the impact 

of basing seven JSF squadrons and one FRS in a single west coast location to replace F/A–18C. The JSF west coast EIS is estimated to be completed by 2013 and 

will inform future presidential budget submissions. 

Marine Corps: MILCON projects necessary to support Marine Corps JSF operations have been identified, preliminary project plans drafted, and are adequately 

programmed to align with the appropriate need dates for occupancy and use by the 

squadrons as they transition from the AV–8B and F/A–18 aircraft. In 2010, the Marine Corps completed two EISs for both east and west coast F–35 basing which resulted in a SECNAV Record of Decision in December 2010. The Marine Corps will 

commence basing the F–35 a MCAS Yuma, AZ in 2012 followed by MCAS Beaufort, 

SC in 2014; MCAS Miramar, CA in 2019; and MCAS Cherry Point, NC in 2021. 

23. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Van Buren, please provide your assessment of the Services’ plans for environmental studies and MILCON to support the planned delivery 

dates of the JSF. 

Mr. VAN BUREN. The Services continue to evaluate and adjust plans accordingly 

based on adjustments to F–35 procurement. Each Service will provide the required 

environmental studies and MILCON plans to support the planned delivery dates of 

the JSF. 

SHARING DEVELOPMENTAL COSTS

24. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Carter, please explain, comprehensively, how you 

intend to ensure that Lockheed Martin will appropriately share in the increased 

cost of completing development of the JSF. 

Dr. CARTER. Relative to the SDD program, DOD incentivizes Lockheed Martin to 

meet program needs by selectively applying fee to the accomplishment of key schedule objectives of the restructured SDD effort. Further, cost control will be 

incentivized with significant portions of fee earnable only with successful completion 

of development. 

25. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, with production costs increasing and preliminary O&S cost estimates higher than expected, both attributable to issues associated with developing the JSF, please explain how the program intends to have 

Lockheed Martin share in continued development of the JSF, through completion. 

Admiral VENLET. Relative to the SDD program, DOD incentivizes Lockheed Martin to meet program needs by applying fees to the accomplishment of key schedule 

objectives of the restructured SDD effort. Cost control will be incentivized with significant fees deferred until the completion of development-unearned fee will not be 

awarded. 

NEW COST-CONTROL INITIATIVES

26. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Carter, you have explained how you will bring to 

bear should-cost analysis on the JSF program to drive costs down on developing and 

producing JSF aircraft. Please explain how you intend to use other elements of your 

Better Buying Power initiative similarly, in particular, adjusting progress payments 

to incentivize performance and promoting real competition in the program through 

the subsystem level and tiers of subcontractors. 

1087 

Dr. CARTER. Implementation of the Better Buying Power policy initiative has resulted in the F–35 program’s increased emphasis on affordability and incorporation 

of should-cost target goals. Increased emphasis on affordability and obtaining greater efficiency in spending resulted in the initiative to transition to fixed-price contracts sooner than originally planned. The LRIP Lot 4 contract was negotiated at 

a fixed-price, reducing risk to the government and providing a better value to the 

taxpayers for that lot of aircraft procurement, as well as all future buys. The Director, Defense Pricing, is leading the F–35 should-cost effort. The initial focus of that 

effort is negotiating the LRIP Lot 5 contract with increased emphasis on a reasonable allocation to the contractor of the cost-risk associated with achieving the capability configuration specified in the contract, providing an increased incentive to the 

contractor to control and reduce that risk. 

One of the initiatives articulated in my Better Buying Power memorandum is to 

incentivize productivity and innovation in industry. Relative to the F–35 SDD program, DOD is now incentivizing Lockheed Martin to meet program needs by applying fee to the accomplishment of key schedule objectives of the restructured SDD 

effort. Cost control will be incentivized with significant fee deferred until the completion of development. 

In terms of promoting real competition on the F–35, more than 75 percent of F– 

35 components are manufactured by sub-tier suppliers. The F–35 JPO works with 

the prime contractor to conduct annual and incremental Production Readiness Reviews on the F–35 critical supply base. At the DOD level, we are conducting a sector-by-sector, tier-by-tier evaluation of the defense industrial base with the objective 

of providing insights that will improve our acquisition strategies. The F–35 Acquisition Strategy, currently in review and staffing for approval, includes plans for competitive contracting for future development, production, and sustainment efforts including: follow-on development; breakout of elements from the baseline production 

and sustainment supply chain; and off-ramps to an entirely government-managed 

solution for sustainment. All such efforts will be evaluated to ensure they meet the 

best interests of DOD. 

RELIABILITY—OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS

27. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Carter, about two-thirds the total cost of a major 

weapon system over its entire lifecycle goes to O&S. Poor reliability can lead to very 

high O&S costs. Those systems have to be reliable. But, last June, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Gilmore issued a memo raising grave concerns that weapon systems coming out of DOD’s design and development efforts are 

not proving reliable. This could be a serious issue with JSF, which may end up 

being extremely costly to operate and maintain. In March 2011, your principal deputy issued directions intended to immediately enhance reliability in the acquisition 

process. Please explain exactly how the JSF program is complying with DOD’s recent direction on measuring, improving reliability, and maintainability. Answer in 

terms of having both reliability growth plans for production aircraft and documentation of the plans and methods of measuring progress. 

Dr. CARTER. The F–35 Program Office has a Reliability and Maintainability 

(R&M) program that follows the direction outlined in my March 21 memorandum, 

‘‘Directive-Type Memorandum 11–003—Reliability Analysis, Planning, Tracking, 

and Reporting.’’ A key element of the overall R&M approach is a robust reliabilitygrowth program, the goal of which is to ensure that the delivered air vehicle meets 

the required reliability levels on or before system maturity. System maturity is defined as 200,000 flight hours for the air system, with a minimum of 50,000 flight 

hours per variant across the entire inventory. Reliability growth planning began in 

the early stages of the SDD by building growth models for the various components 

and systems on the aircraft. Reliability growth tracking against actual performance 

commenced in December 2009 with the start of flight testing on BF–1, the first production representative F–35 aircraft, and will continue until system maturity is 

achieved. This activity is focused on identifying any low-reliability systems and components to enable the Program Office to target resources and efforts to implement 

corrective actions that can be incorporated into the fleet and into production as 

early as possible. 

28. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Carter, given the increase in production costs and 

the cost of ownership acknowledged to be higher than predicted, has DOD begun 

to re-look at high-low mixes for all Services, not just the Navy, with continued Hornet purchases? If not, please explain when this might be done. 

1088 

Dr. CARTER. As with every other aspect of the budget, DOD will review the tactical air (TACAIR) force structure as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget review. As 

the F–35 is fielded over the decade and beyond, the Services will have a mix of fifth 

and fourth generation fighters. At this time, neither extending the lives of current 

inventory aircraft nor purchasing significant numbers of 1990s vintage designs is 

an attractive option for DOD. 

29. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Carter and Mr. Sullivan, how much of a canard 

is concurrent development in high-risk programs? 

Dr. CARTER. Concurrent development presents challenges for any program, especially those that would be classified as high risk. Concurrent development requires 

that careful attention be paid to the progress of the development program and test 

phase of the program, as the low-rate production phase is entered. Efforts to mitigate the risks associated with concurrency should be exercised as appropriate. The 

risk associated with concurrency should be avoided unless there is a strong case for 

entering production as early as possible, either in response to an emerging threat 

or to replace unsustainable inventory, for example. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Some level of concurrency can be beneficial to a program in order 

to maintain efficiencies; however, in the JSF’s case, the level of concurrency between 

development and production was inappropriate and added to inefficiencies. Our extensive body of work on major defense acquisition programs has amply demonstrated the negative consequences from undue concurrency or overlap of development, testing, and production activities. This is now being manifested by way of significant design changes late in the JSF program. While we note some gradual improvement in recent years regarding the total defense portfolio, most programs still 

proceed through acquisition phases with less knowledge than best practices suggest, 

placing them at higher risk for cost growth and schedule delays. This approach typically leads to a highly concurrent environment in which system development starts 

with immature technologies, testing begins before the design is stable, and production ramps up before testing has demonstrated that the design meets requirements 

and is producible. This can lead to higher costs, lengthy development times, costly 

rework, and late deliveries to the warfighter. Best practices and current DOD acquisition guidance recommend that complex weapon system programs instead adopt a 

more evolutionary acquisition strategy, developing, and procuring new systems incrementally to help achieve better program outcomes and deliver new capabilities 

to the warfighters sooner. 

30. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Carter, from the JSF program, what have we 

learned and are we really learning about highly concurrent development, test, and 

production? 

Dr. CARTER. A highly concurrent development, test, and production program introduces a great deal of challenges and risks. In the JSF program, we are proceeding 

with LRIP aircraft with a design baseline that is still being updated based on feedback from the development and test program. We were able to capture some of these 

changes in the factory flow. Other changes will have to be incorporated as post-delivery modifications. Qualification of all the aircraft mission components is not complete, which will drive additional retrofits. We will mitigate these as much as possible by continuing to use components that are safe and replace them as preferred 

spares. The development and testing of software in time to meet aircraft production 

requirements has also been challenging. 

On the other hand, the concurrent program will deliver combat capability several 

years earlier than a serially planned program. Concurrency has increased our ability to keep JSF suppliers viable and avoid major restart activities. Although concurrency does not solve issues associated with Diminishing Manufacturing Sources, 

it does reduce it. 

Achieving the right level of concurrency risk in the JSF program continues to be 

a challenge. The changes made to the JSF program in the fiscal year 2012 budget 

reduced concurrency, but we continue to monitor concurrency risk closely. 

31. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Carter, is this strategy really paying benefits in 

affordability and cost of ownership, both with respect to this program and to similar 

major defense acquisition programs with high development risk or unproven critical 

technologies? 

Dr. CARTER. Concurrency risk is assessed on a case-by-case basis when DOD approves acquisition strategies for major defense acquisition programs. The initial F– 

35 acquisition strategy, signed in 2000, approved a highly concurrent development, 

test, and procurement program. At that time, concurrency risk was considered low 

due to the improvements in aircraft design and manufacturing processes, as well as 

1089 

increased investment and reliance on modeling and simulation in testing. Additionally, concurrency risk was considered acceptable due to the Services’ requirement 

to replace aging and costly legacy tactical aircraft with 5th-generation capability. 

