1

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN

FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

Question. FDA’s fiscal year 1999 budget includes $74 million for the Administration’s food safety initiative, a $50 million increase over the fiscal year 1998 level

of $24 million. What is being accomplished with the $24 million provided for this

initiative and what is the justification for the significant increase requested for this

initiative for fiscal year 1999?

Answer. The fiscal year 1998 Food Safety Initiative, FSI, request represented the

first installment on a major government-wide effort to reduce foodborne illness

through significant enhancements to food safety and public health systems that

were designed in the early part of this century. The requested fiscal year 1999 FSI

increase represents a second installment, and has two major objectives. One is to

permit FDA to work jointly with other federal agencies, including USDA, EPA, and

CDC, and the states to strengthen and expand the food safety activities underway

and build on gains made with the fiscal year 1998 resources. The second objective

is to increase the emphasis on ensuring the safety of domestic and imported fresh

produce in response to the President’s October 2, 1997, directive to ensure the safety

of fresh produce.

With the requested resources, FDA and its federal and state partners will be able

to respond more rapidly and effectively to a wide range of health threats posed by

foodborne hazards, including emerging pathogens, natural toxins, and antimicrobial

resistant pathogens. These expanded efforts are needed to permit the Nation’s food

safety regulatory systems to deliver on national goals related to protecting and improving the health and well-being of our citizens.

One example is in research conducted at FDA’s National Center for Toxicological

Research, NCTR. Part of their research focus with fiscal year 1999 funding will be

in the areas of pathogen identification, antibiotic resistance, microbial risk assessment and foodborne contamination, to include exploring the prevalence of resistance

determinants in microorganisms and how these determinants are affected by selective pressure from the environment. Other studies will be initiated to evaluate the

bioremediation of veterinary drug residues in the environment and to develop procedures to measure pathogens in animal feeds.

Other examples of this increased effort are to enhance surveillance systems by expanding the ongoing systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of antimicrobial susceptibility surveillance data, which will enable FDA to ensure accurate

and valid information that can be used to minimize further the transmission of resistant pathogens through the food chain. FDA plans to increase the overall capacity—the number of microbial isolates in the database—of the National Antimicrobial

Susceptibility Monitoring Program by 20 percent in order to ensure a high likelihood

of detection of emerging resistance trends in zoonotic enteric pathogens. Educational

partnership agreements with state and local agencies will be initiated and use existing mechanisms such as Cooperative Extension and professional associations to

strengthen and implement programs to educate producers, veterinarians, state and

local regulators about proper drug use and the incorporation of HACCP principles

to reduce foodborne pathogens into industry quality assurance programs to ensure

public health by minimizing the occurrence of residues in edible tissues. Improved

and more standardized risk assessments would permit the ranking of food safety

concerns to provide for better public health protection and more efficient utilization

of resources. These initiatives will also improve the utility of confidence in risk assessment among scientists and the general public by providing for more transparent

risk analysis. These initiatives will provide better risk assessments in order to set

priorities, to evaluate surveillance plans, risk reduction strategies, and research programs for improving food safety.

The second objective of the fiscal year 1999 Food Safety Initiative is to increase

the emphasis on ensuring the safety of domestic and imported fresh produce in response to the President’s October 2, 1997, directive to ensure the safety of fresh

produce. The President’s Fresh Produce Initiative is designed to expand the scope

and focus of the original FSI and to develop and implement strategies required to

address more effectively critical safety issues associated with fresh produce. Over

the past several years, several major foodborne illness outbreaks have been associated with the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables or fruit and vegetable products. These include outbreaks linked to Cyclospora contamination of raspberries imported from Guatemala and domestically-produced apple juice contaminated with E.

coli O157:H7. Also, Salmonella contamination has been found on melons and other

produce.

U:\01HEAR\1999\INST66A.331
2

There are several important food safety issues that necessitate a special focus on

hazardous microbial contamination of fresh produce. One is the low rate of monitoring provided annually for imported produce products. With existing resources, FDA

examines for microbial contamination only about 0.2 percent of the approximately

430,000 import entries of fresh produce for microbial contamination. Also, it is anticipated that the per capita consumption of fresh produce will increase significantly

in the future as health conscious consumers follow government dietary guidance and

take advantage of the scientifically established benefits of these products. Current

estimates indicate that there will be a 33 percent increase in the importation of

fresh produce between now and fiscal year 2002. FDA needs resources to develop

and implement science based strategies to minimize levels of contaminants that may

be injurious to human health in these foods.

Under this initiative, FDA is developing with USDA and the agricultural community draft Good Manufacturing Practices—GMP’s—and Good Agricultural Practices—GAP’s—guidance for use by producers, domestic as well as foreign. FDA is

accelerating research to develop or improve the detection and intervention/prevention techniques for pathogens, develop and implement education and technical assistance programs to promote appropriate appreciation of the guidance, and develop

appropriate specific guidance on an as needed basis. The resources requested for

this new initiative will promote use of voluntary GAP/GMP guidance through education and technical assistance to domestic and foreign producers; and evaluate

growing, harvesting and production practices in countries that export fresh produce

to the U.S. Moreover, the President directed that a legislative proposal be developed

to expand FDA’s authority over imported foods to be similar to that already provided to USDA for meat and poultry products. The bill permits the agency under

appropriate circumstances to declare foods or specific commodities from a country

to be adulterated if FDA determines that a particular facility or country’s food system does not provide the same level of protection that is provided for comparable

domestic products, and thus, refuse them entry into the United States.

FDA will continue to work with foreign governments and producers to take any

steps necessary to help ensure that imported food products meet U.S. food safety

requirements or otherwise achieve the level of protection required. If FDA determines that the steps needed to address an existing or potential risk have not been

taken and that the affected products therefore will not meet U.S. food safety requirements or otherwise achieve the level of protection required, FDA is authorized

to deny such products entry into the United States.

For fiscal year 1998, FDA has accomplished a significant number of activities

under the Food Safety Initiative that will contribute to a safer food supply. This is

due in part to the cooperation received from other entities that are involved in food

safety, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention, I would be happy to provide a listing of these accomplishments by

each of the six categories.

I would first like to share a success story that was possible with the funding provided in fiscal year 1998. The National Antimicrobial Susceptibility Monitoring Program—NASMP—was initiated in 1996. It began as a collaboration among FDA,

CDC, and USDA to monitor bacterial foodborne pathogens for changes in antimicrobial susceptibility, using Salmonella as a sentinel organism. The goals of the

program are: to identify resistance as it emerges and to identify patterns of resistance, to allow timely response to changes in susceptibility through information sharing and other mechanisms, and to identify areas that require more detailed investigation. This initial effort was the precursor to the FSI Early Warning System for

Foodborne Disease Surveillance related to antimicrobial resistance. The 1998 FSI

monies allowed extensive expansion and augmentation of the NASMP. Isolates

which are tested through this program originate from clinically ill animals and humans, healthy farm animals, and animals at slaughter. The number of isolates is

increasing annually to obtain an increasing representativeness of the sample, including the incorporation of produce and animal feed isolates and new bacterial species such as E. coli and Campylobacter.

Having an established surveillance system enabled the Federal partners to identify the presence of a multi-drug resistant Salmonella typhimurium DT 104—

StmDT104—in humans and animals. StmDT104 had been responsible for human

disease outbreaks in the United Kingdom and was recognized as widespread in distribution and increasingly prevalent in the United States. This early warning of a

potential epidemic, such as that seen in the United Kingdom, was achieved through

the NASMP and enabled CDC to warn state health departments of STMDT104’s

presence, and allowed augmented monitoring for this pathogen. As a result public

health officials were prepared for the Vermont dairy farm outbreak and were in a

position to take preventative steps to minimize the spread. This farm is currently

U:\01HEAR\1999\INST66A.331
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

46–114 cc WASHINGTON : 1998

S. HRG. 105–776

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1999

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4103/S. 2132

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

Department of Defense

Nondepartmental witnesses

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0–16–057900–7

U:\02HEAR\1999\02.CVR
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

SLADE GORTON, Washington

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota

BARBARA BOXER, California

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES H. ENGLISH, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota

STAFF

STEVEN J. CORTESE, SID ASHWORTH, SUSAN HOGAN, GARY REESE, MARY C. MARSHALL, JOHN

J. YOUNG, and TOM HAWKINS

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

MAZIE R. MATTSON and JUSTIN WEDDLE

MINORITY STAFF

CHARLES J. HOUY, C. RICHARD D’AMATO, and EMELIE EAST

U:\02HEAR\1999\02.CVR
(III)

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998

Page

Department of Defense: Office of the Deputy Secretary ...................................... 1

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998

Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary .. 47

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1998

Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Secretary of the Navy .......... 131

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1998

Department of Defense:

National Guard Bureau ................................................................................... 333

Youth Challenge Program ................................................................................ 395

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1998

Department of Defense:

Surgeon Generals ............................................................................................. 409

Nurse Corps ...................................................................................................... 471

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1998

Department of Defense: Ballistic Missile Defense Organization ......................... 503

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1998

Department of Defense: U.S. Pacific Command .................................................... 569

MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998

Nondepartmental witnesses .................................................................................... 613

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998

Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary .................................................... 785

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998

Department of Defense: Secretary of the Army .................................................... 821

U:\02HEAR\1999\02.CVR
(1)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison,

Inouye, Bumpers, and Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HAMRE, DEPUTY SECRETARY

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee meets today to consider the administration’s appropriations request for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999.

We are glad to welcome before us the Honorable John Hamre.

Dr. Hamre is now the Deputy Secretary of Defense. We have relied upon you heavily, not only Senator Inouye and myself, but the

whole committee, for your advice during the time you were Comptroller. I am hopeful we can build on the relationship we already

have with you and your colleagues, and we really congratulate the

President on giving you this new responsibility and additional trust

in the Department of Defense.

Dr. HAMRE. Thank you, sir.

Senator STEVENS. But today we are here to review the fiscal year

1999 defense budget. There is a very difficult series of financial

choices we must make in terms of allocation of funds. I too believe

that we are short going in. I think we could use some more money.

I do not know whether in the process of what is going to go on this

year we are going to get any additional moneys, but I know you

are struggling to maintain the readiness of combat forces. We all

want to improve the quality of life of our people in uniform, no

matter where they are, and the contingencies that we face now are

awesome.

So we do not want to get involved in any particular issues, but

clearly we have talked in the past about some of the meetings we

have had with members of the armed forces around the world and

how they have reported to us the excessive demands on them and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
2

the time that they have been away from their families. Now that

is increasing rather than decreasing, and we have a situation here

now where we have some burdens on our accounts because of moneys that have been spent in the past.

I am not sure that the increase that is indicated, for instance, in operations and maintenance [O&M] of $3.3 billion really adequately takes into account some of the deficits that we have going

into 1999. I am hopeful that we can work with you and to deal with

the difficulties that we have here.

I would say that, as staff has pointed out to me, we believe we are about $2 billion below in terms of the acquisition account in the

modernization effort. It is not going to be, as I just told some of

my colleagues, a pleasant year for appropriators. The House just

told me, Dr. Hamre, that they feel they have 52 days left in session. We think we have about 70 days left in session.

I am glad to see the chairman of the Budget Committee here. I

think he alone is going to take the 70 days.

Senator DOMENICI. Whatever you say.

Senator STEVENS. I mean, the issues involved that we have to

face, we face them after he resolves his problems, is what I am saying.

But I do again welcome you, and I am really delighted as the

chairman of this committee to know that you are going to be working with us on these very difficult issues.

Senator Inouye.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish to

join you in welcoming Dr. Hamre. It is always a pleasure having

you here with us. We have seen you go through your manhood rites

to come to where you are today, and so we are well aware of your

capabilities and potentials.

Many commentators have said that we are increasing defense,

and as far as I interpret it I look upon it a little differently. Although the dollar figures will show a $1.1 billion increase in personnel, for example, actually it is a decrease when you consider inflation. And we are decreasing personnel in the Navy by 14,000,

Army by 8,000.

The same thing can apply to O&M funds. There is an increase, I believe, as far as dollars are concerned, of $0.4 billion, but it is

actually a real reduction of about 1.5 percent. So I am, like you,

concerned not only about modernization, but about readiness, and

I do hope with your budget we will be able to accomplish those missions. You can be assured of our support.

Thank you, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Hutchison.

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I too

am very concerned. I was not quite sure what Senator Inouye

meant when he said we have watched your rites of manhood, but

I do not think I am going to pursue it.

What I would like to say is that clearly we are building up in

the Persian Gulf and Secretary of Defense Cohen has said that the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
3

edges are getting frayed with our defenses because of the troops we

have in Bosnia, which now look like they are potentially going to

be there for a longer term. And I would like for you to address in

your testimony just how we are going to support another theater

where there is a buildup in Southwest Asia.

Certainly I am going to tell you right up front, I support a buildup there. I do not want to be over in the Persian Gulf with too few

people. So I think that is a legitimate U.S. security interest. But

if the Secretary of Defense says our edges are getting frayed, I

want to know from where are these forces coming and how do you

propose to deal with that and also ask for the continued troop commitment in Bosnia.

So with that, I will just wait for your testimony and then ask you

specific questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan.

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no formal statement.

Thank you for calling the hearing. I am anxious to hear the discussion today. And I thank you for opening the curtains. It is very unusual in committee hearings in Congress to have open curtains.

Senator STEVENS. Really?

Senator DORGAN. It is. You almost never see them.

Senator INOUYE. See what you have done.

Senator HUTCHISON. Fresh air.

Senator STEVENS. I did not know I had done it, but I am glad

I did it. [Laughter.]

Senator DORGAN. Well, thank you anyway.

Senator STEVENS. Well, we could get into some Alaskan comments about curtains. We put ours up in the summertime and take

them down in the wintertime. You have to understand that.

Go ahead, Senator Domenici.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I do not want to be a pest or a nuisance, but let me make sure that I understand. You intend to send

us a supplemental for Bosnia?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. And the military will not have to go find that

money? You will ask that it be over and above what was provided

as the capped amount in the budget?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. So you ask that it be designated an emergency?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, how much is that going to be?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, we are in the final stages of——

Senator DOMENICI. I do not know that we are supposed to be

asking questions. Why do I not do that. I have got to wait my turn.

I have got to wait.

Senator STEVENS. I thought perhaps you were leaving.

Senator DOMENICI. No; let me turn it into a statement.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
4

Senator STEVENS. We would be glad to have you ask a few questions.

Senator DOMENICI. No; I will not do that. That is not right.

I am just going to say that I am concerned that we not find ourselves once again in the position where the various chiefs have to

come running to our offices saying they have to redo a budget

which they thought they had already submitted, in order to find

money for reprogramming and the like for Bosnia or Iraq. And I

hope you can explain to us why—if we are going to have a different

policy this year, what that policy is.

I think everyone here should know that this issue was raised by

Senator Stevens and I as we talked with the administration

spokesman about Iraq.

In addition, I hope you would address—[coughs]

Senator INOUYE. See what happens when you open the curtains.

Senator DOMENICI. I have a little cold.

Senator STEVENS. It is all those neutrinos that are coming in

through the window. [Laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. I am trying to be calm, too.

Dr. HAMRE. We need you to live through the markup, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. I hope you will explain what we are to do

about the different estimates of what your program costs between

CBO and OMB. That is a lot of money. You estimate it at $3.7 billion less, which means if we follow your program we have to look

for $3.7 billion to get down to, under CBO’s number, to get to your

budget.

I do not think we ought to bear that whole problem. I think that

ought to be borne by you all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. I note the arrival of the distinguished Senator

from Arkansas.

Senator BUMPERS. You noticed.

Senator STEVENS. Yes.

Senator BUMPERS. I do not have an opening statement. I know

that breaks your heart.

INTRODUCTION BY DR. HAMRE

Senator STEVENS. Yes; I am delighted. It is going to be a nice

afternoon. We are in the sunshine and the open.

So we can proceed with your statement. I understand you have

a series of charts. Is there any way that the public can see those

charts? We have them in front of us.

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, I do not know. I know we did bring extra copies.

Senator STEVENS. Turn it around and let them see it. We will

watch this one.

Dr. HAMRE. We will see what we can do to try to get it adjusted

so that people can see it.

Can I just say by way of introduction first off my sincere thanks

for inviting me to come up. This is the first time I have had a

chance to come before you as the Deputy Secretary. I think it is

why our national motto is ‘‘In God We Trust’’ that I am here, and

I am grateful that you would let me come up. Thank you.

I also would say, on a very personal note, probably the most unusual privilege that anyone has is a chance to serve as a comptrolU:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
5

ler because in that capacity you get the chance to work with Congress in the most professional and responsible ways. The courtesies

that you extended me, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, to bring

me into your trust so that I could help build a program was an

enormous professional honor and experience, and I am very grateful for it and I thank you for much.

Today I would like to try to go through very briefly an outline

of the President’s proposal that Secretary Cohen would have given

had he been here, and he will go through, of course, with you later

on in the year. I will be very quick so that we can get into the

questions because I think that those are more important to you.

Sir, we did have copies that were distributed, so I think that people in the audience——

Senator STEVENS. People out there have them?

Dr. HAMRE. I hope they do. I think we brought a bunch of copies.

Senator STEVENS. All right, very good. Thank you.

NEW DEFENSE STRATEGY

Shape international environment

—Sustain presence and support engagement

Respond to full spectrum of crises

—Protect readiness and force structure by reducing overhead

Prepare now for uncertain future

—Accelerate modernization and exploit Revolution in Military Affairs

QDR Program is strategy driven

NEW DEFENSE STRATEGY

Dr. HAMRE. Let us begin. First, this budget is the first budget

that the Secretary is actually submitting, because this is the one

that reflects the quadrennial defense review, reflecting the strategy

that he helped build last spring. There were three large elements

to that strategy: to help shape the future, to respond to crises that

come up, and then to prepare for the long term.

Shaping the future is obviously probably one of the smallest

parts of our budget, but I would argue one of the most important

parts. For example, you the Senate are prepared to now enter into

a discussion about whether we should expand NATO and bring in

three new partners. That is very much an issue of shaping the future. I know it is going to be a controversial subject, one that is

going to take a lot of debate, and there should be a lot of debate

because it is an enormously important issue. But how we approach

that is the way in which we are shaping our security forces, our

security posture in the future.

Responding is very much the day-to-day business of the Department, and, of course, these last 2 months have shown that we still

live in a perilous time and there still are demands. We just this

hour are still flowing forces into the Persian Gulf region as we are

bringing everybody into theater that the Secretary and the President mobilized in the last weeks or so. This is the bread and butter

business of the Department, to be able to respond to emergencies

like we are seeing right now. That obviously consumes a major portion of our budget.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
6

I think this also is where we have the readiness challenges, and

I will talk about that in a few minutes.

Then finally, preparing for the future is very much about building the weapons systems and building the personnel for the future.

It is not just weapons, although we clearly need to do that, and we

have gone too far in our procurement holiday, as the Secretary

says. We really need to start getting modernization back, as you

said, Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement. And I will talk

about each of those in subsequent charts.

BALANCED BUDGET AGREEMENT

[Function 050 dollars in billions]

Fiscal year—

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Administration Proposal ........... 257.8 254.4 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Congressional Adds ................. ∂8.2 ∂11.8 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Total ............................ 266.0 266.2 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

National Defense Topline ......... ............ ............ 267.6 270.6 275.9 283.8 287.1

Projected Deficit ....................... 107 22 10 ( 1 ) ............ ............ ............

1 Deficit calculations include $3 billion allowance for costs of extending Bosnia peacekeeping mission and domestic emergencies.

Agreements sets zero-sum framework for budget changes

FISCAL RESOURCES—BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

First let me just frame the overall fiscal context. What I am

showing you on this chart is the budget resources. If you look, everything to the right side of that red line, vertical line, the 1998

through the year 2002, those are the dollars that were agreed on

in the budget resolution last year, the balanced budget amendment

and the budget resolution. And those are the dollars to which we

have built a defense program.

Now, I need to point out, as Senator Domenici raised earlier, in

1998 and in 1999 there are additional funds that will be required

for a supplemental for Bosnia and for Iraq in 1998 and for ongoing

operations in Bosnia in 1999. Those are issues that go beyond the

balanced budget amendment, so it does require an emergency designation in fiscal year 1998 so that it does not come from the Department of Defense totals.

For fiscal year 1999 it would come out of the allowance that was

included in the budget submission, and the President’s budget included $3 billion for Bosnia and for any other emergencies that

might come up.

Senator STEVENS. Your chart is interesting, Doctor, but I notice

the projected deficit. That was not part of the budget agreement.

The budget agreement was it would be zero in 2002. And I know

we are projected to get there sooner.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
7

Senator STEVENS. But the impression might be made to some

people that it’s the defense spending that is leading to the deficit.

Dr. HAMRE. I am sorry, I do not mean to mislead anybody, and

you are right to point it out. At the time the balanced budget

amendment was reached, of course, the projected deficit was not

going to get to zero until further out into the future. The economy

has performed better and it has obviously brought it back, so that

we are getting to it sooner.

Defense, we are staying on the path that we were given last

year, and we have built a program around that path. We could not

accommodate the extra costs of Bosnia and Iraq inside that spending cap, and that is why we are going to have to ask for supplemental funding and it is being made an emergency designation.

Next chart.

MAJOR READINESS INITIATIVES

People

Address perstempo concerns with new unit management systems and reducing lower priority exercises

Training

Maintain OPTEMPO levels

Equipment

Increase funding for maintenance and spares

Maintaining high readiness requires constant vigilance

MAJOR READINESS INITIATIVES

Let me first talk about readiness, and this is simply to organize.

These are to organize my thoughts. But obviously your concerns

are foremost about readiness, and I know you have heard many

concerns. You have been out in the field and you have heard concerns about readiness, and I think we do have readiness issues and

problems that we have to deal with.

Obviously, I think there are three major ones. One is, of course,

the problem with pilots and the pilot shortages we are experiencing

in the Air Force and the Navy, and that is very serious. It is very

hard to deal with that problem because the airlines are hiring and

the optempo is high and it is very stressful. Everything that the

Air Force was planning to do to try to mitigate some of that, of

course, now had to be set back when we had to deploy to the Persian Gulf. So it is a problem. That is a real challenge this year.

Senator STEVENS. If I could interrupt you again, it is worse than

that. The reenlistment rate of our pilots throughout the services is

abysmal. If you think about it, whether it is flying the no-fly zone

in Iraq or the so-called cap over Bosnia or the protection in South

Korea, these people who are trained to be high performance combat

pilots are out there flying squares 4 and 5 hours a day, month in

and month out.

I think that none of us have really looked at the disincentive to

someone, to train them to be high performance people and then get

them out there to fly what could be flown by people in their first

year as a pilot. I do not know what the answer is, but it is going

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
8

to get worse before it gets better until we find a solution for that

drudgery duty that has been given to pilots in terms of these peacekeeping activities.

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, we saw the reenlistment rates fall sharply last

year, and that was an early warning signal that we had problems.

We put out more money and put out bonuses to try to get a higher

reenlistment rate, but frankly it has fallen short. And that is going

to be a problem, to hold onto good pilots.

Senator HUTCHISON. Twenty-nine percent this year.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, I know.

Senator HUTCHISON. A $60,000 bonus.

Senator BUMPERS. What is that, Kay?

Senator HUTCHISON. A $60,000 bonus they offer, and 29 percent

took them up on it this year.

Senator STEVENS. We had a 29-percent reenlistment rate.

Senator HUTCHISON. As opposed to 60 percent last year. Unbelievable.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes; it is going to be a real challenge. That is clearly

a major challenge.

A second area where we were having I think readiness problems

was in the area of infantrymen in the Army. There were lots of stories about holes in infantry units and squads out in the Army, and

as they were sending units to Bosnia, for example, they were filling

them up to 100 percent and that left even more shortages out at

home station here.

That was really a product of the Army fell short on their recruiting goals for 11 Bravos, for infantrymen. We put on some extra

funds, the Army did. They put on extra recruiters. They needed to

basically recruit an extra 5,000 people. And I actually think that

problem is starting to get fixed, although it is going to take us another couple of months to start seeing that in the force.

SPARE PARTS

A third area that I think we have real readiness challenges is in

spare parts. Through your help—and frankly, it would be a lot

harder this year if it had not been for your help last year. We

asked you to provide an extra $600 million for spare parts for the

Air Force and for the Navy, and you did that, and I thank you for

it, because if it had not been for that we would have a much more

serious problem in spare parts this year.

Based on that, we added an extra billion dollars this year for

spare parts for the Navy and for the Air Force. Part of this is we

are operating older fleets. These air fleets are now starting to age

almost year for year because we are not buying sufficient numbers

of replacement aircraft, and older things take more maintenance

every year. And our models were not properly calculated to capture

the cost of this aging inventory. So that was a big reason why we

were falling behind.

You helped us get caught up on that, and you will see in the

chart in just a minute we have added a fair amount of money in

O&M to try to avoid those kinds of readiness problems.

But let me show you the next chart, actually, that paints that

picture.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
9

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE [O&M] FUNDING

A year ago our budget was on that lower blue line on the right,

where it says ‘‘Pre-QDR,’’ quadrennial defense review. That is

where we had planned on budgeting. And what I am showing you

here is O&M dollars by end strength, so I am trying to normalize

for changes in force structure.

As you can see, we have added a fair amount of money to get

us back on a trend line to support readiness in the out-years. So

we recognize that this is something we are going to have to watch

and monitor very closely.

Next chart.

CONTINGENCY FUNDING

Extend Bosnia operations beyond June 1998

Propose emergency supplemental for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999

costs (being developed)

Additional fiscal year 1998 funds for Southwest Asia

Rapid approval essential to protect readiness

CONTINGENCY FUNDING

On contingency funding—and Senator Domenici initiated this—

the President has decided and NATO has asked that we extend in

Bosnia past June. We will be submitting, I believe on Monday—we

are submitting to OMB by Friday, I believe—our estimates of the

supplemental costs for Bosnia. We hope to be able to get it by Friday as well for Iraq. We will be submitting that to you, I hope, by

the end of next week.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
10

What we know now for the Bosnia operation, to extend through

fiscal year 1998 is probably going to be around $600 million. It will

cost us about $600 million more for Bosnia in fiscal year 1998, and

we will have to be asking for help on that as an emergency designation. That does begin the process to finally bring us down to

the new levels, to 6,900 personnel in Bosnia.

For Iraq, I know everybody is questioning where are we on Iraq.

All I can tell you right now is that I know what the costs are associated with the actions that have been taken to date, that is to deploying the extra forces over there, to put the extra carrier there,

to put in the brigades and that sort of thing. Right now we have

either spent or committed ourselves to about $600 million more.

The question that we face is what do we do at this stage, and

are we going to keep that force at this level? Obviously, we see the

agreement that has been initialed by Iraq, but I think, as the

President said and I think most Members of Congress have said,

we have to see the proof in the pudding. We want to see if that

is going to be honored or not.

So we are going to be keeping those forces in theater for a while

longer. There are some important policy decisions that are underway right now to decide how much longer and at what level, and

that will ultimately decide what the level is we will ask for your

help. Hopefully, we will get that next week.

May I just ask—and I know how pressed you are going to be, but

it is very important, if possible, to get passage of a supplemental

by the first part of April. It is I know very difficult to do that, and

I know you have got other challenges with the IMF issue on your

plate, and I know that there is the U.N. arrearages issue that is

on your plate. Obviously, now with the tornadoes in Florida there

will be some real challenges.

We are right now borrowing against our fourth quarter optempo

funds to pay for the situation in Bosnia and Iraq, because we have

told people not to change their training program because we intend

to ask for a supplemental to get additional funding. So we really

do need to secure that, if possible, by the first part—by the end of

the second quarter, which would basically be April 1, if that can

be possible.

Next chart.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
11

BRAC FUNDING

Senator STEVENS. We are not even going to get that until the

week after next, as I understand it?

Dr. HAMRE. I believe they are going to try to get it up to you by

the end of next week, sir. That I believe is the goal. So that gives

4 weeks to review, and I know that is not a lot of time. But we

will bend any effort to provide any information that people need to

try to review it during that period.

May I show you—as you know, the Secretary has asked for two

more rounds of BRAC. I know there is no more controversial issue

that I could bring up than BRAC, but I did want to put before you

what has been our history with base closures so that you have a

chance to see. We genuinely are saving substantial sums from the

four rounds of base closures.

The heavy green portion shows you the net cumulative savings

that we have achieved from the four rounds of base closures. And

as you can see, by 2002 we will be saving annually $5.6 billion. The

green line on the top is how much we are saving each year and the

red line is how much it costs, and it has cost a lot of money to

move things around and to modernize facilities. But the net savings are positive, they are occurring right now, and it is substantial

savings. It is 5.6 billion dollars’ worth of savings by 2001 and from

that point on.

We are asking for legislation——

Senator BUMPERS. Is that on an annual basis, Dr. Hamre?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir, that is the annual savings, $5.6 billion a

year.

We will be asking and we are asking legislative authority to have

two more rounds of base closures, one in 2001 and another round

in 2005. Of course, we are dependent on your sufferance to do that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
12

We understand that. But it is so very important for us to be able

to shrink that infrastructure. But again, I understand this is very

controversial.

Next chart.

PERSONNEL

[End strength in thousands]

Fiscal year

1998

Current

end

strength

floors fiscal year

1998

Fiscal year

1999

Fiscal year

2003

Additional

reductions QDR goal

Active Military:

Army ......................... 492 488 480 480 ................ 480

Navy .......................... 396 387 373 369 ................ 369

Marine Corps ............ 174 173 172 172 ................ 172

Air Force ................... 377 372 371 344 ¥6 339

Total Active .......... 1,439 1,419 1,396 1,366 ¥6 1,360

Selected Reserves ............. 920 886 877 837 ¥2 835

Civilians (FTE’s) ................ 786 770 747 672 1¥32 640

1 These additional reductions will result from further A–76 competitions proposed as part of the Defense Reform

Initiative.

PERSONNEL END STRENGTHS

These are our personnel strength levels. I do need to point out

one thing particularly and that is if I might bring your attention

to 1998, the column that I have in the red box. The reason I have

to point that out to you is those numbers that were stipulated in

that column were actually mandated in the authorization bill,

which was passed last year after you passed the appropriations

bill. You did not appropriate enough money to maintain these force

levels. You actually appropriated what we asked for. But we were

directed in the authorization bill to maintain more forces than we

need.

So we are being forced to divert between $100 million and $200

million to cover more forces than we need by the authorization act.

So I just want to point out, we do not yet have a basis for covering

that, but that is going to be something we are going to have to do

during this year. It will probably be the subject of a reprogramming later in the year.

Next chart.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
13

RESERVE COMPONENT INITIATIVES

Process

Reserve Components play greater role in budget process

2 new major generals to advise Chairman, JCS

Resources

Increased OPTEMPO funding

Higher Reserve Component equipment spending

New missions

Respond to domestic use of weapons of mass destruction

Redesign to increase combat service support

RESERVE COMPONENT INITIATIVES

On the issue of Reserves—and I know that there was a great

deal of controversy up here in Congress last year on the issue of

Reserves, especially with the National Guard and the active duty

Army. We have taken this very seriously. We cannot have a house

divided. We need very much for the Army and the National Guard

and the Army Reserve to be working together, and we have taken

a lot of steps to try to correct that problem.

We have brought in the Reserve components this year as we

never have before into the budget process. This year I made sure

that each of the Reserve component chiefs sat in our DRB’s to go

over our budget with us. This year, for the first time in the five

budgets that I helped build at the Department, the first thing on

the Army’s list when they wanted an addon was actually for National Guard optempo this year, and we put additional funds for

National Guard optempo.

This 5-year plan adds $2.5 billion for equipment for the National

Guard for the division redesign. So we have made very substantial

efforts to try to address the problems that were I think underlying

the dispute between the Army and the Army Guard last year, and

would ask to have a chance to talk with you in greater detail about

that during the year.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
14

WEAPONS MODERNIZATION

On the issue of modernization, the Secretary made a very high

priority on trying to stay on that ramp. You will recall the last 3

years, every year we gave you a forecast of increasing spending in

the out-years, and we never made it. This year we are on the path

that we outlined this spring and, as you can see at the right-hand

side where it talks about the budget, the solid line and the dashed

line, they overlay each other.

The solid line is what we said we wanted to do in the QDR and

the dashed line is what we achieved and have submitted to you in

the budget. And we have made our procurement goals. We are

going to get up to $60 billion by 2001 with this budget plan.

Senator STEVENS. Let me make sure I understand it before you

leave there.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

This is what we had said we wanted to achieve in the quadrennial defense review when the Secretary did it back in May, and

this is the budget we are submitting to you. We fell a little short

in 1999, about $300 million short. Last year we fell about $4 billion

short in procurement compared to our forecasts. But we made it in

the out-years, with the exception of $300 million short in 1992. But

basically, this year we were able to sustain the modernization plan

that we had forecast.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I hate to put it this way and sound political, but you are assuming the administration that comes after this

one is going to be a lot more favorable to defense than you have

been. That is a tremendous increase if you look at it. It is going

from $54 billion to $61 billion, and then there is another $3 billion

in there. We are talking about an increase of $19 billion over this

year’s budget.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
15

Dr. HAMRE. Senator Stevens, we are doing this, but it is inside

the top line, inside the balanced budget agreement top line that we

reached between the executive and the legislative branches. So we

think it is sustainable. We hope we can do it.

And it is solidly priced. I would say I think there is a good program here, and it is in detail in the FYDP we submitted to you.

Senator STEVENS. I would be a lot more confident if that curve

was up there right now.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir, I would, too.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

RECRUIT AND RETAIN QUALITY PEOPLE

Compensation: 3.1 percent pay raise

Commissaries: Increased funding and returned to Services control

Medical: Increased funding and Medicare subvention pilot

Housing: Privatization used to leverage housing budget

Maintaining high quality people critical to Joint Vision 2010

RECRUIT AND RETAIN QUALITY PEOPLE

Dr. HAMRE. Finally, on our people. And, of course, this always is

our first priority when we build a budget. There is a 3.1-percent

pay raise for the troops in 1999 and the full legal pay raise

throughout the FYDP. We have fully protected the commissary

benefit, and we have returned the management of the commissary

system back to the services, so that they now are the board of directors for the commissaries.

Last year when we gave you our budget we had a hole in our

medical program and this year we have added about $2.5 billion

across the FYDP to plug that hole. So I think that this year we are

not going to give you a broken program with medical. There is a

minor issue, about $30 million, but this year I think it is not broken like it was last year. We have a better Comptroller this year.

Finally, on privatization for housing. I will be honest to say I am

disappointed with our numbers for housing. We are not doing an

adequate job in building housing, replacement housing for the military. Frankly, we cannot do it without the privatization program

and authorities that you gave us, so we need to build on that. But

it is not adequate even at this level.

Last chart, Bob.

SUMMARY

Balanced QDR strategy of shape, respond, and prepare drives fiscal year

1999 program

Readiness and force structure depend on DRI proposals to reduce overhead

Modernization targets achieved

Joint Vision 2010 concepts exploit RMA

Treat people as our most important asset

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
16

SUMMARY

Finally, I think what we are submitting as a budget, it is capped

by the dollars that were in the balanced budget amendment. We

think it is a balanced program, and it is a program that grows out

of the strategy that was developed by the Secretary this spring.

Obviously, it depends on getting supplemental funding to pay for

the ongoing operations in Bosnia and Iraq. We cannot hold the program together without that. We will have very serious readiness

problems. We already have significant readiness challenges. We

will have very serious readiness problems if we do not get supplemental funding.

We think that we are able to sustain the modernization program

because it is inside the overall targets. Finally, let me say, again,

to say thank you to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all this committee

for consistently being a bedrock support for the Department of Defense. I know that you are confronted by so many pressures, this

committee confronts so many pressures, but that you have consistently been with the Department and with its personnel through

tough times and good times. We are very grateful for that, and I

especially appreciate being invited to come up today.

Thank you, sir.

BRAC SAVINGS—PERSONNEL CUTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much for being here. I

cannot say that we are overly pleased, at least that I am overly

pleased, with this budget as far as defense is concerned, because

I see so many shortfalls right now, and I do not really know how

we are going to correct those without money. Hopefully, we will get

into some discussions later about how much will be involved in the

emergency part of the supplemental.

You think we will get that by next Friday?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, as a matter of fact there is a meeting going on

at 4 o’clock today to work out the final details. Everybody’s plan

is to have it up to you by the end of next week, yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Well now, tell me. A significant portion of that

green you had up there was savings in people, not in operation of

bases, was it not?

Dr. HAMRE. A lot of it was people, yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. You could save that—that does not come from

closing bases. That comes from discharging people, not reducing

end strength, right?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, I will have to give you a breakout as to what

portion of that was people and what part is actually overhead and

O&M dollars that go with facilities, and I will be glad to do that.

[The information follows:]

Sir, as I stated the bulk of the net savings from BRAC depicted in the green

shaded area of my slide is related to the elimination of military and civilian personnel. Between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2002, the Department estimates that

it will generate net savings of about $17.5 billion. Of this amount, we estimate that

60 percent, or about $10.5 billion, can be attributed to BRAC savings from the elimination of personnel. These BRAC savings exclude savings from force structure reductions that would have occurred with or without BRAC. The personnel that have

been eliminated here are directly involved in base operations support (BOS). BRAC

savings can be grouped into those that recur and those that are one-time savings.

The vast majority of BRAC savings are recurring, i.e., they represent a permanent,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
17

ongoing reduction in planned spending. Personnel positions eliminated through

BRAC are an example of recurring savings. One-time savings do not recur year after

year. For example, the cancellation of a planned construction project would represent a one-time saving. Over time, the value of recurring savings is the largest

and therefore most important component of BRAC savings. While the exact number

of positions eliminated by BRAC is subject to some uncertainty, I believe the savings estimates related to personnel reductions are reasonable.

Senator STEVENS. Now, are the accumulated environmental costs

for the bases that have been closed, are they quantified in there?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, what I showed you were the annualized costs of

environmental cleanup, but not the full liability associated with

cleanup of those bases. Some of those liabilities will go out for some

time into the future.

Senator STEVENS. I am told the environmental cost deficit is

greater than the savings so far.

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, the environmental costs are there whether we

close the base or do not close the base, because of the liabilities to

clean it up if we are there or not there. What we budget is showing

you the annual increment, and I have showed those on a net basis,

but just for what we have been spending in those years for the

cleanup.

But the environmental bills are large, yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I am not going to argue that, but I do

think that some of those costs do not really occur until there is a

thought to turn it into a nondefense activity, at which time there

is an obligation to clean up the environmental accumulation of

years of use as a military base. But those, we are not cleaning all

of those up. We are making them habitable and eliminating the

hazardous environmental concerns, but we are not really restoring

the soils and all that throughout the bases that are continuing to

be operated. Am I wrong?

Dr. HAMRE. No, sir, you are not wrong. When we transfer a facility, we will probably have a negotiated arrangement for the continuing cleanup, for example, of a subsoil pollution source, that we

will continue to do even after the transfer, and will bear the responsibilities for doing that. The costs for that will go beyond the

5-year plan that is shown here.

But in many cases we will have the cleanup accomplished before

it is actually turned over. Most cases not.

NATO EXPANSION COSTS

Senator STEVENS. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out

on NATO expansion. I do not think that there are many that still

share my views on that, but I understand you have a $400 million

cost now for 10 years for the portion of the NATO costs and that

is all it is. It is down from over $100 billion to $400 million?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, we submitted an analytic study that outlined

what was the hypothetical cost associated with NATO expansion,

and I think it was something like $27 billion in our estimate.

Senator STEVENS. That was yours. There was one that was over

$100 billion.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes; CBO had a great big one. I think ours was

something like $27 billion. There were a number of things that differ here. One is at that time that study assumed that there were

four countries involved. It was not based on any detailed engineerU:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
18

ing or detailed inventory of the state of the facilities. It basically

assumed we had to build brand new facilities in these new countries, which it turned out we did not have to do. It also had some

operative assumptions about that their command and control was

going to have to be totally replaced and we would have to buy all

new things, that sort of thing. This new estimate, which is the $1.5 billion, of which the United

States share is $400 million, that is based on a fairly detailed

study that NATO conducted, looking at each country, looking at

each installation, looking at all of their command and control systems, and finding out what genuinely has to be bought new. And

our cost share would be about $400 million.

We would be glad to provide that to the committee and to go

through it with anybody to evaluate it and assess the underlying

assumptions and numbers.

Senator STEVENS. The Secretary told us that the details of the

costs of NATO expansion would be available to us long before the

vote on the NATO enlargement, and now it seems that you are relying upon a NATO analysis rather than your own. You are throwing out your own that was $26 billion over 10 years and taking

theirs that says $400 million over 10 years.

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, the study that we did that said $27 billion or

whatever the number was was an analytic study that was done totally independent of being on the ground and looking at real facilities and knowing what had to be done. So I will get the study up

to you that shows what this $1.5 billion is comprised of and why,

frankly, why it does differ. And we are glad for it. We would rather

not have to replace runways or buy new communications systems

if there are things in place now that are adequate.

A NATO team did that survey and we are taking that as being

right. We did have team members with them on it.

Senator STEVENS. Do we still pay 26 percent of NATO?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. So that means that that is roughly one-quarter

of the total cost of the expansion of NATO?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir, the $400 million would be roughly one-quarter.

Senator STEVENS. From their point of view, from the NATO people, analysts’ point of view?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Well, then I assume there would be no opposition from the administration to my reservation on the treaty that

will say that there will be no increased cost of maintaining our involvement in NATO from this enlargement?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, forgive me for not being in a position to speak

for the administration on your reservation.

Senator STEVENS. I understand. I did not expect you to answer,

John, but I just think somehow or other——

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. I think their computers must have

been set to go to zilch in 1998, not the year 2000.

Well, I have got some other questions to answer. I am really not

going to get into the Iraq thing. I think we ought to wait for the

basic information that is going to come with the supplemental.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
19

COST CONTROL AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS OF CINC’S

I do have one problem, though. As we have traveled around the

world—and we do travel excessively, my friend and I, and some of

the others, too—I think that the CINC’s still have no real cost control, on the one hand. On the other hand, the CINC equipment is

deteriorating and I am not sure they are getting the priorities they

should have with regard to new systems, such as new aircraft, particularly in the Pacific.

Are you supporting any new aircraft for CINC’s this time?

Dr. HAMRE. Senator, I wish I had prepared more fully. I do recall

we had a program that was basically going to use some older 135’s.

I think that that program has been rejected, and I think we are

looking at new aircraft. But I do not know exactly what we are

looking at. Can I get back to you on that?

[The information follows:]

Senator, the Air Force has a plan that utilizes both new aircraft and existing KC–

135R aircraft. The KC–135R aircraft will be modified to accommodate unique CINC

requirements for secure communications and have some modest interior improvements. The Air Force is working closely with the CINC’s to satisfy their support

concerns.

Dr. HAMRE. I just want to lead that into this request to you. I

saw your comment in your presentation about the privatization for

housing. I would like to follow that up with a concept in this bill

this year of privatization for noncombat equipment to the extent

that it is possible. That is particularly true with transportation for

the CINC’s, transportation for the—what do they call it, the executive fleet? The 89th Wing. And I think we have got some other

areas where we can experiment on privatization.

I believe that the new leasing companies that are there on a

global basis are capable of providing a substantial advantage to the

Department to lease vehicles. Even in a host country, for instance,

we might be able to lease vehicles that are there and not have to

transport them over. I think we have to start looking for some savings at every corner, and the privatization angle has a lot of appeal

right now to help us get over this crunch in the O&M accounts. So

I would urge you to look at it and if you have any further comments to make about that as we go along, we would like to work

with you on it.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye.

NATIONAL GUARD AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

I am certain the Senator from New Mexico will be asking questions on Bosnia and the supplemental, and I am certain the Senator from Texas will be touching upon recruitment and readiness.

I would like to touch upon the National Guard and military construction.

Up until recently, it has been part of the tradition of the executive-legislative relationship that the Congress adds Milcon projects

for the Guard, and very seldomly requests came in from the Defense Department. Second, in recent times and in this presentation

of yours we have added new missions to the Guard, one a very important one on how to cope with the potential threat of biological

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
20

and chemical weapons that may be easily carried into the United

States, and we have told the Guard that it is your mission to protect us.

Yet, if you look at the budget there is almost nothing for Milcon

for the Guard. Now, if we put in and initiate projects for the Guard

and the administration’s policy is that the line item veto will be

used for those projects that have not been requested by the administration, what happens to the Guard?

Would you support us if we put in projects for the Guard, though

not requested by you?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, we have I think a sad history of asking for

Milcon for the Guard. As I say, I am a Lutheran by background

and we have it good: We like to sin and God likes to forgive, and

it all works out real good. It is a little bit how we deal with Milcon.

I mean, we decide not to ask for money and you like to give it to

us, and both sides feel pretty good about that. That is historically

what we have been doing.

We are now at a point where we cannot do that any longer. The

top line is fixed and everything now is being traded off. We need

to be embracing Guard Milcon requirements just as sincerely as we

embrace active duty Army Milcon requirements. We have not had

a history of doing that, and we need to start doing that.

We tried very much to do that for their modernization program

this year, and we did indeed move $2.5 billion into the Guard for

equipment. But we have not done a good enough job on Milcon and

so we have to correct that problem.

Sir, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, again we listened very carefully to what you and other Members of the Congress were telling us and tried very much to embrace this. This

budget proposal adds $49 million to start developing a quick response program for Guard units so that they can quickly come in

to augment, not replace local responders, not replace the fire department or the emergency response teams, but to quickly augment

them, to come and bring in biological detection equipment, to bring

in chemical detection equipment, to be able to do early diagnostics,

to get there within 4 hours and be able to help the local early responders so they can get ready and cope with an emergency.

We have added $49 million this year and altogether about $250

million over the 5-year plan.

Senator INOUYE. But there is no Milcon in there.

Dr. HAMRE. But there is no Milcon in that, sir, because that was

off of existing units and existing organizations.

But I take your criticism very seriously and you are right, we

need to be doing a better job on treating Milcon for the Guard. It

is especially hard, as you say, when we talk about not having

addons that are not in the 5-year plan. If the Guard is not in the

5-year plan, then they get cheated. It is a double hit. So that is

why we had to develop—we had to make a very concrete effort to

try to get them included at least on the equipment side in the 5-

year plan, and we will have to do a better job on Milcon, too.

Senator INOUYE. Maybe we should have a conference where we

can tell you what we would like to put in and you say OK.

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, I am at your disposal. [Laughter.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
21

CONSEQUENCES OF BRAC DISAPPROVAL

Senator INOUYE. Well, I am aware that you are counting on

BRAC as part of your budget presentations. But what will you do

if BRAC does not get approved?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, we are counting on BRAC. Of course, inside the

5-year plan that we are presenting to you BRAC has virtually no

savings; it only has costs, because the first round of BRAC would

only occur in the year 2001 and the costs associated with that first

round would be in the 5-year plan, but virtually none of the savings. So we would get the anomalous condition where if you say no

to us on BRAC we actually get a slight benefit in the short term;

in the long run, we lose the purchasing power that it is going to

take to support facilities we do not need.

We are still going to have to address excess capacity somehow.

We have got to get our hands around that problem. We have got

too much capacity. We believe honestly that BRAC is the fairest

way for everybody because it is out in the open, there is an explicit

process, it is evaluated on the merits, people can look at it and debate it and discuss it. And if there is dissatisfaction with the way

that BRAC proceeded this last time, Congress should change the

rules. You can change the rules on how BRAC would proceed, and

we would honor that.

But we do need to tackle the excess infrastructure, the excess

bases, and that is why we would be delighted to sit down. And if

there is another way that we could do BRAC or an improved way

to do BRAC, we would be glad to work with you on that.

Senator INOUYE. Can DOD on its own initiative close bases without going through BRAC?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, DOD has—yes, we can, but there are all kinds

of laws and rules and regulations that govern any closure of an installation. For example, what BRAC basically did was let you clear

some of those hurdles on a wholesale basis rather than a retail

basis. So for example, environmental impact statements, things of

that nature, we would have to go through. It is a cumbersome process, but yes, we can do that.

Senator INOUYE. Some have argued that DOD should bite the

bullet and do that job, instead of hiding behind BRAC. For example, there is no question BRAC may be open, but it is subjected to

lobbying that makes our lobbying seem very small and slight.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir, I understand.