Due to schedule slips since that time, DOD has reviewed the progress of the development and test phase and made adjustments to the procurement ramp to mitigate 

the risk associated with concurrency. The reduced production ramps will lower the 

costs associated with concurrency modifications. Buying fewer aircraft prior to the 

end of testing will ensure that fewer aircraft will require change modifications. Cost 

of ownership, however, is relatively unaffected by a concurrent development program. More than two-thirds of the total costs are tied to the fact that DOD plans 

to buy more than 2,000 F–35 aircraft and operate them for the next 50-plus years. 

32. Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Gilmore, last June, you issued a memo raising grave 

concern that weapon systems coming out of DOD’s design and development efforts 

not proving reliable. This, of course, could be a serious issue with JSF, which may 

end up being extremely costly to operate and maintain. In March 2011, Secretary 

Carter’s principal deputy issued direction on measuring and improving reliability 

and maintainability. 

From your perspective, please explain exactly how the JSF program is complying 

with that direction. Please answer in terms of having reliability growth plans for 

production aircraft, as well as documentation of the plans and methods of measuring progress. 

Dr. GILMORE. The prime contractor produced a reliability growth plan in 2006, 

which is now invalid. The 2006 plan includes projections of overall reliability growth 

for each variant by aggregating projected growth for aircraft subsystems and components including mission systems, vehicle systems, airframe, low observable features, 

and propulsion. However, the 2006 plan is based on aircraft deliveries and flying 

hours that were not achieved and that have been significantly changed during the 

recent TBR of the program. The 2006 plan needs to be updated to reflect the postTBR schedule and expected flying hours. The reliability growth in the 2006 plan 

was projected to achieve the required reliability levels at maturity, which is defined 

as a total of 200,000 flight hours across all variants with no less than 50,000 flight 

hours for each variant. The program office has instituted a reliability measurement 

and management process that includes methods for measuring progress using data 

collected from both government- and contractor-conducted testing. This process is 

tracking flight hours flown between component failures occurring on the aircraft 

currently being flown at the test centers. The collected data are being used to make 

decisions regarding aircraft configuration changes, particularly in vehicle systems. 

This measurement process has also highlighted the need to improve the availability 

of spare parts and tools for use by the test centers’ maintenance staff, which were 

increased during the last year. However, the updated reliability growth plans and 

management processes are not yet fully specified by the government. The recent 

draft of the program’s acquisition strategy update did not include the requisite provisions for reliability and maintainability growth planning. The measures of suitability (including reliability) and associated demonstrations specified for operational 

testing contained in the latest Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) are adequate; however, the TEMP contains no mention of reliability growth measurement 

or management during developmental test and evaluation. The TEMP and acquisition strategy should be updated and made consistent with DOD’s most recent direction regarding reliability growth, as should the program’s plans for executing the 

remainder of developmental testing. 

33. Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Gilmore, are you comfortable with how those procedures 

have been implemented and how your reliability concerns are being addressed with 

respect to the JSF program? Please explain your answer. 

Dr. GILMORE. The program needs to update governing documents in accordance 

with the direction to assure they are consistent with the restructuring of the program and provide processes for incorporating observed flight test data into reliability growth models. Specifically, the Reliability Growth Plan, dated 2006, needs 

to be updated and the new acquisition strategy and TEMP required for Milestone 

B need to be updated to document the program’s plans to execute reliability improvement activities. During the past 9 months, the program has improved fly rates 

of test aircraft by addressing some reliability issues and increasing spare parts 

availability, thus indicating its ability to discover problems with and improve component reliability and aircraft availability. The data collection and analysis process, 

the ability to project the effects of actions taken to improve reliability, and a process 

to nominate candidate actions to achieve reliability improvements exist. However, 

the program’s experience thus far in implementing this process has been with a relVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:42 Apr 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\68084.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
1090 

atively small amount of flight hours and performance data obtained from and benefitting a relatively small number of aircraft. Additionally, the process so far has focused almost entirely on the aircraft platform because mission systems flight tests 

are just now beginning in earnest. In the coming 12 to 24 months, data analysis 

requirements will greatly increase; mission systems components will become a 

greater consideration; and more operating locations will be added as sources of performance data collection, which makes data collection consistency more difficult to 

maintain. The program will need to be prepared to adjust the process it uses to analyze and nominate candidate changes to improve reliability as the volume and types 

of data available increase. As more data and needed changes accumulate, the Services may be challenged to budget for all of the reliability improvements needed for 

a growing number of production aircraft. 

34. Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Gilmore, with directions having been issued, what improvements, if any, are warranted at this point that can help ensure that reliability 

and maintainability of major systems are measured and improved? 

Dr. GILMORE. We need to assure that programs consistently comply with the policy guidance, including providing the detailed descriptions of reliability growth planning and testing they will execute in their acquisition strategies, system engineering 

plans, and TEMPs. We need to assure that programs are provided the budgetary 

resources required to execute those plans, and that the inclusion of such plans in 

contractors’ responses to requests for proposals is mandated and valued during 

source evaluation and selection. During program reviews conducted by the Defense 

Acquisition Board (DAB), we need to compare the program’s actual execution of reliability growth activities with its plans. We need to assure programs conduct independent measurements of reliability under operationally realistic conditions at logical points during development and early production. Actual observed performance 

needs to be assessed in comparison with projected performance and used to revise 

growth projections, allowing programs to execute the needed changes to their plans 

and budgets. Those data will also enable operational commanders to adjust their 

plans for employing weapons systems consistent with the weapons’ actual reliability 

and availability. 

35. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, please explain what, if anything, the JSF 

program is doing now/can do, this early in development/production, to help ensure 

that the JSF program’s O&S costs will ultimately be affordable? 

Admiral VENLET. The JSF Program Office is focused on identifying the best-value 

solution for supporting the F–35 air system and is undertaking a number of initiatives to inform sustainment decisions in order to ultimately better control the 

through life O&S costs for the F–35 fleet. We are currently implementing an affordability strategy for which we are developing an AMP, which is focused on: reducing 

the costs of support products, e.g., support equipment, spare parts, and training devices; base-lining requirements with the Services and leveraging increased efficiency 

opportunities provided by JSF; and addressing reliability and maintainability. The 

JPO is creating contract and pricing opportunities to reduce the cost of the JSF support products by seeking to leverage economic order quantity buys for spare parts 

in conjunction with production buys, and implementing pricing improvement curves 

that leverage learning opportunities. In creating a common sustainment baseline 

harnessing the F–35 support system design, the JPO is articulating the optimum 

level of infrastructure and products required to support operations of the global 

fleet. By optimizing the amount of equipment procured early on, the JPO is impacting life cycle O&S costs. The Program Office is actively managing the reliability and 

maintainability of systems/subsystems and components. Where they fall short of 

meeting design specifications, the Program Office is implementing appropriate modifications that will help us control cost growth. The Program Office is also conducting 

a full life-cycle cost BCA that will evaluate both the current sustainment strategy 

and potential options to determine the best-value, long-term support solution for the 

program. This is scheduled for completion in December 2011. We will evaluate options for supply chain management, sustaining engineering, field operations support, and fleet management. We will also conduct a series of design reviews on 

sustainment elements—e.g., the supply chain—throughout 2011 and 2012 to verify 

the technical design and identify whether there are any opportunities for redesign 

that could reduce costs. As all of these cost reduction initiatives from the AMP, 

BCA, and design reviews are matured, the results will be incorporated into the program’s life cycle cost estimate and will ultimately be realized by the Services and 

international partners. 

1091 

36. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, if you envision a comprehensive management approach to ensuring that these costs come down over time, please describe 

that approach and any relevant milestones. 

Admiral VENLET. Our management approach to drive down O&S costs consists of 

two main efforts. The first is intense management focus and implementation of contractual mechanisms to pressure Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney to reduce 

the unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost increases for the LRIP aircraft buys. Our top 

O&S cost driver, depot level repairables, is highly sensitive to URF price increases, 

and therefore any reductions in URF will drive down O&S costs. Our second management effort involves the formalization of potential O&S cost reduction initiatives 

into potential targets, actionable tasks, and schedules under the AMP. The AMP 

will be a single document to capture the O&S reduction activities. These include: 

opportunities to reduce the sustainment hardware costs; opportunities to reduce cost 

through targeted improvements in reliability and maintainability of components; 

and opportunities to reduce costs through a full Service implementation of the JSF 

common-support solution. The AMP is scheduled to be delivered in October 2011 

and will form the basis for future JSF Program Objective Memorandum budget submissions. 

37. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Sullivan, what are we learning about highly concurrent 

development, test, and production from the JSF program? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The JSF’s poor cost and schedule performance to date can in large 

part be traced to its single-step acquisition strategy to develop and acquire full combat capabilities on a very aggressive, risky schedule with substantial concurrency 

across technology development, design, testing, and production activities. We are 

now in the 10th year of development with most testing still before the program, yet 

are negotiating the fifth production lot. The recent restructuring reduced near-term 

procurement and added test resources. These actions reduce, but do not eliminate, 

the risks from concurrency. According to the revised schedule, DOD plans to purchase 545 aircraft in 11 annual lots by the end of system development. This total 

does not include the substantial number of aircraft ordered by the international 

partners during this same period. 

38. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Sullivan, is this strategy really paying benefits in affordability and cost of ownership, both with respect to this program and to similar major 

defense acquisition programs with high development-risk or unproven critical technologies? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Affordability—both in terms of the investment costs to acquire the 

JSF and the continuing costs to operate and maintain it over the life-cycle—is at 

risk. A key tenet of the JSF program from its inception has been to deliver an affordable, highly common fifth generation aircraft that could be acquired by the 

warfighters in large numbers. Rising aircraft prices erode buying power and make 

it difficult for the United States and its allies to buy as many aircraft as planned. 

Quantity reductions could drive additional price increases for future aircraft. Further, while DOD is still refining cost projections for operating and supporting future 

JSF fleets, cost forecasts have increased as the program matures and more data becomes available. Current JSF life-cycle cost estimates are considerably higher than 

the legacy aircraft it will replace; this has major implications for future demands 

on military operating and support budgets and plans for recapitalizing fighter 

forces. DOD leadership stated that the JSF program lost focus on affordability and 

that restoring and maintaining that focus is paramount to improving program outcomes. 