Senator INOUYE. You might have members in there that are already inclined to close bases in Texas and California. Some believe

that is what happened and we had to come back to rescue you.

Now, that process in the eyes of many seemed to be a bit tainted.

It might be a bit more honest if we dealt eyeball to eyeball with

you. That is just one thought.

Thank you very much.

Dr. HAMRE. Oh, good, I do not have to answer that. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. I do not think anyone can really answer that

now.

Senator Hutchison.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
22

Senator HUTCHISON. I think it was a very good point, however,

Senator Inouye. I certainly saw more lobbying there than I have

seen anywhere in Congress.

I would like to—I am going to go on the same line that Senator

Inouye did on another readiness issue, and then I want to ask you

on the bigger picture.

SAC HEARING ON SUPPLEMENTAL

But I want to ask the chairman a question first. Are we going

to be able to have hearings on the supplementals, particularly the

Bosnia supplemental, so that we will be able to discuss the whole

policy in Bosnia for which the money will be spent?

Senator STEVENS. It would be my feeling we should have hearings. But in all probability the hearings on the supplemental will

be by the full committee, because it will contain more than just

items for this subcommittee. That will be a difficult decision to

make, but I want to talk to Senator Inouye and Senator Byrd about

that.

I do believe all members should be involved in the review of the

supplemental.

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I do not have any suggestion on

whether it be the subcommittee or the full committee, but I do

think if you are saying, as the President is now, that we are going

to have an unending commitment in Bosnia, then you come in with

supplementals rather than putting it in the defense budget, I think

we need to know exactly what the plan is. So I am hoping we will

have those.

Senator STEVENS. Fiscal year 1999 is not considered emergency.

Only the fiscal year 1998 is considered emergency.

Dr. HAMRE. Right. And for 1999 we will be actually submitting

details of that as well by the end of next week. So we will have

both 1998 supplemental and 1999 budget amendment, I guess as

we would say it, or using this allotment that was set aside to cover

for Bosnia.

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Cortese reminds me, we do have a hearing

scheduled on the 1999 Bosnia. My answer to you was concerning

the supplemental for Bosnia and Iraq and the other matters that

would be in the supplemental. There are some nondefense matters

in the supplemental.

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I just want to make sure that we have

the opportunity to have congressional input on Bosnia at the appropriate time. And I think a hearing is going to bring out what the

plan is, and I am looking for a plan on Bosnia and I am looking

for an exit strategy if this is going to happen.

STATUS OF PRIVATIZATION IN DOD

Let me ask you—one of the readiness issues besides BRAC is privatization. We have heard from every expert in the Department of

Defense, from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chairman, the chiefs of each service, the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense before you, that privatization is one of the

key ways that the Department of Defense can save money and use

that money for other operations that are necessary.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
23

What is the status of privatization? Are you satisfied with it, and

what do you think needs to be done to allow that money be used

in the best and most efficient way?

Dr. HAMRE. Senator Hutchison, I presume you mean in this case

privatization as things that we are currently doing, not the housing

privatization, but the ongoing work, for example, in DOD, putting

it in the private sector?

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes; well, actually you could speak to all of

it.

Dr. HAMRE. OK.

Senator HUTCHISON. But I was thinking of the privatization of

maintenance, however.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, yes; the budget that we have submitted assumes that we are going to compete for privatization—it is not

automatically privatizing, but using the A–76 process to compete

for privatization—150,000 jobs. Now, we are assuming that we will

save $2.6 billion through that. Let me explain briefly how we do

that.

A–76 PROCESS FOR COMPETITION

The A–76 process—and I will come back to that in a minute—

it is very cumbersome, but it is designed to give a fair, level playing field, private sector-public sector, to do work. There have been

about 2,000 A–76 studies over the last 13 years. On the average,

one-half of the time the Government has won and one-half of the

time the private sector has won.

When the Government wins the competition, the savings have

averaged 20 percent. When the private sector wins the competition,

the savings averaged 40 percent. So there are enormous savings

that would come from this competition.

What we did in this budget was we are assuming that we are

going to compete 150,000 jobs, and we assumed that in every case

the Government won, because that is the conservative assumption.

So we took only the 20 percent savings against that work base, the

150,000 jobs. I actually think it will be larger than that, but what

we have actually put in the budget is $2.6 billion. That is the annual amount that we save.

This is going to be a challenge, frankly, because we will be doing

more A–76 privatization competitions this year than were done in

the last 10 years combined. There is a tenfold increase in A–76

competitions between 1996 and 1997. Frankly, in some places we

have had to relearn the process because it lay fallow.

I think I am encouraged. We have had several detailed meetings

with the services and I am very encouraged. I think that we are

going to make this work.

Senator HUTCHISON. Do you have enough flexibility under the

law as it is now to do everything that you feel you can do in this

area?

Dr. HAMRE. I think that there are definite constraints in the A–

76 process, and I am not here to litigate the process. But it takes

almost 2 years to conduct a competition. It is enormously intensive,

labor-intensive, to conduct a competition.

I think also we need to have a process where we do a better job

of evaluating the proposal before we submit it, because too often we

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
24

have organizations that do not want to lose their jobs that get to

design the competition. Well, you know, there is an incentive not

to design it in a way—or to design it in a way where it is harder

for industry to win, the private sector to win. We need to change

that.

I also think there are an awful lot of work practices that cut

across multiple organizations, and the A–76 process is really designed to work inside a single organization. So we need some

changes here.

Senator HUTCHISON. That is what I was trying to find out. You

do need changes in order to make sure you can achieve the savings

you need to come within this budget?

Dr. HAMRE. Ma’am, I think most of them are things that we can

do internally. But I will get back to you if there is something that

we think we need either legislative or regulatory relief.

RESTRICTIONS ON DEPOT MAINTENANCE PRIVATIZATION

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, does the 60–40 rule, that is now 50–

50——

Dr. HAMRE. Well, that is a different matter. That is a very different matter, because that is not governed by A–76, and that is

enormously more complicated.

Senator HUTCHISON. Do you think that is an artificial restraint——

Dr. HAMRE. Oh, yes, ma’am.

Senator HUTCHISON [continuing]. That will keep you from being

able to do the privatization?

Dr. HAMRE. Oh, absolutely. I think that the 60–40, now 50–50,

rule definitely makes it harder to hold competitions.

Senator HUTCHISON. Do you think that you have the same accountability in a public sector contract that you do in a private sector contract?

Dr. HAMRE. Let me try redefining your question and then I will

try to answer it, and maybe I got the right question or not. Is it

possible for a Government proposal to have the same set of liabilities and obligations as a private sector proposal? No; in the sense

that we can impose—you can impose a fixed price bidding requirement on the private sector and you cannot really impose that on

the Government. By definition, Government proposals are almost

cost-plus.

So you have to really develop other means to try to get the fiscal

discipline associated with the bid in the public sector. We are trying to do that where we can.

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I just hope that you will let us know

what you think would help make this more efficient and get the

savings, but keep the readiness that we all want to preserve; and

second, that you will work to maintain at least what you have now

and not have other restrictions placed on the ability to do the privatization if you are counting on it for part of the savings that

would allow you to do your job efficiently.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, ma’am. We are counting on it and we need it.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
25

MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me just ask one last question, and that

is on—in your budget you have money for missile defense. One of

the concerns that I and many others have had is that we have not

deployed to the fullest the technology that would give us the missile defense systems that we need, either in theater or intercontinental. I want to ask you if you think that the Department is going

to be able to move toward having the missile defense systems that

we must have within this budget constraint—I think $3.6 billion is

what you have—and if we need to have changes in the ABM Treaty

in order to continue to go forward for this missile defense.

I happen to believe the biggest security threat the United States

faces is ballistic missiles, either into our country or into a theater

where our troops are. I want to make sure that we are going full

force with technology, and if we need to address the ABM issue

then we need to do that.

So where are we with this $3.6 billion that you have in your

budget?

Dr. HAMRE. Senator, of course the $3.6 billion here and the full

funding throughout the 5-year plan we honestly believe brings forward the development of a national missile defense system, but not

the procurement of that national missile defense system. We do not

have procurement money in our 5-year plan for it, but we do have

the development and the funds that are required if we do need to

make the deployment decision to invest in it inside this 5-year

plan.

I think that is properly funded. As you know, not all the testing

has gone all that successfully in some of the programs and so we

really are pushing them about as far as we can right now.

I think the real question you are asking is where is the procurement money, and that is again an issue that has divided the Congress and the executive branch for the last 3 or 4 years. We have

moved a lot closer under Dr. Perry and under Secretary Cohen, because we now are funding the same development program. We are

all seeking that same thing. We just do not have the funds to buy

it inside this 5-year plan.

We do not think we need to make that decision right now. When

we have to make that decision, we think we can and it will be

under the same timetable, because we are developing it.

Senator HUTCHISON. To the fullest extent?

Dr. HAMRE. We think so. We think it is honestly paced by development risk, not by funding constraint. Now, I will go back to the

experts and find out, to make sure that I am right on that. But

that was as I recall it when we were building the budget back in

December.

Now, as to your question about the ABM Treaty, it is my understanding there is nothing that we are doing inside this development program right now that requires us to change the ABM Treaty. Obviously, deployment is a different issue and I would have to

come back to you with an answer on that.

Senator HUTCHISON. Right.

Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
26

Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, it is good to be with you. Many of us have known

you for a long time. You worked with a very good Senator for a

long time.

Dr. HAMRE. Thank you, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Our good friend Senator Nunn.

Dr. HAMRE. I got good training.

Senator DOMENICI. You got good training. We are glad to have

you here and congratulations on your Deputy Secretary of Defense

designation.

Dr. HAMRE. Thank you, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. I have two parochial questions and I will submit them separately.

Dr. HAMRE. Fine. I will be glad to—I will be responsive.

MORE FLEXIBLE CONTINGENCY FUNDING

Senator DOMENICI. Let me ask this question. Since we have been

involved in Bosnia and contemplating getting involved in Iraq, I

have been concerned about the fact that the domestic budget of the

United States and all of its agencies are not bound to 5-year budget

numbers, but the Defense Department of the United States is. It

seems to me that for contingencies if any Department ought to be

given some flexibility, it ought to be the Defense Department. We

are learning more about that need for flexibility with every contingency that comes along.

It seems to me that either we provide more flexibility or we

change our budgeting practices to provide literally for a rather significant contingency fund. The reason I raise this is because, I tell

you the truth, as a matter of course the Chiefs come and see me

one time in my office to talk about things that relate to my State,

and I have been more impressed over the last 18 months with their

genuine concern about the process of budgeting under their command.

I am concerned that they have to constantly move things around

in this budget because they are now in Bosnia or about to go to

Iraq. I just want to lay before you that I do not believe we ought

to put that onus on military men, leaders of this U.S. Defense Department.

FUNDING CONSTRAINTS

I say that with even more assurance when I find that we do not

bind any domestic Department to anything but 1 year, and somehow or another, even in so-called austere times, we find $60, $80,

$120 billion more to spend on domestic programs and not a nickel

for defense. It is stuck with this 5-year number.

I am talking about the President’s budget. I am not agreeing

with his spending $65 billion in cigarette settlement for 12 new

programs, but he found it. He found some money to spend. And yet

we are up here asking for emergency money for the Defense Department of the United States to break their cap in a legal way.

So I just want to lay before you that I believe the ultimate job

of a good Comptroller is to try to give these Chiefs and the Joint

Chief of Staff more assurance that they do not have to be so clairU:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
27

voyant and so certain that 3 years from now they are still bound

by something they said before the world changed. Frankly, I do not

know how they can do it myself, with technology changing like it

is and all the needs and demands. We are asking for multiyear

budgets, but 5 years is a long time.

I guess the other thing I would ask you is, do we stick the number before the Chiefs or do we ask them what they need? I think

that is a very important question. We have numbers. Now, do we

ask the Chiefs when they prepare their quadrennial or whatever,

do we say, what do we need to keep the men and women satisfied

in this All-Volunteer Army? They have got to work, they have got

to be trained, we need R&D. Tell us what we need? Or do we say:

That is the number, $268.3 billion; live within it. Which do we do?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, it is largely the latter, but we do try to accommodate the changes that we need to make on the margin. It tends

to be on the margin. We basically give people a spending path and

say, you need to develop and build a program to this path, but then

on the margin tell us what more you need and in what areas.

So we try to do that. But in all honesty, it is within the constraints of the overall funding that we forecast is likely to be available. But we would have to do that. Otherwise we would get very

distorted kind of plans if we did not, I think.

I understand the sincerity of your position, however.

Senator DOMENICI. I have not served in the capacity that I am

around here not to know that any department of Government, if

you ask them, what do you need? They will ask, what is available?

And God knows where that ends up.

But I do think when you put a 5-year shackle around defense,

with the kind of changes we are talking about, it is a pretty risky

business when it comes to preparedness and contingencies.

FISCAL YEAR 1999 FUNDING ALLOWANCE

Now, I was going to ask you how much you are going to ask for

for the buildup in Iraq, but I am not going to. I will wait until that

comes up.

Dr. HAMRE. It will be there next week.

Senator DOMENICI. You did have a contingency fund of about $3

billion in the 1999 budget, did you not?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, I think it is called an allowance. It was a new

term I had never seen before. But yes, there was a reservation of

about $3 billion, yes, sir, in 1999.

Senator DOMENICI. Could that be kind of the fund that I have

been just talking with you about?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir; that is exactly what I think it is best to use

it for.

PRIVATIZATION AND DOD PERSONNEL CUTS

Senator DOMENICI. Now, let me ask another generalized question

about the questions that my friend from Texas asked. I understand

that if the privatization and contracting out contemplated in your

budget do not work in whole or in part, that the military will be

left with a situation where they were expected to have less end

strength in personnel but no way to pay for them.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
28

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, the budget that we put for privatization is really

only on the civilian side, not on the military side. It does indeed

assume that there will be a 20-percent savings against that

150,000 civilian jobs that we are competing. So yes, if none of it

occurs then we would be short. But we actually think it is going

to occur, and I have seen the planning for it. I actually think we

will do a little bit better than that.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, there is no military end strength that

is reduced by privatization or contracting out?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, there might be some small examples, but the

bulk of it is not. I mean, there are small cases, but most of it is

on the civilian jobs.

Senator DOMENICI. Could you give us the specifics?

Dr. HAMRE. I surely will, yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

Sir, of the 150,000 full time equivalent positions that the Department intends to

compete in accordance with OMB Circular A–76, we expect only about 20 percent

to be military. The exact numbers are very difficult to accurately predict before the

actual cost comparison studies are identified and announced. However, this year we

will be conducting a Department-wide inventory of all civilian and military positions

that will provide greater insight into which positions are inherently governmental

in nature, which positions are commercial activities that are exempt from competition, and which positions are commercial activities that are subject to competition.

This effort should improve the study identification process substantially.

Senator DOMENICI. So if one of the Chiefs says one of our most

difficult problems is going to be the end strength contemplated by

privatization?

Dr. HAMRE. I think there are end strength cuts that are independent of the privatization, and they may be confusing that, or I

may not have understood your question. We have end strength cuts

that are coming against military that are totally independent of the

privatization goals on the civilian side.

Senator DOMENICI. Are they built upon some contingency or are

they just what we are going to agree upon as an end strength reduction?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, they were built on fairly detailed modeling that

was done during the quadrennial defense review, where we looked

through each of the forces. We have very detailed plans for all of

that.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you give us for the record the end

strength reduction, both civilian and military, in a summary?

Dr. HAMRE. Absolutely.

Senator DOMENICI. And tell us how we are going to get there?

Dr. HAMRE. I surely will.

Senator DOMENICI. What backs them up.

Dr. HAMRE. I surely will.

[The information follows:]

The QDR process began by developing an overarching defense strategy, and followed with assessments of the necessary force structure, readiness, and modernization that would be required to implement the strategy. The resulting program recommended by the QDR is based on: modest reductions and restructuring of our military force structure that will still meet present threats, adequate modernization

funding necessary to meet future challenges, and a conscious decision to reduce infrastructure and support activities as much as possible. Initiatives identified during

the QDR that will safely result in reduced infrastructure and personnel include reengineering infrastructure to achieve better business practices, consolidating many

logistics activities, reducing layers of management oversight at headquarters and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
29

operational commands, and competing and privatizing infrastructure functions that

are closely related to commercial enterprises. The Secretary has established the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI) and the Defense Management Council (DMC) to continue and monitor ongoing efforts to reduce infrastructure.

The approaches employed by the Services to effect personnel savings varied in accordance to their needs, their individual management structures, and their force

structure requirements. The Army plans to restructure parts of its force to reflect

increased efficiencies in support activities and in anticipation of further organizational change, including the redesign and downsizing of its heavy divisions as it integrates the results of ongoing warfighting experiments. The Navy plans to reduce

force structure and retire surface combatants and submarines as newer and more

capable systems are added to the fleet. The Air Force is consolidating its fighter,

bomber, and theater airlift squadrons, increasing the number of aircraft in each

squadron while decreasing the number of squadrons. It is also reducing intermediate headquarters to streamline its command structure, and will aggressively pursue

infrastructure efficiencies.

The QDR reflected the following personnel reduction goals:

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

Active Military ........................................................ 15,000 18,000 1,800 26,900

Reserve Military ..................................................... 45,000 4,100 4,200 700

Civilian Personnel .................................................. 33,700 8,400 400 18,300

INFLATION SAVINGS AND OUTLAY FORECASTS

Senator DOMENICI. My last question has to do with the savings

on inflation rates being lower than contemplated in the previous 5-

year plan.

Dr. HAMRE. Inflation, yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Do I understand that in this budget you left

whatever savings accrue from inflation reduction in the budget for

the Defense Department?

Dr. HAMRE. Largely. We lost a little bit, but we largely were able

to hold onto the inflation savings.

Senator DOMENICI. I congratulate you.

Dr. HAMRE. Thank you, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. I think it is high time that we not expect to

swallow every bit of inflation savings that one contemplates. That

too changes. You make them eat it all and then it changes back

up again, and we are in another mess.

My last question is: CBO and OMB, which you are bound by, disagree on the cost of your program, of your budget that we are talking about.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you and CBO and OMB get together and

try to analyze where those differences come from?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, we try to. But this year we have not been given

access to any of the details in CBO’s outlay forecasts. They have

not provided us anything this year.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, is that different than last year?

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir, it is.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you have any reason to suggest to us as

to why it is different?

Dr. HAMRE. I do not know. As a matter of fact, I just learned

that as I was getting ready for this hearing. I did not know that

until today.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
30

Senator DOMENICI. I think it would not be bad, Mr. Chairman,

if we asked them, if we asked CBO and OMB to confer on these

differences. They are giving us a $4 billion thing that we have got

to pay for because their number estimates are less.

Dr. HAMRE. We would like that.

Senator STEVENS. If they do not confer, we will get them both

here at the same time, because we cannot make a choice between

them.

Senator DOMENICI. Good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I have a couple of questions that relate to research activities

which I will submit for the record. If you will be kind enough to

respond for our record, I would appreciate that.

Dr. HAMRE. Absolutely.

PROCUREMENT FOR MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator COCHRAN. Senator Hutchison asked you some questions

about the ballistic missile defense situation and where we were

with the administration’s plan. I am concerned that you pointed

out, and you had to, that there is no money in this plan really for

procurement. The fact of the matter is that if we are going to develop a system that can be deployed under the so-called three-plusthree national missile defense program we are going to have to obtain some materials, long lead materials, at some point. It does not

appear to be possible to meet the schedule of three-plus-three without some long lead equipment being purchased prior to a scheduled

deployment decision in the year 2000.

What the administration I guess is assuming is that they will not

ever get to there. It is kind of like the economist who says that the

out-years—do not forget, the out-years never get here. So the administration is hoping, I guess, that they will not have to get to the

point where they have to decide that they have to deploy.

Is that why we do not have to put any procurement money in the

plan?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, I think the administration’s Three-Plus-Three

Program, it is a rolling three-plus-three, and it is triggered by the

concrete intelligence evidence that suggests we really have to do

something finally. And we just do not see that right now. When

that happens, we are always trying to be in a position so that we

can reach out and get something in 3 years. So that is the basis

of it. That is why there is no precise date when it has to be put

in the budget.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, we have heard testimony from people

like Lieutenant General Lyles, who calls the program extremely

high risk. And I assume that means it is unlikely that we will

reach the schedule or meet the schedule. I was wondering what

your interpretation of it is.

One of the CEO’s of the competitor companies for the national

missile defense lead system integrator contract says that you cannot be ready to deploy for the year 2003 unless you have some long

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
31

lead equipment purchased prior to the scheduled deployment decision in the year 2000.

Do you disagree with those assessments?

Dr. HAMRE. What I have to tell you is I do not think I know

enough to be able to answer one way or the other right here. As

to General Lyles, I have talked with him several times and I think

I always understood his assessment of the high risk was associated

with bringing the technology on in this time period. But I will go

back and talk with him about that, too.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, these are serious concerns and we hope

that the appropriations that we are able to provide for this program permit us to be able to make a decision to defend the security

of the country against ballistic missile attack if it does develop, as

some think, that we are going to be confronted with that threat

sooner rather than later.

SHIPBUILDING

Let me ask you this about shipbuilding. The Secretary of the

Navy testified the other day before the Senate Armed Services

Committee that the future years defense plan provides an adequate

amount of support to meet the projected need of 300 ships for our

Navy, but beyond that future years defense plan this rate of production that we have now will not permit us to maintain the required ship inventory.

What are we going to do about that?

Dr. HAMRE. We need to buy more ships. Right now we are able

to take and sustain a 300-ship Navy because, frankly, we are still

able to live off of the larger inventory we had from the past. But

obviously, if we take the nominal service life of a ship is 30 years

and you need 300 ships, you have got to buy more than 6 a year.

Senator COCHRAN. Right. You have got to buy about 10 a year.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes; I mean, we just have to buy more ships.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I am hopeful that the committee will

support a schedule of that size. I think it is certainly justified, and

that is what the Secretary of the Navy said in his testimony, that

the operational commitments undertaken by the Navy and Marine

Corps today require a certain force level to satisfy worldwide presence missions. As we see the U.S.S. John Stennis steaming off to

relieve the George Washington, Senator Lott and I gave the captain

a U.S. Senate flag to carry on that mission. He said he would fly

it while they were underway on the first deployment of the U.S.S.

John Stennis. We are very proud of that.

We appreciate your assistance to the committee and your presence. We look forward to continuing to work with you, Dr. Hamre.

Dr. HAMRE. Thank you, sir. I am glad to be invited. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Are you finished, Mr. Chairman?

Senator STEVENS. No; Senator Inouye had some questions.

Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SELECTIVE PRIVATIZATION

I would just like to make an observation. I realize that privatization has become a very popular concept because of possible savings

that may come about. We speak about fiscal discipline. I am old

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
32

enough to remember an event that happened in 1941, and at that

time when the bombs fell private workers who were doing construction work somehow did not report, but all of the Federal civilian

civil service workers, they all reported to work, and many of them

were casualties.

That is my concern. When they were doing privatization for men

and women in uniform, you lost your operational discipline. Did

you take that into consideration when you adopted privatization?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, the 150,000 jobs that we are going to compete

are those where we have done a fairly detailed analysis and believe

these are really commercial-like activities. I personally believe that

we can count on contractors to be with us if we have to. We had

over 800 contractor tech reps in Bahrain during Desert Storm and

they were under the same range, Scud range, as our active duty

people.

We have to be sensible about it, of course, and there are things

that you do have to have. I am a firm believer there are things you

have to have Government employees do. And there are things that,

as your fiduciary responsibilities as a Government, I think are a

responsibility of Government. I would not contract out certain activities.

So we studied that very carefully. But there still is, I think, a

fair amount of room for us to look at commercial-like programs,

people for example who do payroll here in the United States, things

of that nature. And those are the things that I think it is fair for

us to look at.

Government may still win that competition. So we will see what

the result is.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. I have some questions, but do you have questions?

STATUS OF SPENDING RESULTING FROM VETO OVERRIDE

Senator DOMENICI. I just have one with reference to the veto

override. You understand we have done that.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. It is finished.

Dr. HAMRE. I surely do. That is why I did not think I would have

to answer anything.

Senator DOMENICI. You understand that you are supposed to pay

for those projects and programs now, right?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, the money is out the door.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, we called up to find out where it all

stood and we were told it is going to be a long, long time. Could

we ask you how long it is going to take before some of these things

we just put back in the appropriated cycle, how long it is going to

take?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, yes, I will call you back before the day is out.

What I do not know is the technical process of the allotment process with OMB under a veto environment. But it is not going to take

more than a day for us to get it through the Comptroller’s office,

I know that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
33

Senator DOMENICI. So the point is there will be no holdups because it is an override? You are full speed ahead?

Dr. HAMRE. Full speed ahead.

Senator STEVENS. Well, Senator, with due respect to you and to

Dr. Hamre, there still is the rescission process, and I was told it

might be considered. So let us not spend our money before we get

it.

Dr. HAMRE. OK, I will go back to make sure.

Senator STEVENS. I hope it is not. I hope we do not have to run

that route on this one. This was a sheer mistake and we have corrected it, and Congress has spoken twice now, three times on these.

Dr. HAMRE. Eighty votes does not look like a rescission margin

to me.

Senator STEVENS. I have to tell you, it only takes two people in

the Senate to say no to rescission, and that is me and Senator

Byrd, and they are not going to come out of this committee on this

bill. We have done enough on these now. We just do not have time

to go back and live that thing again now, that is all. I hope that

you will carry that message for us, doctor.

Dr. HAMRE. I shall.

Senator STEVENS. We have got so much going forward. If we

have to do those projects again, it will just be wrong.

FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

[FFRDC’S]

Let me ask you a couple questions. It is no secret what we have

done about FFRDC’s, and now I understand that the Department

has decided that FFRDC’s contract advisory and assistance services

[CAAS] will be considered providers, and they are to be cut by 15

percent by the Department. Is that right?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, you are asking me a question I do not know the

answer to. I will have to find out. They will be, I am sorry, what

providers?

Senator STEVENS. Do you know whether there is any moneys

that are going to be reprogrammed to restore the fiscal year 1998

level of FFRDC’s?

Dr. HAMRE. Forgive me, I will have to get back to you. I am not

aware of that, but I will find out.

[The information follows:]

Senator, as you know, Section 8035 of the fiscal year 1998 Appropriation Act established limits on both the number of staff years of technical effort at Defense

FFRDC’s (6,206) and staff years for defense studies and analysis FFRDC’s (1,105).

Section 8035 also reduced the amount appropriated by $71.8 million. In addition,

the accounts funding FFRDC activities were impacted by the $300 million reduction

for Contract Advisory and Assistance Services (CAAS) in Section 8041. All RDT&E

accounts, including those funding FFRDC activities, were also affected by the pro

rata reductions directed in Sections 8043 and 8048. It is my understanding that the

Military Departments used below threshold reprogramming authority (less than $4

million) to fund some FFRDC efforts. It is not unusual for FFRDC taskings to be

identified during budget execution which were not foreseen during budget development. However, I am not aware of any case where a FFRDC’s fiscal year 1998 funding level was restored. The Department is executing the fiscal year 1998 program

within all the staff year constraints established in Section 8035.

Senator STEVENS. I have a second question then. Will you give

us an update on the current reprogramming regulations that would

apply to the concept of FFRDC’s? I understand that there is a proU:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
34

cedure to make multiple reprogrammings to accumulate millions of

dollars to restore the FFRDC’s reductions. I would urge you to consult with us before you do that, because not only this committee,

but the authorization committees, have reduced FFRDC’s and particularly for this year.

Can you tell us what is projected for expenditures for each defense FFRDC for this year? Would you give us that for the record?

Dr. HAMRE. I surely will. I do not have it today.

[The information follows:]

Fiscal year 1998 projected expenditures for all DOD-sponsored Federally Funded

Research and Development Centers (FFRDC’s) Staff Years of Technical Effort (STE)

is estimated at $1,188,400,000. The following table provides projected funding for

each FFRDC.

FFRDC Millions

Studies and Analyses (S&A):

RAND NDRI ............................................................................................. $23.0

RAND Arroyo Center ............................................................................... 20.5

RAND Project Air Force ........................................................................... 23.3

CNA ........................................................................................................... 47.2

LMI ............................................................................................................ 28.0

IDA-S&A ................................................................................................... 61.4

IDA-OT&E ................................................................................................ 14.6

S&A subtotal ......................................................................................... 218.0

Systems Engineering:

MITRE ....................................................................................................... 346.2

Aerospace .................................................................................................. 304.7

Systems Eng subtotal ........................................................................... 650.9

Laboratory:

MIT-Lincoln Lab ....................................................................................... 260.9

IDA-C&C (NSA) ........................................................................................ 32.8

SEI ............................................................................................................. 25.8

Laboratory subtotal .............................................................................. 319.5

Total for DOD FFRDC’s ....................................................................... 1 1,188.4

1Does not include the potential for up to an additional $30,000,000 in new work resulting

from funds added by the Congress for new programs and increases in ongoing programs over

that requested in the President’s budget. Specifics regarding new work was reported to the four

Defense Committees by the USD(A&T) on March 7, 1998.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD] MISSILES

Senator STEVENS. We are talking about fiscal year 1998 now.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir, I understand.

Senator STEVENS. Last, I agree with the Senator from New Mexico and others about the importance of the missile defense programs, but we are informed that the THAAD has missed four intercept attempts and the fifth one has now been delayed, not once, not

twice, but three times delayed. In this request that is before us is

$180 million to purchase 40 of those missiles, and it is based upon

a single intercept being successfully completed.

With that track record so far—and incidentally, we have a similar situation with the Patriot. Their design has been changed substantially since it did have an intercept, I guess two intercepts, and

now there is going to be no further attempt to test it before we purchase 48 missiles at $97 million.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
35

We want the missile defense programs to go ahead, but is the

Department really going to spend that amount of money on procurement before there is real assurance that the design and production model is capable and the right ones in each instance to deploy?

Dr. HAMRE. Sir, I do not believe that we have changed our policy

goal of seeing a series of successful tests on THAAD before we obligate the money. I think we have been pretty aggressive in budgeting for procurement, but I think there is high risk in this area.

Senator STEVENS. I do not want you to misunderstand me. There

is no committee of the Congress that is more interested in these

missiles.

Dr. HAMRE. I understand very well.

Senator STEVENS. And as a matter of fact, I do not think Patriot

would have become an antimissile missile if it had not been for this

particular subcommittee. But we want the upgrades to be upgrades

that have been successfully demonstrated before we put our money

on the line.

Dr. HAMRE. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I hope that the Department will agree with

that.

Dr. HAMRE. Absolutely. And I think we do have that as part of

the—that we are not going to obligate it until, I forget what the

series of successful tests. But I will find that out and report it to

you.

[The information follows:]

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD]

In accordance with the Milestone I Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), two

criteria must be satisfied prior to exercising the contract option for 40 User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) missiles: Hardware in the loop demonstration of

guidance and control systems, and one body-to-body intercept using the THAAD

radar.

Of these two criteria, a successful body-to-body intercept has not yet been

achieved. It is still the Department of Defense (DOD) plan to exercise the missile

option following a successful intercept. However, because each intercept test failure

to date has had a different root cause and because of differences between the current test configuration and the UOES missile, there is concern within DOD regarding the risk of buying 40 UOES missiles on the basis of only one intercept. As a

result of these concerns, DOD, BMDO, and the Army have agreed to revise the plan

for exercising the option. Formal contract initiation is planned following the first

successful intercept, but a phased implementation strategy that includes two interim progress reviews (IPR’s) and a subassembly review will be pursued. The first

IPR will follow the completion of flight test number 8 (FT–08), ground tests on the

block upgrade (BUG) configuration, and a 60-day planning session. This IPR would

give authority for partial contract execution to buy long lead items. A second IPR

will be conducted prior to the full contract execution of hardware purchases. Finally,

a Government subassembly review will be conducted following FT–10, if necessary,

to review plans to complete assembly of the missiles. This phased approach limits

government financial and technical risk by allowing additional ground testing and

flight testing prior to purchase of all hardware components.

Senator STEVENS. I am told that the intercepts of the prior design for pack 3 are being used for now the purchase of a subsequent design that has not been tested.

Dr. HAMRE. Forgive me for not being current on that, sir. I will

find that out.

Senator STEVENS. If you can let us know, we would appreciate

it.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
36

Dr. HAMRE. I will.

Senator STEVENS. But do not take it as any indication of an intent to delay that.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We do thank you and look forward to working with you. I think

it goes without saying that we are grateful to you for what you do

to help us do our task.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

FFRDC REDUCTIONS

Question. Secretary Hamre, can you provide the Committee with an update on the

current reprogramming regulations highlighting the procedures which would allow

the Defense Department to make multiple reprogramming to accumulate tens of

millions of dollars to restore FFRDC reductions?

Answer. The Department has no intention of reprogramming tens of millions of

dollars into FFRDC’s. There are no recent changes to the reprogramming regulations. Current reprogramming regulations limit the amount of funding that can be

added to any line item and the Department will continue to comply with the existent regulations. The Department has implemented the fiscal year 1998 Congressional reductions pursuant to sections 8035 (FFRDC reduction) and 8041 (Contract

Advisory and Assistance Services). The impact of these reductions represents a

‘‘double cut’’ to the FFRDC community. Although the fiscal year 1998 reduction lowered funded technical staff years below the 6,206 level, the Department will attempt

to execute the fiscal year 1998 FFRDC program at the fiscal year 1997 funded level.

The Department will execute the fiscal year 1998 program within all the constraints

outlined in Section 8035.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

DEMINING

Question. Mr. Hamre, recently the Defense Reform Initiative moved program

management of the Humanitarian Demining Program from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict to the Defense Security Assistance Agency. Some reports on this change leave the impression

that the program will no longer support research and development on mine detection technologies.

(a) Will this program continue to explore new technologies for mine detection?

(b) I understand that acoustic detection was among the research areas being explored under the program’s prior management. Will that research continue?

Answer. (a) The Defense Reform Initiative had no impact on the OASD(SO/LIC)-

directed demining technology research and development effort. In fact, the program

has recently refocused its efforts on new mine detection technologies to more effectively support the needs and requirements of indigenous deminers. More specifically, aggressive projects are planned to focus on individual deminer protection and

enhanced handheld mine detection equipment.

(b) The SAC previously directed that acoustic techniques for mine detection be included in the candidates evaluated for humanitarian demining applicability. Acoustic detection remains a promising research area that will continue to be pursued.

COUNTERDRUG TRAINING

Question. Mr. Hamre, the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy was established in Meridian, Mississippi in 1992 as part of the congressionally mandated Gulf

States Counterdrug Initiative.

Are you aware that since its inception, the Academy has trained and graduated

over 9,000 police officers and personnel from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia and the Armed Forces in counterdrug operations?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
37

The Academy’s success has led to a decision that will soon add the anti-terrorism

training mission to its curriculum. Will the Department support providing the additional funding that may be needed for this expanded mission?

What are your plans for this program over the next few years?

Answer. Academy has trained and graduated since its inception in 1992, but it

has been quite active. In just fiscal year 1997 it ran 63 iterations of 31 counterdrugrelated classes, training over 2000 people.

The Department has no authority to provide any funding for this expanded antiterrorism training mission. While the Academy’s decision to add an anti-terrorism

training mission to its curriculum demonstrates initiative, it was not requested by

or coordinated with DOD. As you state in your introduction to these questions, the

Regional Counterdrug Training Academy was established as part of the congressionally mandated Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative. It is authorized annually as one

of DOD’s counterdrug activities. Finally, funds are appropriated for it annually as

part of DOD’s counterdrug appropriation. DOD’s authority to provide funding for

the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy is limited to counterdrug training.

DOD budgeted $2.2 million for the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy for

fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. Its budget increases slightly to $2.3 million

for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. Finally it increases once more in fiscal year

2003 to $2.4 million.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

LOCATION OF NEW AGENCY

Question. Is one of the goals of the new Defense Threat Reduction and Treaty

Compliance Agency to find a single location for the entire agency?

Answer. It is our intention to make every effort to find a single location for the

new agency. Or alternatively, to establish the organization in facilities that are in

close proximity to each other. Our goal is to create synergy among the technical expertise in the field of weapons of mass destruction as well as to anticipate creative

functions for the future. This can be accomplished by locating the personnel in a

convenient geographical area that is also cost-effective and meets a high standard

of excellence for the personnel assigned to the agency.

FUNCTION OF DSWA’S FIELD COMMAND

Question. If so, what are your plans regarding the important WMD-related missions performed by DSWA’s Field Command at Kirkland Air Force Base?

Answer. Current plans call for the integration of Field Command DSWA and the

mission it performs within the new agency. However, groups have been appointed

to review some aspects of the new agency’s activities including several performed

by Field Command.

DEFENSE REFORM INITIATIVE

Question. Is the DOD going to use the Defense Reform Initiative as a way to

change in any way the separate but complimentary nuclear mission of the DOD and

DOE?

Answer. No, we do not intend to change the nuclear missions of the two Departments in any fundamental way. The reorganizations envisioned by the Defense Reform Initiative will enable DOD to complete its nuclear mission more effectively because agencies with complimentary missions are being merged. The fundamental

mission of DOD with respect to nuclear missions, however, will not change.

Question. If so, why?

Answer. Not applicable. See response to previous question.

REDUNDANCY OF NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY

Question. Does the DOD perceive any redundancy between the two departments

in the nuclear area.

Answer. The Defense Department does not believe that there are any

redundancies between the DOD and DOE regarding nuclear responsibilities. There

is close coordination between the two Departments, particularly on nuclear stockpile

support and operation of simulators for the leveraging of capabilities and avoidance

of redundancies. Any transfer of work between the departments would necessitate

a comparable increase to the workforce of the receiving department or result in the

elimination of other work in order to accommodate the new mission.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
38

MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE

Question. The management of DOD’s nuclear weapons stockpile involves accountability for weapons and components, logistical support, and inspections. This mission is the responsibility of DSWA. I have heard that the Department is considering

splitting and transferring these efforts to other organizations rather than transferring as an entity to the new WMD agency. Why would the Department want to lose

the synergy that currently exists among these efforts and the additional WMD missions to be performed by the new agency?

Answer. Current plans call for the integration of Field Command DSWA and the

missions it performs within the new agency. We are not at this time adding or deleting from these missions for the new agency. However, groups have been appointed

to review some aspects of the new agency’s activities.

NUCLEAR SURETY INSPECTIONS

Question. In the case of inspections, why would the Department want to use the

nuclear Commander in Chief (CINC)—Strategic Command—to inspect other CINC’s

on nuclear surety? Wouldn’t an independent inspection process be more prudent?

Answer. Nuclear surety inspections are currently performed by the Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA) and present plans call for the transfer of this function

to the new agency. Whether the inspections could be more effectively performed by

another DOD organization, including a CINC, is the subject of ongoing review

chaired by the Joint Staff.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG

NATIONAL GUARD ROLE IN CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

Question. Dr. Hamre, you indicated that the fiscal year 1999 budget request provides approximately $49 million for National Guard units to bring in NBC equipment to augment early responders in a crisis. Please provide additional explanatory

information on the subject, to include, but not limited to: detailed funding breakout

for fiscal year 1999 and the outyears.

Answer. $49.2 million for fiscal year 1999 implementation has been requested for

fiscal year 1999 in the President’s Budget with the following recommendations:

$19.9 million to stand up, train, and equip National Guard Rapid Assessment and

Initial Detection elements; $15.9 million for patient decontamination and WMD reconnaissance element training and equipment in the Army and Air National Guard,

and the Army and Air Force Reserve; $6.9 million to establish and staff a Consequence Management Program Integration Office; $3.3 million to train and prepare

medical personnel to provide medical care to nuclear, chemical, and biological casualties; $1.8 million for additional Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer training

and equipment; and $1.4 million to upgrade simulation systems and conduct civilmilitary response exercises.

All states and territories will benefit from this substantial DOD effort. The benefits from the expenditure of these funds, for the purposes identified above, will develop through fiscal year 1999 and into the future. Outyear funding requirements

are currently under development.

Question. Types of units and the tasks and missions that the units will perform.

Answer. During the development of the plan approved by the Deputy Secretary

of Defense, Services were asked to identify units that might perform the response

tasks identified in the interagency WMD response plan and to indicate if those units

were adequately organized, trained, and equipped to perform these specific tasks.

This survey dramatically displayed existing gaps in procedures, training, and equipment necessary for appropriate response.

The Response Task Force Commanders, Defense Coordinating Officers, and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers from all services are identified and trained to

work in the interagency environment. The task force commanders, however, have

only a limited number of specifically focused response assets to call on—and their

capacity for large events may not be sufficient. This program will dramatically increase those elements that are prepared to respond quickly. The consequence management program integration office, being established now, will develop the organization of each element as well as the training and equipment necessary for that element. These elements will range in size from 5 or 6 people to 50 or 60. During the

first year of the program, we will establish three types of elements: Assessment, Decontamination, and Reconnaissance, and begin training some of the medical personnel.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
39

The rapid assessment elements will form the tip of the federal military spear for

response to WMD attacks. They are designed to rapidly deploy to an incident site

to assist local, state, and other federal agencies in assessing the situation and initiating requests for additional state or federal response assets needed. Twenty-two

full-time National Guard soldiers and airmen, commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel,

will undergo intense technical training. Specific courses for each position have been

identified. These elements will also be equipped with state of the art detection and

analysis equipment, as well as computer models for various types of attacks. As a

National Guard element, they may be employed by the Governor or be federalized

and deployed to respond with other federal assets. The location of the RAID elements to be fielded in fiscal year 1999 in each Federal Emergency Management

Agency Region will be determined by a modeling process that analyzes specific stationing criteria. Some influencing factors are demographics of a quick response area,

geographic orientation, National Guard airlift response availability, existing response assets, and interstate compacts.

These elements are created out of existing force structure. We are able to leverage

the National Guard and Reserve Component capabilities by focusing existing units

on the consequence management mission tasks, providing specific training, and delivering supplemental equipment to enhance their current capabilities. This capitalizes on the current structure and leverages their current training. Using National

Guard and reserve elements already stationed throughout the United States also

improves the response time to incident sites. The National Guard elements may be

employed as state assets or as federal assets under the Response Task Force.

We believe this program will develop capabilities required by our nation to meet

the overwhelming challenges from the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These

are the same capabilities we require in the DOD to respond to the use of WMD

against our forces anywhere in the world.

Question. Time lines for activation of the units.

Answer. Ten rapid assessment elements will be fielded in fiscal year 1999 (the

plan is to field one in the 1st Quarter, and 3 in each subsequent quarter).

The force structure for the Reconnaissance and Decontamination Elements is already in existence. Army Reserve and National Guard Chemical Units and Air

Force Reserve/Air National Guard Medical Patient Decontamination teams will be

receiving additional training and equipment in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000

to perform this mission.

Question. Training that the units will receive.

Answer. While many military units possess basic skills and capabilities that can

be applied to WMD response requirements, few have been specifically focused on the

precise tasks or equipped with the appropriate assets to immediately respond to

such an event.

For many of the WMD response tasks, focusing units on the missions they may

be asked to perform and developing their awareness of the Incident Command System (ICS) is all that may be necessary. For others, specific tasks will require training. In a WMD scenario, selected members will be tasked to deploy to the Hot Zone

and operate for extended periods of time, quite different from our wartime practices.

Even more demanding, the tasks requiring total decontamination must be anticipated. These are very different practices when compared to our military doctrine

today. Here again, the value of training to the same standards, using common terminology and exercising with first responders, we have the opportunity to prepare

for this most demanding mission.

Question. Explanation of how the National Guard units will be integrated with

Active component units.

Answer. This is a major step forward for the Guard and Reserve into the Total

Force concept. In Secretary Cohen’s September 4, 1997 Memo on the integration of

the active and reserve components, we received our marching orders. He called on

the military services to provide the National Command Authorities with a total

force that provides the flexibility and interoperability necessary for the full range

of military operations. He went on to challenge us to identify and tear down any

remaining barriers to effective integration. The use of the Guard and Reserve during an actual WMD event will clearly demonstrate just how effective we have become in implementing the Total Force concept.

With a major emphasis being place on special training to manage chemical and

biological disasters, our Guard and Reserve will be better able to respond to other

disasters that may unexpectedly involve hazardous materials. And if called to active

duty, these Guard and Reserve forces will step right in with their active duty counterparts without significant additional training in these areas.

Question. Explanation of how the National Guard units will coordinate with and

receive information from local, state, and federal authorities.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
40

Answer. I see that this new role will serve to improve the relationship that Guard

and Reserve forces have with their local counterparts. By bringing them together

more often during local, state, and federal exercises, they will have the opportunity

to practice their various roles. So, in the event of an actual disaster, all will know

exactly what to do and how to work together.

As a nation we will also benefit as we will continue to have one of the most capable military forces in the world.

And every citizen in our nation also benefits. With a larger force of well-trained

and well-equipped responders, we will have more experts in more communities

throughout the country. Having the right people with the right training and the

right equipment responding at the right time to the right threat means more lives

saved in any disaster.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

BOSNIA—COSTS, STRATEGY, AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED

Question. Dr. Hamre, I understand the Administration’s plans for a follow-on force

in Bosnia are now being formulated. Can you tell the Committee what the size of

the force will be and your estimates of the costs for the balance of 1998 and for

1999?

Answer. NATO has selected a mission option for the follow-on force for SFOR. The

U.S. has announced that its contribution to that follow-on force will represent a reduction in the current U.S. contingent from 8,500 to 6,900. It is too soon to say what

the savings will be; however, the costs associated with logistics tail will remain relatively fixed. As you know, the President has requested $486.9 million in supplemental appropriations to support U.S. operations in Bosnia for fiscal year 1998, post

June 30, 1998, as well as $1.858.6 billion for fiscal year 1999.

Question. When will the President certify these plans to the Congress?

Answer. Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts

for Fiscal Year 1998, the President submitted a certification and related report to

the Congress on the need for extending the U.S. deployment in Bosnia and on other

matters as part of the request for fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations,

which was dated March 3, 1998.

Question. Is there an agreed upon exist strategy for pulling U.S. forces out of Bosnia?

Answer. The goal of U.S. policy in Bosnia is to create a sustainable peace where

a sizable NATO presence is no longer necessary and diplomatic, institutional, and

economic levers are sufficient to sustain peace in the region. Ten benchmarks have

been established which would likely create the conditions needed for a NATO

ground troop withdrawal:

1. Local police forces need to be restructured, re-integrated, and re-equipped such

that they can.

2. A phased and orderly process for returns of refugees and displaced persons

should be in effectively deal with civil disorder in accordance with western standards.

3. Less political party control of the media, more accessibility for all political parties, and a more formidable ‘‘independent’’ media.

4. The military balance will require confidence and security building measures,

arms control, and greater inter-entity military cooperation.

5. Functioning Joint-Institutions that decrease official corruption through the creation of legitimate revenue/disbursement mechanisms.

6. Democratization. The September 1998 elections must be conducted in a free

and fair manner. The need for OSCE supervision/arbitration should reduce. Local,

entity, and national governments should function transparently.

7. Economic reconstruction. The interim currency should be in circulation, public

corporations formed, transparent budgets in place, and an IMF program in place.

8. A multi-Party solution to the administration of Brcko should be in place.

9. A improve party cooperation on the war crimes issue.

10. International organizations should be able to function without a large NATO

presence.

Question. What is DOD’s policy for the troops currently assigned to Bosnia—will

they be replaced or asked to stay on for the duration?

Answer. Some troops will be replaced. Generally, DOD is using Army-wide

sourcing and continued participation by the Reserve Components to lessen the impact on EUCOM of OPTEMPO and PERSTEMP requirements. For some combat/

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
41

combat-service support units such as Military Police, logistics, maintenance, etc.,

duty in Bosnia is enhancing their skills and readiness.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Question. Recently, the Air Force Chief of Staff brought his concerns on pilot retention to my attention. I am told the other services are also concerned with their

ability to meet their recruiting and retention goals. What does your 1999 budget request do to ensure that the services can meet their personnel requirements?

Answer. Last year the Department requested and Congress approved legislation

to increase the maximum amounts for Aviator Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and the

Aviator Continuation Bonus (ACP). The Services budgeted funds to cover the increases. In general, across the Services both retention and bonus take rates are declining, pilot separations are increasing, and airline hiring—which may have peaked

at 3,854 new hires in 1997—is projected to stay above 3,000 over the next several

years. Applying current retention models with the expanded authorities provided in

the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act, the Services project they

will retain adequate numbers of aviators to meet mission requirements through fiscal year 1999. The Services are also working hard to reduce the strain of high operational tempo on the quality of life of our pilots and their families. While pilot retention is of concern, the Services are not now indicating a short-term readiness impact. We are concerned, however, about longer-term issues and are studying options

to address this problem on a priority basis. We expect to provide a report to Congress on the progress of this effort by March 31.