Historically, acquisition programs with highly concurrent schedules and unproven 

critical technologies are at greater risk of cost problems than programs with less 

overlap of development and production. Moving forward in development and testing 

with unproven technologies risks later cost increases and schedule delays due to excessive design changes. Making substantial production investments before technologies have been demonstrated and the design is stable can require costly retrofit 

of already built aircraft and additional production line investments. In contrast, 

achieving a high degree of technology maturity by the start of system development 

is an important indicator of future success, demonstrating a good match between 

warfighters’ requirements and available resources of knowledge, time, and money. 

Regarding the JSF, system development began in 2001 with none of the eight critical technologies mature. Ten years later, five technologies are now considered mature and three are nearing maturity. Significant development risks remain as the 

program integrates and tests these technologies. The JSF program is still very early 

in demonstrating aircraft design and testing to verify it works as intended. As of 

December 2010, about 4 percent of JSF capabilities have been completely verified 

1092 

by flight tests, lab results, or both. In addition, emerging technology and design concerns about the helmet-mounted display, advanced data links, lift fan engine, outer 

mold lines, and others add to challenges and could drive further cost increases. 

CORROSION

39. Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Gilmore, according to a recent report on corrosion specific to the F–22 Raptor and F–35 JSF programs, OT&E is accomplished in most 

cases in corrosively benign environments due to, for example, the location of the 

major test centers. Any exposure to moderate or severe corrosive environments during testing tends to be limited in duration. By contrast, once fielded, military systems operate in corrosive environments. 

Therefore, to help ensure corrosion and material degradation do not become a limiting factor during the useful service life of a weapon system, does your office currently consider corrosion, environmental severity, and duration in determining the 

adequacy of test and evaluation plans? Please explain. 

Dr. GILMORE. Yes. DOT&E considers the need to evaluate corrosive effects that 

can occur during operational use when advising on the adequacy of developmental 

test and when approving operational test plans. Measures of reliability and maintainability capture defects, maintenance, and/or inspection time needed to identify 

and correct corrosion if it occurs during operational test. In the case of the F–35, 

the operational test agencies will operate aircraft for 3 to 5 years, depending on the 

variant, prior to the initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), providing data 

on corrosion under a number of conditions, including from aircraft employed at the 

training center at Eglin AFB, Florida, over a period of approximately 4 years prior 

to IOT&E. The F–35 operational test master plans include maritime deployments 

and a cold weather environment deployment, in addition to open air trials conducted 

at the western U.S. ranges. While these deployments will take less than a month 

in their individual durations, they will be designed to provide data on the response 

of the weapon system, and the impact to the maintenance force, in a variety of environments. Our final IOT&E report will also use data obtained from climatic laboratory testing and aircraft materials testing that the program office is conducting as 

part of developmental testing. 

40. Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Gilmore, we have been seeing major corrosion issues on 

the F–22 Raptor. Has the F–35 Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan been updated with lessons learned from corrosion prevention and control for the F–22 

Raptor aircraft? 

Dr. GILMORE. As is acknowledged in last year’s Corrosion Evaluation Team report 

on F–22 and F–35 aircraft, the F–35 program has included lessons learned from the 

F–22 program in developing the F–35’s design and planning for corrosion prevention 

and control. Features to prevent and control corrosion incorporated in the F–35 include the following: gap filler that is less galvanically dissimilar from aluminum 

than used in the F–22; reduced use of conductive gap fillers; use of alternatives to 

conductive paint; providing sufficient internal drainage systems; elimination of aluminum honeycomb; inclusion of fiberglass barriers at composite/aluminum interfaces; and conducting more operationally representative verification and qualification tests. I understand the program office is currently updating its Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan for completion by the end of August 2011. In May 2011, 

the program office also updated its F–35 Corrosion Prevention and Management 

documentation, which defines the procedures and management processes needed to 

avoid and track functional impairment due to corrosion. 

41. Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Gilmore, do you know if the program intends to specify 

that responsibility for management of the ALIS must link with the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP)? Please explain. 

Dr. GILMORE. It is my understanding that ALIS is being designed to provide direct linkage with the JSF ASIP and that the ASIP experts are currently working 

with ALIS developers to provide the appropriate tools to identify and control corrosion during operational use. While the current release of ALIS does not provide 

these tools, future releases planned before the end of development will enable appropriate personnel to use ALIS to track all required inspections and maintenance generated as a result of ASIP analysis and findings. These tools and processes will be 

part of the end-to-end verification of autonomic logistics systems conducted prior to 

and during IOT&E. 

1093 

42. Senator MCCAIN. Dr. Gilmore, do you know if the program intends to ensure 

that those officials are involved in developing ALIS and are capable of receiving and 

analyzing the information to support the ASIP sustainment activity? Please explain. 

Dr. GILMORE. My understanding is that ALIS personnel would not directly analyze the information for ASIP sustainment, but provide tools and data to support 

ASIP analysis and actions for the appropriate unit-level and service-level offices. 

The intention is that the squadron-level data captured within ALIS will be stored 

within an enterprise data system and made accessible to authorized users/stakeholders for further ASIP analysis. However, I cannot yet conclude that all that is 

necessary (e.g., training, tools, instructions) to take advantage of the large amount 

of ALIS data, including ASIP data, is built or under construction. It is my understanding that the program office is reviewing this as part of the upcoming 

sustainment review. The product will be subject to end-to-end verification of autonomic logistics systems prior to and during IOT&E. 

STATUS OF FLIGHT TESTING

43. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Sullivan, please characterize how 

much we know today from flight tests in the context of the total flight test program? 

Admiral VENLET. The F–35 flight test program has yielded several positive findings at this point in the total flight program. As of June 12, we have completed approximately 16 percent of the total planned testing to the end of the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) and would characterize our knowledge as being 

at an appropriate level and commensurate with how much testing is complete. The 

flight test program for this aircraft is focusing on four main areas: Radar Cross Section (RCS), Flight Qualities (FQ), Performance, and Mission Systems. We know that 

the RCS meets expectations. We know that the FQs are adequate and that the jet 

behaves predictably—easy to fly and land. Vertical flight is not a challenge. Performance meets expectations. The jet is experiencing wing roll issues to the level 

predicted by wind tunnel testing. Flight control modifications have improved but 

have not yet cured this wing roll off. Mission systems are still immature with most 

of the software development yet to come, making us less knowledgeable in this area. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The JSF program is still very early in demonstrating aircraft design and testing to verify it works as intended and will meet warfighter requirements. As of December 2010, about 4 percent of JSF capabilities have been completely verified by flight tests, lab results, or both. Early flights tested basic airframe handling and airworthiness characteristics. Initial flight tests of a fully integrated aircraft to demonstrate full mission systems capabilities and weapons delivery is now not expected until 2015, 3 years later than planned. Flight test progress 

has been hampered by the late delivery of test assets, STOVL variant technical 

problems, and delays in developing, integrating, and releasing software to the test 

program. Software development—essential for achieving about 80 percent of the JSF 

functionality—is significantly behind schedule as it enters its most challenging 

phase. Furthermore, only 3 of 32 ground test labs and simulation models critical to 

complement and, in some cases, substitute for flight tests, are accredited to verify 

and ensure the fidelity of results. 

44. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Sullivan, what percentages of the 

total flight test now planned have we experienced so far? 

Admiral VENLET. As of June 12, the Flight Test Program has accomplished 8,977 

of a total planned 57,488 test points for a total program percentage of 16 percent. 

The program overall is 14 percent ahead of the plan (8,977 of a planned 7,870 test 

points). 

Unique Test Points F–35A F–35B F–35C Mission 1

Systems Total 

Cumulative To Date ..................................................................................... 3,138 4,415 1,424 1 463 8,977 

Total Planned at end of SDD ...................................................................... 14,141 21,862 15,155 6,330 57,488 

Approximate Percent Complete .................................................................... 22 20 9 7 16 

1Mission Systems cumulative-to-date test points are a subset of the variant totals. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Through 2010, the development flight test program has executed 

about 7 percent of the total flights planned. This is based on the restructured plan 

that added about one-third more test flights to the previous plan. For 2011, officials 

plan to fly more than double the number of flight tests in 2010. If executed as 

planned, almost 20 percent of the total flights will have been flown through the end 

of 2011. 

1094 

45. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Sullivan, in the remaining tests, 

what are the areas of suspected risks or of key importance to proving combat capability? 

Admiral VENLET. Those items of key importance to providing combat capability 

with the F–35 include: maturing the air vehicle and mission systems software; ensuring Vertical Landing Bring Back thresholds are met; and developing, testing, and 

producing a combat-capable helmet. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Key risk areas include: 

• Flight testing a fully integrated aircraft to demonstrate full mission systems capabilities and weapons delivery is of key importance in proving combat capability but, as discussed in question 43, initial flight testing is not 

expected to begin until 2015. 

• Software development, integration, and its release to test program comprises a major risk area. Software provides 80 percent of JSF’s functionality 

essential to capabilities such as sensor fusion, weapons, and fire control, 

maintenance diagnostics, and propulsion. Software capabilities are developed, tested, and delivered in five blocks, or increments. Several blocks 

have already grown in size and taken longer to complete. Continued delays 

would further impact flight testing and design maturation efforts. 

• Deficiencies in the helmet-mounted display (HMD) are causing officials to 

develop a second helmet while trying to fix the first model. In recent testimony, the DOT&E stated that the HMD is integral to the F–35 mission systems architecture and the concept of operations. In addition, he noted that, 

if the program has to utilize a conventional helmet design instead of the 

HMD, this would involve significant modifications to the current cockpit design. 

• Both the STOVL and CV variants have important ship suitability and sea 

trials scheduled in 2011. STOVL tests are dependent on first clearing the 

vertical-landing envelope. 

MODIFICATION ISSUES

46. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Sullivan, given the amount of 

change in the configuration and composition of the three F–35 variants and the extension of SDD, please characterize the amount of modifications needed to bring the 

early lots of production aircraft up to the final SDD capability and configuration? 

Admiral VENLET. If the Services decide to bring the early lots of production aircraft up to the final SDD capability and configuration (Block 3 with 8,000-hour life), 

then the modifications required will include aircraft hardware and software retrofits 

as well as propulsion modifications. 

These modifications include both capability upgrades (retrofit to Block 3) and concurrency Engineering Change Proposals (such as STOVL FS–496 Bulkhead and 

Conventional Takeoff and Landing Forward Root Rib) to bring the aircraft up to full 

SDD capability and configuration. 

The number of modifications needed will vary across lots and depend on the delivered configuration of each aircraft and engine. The majority of these changes, however, will likely be unit-level incorporations that can be performed on an opportunistic basis with minimal impact to aircraft availability. Structural changes, however, 

will require beyond unit-level capabilities. 

To mitigate the number of modifications required, the Program Office is currently 

pursuing a multi-pronged approach: incorporating fixes into production as early as 

possible; continually refining engineering analyses; developing inspection requirements in lieu of modifications; and investigating the use of preferred spares. Also, 

when modifications are unavoidable, we are packaging multiple modifications together to minimize aircraft downtime. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) CAPE office estimates modification costs of $1.4 billion: $550 million to bring early lots of production 

aircraft to the Block 3 configuration and $850 million for concurrent design changes 

required due to discovery during testing. We remain concerned about the prospect 

for additional future costs as DOD is procuring large quantities of aircraft amid continuing design changes and delays in development testing and software integration. 

We note that the program may procure more than 300 aircraft before a fully integrated system begins development flight tests and more than 500 aircraft by the 

end of operational testing. Based on prior system acquisitions, significant modifications and retrofits to already produced aircraft could be expected as a result of discoveries during flight tests. 

1095 

47. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Sullivan, what, if any, are the big 

or difficult modifications that we know about now? Are there any in the queue that 

we haven’t yet finalized? 

Admiral VENLET. We are currently aware of six big or difficult aircraft or engine 

modifications. For the STOVL variant, we have identified the need for two structural modifications (FS–496 Bulkhead and Forward Root Rib), one capability modification (Auxiliary Air Inlet Door), and two engine modifications (Screech Reduction 

and the Liftfan Driveshaft). For the Conventional Take Off and Landing variant, 

we have also identified the need for the Forward Root Rib and the Screech Reduction modifications, as well as a further engine equipment modification to the Dual 

Vane Fuel Pump System. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. As we noted in our response to question #45, HMD problems may 

require substantial modifications to the current helmet (or development of an alternate helmet) and also to the cockpit, data displays, and mission systems. 

Outer mold lines are another concern. Defense Contract Management Agency officials noted difficulties in manufacturing outer mold lines, resulting from tight tolerance specifications and multiple manufacturing methodologies among different JSF 

parts suppliers. Inability to meet the outer mold line requirements could have major 

impacts on stealth requirements and capabilities. This issue is not expected to be 

resolved until 2015, after over 200 aircraft will have been procured. This significantly raises the potential impact of any required modifications to meet specifications. 

48. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, are the modifications that are needed due 

to concurrency calculated in the total program costs? 

Admiral VENLET. The modification kits, and associated labor, needed due to concurrency were not included in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request; however, they are included in the current Program Office and Office of the Director, 

CAPE, Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) that will be used for Milestone (MS) B recertification. The CAPE’s ICE will be included in the December 2011 SAR as well 

as the Acquisition Program Baseline to be approved at the MS B DAB review. 

49. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, to what extent do the Services have to fund 

these concurrency-caused modifications with production funding? 

Admiral VENLET. We are seeing current modifications on the aircraft in the areas 

of structural life, limited parts changes, and non-safety related design changes. With 

the exception of the safety-related design changes, the Services have the opportunity 

to decide whether to incorporate the other categories of modifications within their 

aircraft. The Services are part of the change management process where the configuration changes are reviewed and assessed. If the modification is approved, production funding will be used to incorporate into the impacted aircraft. To mitigate 

the long-term impact, the JSF program is using every opportunity to reduce the 

number of modifications required. The program is incorporating fixes into production as early as possible, continually refining engineering analyses, developing inspection requirements, and investigating the use of preferred spares. 

Lockheed is not responsible to pay for the modification costs. DOD pays for them 

with procurement appropriations. The timing of when the modifications are incorporated depends upon the criticality of each modification. If a modification is critical 

because of service life implications or impacts a critical capability used in training, 

then the modification is planned for early incorporation. Other modifications may 

be incorporated at a later time. 

MARINE CORPS’ JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER SHORT TAKEOFF/VERTICAL-LANDING DESIGN

50. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, with regard to the Marine Corps’ STOVL 

JSF, how confident are you that the current design, plus the known and future 

modifications, produce enough vertical lift to overcome the weight of the aircraft, 

plus weapons and fuel, to operate as planned? 

Admiral VENLET. My confidence is increasing as the F–35B flight test program 

has progressed through key maturity milestones in the first half of 2011. In the past 

6 months, the STOVL test program has completed the majority of hot gas ingestion 

testing and an environmental structural load survey across STOVL domain. Additionally, the Naval Air Station Patuxent River flight team has completed the spectrum of vertical landings (112 VLs as of June 1, 2011) required as entry condition 

for the first LHD ship trial (aircraft weight, sink rate, crosswinds). With a significant portion of the STOVL discovery now known and the Lockheed Martin/Pratt & 

Whitney design team identifying additional weight reduction opportunities, I am 

1096 

cautiously optimistic in the ability of the integrated F–35B weight/thrust program 

to meet the Vertical Landing Bring Back Key Performance Parameter requirement. 

RESTORING CONFIDENCE BY DELIVERING ON TIME

51. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, as of today, taxpayers 

have invested about $56 billion on the JSF program. To date, the program has been 

in development for 10 years and in production for 4 years. Yet only 9 of 12 developmental aircraft intended for flight testing have been delivered. Three are still hung 

up, although they were supposed to be delivered in 2009, meaning they are about 

21 months late. While the first two production aircraft were delivered within the 

past few weeks, they too were long overdue. I understand that 16 production aircraft are scheduled for delivery in 2011 and that all of them have weight on their 

landing gear at Fort Worth. With 7 months left this year, Lockheed Martin will 

have to produce those aircraft at a rate of about two per month. What conclusions, 

if any, should Congress draw about this program, and Lockheed Martin’s ability to 

build at higher rates needed to keep unit costs affordable, if it doesn’t deliver those 

16 production jets on time by the end of the year? 

Admiral VENLET. Of the 16 production aircraft scheduled for delivery by the end 

of 2011, two (AF–6 and AF–7) have been delivered, and four (AF–8, AF–9, AF–10, 

AF–11) are expected by the end of July. Furthermore, 11 of 12 development flight 

test aircraft have been delivered. The last SDD aircraft, BF–5 has already flown 

seven times in Fort Worth and is undergoing final preparations for delivery. The 

eight remaining production aircraft scheduled for delivery by the end of 2011 are 

advancing through final assembly, field operations, and flight line at a pace that we 

believe supports deliveries in 2011. Each of the aircraft scheduled for delivery this 

year requires an individual flight certification, placing a large proportion of non-production work onto the critical path for delivery of these aircraft. This is atypical— 

the production critical path will normally be dependent on the aircraft build—and 

is due to the fact that early developmental and production flight clearances are very 

specific to unique aircraft configurations. As the weapon system matures via qualification and test, the flight clearance process will improve over a continuum between now and the LRIP 8 (2014) timeframe when we will be in a more steady state 

flight certification process as the number of changes diminishes and aircraft configuration stabilizes. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from deliveries in 2011 should 

take into account the full spectrum of activities necessary to deliver these aircraft, 

with an understanding of how they differ from the expected future production line. 

Mr. BURBAGE. As an update, all 12 of our developmental flight test aircraft have 

been delivered into active testing and 11 of the 12 have been delivered to the Air 

Force and Navy Flight Test facilities. The last SDD aircraft, BF–5 was retained in 

Fort Worth to conduct engine testing of the first production configured engine. This 

testing was required to allow formal acceptance of the first two production airplanes 

in May. BF–5 has flown seven times in Fort Worth and is undergoing final preparations for delivery to Patuxent River in June. The first two LRIP aircraft (AF–6/7) 

have been delivered to Edwards AFB, have been reclassified as SDD aircraft as directed by the TBR and are already contributing to the SDD flight test program. Of 

the 12 LRIP 2 aircraft, 9 have been delivered to the flightline. The first two LRIP 

2 aircraft (AF–8/9) have flown and have completed all acceptance flights by the government. 

Following DD 250 acceptance expected in the near-term, both aircraft will ferry 

to Eglin AFB to start the buildup of the 33rd Fighter Wing aircraft, which will enable Ready for Training declaration at the F–35 Integrated Training Center this 

fall. Seven of the remaining 10 airplanes in LRIP 2 have been delivered to the Fort 

Worth flightline and three aircraft are in final assembly. These aircraft will quickly 

go through the same acceptance flight procedure and DD 250 process as the first 

two LRIP 2 aircraft. Initial LRIP 3 aircraft are already on wheels on the factory 

floor and rolling toward final assembly. 

Despite significant development challenges in the past, the path ahead is clearly 

opening in 2011. Increased deliveries of aircraft will occur and continue to grow in 

number for the remainder of 2011 and into 2012. Lockheed Martin will continue to 

work in close coordination with the industry and government F–35 team to stabilize 

development to reduce concurrency risks, continue to increase production rates, and 

lower both production costs and projected long-term O&S costs for the F–35 program. 

1097 

52. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, is this program sustainable if it can’t deliver aircraft at a rate higher than one or two a month after 4 years 

in production? 

Admiral VENLET. The production program is not sustainable if it does not produce 

at rates higher than one or two per month in the future. However, the production 

part of the JSF program is currently transitioning from a development-centric production model—where each jet has a unique test mission, instrumentation, and configuration—to a repetitive manufacturing production model where three variants of 

aircraft are continuously produced from a single value stream. The current production delivery schedule has the program delivering at a rate of four per month in 

summer 2012. At various stages in the value stream, such as Wing, Center Fuselage, and Forward Fuselage, the program is already performing at rates higher than 

one or two per month in preparation for deliveries at a rate of four per month in 

2012. 