Question. Are you confident the request provides adequate resources for recruiting

and advertising?

Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for recruiting and advertising provides what we felt to be an adequate level of investment for the planned accession

missions. That said, a strong economy, coupled with record-low unemployment, continues to force the Department to apply additional resources to sustain success in

military recruiting programs. After facing resource shortfalls in recruiting and advertising, the Army reprogrammed funds in fiscal years 1997–98 for advertising, enlistment bonuses, and education benefits. Today, the Army has adequately budgeted

recruiting for fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 1998, the Navy cut recruiters and other

resources; as a result, the Navy probably will miss its accession objectives. However,

the Navy has taken steps to correct that problem for fiscal year 1999, resulting in

an investment-per-recruit ratio similar to the level employed during the successful

recruiting years of 1996–97. The Navy’s action will fund an expansion in the number of recruiters and will boost investments in enlistment incentives and advertising. The Air Force and Marine Corps recruiting and advertising budgets appear to

be satisfactory for fiscal year 1999.

Question. Can you assure this Committee that sufficient funding has been set

aside for bonuses and other incentives to retain key military personnel?

Answer. Our assessment is that the Services have allocated sufficient funding to

retain individuals who have highly marketable civilian skills. This has always been

a challenge for us, even during the drawdown. In order to be competitive, we use

the special and incentive pays authorized by Congress such as selective reenlistment

bonus; aviation continuation pay; medical specialty pays for doctors, nurses and dentists; and nuclear officer bonuses. We appreciate the strong and continuing support

of Congress for these special pays. The fiscal year 1999 budget request is adequate

to meet current needs, but we see indications of potential problems in the next few

years and may be putting forth requests for some increases in existing pays and

possible additions of new pay authorities in the near future.

MEDICAL CARE FOR RETIREES AND FEHBP COVERAGE

Question. Dr. Hamre there is a great outcry among our military retirees that their

health needs have been forgotten by the Defense Department. One proposal which

may come up this year to redress this is to place our retirees under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Can you present the arguments in favor of and

in opposition to this plan and why DOD might not be supportive of the idea?

Answer. Undoubtedly, this nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and

women who served, especially those who risked their lives and fought the nation’s

wars. The Department feels a sincere and abiding responsibility for the health care

of all our beneficiaries, including those who are retired. While the Department deeply appreciates the health care needs of our military retirees, legislative proposals

mandating access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) for

military retirees who are Medicare eligible raise significant cost concerns. The CBO

has estimated that the total government cost of offering FEHBP to this population

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
42

is approximately $1.5 billion annually. Moreover, allowing major segments of our

beneficiaries to enroll in FEHBP poses serious readiness implications for the Military Health System, since retention of our retiree population within the direct care

system is critical to training and readiness. While the DOD places a high priority

on the importance of providing access to affordable health care to our retirees, their

spouses, and survivors, absorbing the cost of FEHBP on an annual basis is prohibitively expensive. The Department strongly endorses the use of Medicare dollars

through Medicare subvention to expand capacity and services to our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. The Department is aggressively pursuing the Medicare subvention

demonstration program authorized by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 as an important first step in bringing Medicare subvention nationwide.

Question. How would such a proposal impact on the military treatment facilities?

Answer. Proposals to offer FEHBP enrollment to Medicare eligible military retirees would have a dramatic impact on military treatment facilities and the entire

Military Health System. As stated above, absorbing the cost of FEHBP on an annual basis would dramatically reduce the ability of the Military Health System to

meet its readiness mission and would have detrimental effects on the training and

skill maintenance of physicians and other medical personnel. Moreover, requiring

the Military Health System to absorb the cost of FEHBP premiums for some or all

retirees would actually reduce the capacity of the MHS to provide services to retirees on a space available basis. This reduction in the current level of effort would,

in turn, jeopardize the flow of Medicare dollars into the MHS, which is critical to

the success of the Medicare subvention program.

B–2 BOMBER

Question. Mr. Secretary, last year the Congress provided $331 million to start the

procurement of additional B–2 bombers. The President has not indicated that he intends to use these funds for other purposes. Have you decided to buy more B–2

bombers, and if so, how many?

Answer. The President will indicate his intentions with respect to procuring additional B–2 bombers in fiscal year 1998 after he receives the recommendations of the

Congressionally-mandated Long Range Airpower Panel. The Department of Defense

position remains unchanged; there is no need to procure additional B–2’s beyond the

current fleet of 21 aircraft.

Question. If the President determines that no more B–2’s will be purchased what

plans have you made for spending the $331 million appropriated?

Answer. The Air Force will use the $174 million requested in the fiscal year 1998/

1999 President’s Budget to support the B–2 bomber baseline program identified to

Congress in justification material provided in February 1997. The remaining $157

million will be applied to continuing the B–2 Multi-Stage Improvement Program.

The following requirements are currently unfunded:

Millions

Low Observable (LO) Maintainability Improvements ........................................ $50

Deployable Shelters ............................................................................................... 22

Beyond-Line-of-Sight (BLOS) SATCOM .............................................................. 58

Radio/Mission Management 8×10 Center Instrument Display .......................... 36

WCMD Integration ................................................................................................ 39

Auto-throttles/Digital Engine Control .................................................................. 11

Total ............................................................................................................. 216

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

FUNDING FOR JROTC

Question. Mr. Secretary, I am receiving reports from students, educators, and parents from all across South Carolina telling me that funding for Junior ROTC has

been cut and that this cut is adversely affecting this important youth program. Why

is this so? Will this year’s budget adequately fund JROTC?

Answer. No Service has expanded the number of JROTC units; however, because

of the need to trim back overall, the Navy has reduced funding for existing units.

It did so only after it had reduced its JROTC headquarters staff by about one-half.

The funding adjustments by the Navy represent a 30-percent reduction in its

JROTC budget for fiscal year 1998, relative to 1997. This includes cuts in funding

for student travel, which in turn may limit field trips. A separate concern from

South Carolina, expressed during a meeting of state legislators and educators sponU:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
43

sored by the Senate Armed Services Committee staff on March 6, centered on the

State’s preference to establish new JROTC units. During that meeting, we reported

that the Services are not currently in a position to expand their JROTC presence

in South Carolina because of budgetary constraints. We also noted that the JROTC

program is significantly over-represented in South Carolina relative to the national

average. About one-half of South Carolina high schools now have JROTC units compared to approximately 10 percent nationwide, with many of the latter group now

on a waiting list.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

DEPLOYMENT

Question. Last spring the GAO completed a report, which was entitled, ‘‘Medical

Surveillance Improved Since Gulf War, But Mixed Results in Bosnia.’’ In short, the

GAO reported that DOD had initiated changes to improve medical surveillance for

deployments, but that medical assessments and record keeping were still incomplete. What, if anything, Dr. Hamre, is DOD doing differently in the current deployment to avoid repeating the mistakes made seven years ago?

Answer. The Department has learned many lessons from the Gulf War experience. After the Gulf War, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and

the Joint Staff undertook a complete review of doctrine, policy, oversight, and operational practices for medical surveillance and force health protection. A number of

changes were incorporated for subsequent deployments to Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti,

and Bosnia. In August 1997, the Department issued DOD Directive 6490.2 ‘‘Joint

Medical Surveillance’’ and DOD Instruction 6490.3 ‘‘Implementation and Application

of Joint Medical Surveillance for Deployments.’’ The directives establish the Department’s policy and requirements that will improve health assessments, surveillance,

and record keeping during deployments. The directives require: pre-deployment and

post-deployment health screenings, including mental health assessments, blood sample collections; health threat briefings; and the collecting, analyzing, and documenting of an expanded range of health surveillance data during deployments.

The Joint Staff and the Services are implementing these requirements. Currently,

joint publications are being rewritten to include changes in doctrine regarding force

medical protection. Additionally, the warfighting Commanders in Chief have revised

theater operations plans to include the force medical protection requirements.

For current operations in Southwest Asia, USCINCCENT recognized the importance of improved medical surveillance, immunization tracking, and record keeping.

USCINCCENT requested and received augmentation by a Joint Medical Surveillance Team (JMST) in March 1998. The JMST will coordinate, monitor, and evaluate force medical protection measures during current operations. The 8-person team

includes one 2-person element augmenting the CENTCOM Surgeon’s staff in Florida, while three 2-person elements deployed to augment the medical staff of the

Army, Air Force, and Navy components in theater.

For the future, the Services and the Director, Medical Information Management,

Technology and Reengineering, TRICARE Management Activity are establishing the

information system requirements to support medical record keeping during deployments and throughout the Military Health System. The computerized patient record

(CPR), Theater Medical Information Program (TMIP), and the personal information

carrier (PIC) are major information system initiatives designed to create an effective

medical tracking system and health record before, during, and after deployments.

For the current operations in Southwest Asia, actions related to specific lessons

learned include:

Learned.—Perform and document pre-deployment health assessment.

Action.—USCINCCENT requires health assessment before deployment. In theater

health assessment standardized and entered in central database.

Learned.—Improve medical record keeping in theater.

Action.—Immunizations documented by: USAF using Military Immunization

Tracking System; USA using MedPROS; and USN using SNAP Automated Medical

System afloat.

Health care encounters in theater documented by: USAF and USA using ‘‘Medical

Surveillance—Theater’’ system; and USN using ‘‘SNAP Automated Medical System’’

afloat.

Requirements being developed for documentation of use/issue of preventive countermeasures.

Learned.—Improve medical surveillance in theater.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
44

Action.—USCINCCENT requires weekly reporting of disease and non-battle injury (DNBI) data to the CINC Surgeon.

Joint Medical Surveillance Teams deployed at USCINCCENT request to oversee

surveillance and monitor immunization tracking and record keeping.

USAF and USA using ‘‘Medical Surveillance—Theater’’ system.

USN using ‘‘SNAP Automated Medical System’’ afloat.

Learned.—Improve exposure assessments and record keeping in theater.

Action.—Laboratories deployed (biological and environmental capabilities).

Documentation of pesticide usage required during deployment.

Database of environmental sampling results retained.

Learned.—Perform and document health assessment at redeployment.

Action.—In theater health assessment standardized and entered in central database.

Learned.—Need licensed products for BW/CW countermeasures.

Action.—Ongoing efforts among OASD(HA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

and Army Medical Research and Materiel Command regarding pyridostigmine bromide (PB), botulinum toxoid, and future products.

Learned.—Improve health risk communication efforts.

Action.—Predeployment health threat briefings (‘‘what are the threats’’).

Health threat briefings (‘‘what actually was experienced’’) required on redeployment.

Information packets on health issues (especially for BW/CW countermeasures) for

military member, unit leadership, and medical personnel.

Plan to distribute results of post-deployment health assessments.

Learned.—Assess health of force post-deployment.

Action.—U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine has

mission for central analysis of deployment and postdeployment health experience.

Learned.—Improve VA/DOD coordination during and after deployment.

Action.—Active VA/DOD Executive Council.

Military and Veterans Health Coordinating Board evolving out of Persian Gulf

Veterans Coordinating Board.

Question. Last year this subcommittee added funding to develop advance medical

information management technologies. Health Affairs has begun an effort out of

those funds which would put critical medical data about each deploying service

member on a ruggedized magnetic dogtag, called a Personal Information Carrier

(PIC). The dogtag would capture massive amounts of data about each person’s particular health situation before, during, and after a deployment. This prototype carries the digital equivalent of 15,000 pages worth of text, and costs about $20. Unfortunately, while the Administration is planning a 33,000-person demonstration of

these carriers in the future, there is no funding in the Administration’s request to

begin this project. As our forces once again head back to the Gulf, I can’t help but

think we can do a better job of monitoring the health risks that our service members encounter when they are deployed. What will DOD be doing to get technologies

like the PIC out of the laboratory and into the field?

Answer. Current joint-service efforts directly support President Clinton’s November 8, 1997 statement and the Fiscal Year 1998 DOD Authorization Act requirements (Section 765: Medical Tracking System). These directives establish the Department’s policies, and the Composite Health Care System II (CHCS II) objectives

regarding joint medical surveillance during deployments, which support Force

Health Protection initiatives. They require pre-deployment and post-deployment

health screenings, including mental health assessments, blood sample collections,

health threat briefings, and the collecting, analyzing, and documenting of an expanded range of health surveillance data during deployments. This data will be captured in a database built on technology used for assessing Persian Gulf Illness. Furthermore, the Computerized Patient Record (CPR), Theater Medical Information

Program (TMIP), and the Personal Information Carrier (PIC) are major information

system initiatives designed to create an effective medical tracking system and

health record prior to, during, and after deployments.

In order to meet the critical, immediate need for the database and this device,

DOD is following an acquisition strategy of ‘‘buying a little, testing a little and deploying a lot’’. DOD is employing full and open competition to obtain the technical

solution—a PIC device that will interface with existing databases. Interested vendors will provide hardware prototypes by May 5, 1998. After conducting hardware

destructive tests, a proof of concept test will be performed this summer to ensure

that medical data can be captured in the database, and written to and read from

the PIC devices.

A review of DHP funding priorities is currently occurring to determine how to

best pay for the $32 million needed for PIC. Software development will continue,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
45

and a formal Request for Purchase (RFP) will be issued October 1, 1998 for a proposed Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantity of 33,000 PIC hardware devices.

These devices are scheduled to be operationally tested in Southwest Asia starting

in March 1999.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS

Question. My understanding is that the Administration’s budget has allocated to the Department of Defense another $21.2 billion over the next 5 years in additional

spending power, as a result of lower inflation estimates. (These savings amounted

to approximately $2.8 billion for fiscal year 1999.)

Could you please describe how the Administration’s process for distributing these

inflation savings works? Has the Department always been allocated these savings?

In the past, have some of the savings been retained by OMB to provide budgetary

flexibility elsewhere in the budget? Do you know what OMB’s thinking was in allocating all of these savings to DOD?

Answer. The Administration (OMB) issues economic assumptions in late November or early December each year to all federal departments and agencies for purposes of preparing the annual budget for submission to Congress by the first Monday in February. The economic assumptions include separate projections for military

and civilian pay raises, fuel prices, medical costs, and for all other non-pay purchases.

The revised economic assumptions can result in either a savings or an increase

to the Department’s plan. For the last several years, the historically low inflation

rates have resulted in savings. President Clinton has allowed DOD to retain these

savings. In some prior years to this Administration, the OMB took some of the savings for deficit reduction since a reduction for inflation does not take reduce real

program.

OMB allowed DOD to keep all the inflation savings in the fiscal year 1999 budget

because the Balanced Budget Agreement was in terms of nominal dollars—not constant dollars—and DOD had a number of fact-of-life unpaid bills such as civilian

pay.

BASE CLOSURES

Question. Secretary Cohen’s Defense Reform Initiative includes the recommendation that Congress authorize two more rounds of base closure, in 2001 and 2005.

Comptroller Lynn’s chart on the base closure issue asserts that 2 new BRAC rounds

‘‘will produce $3∂ billion in annual savings.’’ However, the chart fails to predict

when those savings will materialize.

Looking at the most recent BRAC round, according to DOD estimates, the 1995

round will not begin to produce annual savings until 2002 or later—seven years

after the base closure commission made its decisions.

Is it fair for us to project this record forward? Can we conclude that a BRAC

round in 2001 will not produce net savings until 2008, and that a BRAC round in

2005 will not yield net savings until 2013 or later?

Answer. No. A BRAC round in 2001 will produce annual net savings in 2005. A

BRAC round in 2005 will produce annual net savings in 2009. Together, these two

rounds will yield annual net savings in 2008 that build to more than $3 billion per

year after 2011 and to a total of $21 billion by 2015. Annual savings tend to exceed

annual costs in the fourth year of implementation. For example, annual savings exceeded annual costs associated with BRAC 88 in 1994 (5th year), BRAC 91 in 1995

(4th year), BRAC 93 in 1997 (4th year) and BRAC 95 in 2001 (6th year).

TRACKING INFRASTRUCTURE SAVINGS

Question. Is there adequate accounting throughout the services and the agencies,

to track savings attributable to outsourcing and privatization? If so, what are those

accounting procedures and systems? Are they compatible and consistent across

agencies and services? Is there guidance, and are there standard criteria and methodologies, for counting costs and savings? Are you confident that Deputy Under Secretary Goodman is adequately tracking these savings?

Answer. All organizations, not just DOD, must estimate the savings produced by

management reforms, consolidations, and reorganizations. Accounting systems keep

accurate records for costs; however, no parallel systems exist to track savings.

Therefore, savings must be estimated. The fact that organizations must estimate

savings, however, does not mean that the savings are not real. The primary reason

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
46

that business and government reform management practices, consolidate operations,

and improve organizational structures is precisely to generate these savings.

The Components were not issued specific guidance concerning standard criteria

and methodologies for counting costs and savings; however, various estimating techniques confirm the general level of savings associated with outsourcing and privatization efforts. Further, we are developing a questionnaire to be used to consistently

track savings for future rounds and I am confident that John Goodman has a good

handle on these savings.

$60 BILLION PROCUREMENT TARGET

Question. We often hear about the Department’s goal of a $60 billion annual procurement or modernization budget. And I note that the President’s budget proposal

achieves that goal for fiscal year 2001, 2002 and 2003. Could you please explain how

this $60 billion target was arrived at? Was it a threat-based analysis?

Answer. The $60 billion target is a departmental goal. There is universal agreement that the level of procurement funding has fallen as far as it should. There is

an undisputed need to invest in the recapitalization of our forces. Current inventories are aging and new technologies offer enormous potential to improve our combat capabilities across all mission areas. As the level of procurement funding

dropped below $40 billion in the fiscal year 1996 budget, the Department’s leadership felt it was important to focus attention on the need to increase funding for

modernization. The establishment of a departmental funding target serves that purpose. Both the Secretary and I have testified in the past that it is important not

to become fixated with any particular number. The $60 billion is not an end in

itself. What is important is recognition of the need to increase procurement funding

in order to pursue a focused modernization effort that will ensure this country can

maintain the qualitative battlefield superiority we need to have. The Quadrennial

Defense Review (QDR) reaffirmed the desirability of achieving a modernization level

of roughly $60 billion. As you noted, our budget proposal achieves that level in fiscal

year 2001 and stabilizes funding at that level through fiscal year 2003.

CBO REESTIMATE

Question. Press reports this morning suggest that the Congressional Budget Office

will conclude that the fiscal year 1999 budget would result in outlays that are $3

billion to $4 billion higher than permitted by the bipartisan budget agreement. In

short, the Administration underestimated the cost of its defense program by $3 to

$4 billion.

Could you please respond to these reports? What kind of a difference are we dealing with? How do DOD’s budget estimation and projection methods differ from those

of CBO? To what parts of the defense budget can we attribute these billion-dollar

differences in outlay projections?

Answer. The CBO reestimate of the President’s budget request is $3.6 billion

higher than the OMB estimate of the program. In general, CBO and OMB differ

in these estimates because CBO does not adjust their model for anticipated policy

changes, program level changes, or emerging trends in spending patterns. OMB/

DOD projects outlays based on program content changes such as modifications; Congressional changes to the original budget request; and actual program execution experience. Within the defense budget, the major outlay differences are found in the

following accounts: Working Capital Funds; RDT&E, Air Force; Shipbuilding and

Conversion, Navy; Base Realignment and Closure; Operation and Maintenance, Air

Force; National Defense Stockpile; and Aircraft Procurement, Navy.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. This will complete this hearing and we will resume the subcommittee again on March 4, when we take up the

Air Force budget.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Tuesday, February 26, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 4.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02FE26.000
(47)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:41 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Bond, Shelby,

Bumpers, Harkin, and Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENTS OF:

HON. F. WHITTEN PETERS, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE AIR

FORCE

GEN. MICHAEL E. RYAN, CHIEF OF STAFF

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. General Ryan, Secretary Peters, I think I will

start. I will ask Senator Bond also to make a statement. We hope

that the rest will get here who intend to get here, but the vote has

just been on for a few minutes. We have made arrangements so

that we will not be interrupted again this morning.

This is the first appearance that both of you have made before

this committee and we welcome you. There is going to be some

question about your budget. I do think you have done an excellent

job of building on what is available. We feel that we are going to

have to go into some of the negative trends that we have seen as

far as the Air Force is concerned.

I am disturbed that the O&M account is basically flat for fiscal

year 1999 compared to fiscal year 1998, and that is in spite of the

fact that the Air Force must absorb $800 million in price increases

and program transfers within the available budget.

I think that we are all going to have questions about readiness.

But my long-term goal, of course, is the F–22. We have to make

sure that our modernization program stays on course.

The space-based infrared system and the Joint Strike Fighter are

moving to costly phases now, and that is going to produce substantial problems for us unless we can find some way to hold those

costs down.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
48

It looks like the defense budget is going to be flat through 2003.

I am disturbed about that because I think we have had to absorb

some costs that I still believe were emergency costs for Bosnia and

some of the Iraq costs which we will try to address in the supplemental. But, clearly, that projection, now that the balanced budget

is going to occur actually this year rather than in 2002, is going

to put enormous strain on defense spending because I am certain

that that is going to be the goal, to keep it that way through the

period ahead.

Hopefully, we will have a balanced budget from now on.

But I am just increasingly disturbed that this subcommittee has

had to sort of swallow some costs that were not really basically defense costs and they are going to impact our future as far as having

funds available for the modernization program.

I will have some specific questions after you gentlemen make

your statements.

Let me yield now to Senator Bond.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, General Ryan, I join with the chairman in welcoming you before the committee today to address some really

prominent questions concerning the Air Force.

As we all know, today, once more, the Air Force is being asked

to do more with less. Mr. Secretary, I know that I join with the rest

of the members of this committee when I voice my concern over the

ability of the Air Force effectively to meet its mission requirements.

That, basically, is what we are all about. At the same time, we cannot be making deep cuts in the supply stocks and accelerating depreciation of life cycle times of equipment, not to mention stretching personnel to their limits through the increased deployment

schedules.

We have all heard about and are very much concerned about the

abysmal retention rates of pilots. We are sympathetic to your efforts to find an answer. But I submit that just throwing money at

these individuals may not be the sole answer.

As I understand, most join the military service to live the experience of doing something significant for their country, to lead a superlative group of men and women and to provide a fair lifestyle

for their families.

Of course, this includes financial considerations, but it is not the

be-all and end-all. As I understand it, a program to give pilots a

considerable bonus package has met with something less than an

enthusiastic response.

The exodus of the individuals from the Air Force has spanned

the rank structure, and I anticipate that, when these bonuses run

their course, you will, once again, see another exodus only at higher, and arguably more critical, grades.

Over the years, individual tactical training flight time has been

drastically reduced. Operations and maintenance funding has been

creatively shifted around so that contingency operations may be

fully resourced while other phases of readiness training are critically short of funds, and operational flights, in large part, are spent

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
49

flying figure eights in the sky, waiting, just waiting for skills to be

called on—but not honing the edge of these superb pilots.

Rather, operational flying by its nature these days permits that

edge to be dulled from a lack of training. I wonder if you are looking into improving the availability of high quality training opportunities during deployed operations and other measures like that to

improve pilot morale.

I suggest that this kind of thinking might be applied, as well, to

junior and senior enlisted ranks.

That said, we recognize the awesome burden facing our Armed

Forces, both in terms of its increase in mission requirements and

concurrent decrease in the funding available to meet those missions.

For many years, this committee has warned the Department of

Defense about the policy of low-balling funding requirements which

only exacerbates the fiscal problems facing all of the services’ ability to conduct the myriad of operations required of you. I think we

are now caught in another emergency crack where there has been

low-balling and overexpenditure.

As I understand it from Mr. Hamre’s comments last week, you

are already expending funds from the fourth quarter of the fiscal

year 1998 budget to pay for missions being flown today, and we are

only in March, Mr. Secretary.

Over the past 6 years, this Congress has increased the defense

budget by billions of dollars. Some critics have attacked us for

those increases. But the Department and the administration have

routinely come back to us pleading for more, as you see once again

this year through emergency supplementals—primarily because of

the burgeoning contingency operations costs.