Mr. BURBAGE. The F–35 program has been delayed with early development and 

production challenges. However, beginning in 2010 and continuing in 2011, the program has demonstrated significant progress in all areas of development and production. The program has produced and delivered 11 of the 12 original SDD aircraft 

to the test sites and is well into LRIP production (a 13th aircraft was added in 2010 

and will be delivered in 2012). The last SDD aircraft, BF–5 was retained in Fort 

Worth temporarily to conduct production engine testing in support of delivery of the 

first two production airplanes. The airplane is undergoing final preparations for delivery to Patuxent River in June. Based on that recent performance, we believe the 

program does have the capability to sustain increased production at higher rate and 

by summer 2012, we are on track to deliver aircraft at a rate of 4 aircraft per 

month, 48 aircraft per year. 

The IMRT chartered by OSD recently reported that they have confidence F–35 

can ramp-up to 48 to 60 aircraft a year with no issues, and to higher rates with 

completion of planned supply chain, manufacturing system, and affordability actions, to name a few. The U.S. Government and partners are investing $5.7 billion 

in production non-recurring tooling and technical assistance for the global supply 

chain, much of which is already in the pipeline. Lockheed Martin has invested over 

$1 billion in new production facilities alone. New factories for composites, wire harnesses, major assemblies, machining, and avionics are opening up each year as F– 

35 recapitalizes an industrial base thinned by 2 decades of reduced aircraft procurement. F–35 is incorporating the latest in lean production concepts including a moving final assembly line and pull flow from supplier to factory. In addition, the 

Italians have approved funding for a major Final Assembly and Check-Out facility 

that will ultimately produce 24 to 48 aircraft per year with low rate deliveries starting in the 2014 timeframe. No other fighter program has had the level of early investment throughout production tooling, facilities, and the global supply chain to 

drive affordability and lower ramp-up risks. 

The F–35’s common manufacturing processes and parts, advanced digital design 

tools, and assembly methods help achieve the program’s goals of affordability, quality, and assembly speed. Lessons learned from development aircraft production have 

been incorporated into production aircraft to increase efficiency and reduce cost. By 

using industry-standard engineering and manufacturing technologies to ensure precise assembly, the concurrent production of all three variants is steadily moving toward full-rate production. The tri-variant final assembly activity in Fort Worth is 

experiencing a world class learning curve and we have reduced the cost of the airplane 50 percent over the first four production lots. 

53. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, under what circumstances 

would it be appropriate to go back to a more aggressive ramp-up before Lockheed 

Martin has demonstrated that it actually can deliver JSF jets on time, as needed, 

and on budget? 

Admiral VENLET. A return to aggressive production ramping prior to acquiring the 

evidence of technical maturity—available as a result of test program outcomes— 

would be premature. The extension of the SDD phase, and the subsequent reduction 

in production quantities in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request, allows 

the JSF program to maintain a balanced exposure to concurrency risks as both development and production continue. 

Mr. BURBAGE. Having just completed the TBR and subsequent OSD adjustments 

to the program, we agree with the JPO that the current program is realistic, has 

resilience, and embraces the fundamentals of system acquisition. We also agree with 

DOD’s desire to balance increases in the production rate with risks of concurrency 

by holding the rate steady in 2011 and 2012 and then following a ramp rate of 1.5 

starting in 2013. We remain concerned that the rate decreases from 35 aircraft to 

1098 

32 aircraft from 2011 to 2012. The decrease in aircraft before initiating the 1.5 ramp 

rate has a cost impact and places risk to our supply base. All of our suppliers have 

anticipated a continuous increase in production and have made investments in manufacturing capacity to accommodate that growth. We look forward to the opportunity 

to demonstrate the ability to increase the production rate as currently programmed 

if substantial progress is clearly demonstrated by the manufacturing team in the 

future. As a reference, late this year we will be starting assembly at 4 per month 

and by summer 2012, we are on track to deliver aircraft at a rate of 4 aircraft per 

month, 48 aircraft per year. 

MARINE CORPS’ VERSION OF JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ON PROBATION

54. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, with your assistance, Secretary Gates 

placed the F–35B on probation for 2 years. I know you have been putting together 

a set of criteria to determine a way forward for the STOVL design. In your view, 

exactly how does F–35B get off of probation? 

Admiral VENLET. In my view, the F–35B will have to show improvements in several areas to get off of probation. The F–35B will have to demonstrate test successes 

in unmonitored flight. It will have to perform well during the ship trials, which are 

scheduled to begin this fall. Design improvements need to be developed, integrated, 

and flown to demonstrate mature STOVL capability. With the incorporated changes, 

the F–35B will also have to demonstrate progress toward meeting its key performance parameters. 

55. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, is the probation period in fact for 2 years 

or could probation be ended sooner? If so, please explain how. 

Admiral VENLET. The planned probation period is for 2 years. After the allotted 

2-year time span, DOD’s leadership will reassess the overall technical progress to 

make an informed decision about how to proceed with F–35B development and production. There is potential for the F–35B probation to end prior to the 2-year deadline. If the STOVL program continues the positive progress seen through the first 

half of this year, demonstrates the ability for unmonitored flight, progresses in the 

ship trials, and incorporates the design improvements for STOVL capability, there 

is potential for the technical maturity to be demonstrated in less than 2 years. 

When the program has demonstrated elements of STOVL technical maturity, the 

JSF Program Office and the U.S. Marine Corps report the requested data to the 

Secretary of Defense. 

56. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, why shouldn’t the program be broken-up? 

Admiral VENLET. The core concept behind the JSF program is to leverage commonalities across all aircraft variants in all phases of development, production, and 

sustainment. If three independent programs were established, we would lose the 

benefits of common management as well as lose the benefits derived from economies 

of scale in the global logistics system. 

57. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, Secretary Gates’ putting the Marine Corps’ 

version of JSF on a 2-year probation cleared the way for the Air Force’s and Navy’s 

versions (the A and C models) to move ahead. That seems to acknowledge that these 

are now three different aircraft. Now that testing is well underway and procurement 

has started, why shouldn’t we break these three models into different programs so 

they can be managed scrupulously? 

Admiral VENLET. The core concept behind the JSF program is to leverage commonalities across all aircraft variants in all phases of development, production, and 

sustainment. If three independent programs were established, we would lose the 

benefits of common management as well as lose the benefits derived from economies 

of scale in the global logistics system. 

58. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Sullivan, I am sure you would agree that Secretary 

Gates’ putting the STOVL on probation isn’t just a word play; it should mean something to Lockheed Martin and the JSF program, and invoke a specific course of action, not just business as usual. What is your view of what needs to be done for 

the STOVL to get off probation? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. As we recommended in our recent report, DOD should formally establish criteria for the STOVL probation period and take additional steps to sustain 

individual attention on STOVL-specific issues. This will provide a framework for 

DOD leadership to manage to and sustain focus. DOD concurred with this recommendation. While establishing criteria will provide a scorecard of progress, the 

1099 

STOVL variant will, at minimum, need to demonstrate better flight test availability 

and lift fan performance. 

END-OF-THE-YEAR EXPECTATIONS

59. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, isn’t it true that, before 

the end of the year, we will have sufficient actual cost data to know the projected 

cost for the 32 jets in the block of jets that we most recently entered into a contract 

for, the LRIP, Block 4 (IV)? 

Admiral VENLET. Yes. By the end of 2011, the work on LRIP IV will be approximately 47 percent complete, and the JSF program office will have sufficient cost 

data to provide a more accurate projection for the cost-to-complete of the LRIP IV 

contract. 

Mr. BURBAGE. We will begin to see some actual cost data come in by the end of 

2011; at that time, approximately 47 percent of the work on the LRIP IV contract 

will be complete. Further, as the actual cost data continues to come in during the 

major subcomponent build cycles, we will continue to refine the estimate to complete 

for the LRIP IV contract. 

60. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, will this data be sufficient 

for us to see either a deviation or an alignment between the LRIP IV’s actual costs 

and the revised cost baseline that we’re going to get for the program later this 

month? 

Admiral VENLET. Yes. Once the cost baseline is established at the DAB review 

and sufficient LRIP IV cost data has been collected, the program office will be able 

to identify any possible deviations. 

Mr. BURBAGE. Yes, as we refine the cost estimate based on actual costs data for 

LRIP IV we will be able to identify deviations or alignments on cost. 

61. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, because LRIP IV is a 

fixed-price-type contract, so that, for the first time in the program’s history, Lockheed Martin could seriously be on the hook for major overruns, will we know by 

the end of the year whether the program is on or off track? 

Admiral VENLET. By the end of 2011, the work on the LRIP IV will be approximately 47 percent complete, and the JSF Program Office will have sufficient cost 

data to provide a more accurate projection for the cost to complete the LRIP IV contract. 

Mr. BURBAGE. Yes, by the end of 2011 the work on LRIP IV will be approximately 

47 percent complete and we will have sufficient cost data to provide a more accurate 

projection for the cost to complete of the LRIP IV contract. 

Yes, again as we refine the cost estimate based on sufficient actual costs data for 

LRIP IV we will be able to identify whether the program remains on track to know 

whether cost saving initiatives already in-work will have the desired effect. 

FIFTH-GENERATION CAPABILITY

62. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Sullivan, in your view, what can currently be said now 

about the documented performance of JSF in the areas that make it the 5th-generation strike-fighter, with low observability, fused mission systems, electronic attack, 

and weapons integration? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. At this point in the program, relatively little can be concluded regarding JSF performance in these critical areas. The test program is still very early 

in demonstrating that the aircraft will work as intended. Testing at this point has 

been concentrated on basic flying capabilities. Development and testing for these 

more advanced fifth generation capabilities has slipped because of continued software delays and technological maturation problems. Software, in particular, is a 

pacing item for the development of these areas. The program cannot start flight 

testing a particular capability until the respective software block is delivered to the 

test program. Software blocks 2 and 3 (which provide initial and full warfighting 

capability) have slipped 3 years beyond earlier estimates. Some capabilities also 

were moved to future blocks in attempts to meet schedule and mitigate risks. For 

example, full data missions systems were deferred from block 2 to block 3. 

PAYMENT OF FEES

63. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Venlet, please provide a history of all fees that have 

been paid to Lockheed Martin to date in connection with SDD, and separately with 

1100 

respect to LRIP, in the JSF program, both as dollar amounts and as a percentage 

of total available fee. 

Admiral VENLET. Response provided in the charts below. 

[Deleted.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS

NAVY VERSUS AIR FORCE TACTICAL AIRCRAFT GAP

64. Senator CHAMBLISS. Ms. Fox, you note in your statement that: ‘‘the Air Force 

is expected to experience a shortfall between 40 to 100 aircraft due to [the F–35] 

cost increase. However, the shortfall of 40 to 100 aircraft in relation to the 2,000 

aircraft they are supposed to receive is seen as manageable. The Navy however has 

greater concern with a larger shortfall . . . They have invested in a service life extension plan for 150 F–18 aircraft.’’ I note that DOD has also requested procurement 

of additional F–18s to address this shortfall. 

Please provide the data and rationale for the size of the Air Force’s and Navy’s 

shortfalls in tactical aircraft and explain why the Air Force’s shortfall can be addressed without procuring additional aircraft and why, on the other hand, the 

Navy’s shortfall requires procuring additional aircraft. If necessary, please provide 

a classified response. 

Ms. FOX. The Air Force does not need to buy additional aircraft because many 

of its legacy aircraft—the F–16 in particular—will remain in service longer than 

originally expected. The Air Force plans to extend its 397 early block F–16s (Block 

25/30/32) to reach 8,000 actual flying hours, up from 6,800 hours. This extension 

mainly requires a modest cost wing skin modification. The larger impact in mitigating the Air Force fighter attack shortfall is in implementing a service life extension program (SLEP) for a portion of its 640 late block F–16 (Block 40/50), anticipated to increase service life from 8,000 to 10,000 actual hours. Sustainment and 

SLEP will allow early block F–16s to remain in the fleet until the early 2020s, and 

allow late block F–16s to remain in the fleet until the early 2030s. The net result 

of the most recent projections of legacy aircraft lifespan and the F–35 procurement 

ramp associated with the 2012 President’s budget drop the Air Force shortfall down 

to between 40 and 100 aircraft. This shortfall is relative to a 2,000 total aircraft 

inventory. Air Force and CAPE agree that this shortfall is manageable and no additional aircraft need to be procured. 

The Navy needs to buy additional aircraft because its shortfall is relatively larger 

and it has fewer legacy aircraft suitable for a service life extension compared to the 

Air Force. Prior to any major mitigation steps the Navy shortfall was projected to 

peak at 177 aircraft in 2017. A combination of measures such as high flight hour 

inspections and SLEP for 150 F/A–18A–D aircraft and accelerated transition of F/ 

A–18E/Fs using peacetime attrition aircraft reduced the shortfall to approximately 

100 aircraft in 2018. The restructuring of the F–35 program in the 2012 President’s 

budget increased the shortfall above 100 aircraft, so additional measures were needed. With an open production line available, Secretary Gates added 41 F/A–18 E/Fs 

to the President’s budget 2012 FYDP. These aircraft, combined with the additional 

nine aircraft added by Congress in 2011, reduce the shortfall to about 50 aircraft, 

relative to an inventory demand of about 1,080 aircraft. The Navy assesses and 

CAPE agrees that this shortfall level is manageable. 

ALTERNATIVES TO F–35

65. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Carter, in your response to a question at the 

hearing regarding DOD’s Nunn-McCurdy certification process for the F–35 program, 

when discussing alternatives DOD considered to the F–35 program, you mentioned 

that DOD considered and rejected several alternatives. However, you did not include 

the F–22 as one of the alternatives that DOD considered. 

During DOD’s Nunn-McCurdy certification process for the F–35 program, did 

DOD consider procuring additional F–22s as an alternative to continuing the F–35 

program? Why or why not? 

Dr. CARTER. As part of the F–35 Nunn-McCurdy review, DOD assessed whether 

there were alternative aircraft to the F–35 that provided acceptable capability to 

meet the joint military requirement at lower cost. The analysis assessed the F–22, 

F–15E, F–16 Block 52/60, and F/A–18E/F. The analysis compared the options on the 

basis of survivability, basing, lethality, and networking, and also went beyond existing programs to examine potential upgrades to alternative aircraft airframes, weapons, sensors, and communications networks. 

1101 

66. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Carter, if you did consider additional F–22 procurement as an alternative, please explain why that alternative was not adopted. 

Dr. CARTER. The analysis determined that the F–22 lacked the sensors and weapons to meet the required lethality against ground targets. With extensive upgrades, 

the F–22’s capability against ground targets could be improved, but potential design 

limitations, technical risk, lack of basing flexibility, and high cost eliminated it as 

an acceptable alternative. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

F–35B SHORT TAKEOFF/VERTICAL-LANDING FLIGHT TEST PROGRESS

67. Senator GRAHAM. Admiral Venlet, would you please provide an update on the 

F–35B, or STOVL variant, flight test progress since the January efficiencies announcement that put it on probation? 

Admiral VENLET. Progress in testing of the F–35B has improved significantly in 

2011. The Program Office is tracking three near-term milestones as we work toward 

improved performance: completion of the Ready-For-Training (RFT) test points for 

conventional mode operations on F–35B; completion of the RFT test points for 

STOVL mode operations; and test points required for the first flight test on the 

landing ship. The chart below shows progress ahead of plan since the beginning of 

the year, and F–35B is on track to execute the first deployment to the ship this October and complete the year ahead of plan. 

STEALTH PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

68. Senator GRAHAM. Admiral Venlet, is each of the variants meeting their stealth 

performance requirements? 

Admiral VENLET. The F–35 stealth requirements are multifaceted and designed 

to achieve mission effectiveness against specific threats while executing the Joint 

Operational Requirements Document defined Mission Areas. There are two key performance parameters associated with RF signature performance. We have dynamically measured the Conventional Take Off and Landing variant and verified the defined levels have been met. Measurements are planned on the carrier and STOVL 

variants toward the end of calendar year 2011. 


519ful22.eps
1102 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

AFFORDABILITY AND COST

69. Senator CORNYN. Ms. Fox, affordability is an underlying and vital premise of 

the F–35 program. In your opinion, what can be done in the near-term to help drive 

down program costs and ensure an efficient rate of production, so that the F–35 

does not become unaffordable? 

Ms. FOX. For an aircraft production program in the longer-term, cost reduction 

is primarily a function of quantity. As production processes stabilize and more are 

produced, unit costs will decrease as a result of natural production efficiencies. In 

the shorter-term, however, this is not necessarily the case. If production quantities 

ramp up too quickly, there can be upward pressure on price. If planes are produced 

before production processes stabilize or if planes are being produced and then later 

require retrofits to reflect changes from a concurrent development program, unit 

costs will increase. 

As the JSF development program has been extended, the program has actively 

tried to find the sweet spot in a production ramp. This is the production rate which 

maintains stability in the production work force but does not overcommit to a rate 

that exposes the government to costly retrofits or a production flow that is subject 

to stagnation and backlog. 

I believe that the program, with the actions it has taken over the past year, has 

developed a firm and reasonable baseline for the execution and completion of its development qualification program. The key will be to let the development program 

execute with a stable requirements baseline. During this timeframe, DOD will continue to fine-tune the production ramp in order to achieve the sweet spot balance 

discussed above. Congress and our international partners should view any shortterm procurement adjustments within this context. 

The CAPE cost estimates for the procurement price have largely been stable. Our 

current estimate for APUC is within 2 percent of our APUC estimate at the time 

of the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. There is shorter-term cost pressure resulting 

from such things as concurrent development and maturing production processes; 

however, long-term projections are stable and reflect the fundamental fact that unit 

costs will come down as the program stabilizes and efficient procurement quantities 

are realized. 

70. Senator CORNYN. Ms. Fox, the recent SAR projected a significant increase in 

costs for O&S over the lifetime of the F–35 program. Please describe what underlying assumptions changed in this SAR from previous SARs. 

Ms. FOX. The most recent SAR (dated December 31, 2010) reflects total lifecycle 

costs exceeding $1 trillion in then-year dollars, which is approximately 10 percent 

higher than the costs reported in the 2009 SAR. The SAR reflects Program Office 

estimates. These costs projections are the by-product of operating 2,443 aircraft over 

a 30-year lifecycle. CAPE is currently completing its lifecycle cost estimate in support of a major DAB milestone review and our estimate is consistent with Program 

Office cost estimates. This is the CAPE’s first estimate of full lifecycle costs since 

the original program baseline was established in 2002. 

The primary drivers in the estimate are the costs of depot level reparables, fuel 

consumption, operating personnel, and lifecycle management personnel. Depot level 

reparables are a function of the reliability of aircraft components and how expensive 

it is to repair those components in depot when they fail. Fuel consumption is a function of the engine’s specific fuel consumption and operating hours. Operating personnel cost is a function of how many people the Services assign to operate and 

maintain the planes at a squadron level. Finally, lifecycle management costs are a 

function of the number of contractor and government personnel assigned to manage 

the program from day-to-day over the program’s entire life. 

Our estimates are based on the best information available from the contractor (for 

depot level reparables, specific fuel consumption, and lifecycle management) and 

from the Services (for operating personnel and flying hours that drive depot and fuel 

costs). We balance this information by benchmarking projected costs for this platform against costs realized in comparable legacy platforms. As more information becomes available and as operating conditions become refined, our estimates for 

lifecycle will be refined accordingly. It is important to note that the JSF is a technically advanced platform with complexities driven by stealth, thrust, and other operating requirements. Collectively, these are significant cost drivers. There is an attendant operational benefit, however, in that JSF will deliver unprecedented fifth 

generation capabilities that will allow the United States and our allies to continue 

to maintain dominance in airpower. 

1103 

71. Senator CORNYN. Ms. Fox, if development and production of the F–35 were 

discontinued, what would be the costs of O&S for the fleet of aircraft the F–35 was 

intended to replace over the same period evaluated in the SAR? 

Ms. FOX. The answer to this question requires further analysis. The existing fleet 

has already started to ramp down to reflect natural aircraft retirements and the introduction of the F–35 fleet. If F–35 development and procurement were discontinued, the Services would have to fundamentally reassess their requirements and 

reconsider the need to introduce capability block upgrades and SLEPs to offset the 

significant loss of capability that JSF would provide. These requirements would 

have to be better defined before O&S costs could reasonably be projected. Historically, it has been the case that operating and support costs have remained at relatively constant levels after adjusting for inflation. This means that the Services adjust their aircraft inventory, operational requirements, and flying-hour programs to 

fit within existing budget resources vice seeking additional resources for operations 

that may involve sizeable cost growth. 