Some of those operations have extended way beyond contingency

status and we have contested your financial planning for them. I

don’t think it is adequate. I don’t think you are giving us a fair assessment.

On a more happy note, as we look to meet your fiscal requirements and your operational requirements, we recognize the need to

coordinate and integrate our combat forces now more than ever. As

someone, I can assure you, who is deeply concerned about the integration of our Active and Reserve forces, I congratulate you for the

manner in which the Air Force leadership has dedicated itself and

been able to integrate the Active, Reserve, and Guard components

with the military fighting force.

If they were here, I would call upon the leadership of your sister

services to take note of how you do it successfully. If you have a

chance, you might share with them that it can work and you do

make it work. There are some people who just think there ain’t no

way, but you all have done it.

I do have some concerns regarding the upgrading of National

Guard general purpose squadrons to insure the viability for the future force of the 21st century. I draw attention to this because of

the fact that the St. Louis Air Guard F–15 unit is currently conducting front-line deployed operations overseas. Many of our Nation’s most experienced fighter aviators reside in Guard units. This

same unit in my home State is, in fact, home to a gulf war three

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
50

time Mig killer, and I am sure that the service would benefit from

insuring his continued full integration in the fighter force.

General Ryan, when it comes to my question time, I would like

for you to address how the Air Force intends to insure this and

maybe speed up the integration of the F–15C into Guard units or

upgrade the electronic suite of the F–15A’s to keep them front-line

viable or even convert these units to F–15E squadrons, which we

would like to see.

I also congratulate you both on your dedication to providing the

Air Force with a program to insure the Air Force will continue to

meet its airlift mission requirements well into the future. We will

address this, too, in the questions and answers as well as the questions submitted for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this time and I appreciate the opportunity to hear what the Secretary and the General have to say.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Senator.

I don’t think we will wait any longer. There may be others who

will come later.

We would be pleased to have your statements, gentlemen.

Mr. Secretary, General, please proceed.

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator

Bond.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning before you

to discuss the Air Force’s future plans and priorities and, in particular, our proposed program for fiscal year 1999. I would also like

to thank this committee for its past support for Air Force programs, which has been tremendous.

For fiscal year 1999, the Air Force has three budget priorities:

people; readiness; and modernization. People come first because we

cannot have a ready force today or tomorrow unless we attract,

train, and retain the highest quality men and women to operate

our 21st century technologies.

Readiness and modernization are equally key to our present and

future national security and in our constrained budget environment, we must assume some risk in current readiness in order to

pay for modernization that is key to our future security.

We believe that we have properly balanced our 1999 budget, increasing funding for readiness-related items by some $1 billion

while also providing increased funding for key modernization programs in air superiority, global mobility, and space.

Importantly, over the Future Years Defense Program, we have

achieved 15 percent real growth in our investment accounts.

Our three budget priorities directly support the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review’’ [QDR] strategy, the report of the national defense

panel [NDP], and the chairman’s ‘‘Joint Vision 2010.’’ In fact, the

national defense panel reaffirmed that aerospace power plays a significant role in shaping, responding, and preparing for an uncertain

future.

Let me turn first to people:

As I have said, people are central to our efforts to shape the

international environment and to run our modern Air Force. Over

the past year, our airmen have been engaged around the world and

have flown into virtually every country in the world. Our forces, for

example, have supported peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, huU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
51

manitarian firefighting operations in Indonesia, and noncombatant

evacuation operations in Albania and Sierra Leone.

We also contributed significantly to shaping events by participating in 53 joint and multilateral exercises worldwide. And, of course,

the Air Force has been heavily engaged in Southwest Asia where,

on a typical day, 8,500 men and women have launched about 150

sorties over Iraq. Today that number has risen to about 14,000.

These operations are not without cost. The deployment rates of

our total force have increased dramatically since the end of the cold

war. Altogether, last year some 14,000 total force airmen were deployed on any given day, a fourfold increase over 1989, despite a

35-percent decrease in total end strength since the end of the cold

war.

Two years ago, many of our men and women were deployed well

over our goal of 120 days per year. In 1997, until the recent developments in Southwest Asia, we had substantially reduced deployment rates for many units through global sourcing, creative use of

Reserve and Guard units, and increases in manning in highly

stressed specialties. However, these efforts have placed a heavy

burden on our Reserve forces.

During 1997, our Reserve component deployed during every contingency tasking. In 1997, our Air National Guard and Air Force

Reserve air crews served an average of 100 days in uniform with

their support teams averaging 80 days.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Strengthening the quality of life for all of our airmen must,

therefore, be our highest enduring priority. We owe it to our airmen to ensure that their faithful service is rewarded with pay,

housing, medical, and community support services that meet their

needs.

Over the past year, we have worked hard to decrease the stress

of deployments. We have increased the amount of time our men

and women in home stations can spend with their families after deployment, and we have improved family support during times of

deloyment.

For example, we have reduced the Air Force participation in joint

exercises by about 15 percent and we have tried to combine our

own operational readiness inspections with other operational activities.

We have also tested an ombudsman program at five Air Force

bases to assist families of deployed airmen. In addition, in 1999 we

will continue our efforts to improve dormitories and family housing,

increase child care spaces, and provide teen and family centers.

About one-third of our Milcon budget is devoted to these quality

of life improvements.

We are also working hard on readiness, which is absolutely essential to support the respond portion of the QDR strategy. Today,

91 percent of our units are at readiness ratings of C–1 or C–2, with

our front-line units in PACAF and USAFE significantly higher.

However, some readiness indicators are dropping. Our mission capable rates, for example, have declined 6.8 percent since the gulf

war. Engine readiness has also been a major problem. And as GenU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
52

eral Ryan will discuss in more detail, pilot retention remains an extraordinarily grave concern.

The reasons for these declining readiness indicators are, in fact,

very complex and go beyond money.

With respect to engines, turmoil in our air logistics systems work

force, coupled with a shortfall in spare parts funding in 1997, have

caused lower than average productivity. Elsewhere, about one-third

of our depot work is moving to new locations with attendant disruption.

EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION

Across our fleet, old age has increased the difficulty of keeping

aircraft running and has raised the cost of readiness. To overcome

these challenges we increased our readiness-related funding in

1998 and also in 1999. We also plan in the current program to fund

additional engine modules for the F–15 fleet and to fund new engines for our RC–135’s.

We have also started an engine recovery program and this month

will activate a TF39 engine repair facility at Travis Air Force Base

in an effort to improve the reliability of our C–5 fleet.

Later this year, the F–100 engine core workload will begin transferring to a more stable work force at Oklahoma City. Finally, we

are upgrading our old equipment. For example, in fiscal year 1999,

we plan to invest in the PACER CRAG Program, which upgrades

avionics suites on 191 KC–135’s with state-of-the-art glass cockpit

systems.

We have also programmed over $500 million for C–5 engine and

avionics upgrades.

We are optimistic about the result of these changes, but it will

take time to see the effects.

Ultimately, our readiness improvements will depend on modernization. In this regard, we have increased procurement funding

for our breakthrough capabilities identified in the QDR and the national defense panel, such as the F–22, the airborne laser, SBIRS,

and EELV.

We are also funding programs to defend against the asymmetric

threats identified by the national defense panel report. For example, in 1999, we will invest approximately $225 million in passive

chemical/biological defensive measures and in the area of $150 million in active defensive measures.

In addition, as part of our defense in depth against cyber attack,

we have implemented the automated security incident measurement system at all 108 Air Force bases to detect network intrusions, and we are working on installing firewalls.

To fund this modernization effort, the Air Force has achieved significant cost reductions through ongoing efforts to bring about a

revolution in business affairs. Since 1995, we have cut headquarters manning by 1,700 positions. Through the recent C–5

depot competition, we should save $190 million over the next 7

years.

Recent and planned A–76 competitions will yield savings of over

$1 billion, and acquisition reform has saved $7 billion and avoided

over $11 billion in additional costs.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
53

This year’s Air Force posture statement is itself tangible proof of

how we are saving resources. Last year, we produced 20,000 paper

copies. This year, using electronic publishing, we produced less

than 2,000 paper copies and put a downloadable copy on the web.

There is still, however, much more that needs to be done. We

continue to pay for excess support structure. Prudent BRAC decisions are vital to our ability to bring our infrastructure into line

with our force structure. We need Congress to approve two more

rounds of BRAC in 2001 and 2005.

Simply put, BRAC is tomorrow’s readiness decision that we must

begin making and planning today.

Finally, the administration, I believe, this morning has submitted its emergency nonoffset supplemental for consideration by this

committee and the House to cover the unfunded costs of Bosnia

and other operations in fiscal year 1998 and the total costs of Bosnia for fiscal year 1999.

The Air Force portion of that is just over $400 million in each

year to cover our costs. Once this emergency supplemental is submitted, we urge congressional approval quickly so that we can plan

effectively and avoid disruption to our readiness and modernization

accounts.

Your support is absolutely essential if we are to transform the

world’s premier air and space force of today into an indispensable

aerospace force of the 21st century. As we plan for the future, our

principal focus will be on building a seamless, total aerospace force,

one that is ready to meet the challenges of the QDR whenever and

wherever they are presented.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today

and after General Ryan has had a chance to address the committee, we will be happy to take your questions.

DEPLOYMENT CHALLENGES

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, sir.

General.

General RYAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished

members of the committee. I am pleased to join you today, along

with the Secretary, and I would like to thank you for your continued support of the Air Force.

Today we are globally engaged and, as we speak, there are almost 15,000 Air Force members deployed and in support of contingency operations around the world: 9,000 in Southern Watch in

Southwest Asia and another 1,000 in Northern Watch; 3,000 in

Bosnia; and the rest support about 11 other contingencies ongoing.

This represents a fourfold increase in the deployments since the

end of the cold war with over 35 percent fewer personnel to cover

those commitments.

More than ever, the U.S. Air Force is an expeditionary force. Our

Air Force men and women are meeting every challenge they face

with a consummate commitment that reflects service before self.

Many of our members will spend 1 out of the next 3 years deployed in support of contingencies. It is our job. But our continuing

deployment tempo highlights the force infrastructure mismatch

which has been created over the past 10 years.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
54

I have just returned from Southwest Asia, where I had the opportunity to visit with many of our young men and women serving

there. You would be proud of their professionalism and their unsung sacrifices. For the most part, they live in austere conditions.

The majority are in tent cities which they erect and maintain,

sleeping 8 to 10 to a tent. Privacy is minimal. Trust is essential.

The hardships shared are foundations for enduring relationships.

They are very proud and they do their job monitoring the no-fly

zone in Iraq, ready for any contingency we can throw at them, flying the aircraft, fixing the aircraft, and keeping their morale up.

For their commanders, each morning brings the hope of discovering new ways to make things better for the young men and women

who live there. Each day brings new operational challenges and

successes, and each night brings the realization that the next day

could bring combat.

The 15,000 people who are currently deployed in contingency operations rotate in and out of their original home bases. It has been

that way since the early 1990’s, with Iraq, Bosnia, African and humanitarian operations, and others.

I do not see a major change in the way of doing business that

we have experienced over the last 8 years. In effect, we are operating many additional bases without the resources or people to make

up the difference. So the home station people feel the OPTEMPO

as well as those who are deployed. In effect, we are taking this out

of hide.

Bases do not get additional personnel to make up for those who

are deployed in order to keep the base running. The workload just

increases on those who remain. The bases must still be guarded,

the remaining aircraft maintained, and the families still need medical care and attention, and the remaining personnel must still

train.

We need to restructure our Air Force to deal with this tempo by

consolidating our forces into larger bases, more robust bases, that

have the breadth and depth to support both deployed operations

and operations at home base.

For that reason alone, we need BRAC legislation, not to mention

the savings that accrue for the future.

We also must take action to fend off the adverse effects of tempo

that is evident in our readiness rates and retention. As Mr. Peters

said, our overall readiness is still high, but we are beginning to see

some adverse trends. Mission capable rates of our operational flying units have dropped in the last 8 years, since the gulf war, by

about 7 percent.

EQUIPMENT UPGRADES

I attribute that to the aging nature of our aircraft fleet. In 1999,

the average age of our Air Force aircraft will be 20 years old. Predicting breakage is getting harder and harder. That is why modernization is so important for our future readiness.

Three systems under development are very important for us to

remain the preeminent aerospace force into the 21st century: the

F–22; the Joint Strike Fighter; and the airborne laser [ABL].

These systems are vital to ensuring that our young men and

women always have the advantage of technologically superior

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
55

weapons. We never want a fair fight. The F–22 possesses stealth;

the ability to supercruise; has integrated avionics; and large air-toair weapons payload, which makes it the dominant aircraft for air

superiority into the 21st century. It allows all our forces, and not

just Air Force forces, the freedom to operate where we choose and

when we choose.

The integration of air-to-ground capability in the F–22 could also

make it our high-end attack aircraft as well.

The Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, will provide a less expensive,

multirole partner for the F–22. The F–22 and the Joint Strike

Fighter are intended to be complementary, not substitutable. Together, they represent a synergistic high-low mix because the F–

22’s ability to gain air dominance makes it possible for us to design

the Joint Strike Fighter as a multirole aircraft, which is less capable and, therefore, less costly.

Finally, we are developing the airborne laser to provide protection for our forces against theater ballistic missile threats.

The ABL system provides the Nation with a rapidly deployable

global capability that this Nation needs to be able to defend against

theater ballistic missiles. It will be a key component of our missile

defense architecture necessary to counter that threat.

At the same time, we must continue our migration into space.

The Air Force is proud to be the leading military force in the use

of space and we will continue to be good stewards of space. The key

to protecting and exploiting space will be the seamless integration

of our assets. We plan to migrate those functions to space which

offer better capabilities when accomplished in space.

This transition and tradeoff will be done as technology makes it

both physically and fiscally possible.

RETENTION METHODOLOGY

While modernization is very important to tomorrow’s readiness,

retaining quality people is the key factor in maintaining readiness

now and in the future. While enlisted retention rates are down

slightly, and we must improve in that area, our biggest concern is

pilot retention. It represents the majority of our front-end,

warfighting capability. We simply must retain more of these selfless warriors as well as our combat and support personnel who go

into harm’s way to support our national commitments.

We have worked hard with your help to counter this trend. One

of the indications of future retention shortfalls is our pilot bonus

acceptance rate. Last year, 33 percent of the eligible pilots took the

long-term commitment offered with the bonus and another 10 percent took shorter options. While this is below our target of 50 percent, we are hopeful that this legislation will assist us even more

this year and provide us a stepping stone to improve our retention

into the future.

We are focusing on several other areas to counter our retention

decreases. They include reducing the effects of this OPTEMPO on

our forces, improving care for our families, improving quality of life

and improving the support programs. Our experience since the fall

of the Iron Curtain has reinforced the lessons about the pivotal nature of air and space power, power which maximizes the flexibility

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
56

of the military and allows solutions to national security threats

with less risk to American lives.

We want to ensure the U.S. Air Force remains the preeminent

air and space power in the world we are today, and our deployed

men and women are confident in their mission, their equipment,

and their own capabilities.

PREPARED STATEMENT

We thank this committee for your support in making that happen in the past, today, and in the future.

Sir, that ends my statement. The Secretary and I are prepared

for your questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. F. WHITTEN PETERS AND GEN. MICHAEL E. RYAN

AIR FORCE ROLE IN NATIONAL SECURITY

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, 1997 was a defining year for U.S. defense policy. Together, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the independent

analysis by the National Defense Panel (NDP) significantly raised the level of defense debate. Each of these undertakings will undoubtedly have far-reaching defense policy implications. We are proud of our Service’s contributions to these efforts.

The Quadrennial Defense Review

One of the most significant outcomes of the QDR was the emergence of a new national military strategy. That strategy includes a new special emphasis on the critical importance of an early, decisive halt to armed aggression to provide wider options for the use of military force and to create a window for diplomatic resolution

of a crisis. This new strategy is also reflected in the President’s National Security

Strategy, the Secretary of Defense’s Defense Planning Guidance, and the latest edition of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s National Military Strategy. It is

heavily dependent on the speed, range, agility, and overwhelming firepower of aerospace forces.

One of the greatest strengths of aerospace forces lies in their ability to project

lethality with less vulnerability. With the advance of technology, a more agile aerospace force can substitute for large, slow-arriving forces and deliver more firepower

in the process. This capability minimizes the number of friendly casualties, helps

to solidify political support for military action, both at home and abroad, and buys

critical time for diplomatic initiatives and potential follow-on military actions. This

rapid halt capability also minimizes the amount of territory that would have to be

retaken should a counteroffensive be necessary. We firmly believe this strategy to

be appropriate, cost-effective, and consistent with American values.

Another important aspect of the QDR was the reaffirmation of the importance of

the total force. We embrace the total force concept—we depend on it. Air National

Guard and Air Force Reserve forces provide the necessary wherewithal for our Service to effectively accomplish its entire range of military missions.

We are implementing a balanced, time-phased modernization program to build

the force necessary to meet the requirements of the QDR strategy and enable the

successful conduct of joint warfare in the 21st century. To help fund this modernization, we are taking steps to achieve personnel, business, and force structure efficiencies. The QDR reminded each of the Services that in fitting our force structure

to future needs, we must make hard, but necessary recommendations on infrastructure. We will need the support of the Congress to implement these recommendations. Dollars saved through these actions will be invested in Air Force modernization, providing the nation with a force fully prepared for the increasingly complex

and diverse security challenges of the future.

The Report of the National Defense Panel

The National Defense Panel articulated several desired military capabilities to

meet their postulated future national security challenges. Many of these capabilities

are present in today’s Air Force, or will be in the aerospace force planned for the

future. For example, the panel recognized the imperative to achieve air superiority

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
57

against an enemy’s air-to-air, surface-to-air, ballistic and cruise missile threats. We

are fielding the F–22 and the Airborne Laser to address this need.

The Panel also observed that projecting military power on short notice into the

backyard of a major regional power demands forces that can deploy rapidly, seize

the initiative, and achieve national objectives with minimal risk of heavy casualties.

Aerospace forces possess these capabilities. We believe they will be increasingly

called upon in the future.

The NDP recommended an increased emphasis on information systems (including

situational awareness) and information operations; a migration to unmanned and

space-based systems; a lighter, more mobile force; and greater emphasis on precision, speed, stealth, and long range strike. The Air Force program stands up well

when measured against this template because our corporate vision statement—

Global Engagement: A Vision for the 21st Century Air Force—articulates the importance of many of these same priorities.

Global Engagement

Global Engagement addresses the range of Air Force activities—operations, infrastructure, and personnel—to provide a comprehensive map to shape the Air Force

during the first quarter of the 21st century. It defines the Air Force core competencies which stem from the speed, global range, precision, flexibility, unparalleled access, and awareness afforded by aerospace forces—competencies that contribute to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Joint Vision 2010 goal of Full

Spectrum Dominance. Global Engagement establishes the vector our Service will follow into the 21st century. The guidance provided by Global Engagement, in conjunction with our long range planning efforts, form the prism through which we view

our near-, mid-, and far-term priorities.

The priorities outlined herein represent our three-fold commitment: first, to maintain a ready and capable force to conduct our contemporary military mission; second, to size, shape, and streamline our Service to implement QDR guidance; and

third, to continue the evolution of our aerospace force to provide the capabilities necessary to protect America’s security interests into the next millennium.

CONTEMPORARY AIR FORCE OPERATIONS

Readiness

The Air Force is expected to maintain a high state of responsive readiness across

the force due to the critical need to get aerospace power rapidly to any crisis. During

peacetime, high readiness gives us the flexibility to deploy a tailored force anywhere

in the world in response to emerging crises—to gather essential intelligence, deter

potential enemies, protect friendly forces and U.S. citizens, apply force, or provide

humanitarian aid. Airlift, tanker, fighter, bomber, space, communications, reconnaissance, intelligence, and many other Air Force units are also the first forces

called upon in wartime. Aerospace power is vital to rapidly halt advancing enemy

forces, and critical to the success of a Commander in Chief’s (CINC) extended campaign plan.

We judge readiness through objective and subjective assessment of several interdependent elements which include personnel, equipment, training, logistics, and financial resources. A shortfall in any of these areas will negatively impact our overall readiness level. Maintaining high readiness in today’s environment poses the

challenge of balancing present requirements with the need to acquire new technologies and modernize current systems for the future.

Since 1986, the Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent, while military operations other than war have greatly increased. In 1989, our Service averaged 3,400

personnel deployed daily for contingencies and exercises. Since the conclusion of the

Gulf War, that average has grown over fourfold to 14,600 in fiscal year 1997. For

the foreseeable future, aerospace forces are likely to remain in high demand.

We have taken several steps as a Service to mitigate the effects of our high

TEMPO, such as reducing deployment lengths, reducing the number of headquarters inspections of units, and instituting standdowns after lengthy deployments.

Additionally, we have introduced the use of a TEMPO tracking system and associated metrics to better manage the TEMPO of our airmen. This tool gives us an accurate way to identify and address TEMPO problems before they occur.

While 91 percent of our active and Air Reserve Component units are maintaining

good readiness levels, caution indicators have surfaced in some areas—most notably,

pilot and navigator retention have decreased markedly, some critical second-term

reenlistment rates are declining, and we are dealing with some serious engine and

spare shortages. We are taking steps to address each of these readiness challenges.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
58

Today, our Air Force remains the best in the world and ready to answer the nation’s call. The pace of current operations has required our people to work harder,

smarter, and longer hours to maintain our readiness and they have risen to the

challenge. However, the combination of several eroding trends have peaked our concern regarding current and future readiness working harder, smarter, and longer

is not enough. We will continue to pursue a family of initiatives to protect Air Force

readiness our contract with the CINC’s.

Operational Risk Management

Maintaining our combat edge depends on our ability to train realistically and safely. This involves accepting, but managing risk. Fiscal year 1997 was the second

safest year in our history in the categories of ground fatalities, Class A flight mishaps, and flight fatalities. We are working to keep these numbers low by continuing

to make mishap prevention an integral part of the mission by emphasizing Operational Risk Management (ORM).

ORM is key to maintaining readiness in peacetime, dominance in combat, and a

crucial component for force protection. It is a decision-making tool to systematically

identify risks and benefits and help determine the best courses of action for any

given situation. ORM is designed to enhance mission effectiveness by minimizing

risks in order to reduce mishaps, preserve assets, and safeguard the health and welfare of our people. Although historically our Service has been very successful in executing its mission with minimum losses, there is still room for improvement both

in terms of mission accomplishment and mishap prevention as our low mishap rates

have ‘‘plateaued.’’ This fact reinforced our decision to implement the ORM process

Air Force-wide.

Proper application of the ORM process and tools will minimize all dimensions of

risk and reduce mishap rates without compromising mission objectives. We are emphasizing ORM in multiple educational programs and have initiated formal education and computer-based training to instruct our people in the use of ORM. All

Air Force personnel should receive this training by 1 October 1998.

The Total Force

Today, more than ever, the Air Force relies on its total force—Active Duty, Air

National Guard, and Air Force Reserve working together to meet today’s peacekeeping and wartime commitments. The total force was used extensively during 1997 as

Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve forces participated in every major deployment and contingency tasking. This trend will continue as Guard and Reserve forces

play an increasing role in a variety of worldwide operations.

Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve aircrew members serve an average of

110 days a year in uniform. During 1997, an average of 6,000 Guard members and

Reservists were deployed each month to support exercises, contingencies, and military operations around the world. On a volunteer basis, members of the Air Reserve

Component deploy on a rotational schedule, helping to reduce active duty TEMPO

without jeopardizing their civilian employment.

In some cases, the Guard and Reserve are paired together to provide extended

support to the active force. An example of a joint Guard and Reserve mission is the

24 July to 25 October 1997 deployment to perform sustainment airlift from

Ramstein Air Base, Germany, to the forces in the Balkans. Other major deployments in 1997 included the deployment of security forces to Saudi Arabia; the deployment of civil engineers, firefighters, and Air National Guard air traffic controllers to Taszar, Hungary, as part of Operation Joint Guard; the use of KC–135’s to

refuel fighter aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia; and the use of F–15’s

and F–16’s to enforce the no-fly zone over Northern Iraq, as well as the use of rescue crews to provide combat rescue support for those forces. The Air National Guard

and Air Force Reserve also participated in over 60 exercises worldwide.

In addition to officially becoming a major command on 17 February 1997, the Air

Force Reserve expanded its missions in several areas. For example, in January

1997, an associate undergraduate pilot training program was initiated at Columbus

AFB, Mississippi, and Vance AFB, Oklahoma. This program employs full-time and

part-time Reserve airmen as instructor pilots to offset a shortfall in active duty instructors. The Reserve is also conducting a three year study to determine the feasibility of integrating Reserve pilots and maintenance personnel into active duty

fighter squadrons.

In May 1997, associate AWACS crews from the Air Force Reserve Command’s

513th Air Control Group (ACG) at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, participated in their first

operational deployment—testing the Western European integrated air defense system in exercise Central Enterprise 97. Since beginning operations in March 1996,

513 ACG personnel have performed over 2,000 man-days of service, alleviating some

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
59

of the TEMPO of our active duty crews. These Reservists also prove invaluable at

home station by performing various duties such as preparing aircraft for upcoming

missions and performing supervisor of flying duties. The associate AWACS Reserve

unit also provides a way for the Air Force to retain its investment in highly trained

personnel who would otherwise be lost separating from active duty.

In September 1997, the Air Force Reserve Command’s 8th Space Operations

Squadron (SOPS) and the 310th Space Group were activated at Falcon AFB, Colorado. The 8 SOPS provides near-real time backup support to the primary Defense

Meteorological Satellite Program operations conducted by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency.

In October 1997, the 439th Security Forces Squadron (SFS) at Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts, achieved full operational capability. The Reservists of

the 439 SFS augment the 820th Security Forces Group at Lackland AFB, Texas,

with a deployable force protection unit.

In 1997, the Air National Guard flew over 3,200 readiness support airlift missions, 700 airborne transport missions, 500 fighter deployment air refueling missions, and performed a variety of other challenging missions. For example, in October 1997, three 153rd Airlift Wing C–130 aircraft, crews, and support personnel

from the Wyoming Air National Guard deployed to Jakarta, Indonesia, to fight

widespread forest fires. The crews flew hundreds of hours during their 60 day deployment using their specially equipped C–130’s to suppress fires over a 3.5 million

acre area. During their deployment, the 153rd extinguished more than 70 fires in

open forest areas in the face of incredible challenges posed by heavy smoke and extremely dry conditions. This support allowed the Government of Indonesia sufficient

time to develop an effective firefighting plan of its own and organize follow-on indigenous and commercial support to battle the remaining fires.

In 1997, we transferred several new missions from the active component to the

Air National Guard including the operation of a mobile ground station by the 137th

Space Warning Squadron of the Colorado Air National Guard and an increased

share of the international military flying training program.

Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel remain an integral part of

our total force as they work side by side with active duty airmen to accomplish the

Air Force mission.

Force Protection

We are committed to taking the necessary steps to protect our people. We have

addressed and corrected the deficiencies identified by the Downing Commission and

strengthened our force protection posture throughout Southwest Asia. This included

the rapid deployment of additional security forces to Saudi Arabia to relocate our

people after the Khobar Towers tragedy. These forces assisted with moving airmen

from Dhahran to Prince Sultan Air Base in Al Kharj and military and non-combatant personnel from vulnerable facilities in Riyadh to a more secure location outside

the city. We have also enhanced our force protection equipment and integrated intelligence assets and are adjusting our doctrine, strategy, policies, and training accordingly. Additionally, we are expanding the scope of our force protection program to

address our growing Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) requirements.

In 1997 we established the Air Force Security Forces Center at Lackland AFB,

Texas, comprised of the 820th Security Forces Group (SFG) and the Air Force Force

Protection Battlelab. The 820 SFG is a rapidly deployable, self-contained unit integrating essential force protection functions provided by security forces, intelligence,

Office of Special Investigation, medical, communications, and engineering personnel.

This organization provides AEF commanders with the flexibility to tailor a force

protection package to meet the needs of their deployed location. Today, squadronsized security forces units deploy with each AEF to provide a comprehensive standalone security and antiterrorism force protection capability. Equipment like the Tactical Automated Security System, which uses motion and thermal detection capabilities for perimeter defense, is used to enhance installation commanders’ force protection situational awareness. In 1997, the 820 SFG deployed three times: twice to

Bahrain to support the 366th Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) and the 347 AEW, and

once to Egypt to support the Bright Star exercise.

The other component of our force protection program is the Force Protection

Battlelab. This battlelab is a compact, multi-disciplinary ‘‘think tank’’ chartered to

objectively examine force protection concepts to identify and define unmet needs.

Once needs are identified, the battlelab searches for creative, near-term solutions

through modeling and simulation, changes in training or policy, available or easily

modified technology, or possible new uses for existing technology. The Force Protection Battlelab has three ongoing initiatives. The first aims to improve security at

the South American ground-based radar sites that support counter-drug operations.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
60

The battlelab is exploring new ways to use existing thermal imagers to expand current perimeter monitoring capabilities. The second initiative involves exploring the

use of unmanned aerial vehicles to provide defense force commanders with real-time

ground situational awareness. The third initiative deals with increasing our ability

to detect vehicle explosive devices by using different configurations of existing commercial off-the-shelf detection capabilities.

We will continue to emphasize investments in force protection technology and its

applications to provide a safer environment for our airmen as they conduct operations worldwide.

Sustained Theater Operations

Since the NATO-led Operation Joint Endeavor/Joint Guard began on 20 December

1995 to maintain the peace between the formerly warring factions in BosniaHerzegovina, we have maintained over 2,900 personnel in direct support of this operation and flown over 4,200 missions—25 percent of the coalition total. Our missions include close air support, combat air patrol, suppression of enemy air defense,

air refueling, combat search and rescue, and intelligence collection sorties. We have

also deployed space support teams to furnish critical space-based communications,

weather, navigation, and missile warning support to the coalition forces.

In Southwest Asia we have deployed over 7,000 personnel since August 1992 and

have flown over 110,400 sorties—70 percent of the coalition total—in support of Operation Southern Watch to ensure continued Iraqi compliance with the April 1991

United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 688.

Similarly, we have deployed over 1,200 personnel and flown over 3,325 sorties—

72 percent of the coalition total—in support of Operations Provide Comfort and

Northern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone over Northern Iraq. Additionally, our

space support teams are integrated into the combined air operations center to provide deployed forces with support from our space-based assets.

Southwest Asia continues to be a very volatile region. Our AEF’s have proven to

be an effective tool to strengthen relations with coalition partners and respond to

crises.

Aerospace Expeditionary Forces

Our Service is exploring and refining concepts of operations and logistics associated with the deployment and employment of AEF’s. We tailor AEF employment

packages that provide CINC’s with the necessary command, control, mission, and

support elements to create a desired operational effect within 72 hours of initial notification to employ forces. Our first AEF deployed in October 1995 to supplement

Operation Southern Watch. In 1997, we deployed five AEF’s for exercises and contingencies. In each case, we created a tailored AEF by combining an appropriate

mix of squadron-level units. By varying the mix, an AEF can support a broad range

of missions, from humanitarian relief to contingency operations.

In the combat configuration used in Southwest Asia, our AEF can produce 70–

80 combat sorties a day and may include bombers employed from a home station

or forward operating location. This AEF’s portfolio includes air-to-ground, air-to-air,

suppression of enemy air defenses, air refueling, and intelligence, surveillance and

reconnaissance assets. AEF’s provide CINC’s with a wide range of airpower options

to meet their specific theater needs. Additionally, the AEF’s ability to rapidly and

decisively project aerospace power into a theater of operations will allow greater

flexibility in determining the forward deployed forces necessary to meet a CINC’s

requirements.

We are institutionalizing this expeditionary mindset within our Service’s culture

by emphasizing the fundamentals of expeditionary warfare in our exercises and

training. This includes rapid crisis response, an ability to operate out of austere beddown locations with minimum initial support, robust and secure C2 linkages, robust

force protection, and rapid, effective employment. In this way, our forces focus their

logistics techniques to determine the absolute minimum support required to deploy

rapidly and employ immediately upon arrival.

To supplement our field tests, the Air Force AEF Battlelab is exploring several

ideas to improve our expeditionary capabilities. One initiative is to demonstrate the

use of commercially available equipment to calibrate targeting and sensor systems

on multiple aircraft platforms. The current calibration systems are unique to each

aircraft, require extensive logistics support, and can only be used in controlled environmental conditions. This battlelab initiative would use a calibration system common to all aircraft that requires less logistics support, less set up time, and operates

under any environmental condition. We conducted a successful field demonstration

of this system last year during an AEF deployment and continued to refine our expeditionary capabilities during deployments to Southwest Asia.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
61

In October 1997, the 366 AEW from Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, deployed F–

15’s, F–16’s, B–1 bombers, and KC–135’s to Shaikh Isa, Bahrain. During its deployment, the wing flew 444 sorties in support of Operation Southern Watch. Later that

month, the 347 AEW deployed to the Middle East in response to Saddam Hussein’s

refusal to comply with United Nations mandated weapons inspections. This AEF deployed on short notice and included F–15’s, F–16’s, B–1’s, KC–135’s, and an Army

Patriot battery. These forces joined F–117’s and B–52’s already in theater to provide

the CINC with highly flexible airpower options.

Maintaining an internationally recognized ability to deploy rapidly, execute upon

arrival, and sustain complex operations will significantly enhance our ability to

deter potential adversaries. We currently have the capability to conduct both lethal

and non-lethal AEF operations worldwide. For the long-term, we expect AEF’s to

continue to mature as effective tools for crisis response and cooperative engagement

with potential coalition partners.

Cooperative Engagement

An expectation that the U.S. military will need to be able to incorporate the military capabilities of friends and Allies makes it essential for us to broaden our relationships with the militaries of other countries. These ties facilitate cooperation with

the U.S. when crises arise, whether this be the need for quick overseas basing access, or the need to build a coalition of willing and capable allies. We are committed

to cooperative engagement programs and initiatives that increase mutual understanding and enhance interoperability.

During the 1990’s, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) forces conducted over 150 operations in 22 countries, including over 30 exercises in the Pacific

and numerous military-to-military training events in Latin America, Africa, and Europe. AFSOC special tactics teams often help train foreign militaries in subjects

such as air operations, combat medicine, air traffic control, and airbase defense.

Recently, the focus of our cooperative engagement and stability enhancement efforts have been in our Partnership for Peace (PfP) participation, our Military Contact Program, the Armaments Cooperation Program, and our Security Assistance efforts, which include Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and International Military Education and Training (IMET).

In 1997, our Service participated in over 20 exercises with approximately 25 PfP

countries and conducted over 200 focused Military Contact Program events in Europe alone. We maintain 220 agreements under the Armaments Cooperation Program in an effort to encourage the exchange of information with our coalition partners. These involve cooperative research and development, scientist and engineer

exchanges, equipment loans, and scientific and technical information exchanges.

Additionally, our FMS program is currently managing over 4,600 active contracts

for aircraft, spare parts, munitions, and training totaling over $107 billion, while

the IMET program continues to provide all types of training—from flying training

to professional military education. In 1997 over 5,000 foreign military members representing approximately 100 countries received some form of training under the

IMET program.

In April 1997, our Service hosted a gathering of the leaders of the world’s air

forces. Eighty-four air chiefs participated in this ‘‘Global Air Chiefs Conference,’’ a

truly landmark event. General Peter Deynekin, then Commander of the Russian Air

Force, characterized it as one of the most significant events of the 20th century. The

significance of the conference lies in the fact that despite widely differing languages

and customs, each of the air chiefs shares an appreciation for the unique capabilities

of airpower and for the revolutionary capability that can be achieved when spacebased assets can be effectively integrated into aerospace operations.

Space Operations

An ability to conduct missions better from space will certainly benefit all U.S.

forces. Space operations figure prominently in our plans for the future. Our jointuse space-based systems are increasingly responsible for the information stream and

global awareness that we cannot take for granted. In particular, 1997 saw the Air

Force and the National Reconnaissance Office achieve unparalleled levels of cooperation in enhanced space support to theater warfighters and National Intelligence users. Today, it is difficult to contemplate how a significant U.S. military

operation could function without integrated space-based support.

That range of support is gradually becoming transparent to the users. Our aircrews rely heavily on intelligence and weather data derived from space systems. The

command and control of air, land, and sea forces is melded together with spacebased communication. Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites guide aircraft and weapons precisely to targets and help avoid collateral damage. In the fuU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
62

ture, near-real time targeting sent from sensors directly into the cockpit will allow

us to improve our aircrews’ lethality.

1997 was the busiest year thus far for Air Force space operations. Our two major

ranges, Vandenberg AFB, California, and Patrick AFB, Florida, conducted 45 successful space and missile launches, including range support and support services for

every government and commercial launch of the Space Shuttle, Pegasus, Atlas,

Delta, Titan IV, and Athena II boosters. In addition, our Satellite Control Network

maintained a 99.5 percent mission effectiveness rate with over 159,000 satellite contacts.

On 23 February 1997, the first Titan IVB was launched to insert a Defense Support Program (DSP) missile warning satellite into orbit. The Titan IVB’s upgraded

solid rocket motors give it a 25 percent increase in payload capacity as well as

greater reliability. On 7 November 1997 our Service set a new mark with the third

successful launch of America’s heavy lift Titan IV within a 23 day period, eclipsing

the previous record of 65 days set in 1996. The Titan IV has a 95.7 percent success

rate since launching the first of 23 mission payloads into space in June 1989.

Despite the failure of a Delta II launch vehicle in January 1997, there was a total

of 10 successful Delta launches in 1997. These included the launch of a next-generation GPS satellite in July 1997 to replenish the GPS operational constellation of 24

satellites and ensure that a continuous GPS signal will remain available for precise

navigation operations worldwide.

In the area of military satellite communications, MILSTAR satellites are now providing secure, jam-resistant, nuclear-survivable command and control communications to the East Atlantic and European theaters. In Bosnia, the Joint Broadcast

System used direct satellite broadcasts to transmit live unmanned aerial vehicle images and other large digital products to theater commanders and supporting

forces—dramatically increasing their global situational awareness. Meanwhile, the

Global Broadcast Service is progressing toward its first launch in 1998 and will give

our forces similar broadcast services worldwide.

Today, without question, space-based capabilities are a vital component that we

depend on for the success of joint military operations. Recently, the Air Force, the

National Reconnaissance Office, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, have all agreed to have a joint space-based Moving Target Indicator demonstration using technology, expertise, and resources from all three. Enhancing space support to the warfighter remains a top priority for our space operators.

MAINTAINING A QUALITY FORCE

People remain our most vital resource. The intense demands placed on our airmen

of all ranks as they perform Air Force missions around the world require special

individuals who are highly motivated, well trained, and responsibly led.

Recruiting Quality People

We are committed to recruiting and retaining the high caliber people necessary

to lead our Service into the 21st century. In fiscal year 1997 we achieved our recruiting goal of 30,200 recruits—99 percent of whom were high school graduates. We

were also successful in reenlisting 110 individuals to fill critical specialties who had

previously left the Air Force. To date, new enlistment contracts for fiscal year 1998

are running slightly ahead of our target—but recruiting remains a challenge. Ample

opportunity to attend college, a robust economy with low unemployment, military

drawdowns, and highly visible U.S. commitments abroad have decreased the pool

of interested, qualified potential recruits. Annual youth attitude surveys show the

interest of young men in serving in the Air Force has dropped from 17 percent in

1989 and has stabilized at 12 percent. The interest of young women in serving has

remained relatively constant (around 7 percent) over the same period; however, we

did see a 1 percent drop in fiscal year 1997.

Despite the fact that we have been able to recruit adequate numbers of personnel,

there has been a decrease in the number of enlistees scoring in the top half on the

Armed Forces Qualification Test, down from 88 percent in 1989 to 79 percent today.

To address this trend, we have directed our recruiters to concentrate their efforts

on the college and college-bound candidates. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly difficult to fill the mechanical, pararescue, and combat control career fields.

To improve our success in manning these specialties, we have directed a larger portion of our advertising budget toward the technical market and have raised enlistment bonuses in the most difficult-to-fill skills. Overcoming these recruiting challenges is essential to maintain the caliber of airmen necessary to effectively serve

in our technologically sophisticated aerospace force.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
63

Developing the Airmen of the Future

After we recruit and induct young airmen, we invest in their education and training to prepare them for today’s demanding operational environments and for future

challenges. The high standards of behavior expected of our personnel demand a

strong moral and ethical foundation. On 1 January 1997, we published an Air Force

Core Values pamphlet. Air Force core values—integrity first, service before self, and

excellence in all we do—apply to all airmen of the Air Force, whether officer, enlisted, civil servant, or contractor.

Our people are living these values every day. Like the members of the 31st Civil

Engineer Squadron and 31st RED HORSE flight from Aviano Air Base and Camp

Darby, Italy, who assisted with local disaster relief after earthquakes devastated

central Italy. Or the members of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale AFB, California, who volunteered countless hours to help 9,000 area residents displaced by

massive flooding—volunteers who provided victims with food, shelter, and medicine

and went the extra step to comfort frightened children with toys, cookies, and a

friendly smile. This scene was repeated by the men and women of Grand Forks

AFB, North Dakota, who assisted over 25,000 flood victims in that area.

Strong core values bind our people together and demonstrate to the American people that our military forces are worthy of their trust and support. Air Force men

and women exhibit integrity, selflessness, and excellence every day, in every corner

of the world, working side by side to accomplish their mission. This effective working relationship begins on the first day of basic training and is reinforced by integrating core values into every aspect of our education and training programs.

Gender-Integrated Training

Every year our Service trains more than 30,000 basic trainees—24 percent of our

graduates are women. The Air Force has successfully employed gender-integrated

basic training since 1976.

In late 1997, Senator Kassebaum-Baker’s advisory committee on gender-integrated training released its report, calling for changes in the structure of basic and

operational training. We are currently reviewing our training practices in light of

the Kassebaum report, and will forward our recommendations to the Secretary of

Defense in March 1998. As part of this effort, we are reevaluating our basic training

physical conditioning program to ensure it meets the needs of our airmen and the

needs of the Air Force.

Leadership Training

As an expeditionary force, we must assure the development of ‘‘warrior-leaders’’

who can successfully lead air forces and others with a wide variety of capabilities

into a hostile, austere environment. To win in combat, the development of warriorleaders is every bit as important as fielding the increasingly sophisticated weapon

systems necessary to fight a war. The superior technology the United States can

bring to bear will only be successful if we have trained, capable leaders to employ

it.

As a result, leadership preparation continues to be a cornerstone of our education

and training programs. To supplement leadership preparation provided in the various levels of professional military education, additional training is provided by

major commands for individuals selected as squadron commanders and by Air University for individuals selected as group or wing commanders. This training covers

the everyday aspects of command such as military and civilian personnel management, resource management, legal issues, and complaint processing. Our highest

level of leadership training occurs in the Senior Leader Orientation Course where

new brigadier generals and civilian equivalents receive training on key issues and

on how to be effective representatives of the Air Force.

Aircrew Training

The Air Force is the lead Service for the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System

(JPATS) program. This joint Air Force and Navy program is acquiring 372 JPATS

aircraft for the Air Force, with deliveries beginning in 1999. The T–6A Texan II will

replace the aging T–37’s and vastly improve our undergraduate flying primary

training capability. The T–6A incorporates several features that are not on current

Air Force and Navy trainers. Improvements include: missionized ejection seats, improved birdstrike protection, electronic flight instrumentation and digital cockpit

display, pressurized cockpit, and flexibility to accommodate a wide range of male

and female pilot candidates. We are also modernizing our T–38 fleet, allowing pilot

candidates to train on modern avionics representative of the front line systems they

will eventually fly in combat.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
64

To address the growing pilot shortage, we plan to increase our yearly pilot production from 900 pilots per year to 1,100 pilots per year by fiscal year 2000. We are

also examining various alternatives to maximize the utilization of our T–38 fleet.

Our increase in pilot production has resulted in a corresponding shortfall in active

duty instructor pilots. Unable to pull more instructors out of mission area cockpits,

we have established an associate undergraduate pilot training program to employ

Air Force Reserve pilots as instructors. We initiated this program at Columbus AFB,

Mississippi, and Vance AFB, Oklahoma, in January 1997. In the 12 months since

the first instructor pilot started training, we have hired a total of 43 of the 50 pilots

scheduled to participate in the program. Over 30 of these individuals are now fully

mission qualified and have flown well over 250 student sorties in support of the specialized undergraduate pilot training mission. Each Reserve instructor pilot will contribute one-third of the number of sorties produced by an active duty instructor

pilot. Once the remaining Reserve instructor pilots complete their training, we estimate that they will contribute over 1,600 student sorties per year.

We are rapidly expanding this program to all student pilot training bases and to

other training aircraft to include the T–37, T–1, and AT–38 missions. When completed in the summer of 2000, this program will employ over 539 Air Force Reserve

pilots (114 full-time and 425 part-time) and produce a sortie rate equivalent to 225

active duty instructor pilots.

We are also pursuing the development of revolutionary new ways to train our

operational aircrews. Distributed mission training will use state-of-the-art distributed simulation technology and advanced flight simulators to permit aircrews to remain at their home units while ‘‘flying’’ and training in synthetic battlespace,

hooked electronically to other aircrews located at distant airbases. This will improve

the quality and availability of training while reducing aircraft operation and maintenance costs, as well as limiting the amount of time our personnel will have to

spend away from home.

Professional Military Education

Educating our airmen to be effective leaders, supervisors, and managers is vital

to our continued success. Enlisted Professional Military Education (PME) broadens

enlisted members’ perspectives and increases their knowledge of military studies,

communication skills, leadership, and supervision to prepare them to assume more

responsibility. In 1997, we conducted a review of all three levels of our enlisted PME

curriculum. We implemented a revised curriculum for the Airman Leadership

School in 1997 to eliminate those items better taught at field level and place more

emphasis on the profession of arms. We are validating revised curriculums for the

Non Commissioned Officer Academy and the Senior Non Commissioned Officer

Academy that include subject areas like stress management, suicide prevention,

project management, and diversity awareness.

For newly commissioned officers and selected civilians we are developing an Air

and Space Basic Course to provide a common frame of reference for understanding

and employing aerospace forces. This course will focus on the history, doctrine,

strategy, and operational aspects of aerospace power. We will conduct the first class

in July 1998.

Follow-on professional military education for our officer corps consists of Squadron

Officer School, Intermediate Service School, and Senior Service School. These

schools teach the skills necessary for good officership, command, and staff. They also

educate senior officers in the strategic employment of aerospace forces to support

national security objectives. Our officer professional military education is currently

undergoing a complete curriculum review to ensure each level is appropriately tailored to its audience. Additionally, we are pursuing legislation to authorize granting

Masters degrees to graduates of Air Command and Staff College and Air War College.

Retaining Quality People

Training and educating our people is of little value if we cannot retain them to

benefit from their skill and experience. Unfortunately, there are troubling trends in

this area. Our first- and second-term reenlistment rates have declined in each of the

past two years. Two initiatives we are implementing to reverse these trends include

expanding the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program to include additional

Air Force specialties and increasing SRB bonus rates in specialties where manning

and retention rates are low. Additionally, to ensure our first- and second-term airmen have the information they need to make an educated reenlistment decision, supervisors are now required to address the benefits of an Air Force career during

semiannual feedback sessions.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
65

For the officer corps, we are concerned that pilot and navigator retention rates

have declined each of the past three years. Since fiscal year 1995, pilot retention

has fallen from 87 percent to 71 percent and navigator retention has slipped from

86 percent to 73 percent. Leading indicators are also showing increasingly downward trends. For example, the number of pilots accepting aviator continuation pay

is down from 59 percent in fiscal year 1996 to 33 percent as of mid-January 1998.

This is a 48 percent drop from the record high fiscal year 1994 level of 81 percent.

Similarly, pilot separations increased 27 percent between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal

year 1997 and continue to rise.

One of the major factors that weighs heavily on an individual’s decision to stay

in or leave the Service is the issue of compensation. The Air Force appreciates Congressional support in 1997 for legislation to restore the original value of the aircrew

compensation package. We are closely monitoring aviator retention and are cautiously optimistic about the impact of the new incentive at this point. Compensation

is but one of several quality of life initiatives that we are pursuing to make military

service more attractive to our personnel. These initiatives should create positive incentives for all Air Force members and positively impact retention in a variety of

career fields.