72. Senator CORNYN. Mr. Burbage, what investments have been made in the development and design of the F–35 to reduce O&S costs over the life of the program? 

Mr. BURBAGE. Affordable O&M and Total Life-Cycle Cost considerations were 

driven into the F–35 design from the beginning. The F–35 program was designed 

to capture powerful economies of commonality and scale. For the first time ever, 

three distinct versions of the same aircraft, with a high degree of commonality, will 

serve the needs of three U.S. Services and multiple international countries. The 

economies of commonality include not only a common engine, mission system avionics, vehicle management systems, and manufacturing processes—but also a fully 

integrated and networked sustainment system. Aircraft share common parts, support equipment, and technical data, thereby also yielding long-term cost savings and 

best value for the customer. 

The F–35 is the first aircraft development program to fully integrate the air system and the training and sustainment system from design inception. Supported primarily in a performance-based logistics environment, the result is greater reliability 

and unprecedented cost visibility. 

The global sustainment system will meet the operational needs of more than 40 

land bases, 20 ships, and 150 squadrons—capturing the benefits of economies of 

scale. At the same time, we are creating the first-ever joint and combined training 

system. Integrating pilot and maintenance training for multiple Services, while 

using the same software and hardware as the aircraft, provides faster training with 

greater fidelity and at lower cost. When extended to include closest allies, the cost 

of conducting future long-term combat or peacekeeping operations is also dramatically reduced for all participating nations. 

The ALIS—the infrastructure for data collection, data analysis, and decision support—ties together F–35 operational planning and prognostics and health management to enhance the worldwide fleet of aircraft. ALIS complements the decisionmaking process, matching customer metrics and dollars to resources in real time. 

F–35 sustainment is a total life-cycle system—a new paradigm for fighter aircraft 

support that dramatically simplifies maintenance and keeps the aircraft where it 

belongs—in the air. 

Global sustainment products and processes are currently used in F–35 production 

and flight test, demonstrating their proof of factory-to-field commonality and confirming their cost and performance attributes. 

Annual F–35 O&S cost estimates are developed from detailed grassroots product 

and service descriptions, including cost elements often buried in legacy programs as 

infrastructure costs. In contrast to higher-level, legacy-system-based parametric cost 

estimates, these detailed F–35 O&S estimates provide the foundation for conducting 

cost/benefit analyses and enabling informed decisions. Today, the primary total ownership cost debate is about ground rules and assumptions that define what costs are 

included in the accounting. As F–35 flying hours continue to increase, data fidelity 

and accuracy improve and overall uncertainty will be reduced. This information is 

fed back into the annual O&S cost estimates to generate even more accurate analyses, decisionmaking, and enhanced management control over total ownership costs. 

No other program has had F–35’s sustainment economies of commonality and scale 

and no other program conducts an annual cost review anywhere near the depth of 

the F–35. 

73. Senator CORNYN. Mr. Burbage, it is my understanding that Lockheed Martin’s 

projected average flyaway cost for the F–35A over the life of the program is approximately $65 million in 2010 dollars. This is roughly the same price of today’s comparably equipped F–16 or F/A–18. However, DOD is projecting the average price per 

1104 

F–35 aircraft to exceed $100 million. Can you explain the discrepancy between the 

current Lockheed Martin cost estimate and DOD’s cost estimate for the aircraft? 

Mr. BURBAGE. The $100 million is an average for all variants in then year dollars. The Lockheed Martin quoted price of $65 million is for the F–35A variant in 2010 

dollars. When you compare the DOD and Lockheed Martin estimate in current year 

economics, Lockheed Martin is approximately 5 percent less than the DOD estimate 

for the F–35A. In future year dollars, the difference is less than 1 percent. The reason for this is the difference in annual escalation/de-escalation factors for the aerospace and defense industry and general Office of Management and Budget economy 

rates. 

74. Senator CORNYN. Mr. Burbage, does the use of common avionics, sensors, engines, and software reduce overall costs during the life of the program? 

Mr. BURBAGE. Yes, the use of common avionics, sensors, software, and a single 

engine between the three F–35 variants significantly reduces the overall costs during the life of the program. When you sit in the cockpit of any of the airplanes, you 

cannot tell the difference—same cockpit, same engine, same flight controls, same 

sensors and software. This enables new ways of thinking about joint, coalition operations and capturing large economies of commonality and scale across the tri-Service, nine-nation partnership. The alternative would be to develop separate solutions 

for each of the aircraft variants driven by design requirements for each specific U.S. 

Service or international customer. The cost for following that path would be prohibitively expensive for not only the initial procurement costs but also equally more expensive for each modernization upgrade in the future as those upgrades occur. 

The F–35’s next generation sensor suite represents an unprecedented capability 

for multi-role aircraft, collecting and distributing vast amounts of data, thereby creating greater situational awareness and enabling other capabilities throughout any 

battle space. 

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS AND ALLIES

75. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Carter, does DOD believe the announcement earlier this year, that the F–35 program would be restructured, will impact when or 

how many aircraft our international partners will ultimately buy? 

Dr. CARTER. All partner nations’ future procurement plans were discussed at the 

May 2011 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB). No formal changes were made to 

the JSF Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Annex A, which is the document used by the program for production planning. However, the United States and the eight international partners retain the right to make future changes to their production plans 

in accordance with the provisions of the PSFD MOU that govern the production aspects of the program. 

76. Senator CORNYN. Ms. Fox, how important is international participation in controlling costs of the F–35 program? 

Ms. FOX. International participation is one of several important factors that are 

important to controlling F–35 costs. The most significant effect is through quantities 

purchased by international partners. The more JSFs that are produced, the lower 

unit costs will be because of production process efficiencies. Last year, CAPE estimated that the absence of international quantities would raise unit prices to the 

United States by approximately 5 percent. A more subtle benefit results from the 

incentive of program affordability. Increases to unit costs dampen international support. This serves as a strong incentive for the program to control costs. We also recognize that partner countries are actively supporting the development of production 

capabilities in their nations because this helps them establish a foundation of worldclass production. As these investments are made, costs to the United States are controlled since these international facilities provide additional capacity to produce U.S. 

requirements thus reducing the need for investments in the United States. 

FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM

77. Senator CORNYN. Dr. Gilmore, it is my understanding that the flight test program has shown improvement this year, with a significantly increased number of 

flight sorties for the F–35B STOVL variant. I understand that the STOVL variant 

has accomplished more than 90 vertical landings this year alone, compared to 10 

in all of last year. How significant is it for the STOVL variant to hit this important 

milestone at this point? 

1105 

Dr. GILMORE. A total of 110 vertical landings have been accomplished by the test 

team as of the end of May 2011. Of these, 64 were flown to satisfy the requirements 

for beginning L-Class Amphibious Ship integration testing and fleet pilot training. 

Of these 64 vertical landings, 46 were flown either as build-ups in preparation for 

scored events, re-fly/system regression testing, and/or test pilot checkout events. It 

is significant that the test team has completed this testing in the time allotted by 

the TBR and roughly in accordance with the Review’s expectations for progress. 

However, more testing in STOVL modes is needed in both flight test and in the 

hover pit to provide the information needed to evaluate the aircraft’s Vertical Lift 

Bring Back requirement. More STOVL mode testing will also be required before the 

final designs for the fixes needed to correct some of the discoveries made thus far 

during STOVL flight test can be determined and implemented in production aircraft 

(such as fixes for the roll-posts and the auxiliary air inlet doors). All STOVL-mode 

testing completed so far has been with the first flight release engines; subsequent 

testing may be required using the initial service release engines. Finally, the 

STOVL mode flight envelope explored during flight test conducted to date is only 

a portion of the full envelope needed operationally. 

78. Senator CORNYN. Dr. Gilmore, please comment on the progress of the overall 

flight test program since Secretary Gates’ efficiencies announcement earlier this 

year. 

Dr. GILMORE. Over the last 6 months, the program delivered five more flight test 

aircraft, and the first two production aircraft, to the flight test centers. Flight rates 

have improved for the STOVL and Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft as compared to last year. The final test aircraft, expected to be delivered by 

the end of last month, had not been delivered as of June 21 but is expected to arrive 

at the flight test center soon. The STOVL variant flight rate has improved from last 

year’s average of approximately four sorties per aircraft per month to approximately 

eight sorties per aircraft per month against a plan of five sorties per aircraft per 

month. 

In the area of flight sciences testing, the test team has accomplished STOVL mode 

testing on four test aircraft, an improvement over the single aircraft available for 

this testing last year. Completing needed modifications to test aircraft (e.g., stronger 

STOVL auxiliary air inlet doors), adding test aircraft, increased staffing at the flight 

test center, an increase in the envelope available for flight test, and improvements 

to parts supply and maintainability have all contributed to this improvement in the 

pace of flight testing. The flight rate of CTOL test aircraft also continues ahead of 

the post-TBR planned rate. In the last 2 months, the 3 flight sciences test aircraft 

have averaged approximately 11 sorties per month against a plan of 9 sorties per 

aircraft per month. The single carrier variant aircraft at the flight test center continues to fly at about the planned pace. Flight sciences testing of the carrier variant 

aircraft is in the very early stages of flight envelope expansion. Constraints on available flight sciences test points have challenged the program. For all variants, the 

ability to open envelope and make productive use of the achievable pace of flight 

testing is dependent on: completing analysis and/or modifications to relieve aircraft 

operating limitations (e.g., clearance to greater structural loads, higher maximum 

speed), incorporating additional instrumentation, design changes, and changes to 

control laws. Flight test results during transonic flight and maneuvers with elevated 

g-forces have resulted in the need to change control laws in the vehicle systems software to address undesirable roll-off, side-slip, and yawing in CTOL and STOVL aircraft. More flight test and analyses are needed to characterize and resolve the handling qualities problem in the STOVL aircraft. The program also continues to make 

progress addressing problems with the following STOVL aircraft components that 

enable vertical lift operations: auxiliary air inlet doors, roll posts, lift fan shaft, and 

clutch. 

In the area of mission systems flight test, efforts in the last 6 months have focused on completing the regression testing of fixes to the problems discovered last 

year with Block 0.5 and completing the developmental test needed to support the 

fielding of the portion of the Block 1 capabilities that will enable initial pilot training later this year. Block 1 flight test execution and integration of final software 

elements is slightly behind the current post-TBR plan. Approximately 40 percent of 

original Block 1 test points have been deferred to the next block, Block 2, because 

of aircraft limitations in the Block 1 configuration. There is likely to be at least a 

1-month to 2-month delay in completing flight testing of the remaining available 

Block 1 capability, which is currently planned to conclude in October of this year. 

The potential exists for a further delay, because in order to meet this year’s goals, 

flight test productivity must be significantly greater in terms of mission systems 

flight rate and test point completion than has been the case during the last year 

1106 

of mission systems flight test. Successful development and integration of the helmet 

mounted display system has presented one of the more significant challenges to mission systems flight test. Problems include integration of the night vision capability, 

symbology jitter, and latency. These stem in turn from problems with camera hardware, insufficient computer processing power, inaccurate head position tracking, and 

poor helmet fit, complicated by vibration-inducing airframe buffet experienced at 

high angles-of-attack in some dynamic maneuvering regimes. The program is pursuing a dual path to resolve the technical issues and provide a system that will enable flight test to proceed and meet operational mission needs. One path is to mature the original helmet mounted display system by the end of SDD Block 3 development. The alternate path is to integrate a technically mature, existing helmet 

mounted display system that addresses the symbology stability issues but requires 

an additional night vision system (such as existing night vision goggles) for night 

combat capability. This alternate path, however, does not fulfill the original design 

requirement for displaying Distributed Aperture System full-spherical field-of-view 

imagery on the pilot’s visor. It might, however, meet basic mission needs. 

79. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Carter, how would you characterize the program’s 

overall test flight performance this year to date? 

Dr. CARTER. The F–35 flight test program has yielded several positive findings at 

this point in the total flight program. As of June 2011, they have completed approximately 16 percent of the total planned testing to the end of the SDD. They would 

characterize our knowledge as being at an appropriate level and commensurate with 

how much testing is complete. The flight test program for this aircraft is focusing 

on four main areas: Radar Cross Section, Flight Qualities, Performance, and Mission Systems. We know that the Radar Cross Section meets expectations. We know 

that the Flight Qualities are good—in other words, it is a nice flyer. The jet behaves 

predictably—easy to fly and easy to land. Vertical flight is not a challenge. Performance meets expectations. The jet is experiencing wing roll issues to the level predicted by wind tunnel testing. Flight control modifications have improved but not 

yet cured this wing roll off. Mission systems are still immature with most of the 

software development yet to come, making us less knowledgeable in this area. 

80. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, how did you discover the 

crack issue with the F–35B STOVL, and have you tested a fix and evaluated the 

other two variants for any similar bulkhead issues? 

Admiral VENLET. The FS–496 bulkhead crack was found during the STOVL 

ground durability test. The test article is currently being repaired to test the production-representative redesign on one side and the retrofit design for current flying 

aircraft on the other side. These modifications will be completed prior to the restart 

of the STOVL durability test, currently scheduled for the first quarter of fiscal year 

2012. During the root cause investigation, it was discovered that the design flaw existed to a lesser extent on the carrier and CTOL FS–496 bulkheads. For the CTOL 

and carrier, the production redesigns will be minor machining changes to the existing design. The retrofit of CTOL and carrier flying aircraft variants will involve 

minor machining of the trunion fitting to blend out sharp corners requiring approximately 1 week at the field sites. The retrofit operation has already been completed 

on several aircraft, and the instructions and requirements are well-understood. 

Mr. BURBAGE. While undergoing fatigue testing on the F–35B ground test plane, 

our engineering staff found cracks in the Fuselage Station 496 (FS 496) bulkhead— 

a major structural part weighing about 300 pounds. The cracks were found after the 

plane had been subjected to the equivalent of about 1,500 hours of flight time. The 

airplane’s structural components are designed to last at least 8,000 hours. The 

cracks were found in a special inspection after engineers discovered air leaking from 

a wingbox fuel tank. 

The F–35B 496 bulkhead was switched from titanium to aluminum during the 

STOVL Weight Action Team (SWAT) review. The F–35A and F–35C variants 496 

bulkheads are still titanium. The design discovery is being addressed by thickening 

the bulkhead for the F–35B production aircraft and by local blending on assembled 

aircraft (all three variants). Blending involves machining smoother curves on bends 

and corners in two small areas of the bulkhead to eliminate stress concentrations 

and prevent cracks from starting. In addition, for the F–35B aircraft already produced, a modification to install metal doublers to the bulkhead is required to fly beyond 1,500 hours and restore full life. Testing is expected to resume in the fourth 

quarter 2011 on the F–35B ground test aircraft once modifications have been incorporated. Similar features were identified through analytical investigation on the 

CTOL and carrier designs and corrective actions are being implemented. No cracking has yet occurred on these variants. Testing for the F–35A has begun, and the 

1107 

blend modification is scheduled to be performed at the end of first lifetime The 

blend operation for F–35C ground test aircraft will be completed prior to test start 

in March 2012. 

81. Senator CORNYN. Admiral Venlet and Mr. Burbage, how much weight, if any, 

will you have to add back on to the aircraft to fix the F–35B bulkhead cracks? 

Admiral VENLET. The F–35B FS–496 production redesign will add approximately 

7.8 pounds. The retrofit for current flying aircraft is more intrusive and will add 

approximately 80 pounds. 

Mr. BURBAGE. Approximately 8 pounds of additional weight has been added to the 

redesigned 496 bulkhead. Starting with BF–24, the redesigned bulkhead is already 

in-flow on the production line. For the STOVL aircraft produced prior to BF–24, 

steel structural strengtheners weighing approximately 80 pounds will be added to 

the existing bulkhead. 

MANUFACTURING/PRODUCTION LINE

82. Senator CORNYN. Mr. Burbage, it is my understanding that the JSF IMRT 

concludes that, at this time, the production line and supply chain are mature 

enough to build 48 to 60 aircraft per year. This equates to four to five aircraft per 

month. Does Lockheed Martin agree with this assessment? 

Mr. BURBAGE. Yes, we agree with the IMRT assessment. We will be starting assemblies late this year at 4 per month and 1 year from today, we will be delivering 

aircraft at a rate of 4 aircraft per month, 48 aircraft per year. 

The IMRT chartered by OSD recently reported that they have confidence F–35 

can ramp-up to 48 to 60 aircraft a year with no issues, and to higher rates with 

completion of planned supply chain, manufacturing system, and affordability actions, to name a few. The U.S. Government and partners are investing $5.7 billion 

in production non-recurring tooling and technical assistance for the global supply 

chain, much of which is already in the pipeline. Lockheed Martin has invested over 

$1 billion in new production facilities alone. New factories for composites, wire harnesses, major assemblies, machining, and avionics are opening up each year as F– 

35 recapitalizes an industrial base thinned by two decades of reduced aircraft procurement. F–35 is taking our proven one/day F–16 mass production experience and 

adding the latest in lean production concepts including a moving final assembly line 

and pull flow from supplier to factory. In addition, the Italians have approved funding for a major final assembly and check-out facility that will ultimately produce 

24 to 48 aircraft per year with low rate deliveries starting in the 2014 timeframe. 

No other fighter program has had the level of early investment throughout production tooling, facilities, and global supply chain to drive affordability and lower rampup risks. 

The F–35’s common manufacturing processes and parts, advanced digital design 

tools, and assembly methods help achieve the program’s goals of affordability, quality, and assembly speed. Lessons learned from development-aircraft production have 

been incorporated into production aircraft to increase efficiency and reduce cost. By 

using industry-standard engineering and manufacturing technologies to ensure precise assembly, the concurrent production of all three variants is steadily moving toward full-rate production. 

EXTRA ENGINE

83. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Carter, the F136 extra engine program continues 

to be an area of concern for many Members of Congress, including myself, though 

it seems to be on life support at the moment. I believe that restarting the extra engine program will result in added costs, likely increasing the price of each F–35 aircraft to the American taxpayers. In your opinion, is it likely that those increased 

costs will decrease the number of F–35 aircraft that our military can purchase over 

the life of the program? 

Dr. CARTER. Increased costs for the F–35 could potentially result in a decrease 

in the number of F–35 aircraft that our military can purchase over the life of the 

program. An affordable F–35 is of critical importance, particularly in the austere fiscal environment we currently face and the projections for reduced budgets. 

84. Senator CORNYN. Secretary Carter and Admiral Venlet, due to the limited 

space aboard Navy ships, it is vital to consider the size and weight of equipment 

that is brought on board. Yet some are still fighting for development of the F136. 

If Federal funding of F136 development resumes in the future, it is possible that 

1108 

the Navy might eventually be forced to carry two different engines and the accompanying support equipment aboard its aircraft carriers, instead of just one set. In 

light of this, what challenges might an extra engine cause on an aircraft carrier, 

where space and weight are limited? 

Dr. CARTER and Admiral VENLET. The JSF engine is the largest tactical fighter 

engine in size and overall logistics footprint in the history of DOD. In comparison 

to legacy F/A–18 E/F (Model F414), the F135 engine is approximately twice the size 

of the Super Hornet F414 engine. While the performance of the F135 engine brings 

significant performance gains and warfighting advantages, it presents logistical 

challenge for all of the Services—particularly for the Navy and Marine Corps who 

operate in already constrained spaces aboard L-Class and CVN ships. 

The implementation of two JSF engines onboard aircraft carriers is suboptimal 

due to increased operational Logistics Foot Print (LFP). Proposed LFP concept of operations will challenge the available hangar deck space. This is mainly due to the 

JSF engines being too large to fit in the aviation bulk storage or jet shop (either 

F135 or F136). The LFP problem is compounded with both F135 and F136 engines 

afloat on the same ship, as each engine has unique support equipment and tools 

effectively doubling the LFP required for these items. Spotting and supporting two 

engines will negatively affect hangar bay aircraft spotting and maintenance operations. 

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

Æ