Enhancing Quality of Life

Quality of Life (QoL) investments have the greatest rate of return in terms of recruiting and retaining quality airmen for our highly technical aerospace missions.

Based on feedback from the field, our corporate strategy is to pursue initiatives supporting seven quality of life priorities that satisfy a broad range of needs and expectations: (1) fair and equitable compensation; (2) balanced TEMPO; (3) quality health

care; (4) safe, affordable, and adequate housing; (5) a stabilized retirement system;

(6) community programs; and (7) expanded educational opportunities.

Fair and Equitable Compensation.—Adequate compensation has the most impact

on our people’s standard of living and remains a key element of our total force QoL

agenda. Continued Congressional support for competitive annual pay increases, cost

of living allowance increases, and improvements to permanent-change-of-station cost

reimbursements are critical to maintaining the value of this important QoL component.

We continue to support the commissary benefit as an important non-pay entitlement upon which our active duty personnel, reserve personnel, and retirees depend.

Our people count on savings from commissary purchases to extend already stretched

incomes—offsetting lagging pay raises, inflation, and out-of-pocket housing and

moving costs. To young enlisted families, elimination of the commissary subsidy

would have the same impact as a 9 percent pay cut.

To reduce the out-of-pocket expenses members incur during changes of station, we

have approved $101 million in nonappropriated funding to construct 420 new Temporary Lodging Facility (TLF) units and repair another 305. Surveys show 88 percent of members needed an average of 14 days in temporary quarters upon arrival

at their new duty location. The average off-base lodging cost at the locations where

we are building new TLF’s is $70 per day compared to $24 on base. Building these

units will save money for both the members and the Air Force.

Balanced TEMPO.—Air Force TEMPO was very high in 1997—supporting numerous major contingency operations and over 180 coalition, allied, and joint exercises

around the world. Since 1989, deployment requirements have quadrupled, while

permanent forward basing has decreased by 66 percent. Endstrength has decreased

by 39 percent since 1986, the beginning of the drawdown.

TEMPO is inextricably linked to both readiness and QoL. Our objective is to

maintain a reasonable TEMPO that balances the needs of our contemporary military mission with our people’s QoL. We have established 120 days per year as the

‘‘desired maximum’’ number of days individuals should be away from their home

station for any reason. Air Force management initiatives that were implemented between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1996 (Global Military Force Policy, Global

Sourcing, and increased Air Reserve Component participation), resulted in a reduction in the number of weapons systems/skill areas that exceeded our 120-day rate

from 13 to 4.

However, despite continued aggressive management of resources, the number of

systems/skills above the 120-day mark increased to ten in fiscal year 1997. We are

addressing this increase by taking steps to mitigate each of the factors contributing

to high TEMPO—operational deployments, inspections, and exercises.

We have reduced typical aircrew deployments from 90 to 45 days and instituted

post-deployment standdowns to give people a break after deployments of 45 or more

days, allowing time to reacquaint with family and return to normalcy. Additionally,

in 1998, the length of unit inspections will be reduced by 10 percent with an addiU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
66

tional 20 percent reduction in fiscal year 1999. There is also an effort underway to

use real-world deployments to inspect operational readiness as an alternative to

using simulated scenarios for the purpose of inspection. This initiative was used to

inspect the 366 AEW from Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, in 1997 during its deployment to Bahrain in support of Operation Southern Watch. In the short- to mid-term,

there are also efforts on the Joint Staff and the Air Staff to reduce exercises. The

joint goal is to reduce exercise man-days by 15 percent before fiscal year 2001, and

we anticipate a 10 percent reduction in Air Force exercises by fiscal year 2002.

On 1 October 1997, we implemented a new system to track TEMPO. The objective

is to provide senior leaders with the information they need to identify highly-tasked

weapon systems and career fields and, if necessary, take action to reduce their

stress. We distributed this new management system to all major commands and

military personnel flights with an easy-to-use database that identifies the number

of days a person has been on temporary duty in a 12-month period. This database

tool allows Air Force commanders, using laptop or desktop computers, to view

TEMPO information from the Air Force, major command, base, and unit level by

Air Force specialty code, weapon system, or social security number. This system

gives commanders a tool they need to help manage the TEMPO of their units.

Our efforts to balance the impact of TEMPO are designed to offset the effects of

increased TEMPO levels. We are closely monitoring the situation to determine our

ability to sustain this level of activity.

Quality Health Care.—We have an obligation to provide high-quality, affordable

health care for all of our beneficiaries. The Air Force operates 46 of the Department’s 115 hospitals and 33 of its 471 clinics. Each of these facilities is accredited

by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and meets

the same standards as civilian hospitals.

For the past five years, average accreditation scores for military hospitals have

exceeded the average civilian scores. Furthermore, 17 percent of Air Force facilities

received accreditation with commendation—the highest rating available—compared

to 12 percent in the civilian sector.

The TRICARE health plan which combines military and civilian medical capabilities to provide care for active duty and CHAMPUS-eligible individuals is a vital tool

to complement Air Force hospitals and clinics. While the TRICARE program has experienced some problems in the early going, it has proven to be a success on the

whole. A survey last year of TRICARE Prime enrollees found that 80 percent of

TRICARE participants rated their care good to excellent and 9 out of 10 would reenroll. Problems that patients have experienced, such as multiple co-payments for

a single episode of care and the portability of Prime enrollment, will be resolved in

1998. Although TRICARE will be fully implemented by Spring 1998, the law prohibits Medicare-eligible retirees from participating in TRICARE. A tri-Service task

force is looking into alternatives for their care, as space-available care becomes more

limited.

One step in meeting the commitment to care for this group is Medicare Subvention legislation that allows Medicare reimbursement for medical care provided

in Department of Defense (DOD) facilities to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. We

strongly support this approach. This is clearly the first step in meeting the health

care needs of our seniors. Our Service will be participating in the Congressionallymandated Medicare Demonstration project for military retirees over age 65. We are

also evaluating other medical alternatives for these older retirees, such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and expansion of the National Mail Order

Pharmacy Program.

Safe, Affordable, and Adequate Housing.—Access to safe, affordable, and adequate

housing should be available for every member of our military forces. Last year we

completed a dormitory master plan to clearly identify housing requirements for our

unaccompanied enlisted force and instituted a phased plan to accomplish it. The

first step in this plan is to eliminate the remaining permanent party, central-latrine

dormitories.

The second step, which will begin in fiscal year 2000, is to provide new dormitories to meet our projected 17,000 room deficit. We remain firmly committed to

the DOD ‘‘1∂1’’ dormitory construction standard for all new permanent party dormitories. This provides for two-person occupancy of an apartment-like unit with a

shared bathroom and kitchen and separate, private sleeping quarters. The first unit

of this type has been built at McChord AFB, Washington, and is a big hit with our

airmen.

The third step calls for the future replacement or conversion of our existing adequate dorms as they wear out. We will not convert or replace these adequate ‘‘2∂2’’

dormitories until their facility condition warrants a capital investment. Until these

existing units are replaced or reconfigured, we are phasing in a private-room assignU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
67

ment policy that will authorize private rooms for all our unaccompanied airmen by

fiscal year 2002.

The combined strategy of eliminating central-latrine dorms, building new ‘‘1∂1’’

dorms to meet our deficit, and implementing a private-room assignment policy goes

a long way toward improving the quality of life and retention of our unaccompanied

airmen. This commitment to our airmen extends to our men and women stationed

overseas, especially in areas such as South Korea where the lack of unaccompanied

on-base housing has force protection and readiness implications.

For Air Force families, we must revitalize over 61,000 housing units that have an

average age of approximately 35 years. Although the Air Force owns or leases more

than 110,000 homes, 41,000 families remain on base housing waiting lists. It appears that privatization may offer an opportunity in this area.

At Lackland AFB, Texas, a privatization project appears feasible to replace 272

housing units and construct an additional 148 units on base. At Robins AFB, Georgia, we are developing a privatization project for 670 units on land currently owned

by the Air Force that will be conveyed to a developer to create a new neighborhood

immediately off base. Under the privatization approach, housing units are leased by

the privatization owner to Air Force members who pay rent and utilities equal to

what they receive as basic allowance for their housing.

Privatization provides an opportunity to bring substandard housing units up to

standards in significantly less time than it would take under the current system.

We will implement this innovative approach where it is economically and financially

feasible to do so.

Stabilized Retirement System.—Because of the critical link between retirement,

retention, and readiness, we continue to support preservation of the current retirement system. The 1980’s reforms to military retirement devalued it as a retention

tool. Members affected by these reforms are telling us two things about retirement.

First, having lost 25 percent of its lifetime value during these reforms, military retirement is no longer our number one retention tool. Second, our members are uncertain that the retirement plan they signed up under will be there when they do

reach retirement eligibility. We continue to closely monitor our officer and enlisted

retention rates to ascertain what impact military retirement (and other personnel

programs) play in our members’ decision to stay in or leave the Service. We believe

it is imperative to preserve the current retirement system. The mere suggestion of

a change to the military retirement system causes serious concern throughout the

force. We need Congressional support to stabilize and preserve the military retirement system. Our readiness depends on it.

Community Programs.—Air Force community programs are designed to help active duty members with their dual responsibilities as military members and parents.

They provide child care, before- and after-school programs for children 6–12 years

of age, youth centers for teens, and family support centers to help individuals cope

with family separations.

At the end of fiscal year 1997, our Service was able to provide 57 percent of the

86,000 needed child care spaces. Facility projects and funding are in place to increase this to 65 percent by 2002. Enhancing and expanding the before- and afterschool programs for children 6–12 years of age is a major part of our efforts in this

area. These programs offer direct supervision for children who may currently stay

at home alone before and after school and during holidays.

Teen issues continue to be on the front burner in all Air Force communities. An

Air Force-wide Teen Forum was held to identify issues and begin planning initiatives to improve services. To improve program quality, youth programs are being affiliated with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and new or expanded youth centers

are under construction at many installations.

Expanded Education Opportunities.—A fully-funded tuition assistance program

and exploitation of distance learning technologies are two key components of our

quality of life-related educational programs. Both of these programs provide exceptional educational opportunity which is consistently cited by our new recruits as the

number one reason they enlist in the Air Force. Our Community College of the Air

Force also continues to provide our enlisted force the means to earn job-related Associate degrees. This incentive not only motivates our airmen to achieve educational

goals, but also serves to provide technically-proficient personnel for the Air Force’s

mission requirements. The opportunity provided by the 1996 Veterans Benefits Improvement Act to allow Veterans Educational Assistance Program contributors to

convert to the much more advantageous Montgomery GI Bill was well received—

61 percent of those eligible in the Air Force made the conversion.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
68

Promoting Equal Opportunity

The Air Force gains its strength through diversity. Racial minority representation

in our Service has risen from 14 percent in 1975 to 23 percent today. Women now

comprise 17 percent of the force—16 percent of the officer corps and 18 percent of

the enlisted force. Our people feel that they are being treated fairly and know programs exist to bring complaints of discrimination and harassment to the attention

of their supervisors.

We have two such programs that military and civilian personnel may use—the

military equal opportunity program and the civilian equal employment opportunity

program. We are conducting a top-to-bottom review of both programs to see if they

can be managed more efficiently and effectively and to determine if staffing, training, and funding are adequate to carry out their respective responsibilities. The review is expected to be complete in early 1998.

The Air Force equal opportunity program will continue to stress command commitment and accountability, clarity of policy, effective training, and fair complaint

handling. Our goal is to promote individual opportunity and professional growth in

an environment free from discrimination and harassment.

PREPARING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY—STRENGTHENING CORE COMPETENCIES

Our people deserve to be equipped with the right tools to accomplish our missions.

The Air Force modernization program is designed to enhance the unique capabilities

embodied in our specialized core competencies—Air and Space Superiority, Precision

Engagement, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Information Superiority, and

Agile Combat Support. These competencies provide the rapid, precise, and global response that gives our combatant commanders and the National Command Authorities the necessary options to respond to regional crises.

Air and Space Superiority

Air and space superiority is a fundamental requirement for all operational concepts in Joint Vision 2010 and is a prerequisite to achieving full spectrum dominance. It is essential that U.S. and allied forces, both in-place and those deploying

to theater, be protected from enemy air attacks early in the conflict. As potential

adversaries acquire more capable fighter aircraft and, importantly, longer-range airto-air missiles, it will become more difficult for a small expeditionary force to defend

friendly airspace effectively and to secure air superiority quickly.

The National Defense Panel pointed out that legacy systems procured today will

be at risk in the 2010–2020 time frame. That is precisely why our Service is investing in the leap-ahead capability embodied in the F–22 Raptor. Three distinguishing

factors: supercruise; stealth; and integrated avionics make the F–22 truly revolutionary. The F–22’s ability to engage enemy aircraft before being detected by them

will allow our forces to shoot down large numbers of enemy aircraft while minimizing the number of our fighters lost in air-to-air engagements. This high exchange

ratio, coupled with the F–22’s ability to operate effectively in the vicinity of surfaceto-air missiles, will enable our forces to achieve a dominant air defense posture and

air superiority within the early days of a major theater war. The F–22 will enable

the United States to dominate the air arena and deny our adversaries sanctuary—

giving every member of the joint team the ability to operate free from attack and

free to attack. Additionally, in the future, the integrated air-to-ground capability of

the F–22 could make it our high-end attack aircraft.

The Raptor successfully completed its first flight in September 1997, begins flight

testing at Edwards AFB, California, in early 1998, and will enter operational service

in 2005. Funding stability for this critical modernization effort is essential for program stability.

In addition to the threat posed by advanced enemy aircraft, the National Defense

Panel also recognized the importance of defending key regional coalition partners

against enemy missile attack. We are developing the Airborne Laser (ABL) to

counter this threat. This truly revolutionary weapon will change the military’s concept of defense and open the door to a new era of warfare. Its ‘‘speed-of-light’’ capability to shoot down Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM’s) in their vulnerable, boostphase portion of flight can deter the use of these weapons by our adversaries by

forcing them to face the possibility of their weapons falling back on their territory.

This year, the ABL showcased its shooter, sensor, battle management, and communications capabilities as part of a joint multi-layered theater missile defense architecture in the Roving Sands 97 wargame. In this simulated scenario, the ABL shot

down 16 of 17 targets it engaged and provided missile launch warning, launch and

impact point predictions, and trajectory data to the joint force.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
69

The ABL program is on track, meeting all its milestones, and will demonstrate

its lethality with an actual TBM shootdown demonstration in 2002. The ABL will

reach initial operational capability with three aircraft in fiscal year 2006 and full

operational capability with seven aircraft in fiscal year 2008.

Space-based assets will enhance the success of the ABL. For example, the SpaceBased Infrared System (SBIRS) will provide cueing for the ABL as well as all other

missile defense systems. SBIRS will consist of constellations of satellites in high and

low orbits and will provide improved detection and warning of strategic and theater

missile launches. The SBIRS High component satellites are necessary to replace the

current Defense Support Program (DSP) constellation that provides warning of missile attack. The last DSP satellite will be launched in 2003 and a follow-on system

is needed to maintain global coverage.

SBIRS High will provide complete coverage of the northern hemisphere and most

of the southern hemisphere, providing warning of hostile missile launches, missile

tracks through burnout, launch point and initial impact point prediction, and target

handover to ground-based radars and the SBIRS Low component. SBIRS High sensors will also gather technical intelligence and perform battlespace characterization

and pass this information on to the warfighter in real time.

The SBIRS Low component will acquire and track missiles during the midcourse

of their flight. It will track small, cold bodies, such as reentry vehicles, against the

deep space background, discriminate warheads from decoys, and pass this information to missile defense systems. The precision tracking of the threat reentry vehicles

by SBIRS Low will significantly increase the probability of a successful intercept.

SBIRS will complement the F–22 and ABL to enable our forces to dominate air and

space as part of achieving full spectrum dominance.

Space-based support is rapidly becoming a prerequisite for successful military operations on the land, sea, and in the air. Integrating space-based systems into all

aspects of its operations is a top Air Force priority. This objective has implications

for each of the Air Force core competencies and is the foundation for our Service’s

continued evolution as an aerospace force. But space-based capabilities can only be

made available with reliable, cost-effective spacelift. Toward that end, we are developing the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV).

The EELV will replace the current fleet of launch vehicles with a family of vehicles to provide assured access to space. The EELV will enter operational service

with government flights of medium and heavy lift variants scheduled as early as

2002 and 2003 respectively. EELV will significantly improve DOD, civil, and commercial launch operations by reducing costs, shortening timelines, and enabling

more launches per year. We have recently settled on a strategy to carry two contractors forward into the engineering and manufacturing development and production

phases. This decision was based on a potential private sector market significantly

larger than originally envisioned for EELV. The benefits from this new strategy include a more robust industrial base and two sources to provide continued competition into production and is an example of our revolution in business practices.

Precision Engagement

Today, and for the foreseeable future, successful military operations will depend

on the ability to reliably achieve desired effects while limiting casualties and minimizing collateral damage. We are using the power of space-based systems to support

a new generation of very accurate munitions that exploit the power of satellite navigation to find their way to within feet of any target. We are also investing in greater

numbers of advanced precision weapons capable of killing multiple targets on a single pass, and improving our day, night, and adverse weather precision employment

capabilities to enable pinpoint target accuracy.

We are working hard to field advanced munitions that will further enhance the

range of our precision engagement capabilities like the inexpensive Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Global Positioning System guidance kit that converts 1,000

and 2,000 pound general purpose and penetrator warheads into highly accurate, adverse weather weapons with in-flight retargeting capability. Initial JDAM drop test

results were impressive, with impacts well within the 13 meter requirement. JDAM

low rate initial production began in fiscal year 1997 and deliveries will start in fiscal year 1998.

The long range, low observable, conventional, precision guided Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) will enable precision engagement of high value, heavily defended, fixed and relocatable targets. This is another truly revolutionary weapon system at a very affordable price. The decision to proceed to engineering and

manufacturing development is scheduled for fiscal year 1999. The low rate initial

production decision is scheduled for fiscal year 2000.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
70

The Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) will permit highly accurate, adverse weather

employment against land and sea targets at standoff ranges of 15–40 miles. We will

use two variants with submunitions designed to neutralize both soft and heavily armored targets. We will begin buying JSOW soft target variants in fiscal year 1998

and hard target variants by fiscal year 1999.

The Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) dispenses cluster munitions which will provide

multiple kills per aircraft pass against land combat and support vehicles. Full rate

production of baseline SFW began in fiscal year 1996 and initial operational capability was declared in early fiscal year 1997. The Air Force initiated Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) development in fiscal year 1996. SFW P3I expands the weapon’s footprint by 50 percent, incorporates a dual mode Laser/Infrared sensor and a

multi-purpose combination warhead, and increases kills per pass to 233 percent of

the requirement for the current baseline SFW. Production will begin in fiscal year

1999. About 3,000 of the 5,000 planned weapons will include P3I improvements.

The Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD) guidance tail kit will provide

the capability to correct for launch transients and wind effects and give the Air

Force a first time capability to deliver area munitions such as Combined Effects Munitions, GATOR, and SFW accurately from medium to high altitude. Full rate production is planned for fiscal year 2000.

To counter proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, we plan to enhance

the counterforce capability of our Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles

against fixed chemical/biological production and storage facilities. Funds for this effort were made available by OSD as a result of a joint OSD-Interservice review of

current capabilities to attack such targets. Elsewhere, we are working on the Agent

Defeat Weapon, a capability to neutralize (with low collateral damage) chemical and

biological weapons before they are employed. This capability is currently in concept

exploration and definition.

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a precision engagement asset that will replace

the aging fleets of Air Force F–16 and A–10 aircraft. The JSF will provide a less

expensive multi-role partner for the F–22. The F–22 and JSF are intended to be

complementary, not interchangeable. Together they represent a synergistic high-low

capability mix. The F–22’s ability to gain air dominance by penetrating and suppressing the most lethal ground-based and airborne systems of the next century

makes it possible for us to design a multi-role aircraft which is less capable and

therefore less costly. This is the same high-low mix principle we utilized with the

F–15/F–16 partnership. Without the F–22, the JSF would be hard pressed to perform its mission against current and impending threats with the same effectiveness.

The JSF’s affordable balance of survivability, lethality, and supportability will bring

precision engagement to the future battlespace while simultaneously decreasing life

cycle costs.

The JSF program is on track to supply over 2,900 next-generation multi-role

strike fighters to the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and the United Kingdom Royal

Navy. There are several other interested Allies that may expand and extend the

JSF overall quantity. Delivery of the first operational JSF is scheduled for fiscal

year 2008.

Successful precision engagement is as dependent on timely and accurate information as it is on precision weaponry and capable delivery platforms. Rapidly getting

this information to our aircrews for mission planning and target study is critical for

mission success. Toward that end the Air Force is evaluating systems like the National Eagle system.

Housed in a twenty-foot deployable shelter, National Eagle receives and processes

near-real time imagery from satellites and the Predator UAV and fully integrates

it with the Air Force Mission Support System and the PowerScene mission visualization system. National Eagle provides the route planning and ‘‘fly-through’’ mission visualization capability that enables our pilots to practice their missions in virtual reality at a computer console before strapping into their aircraft for an actual

mission. National Eagle is a refinement of the technique that was effectively used

in Bosnia during Operation Deliberate Force to increase mission success and avoid

unnecessary collateral damage. We will continue to search for similar innovative initiatives to integrate air and space assets to further enhance the effectiveness of

aerospace power.

Global Attack

To quickly halt enemy forces in the early phase of a conflict, the U.S. must maintain its unique ability to project power rapidly, precisely, and globally—to quickly

find and attack or influence targets worldwide from air and space. Air Force global

attack assets are designed to fill this need, responding anywhere in the world in

a matter of hours.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
71

Global Power missions illustrate this capability and are quarterly requirements

for each Air Combat Command bomb wing. The purpose of these missions is to demonstrate to any potential adversary the capability of U.S. aerospace forces to project

power from bases in the continental United States to anywhere in the world within

24 hours. In fiscal year 1997, 32 global power missions were flown by B–1’s, B–2’s,

and B–52’s throughout the world. Missions with durations over 30 hours, taking off

and landing at home station, are not uncommon. This greatly increases the options

available to the CINC’s during crises, while lowering aircrew TEMPO by allowing

them to operate from their home stations.

Bomber operations from forward locations provide commanders with the added

mass, flexibility, and higher utilization rates critical to the halt phase. 1997 witnessed the first in-theater deployment of bombers with an Aerospace Expeditionary

Force when B–1’s deployed to Southwest Asia to support extensions to Operation

Southern Watch.

The B–1 Lancer is the Air Force’s primary long range conventional delivery system. In October 1997, the Air Force suspended the B–1’s active nuclear support role.

It remains on schedule for conversion to a conventional role under the multi-phased

Conventional Mission Upgrade Program (CMUP).

The B–1 carries three families of cluster bomb weapons, including the anti-armor

SFW, making it the first bomber with this critical halt phase capability. In April

1997, the Defensive Systems Upgrade Program, a component of the CMUP, entered

into the engineering and manufacturing development acquisition phase. It includes

the ALR–56M radar warning receiver for improved situational awareness and a

fiber optic towed decoy for radio frequency jamming. Additionally, in July 1997, the

B–1 received approval for full rate production of the GPS and communications upgrade portions of the CMUP.

By the second quarter of fiscal year 1999, we will equip eight B–1’s with the

JDAM and the interim ALE–50 Towed Decoy System for survivability against radar

threats. By fiscal year 2002, the B–1 will achieve its initial operational capability

with the WCMD, JSOW, JASSM, and the full defensive system upgrade to include

the Joint Air Force-Navy Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures System.

The B–2 Spirit is our multi-role, heavy bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions. Achieving initial operational capability in April 1997,

the B–2 brings massive firepower to bear, in a short time, anywhere on the globe.

Its low-observable, or ‘‘stealth,’’ characteristics give it the unique ability to penetrate

an enemy’s most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued and heavily

defended targets. The B–2 has the capability to deliver a wide variety of precision

and non-precision weapons including the JDAM, GPS Aided Munition, SFW, Cluster

Bomb Units, mines, and general purpose munitions ranging from 500 to 2,000

pounds.

The GBU–37, a GPS guided, 4,700 pound, deep penetrating munition was added

to the B–2 arsenal in late 1997. This weapon is currently the only all-weather, nearprecision ‘‘bunker busting’’ capability available to warfighting CINC’s. B–2 conventional weapons integration will continue to be enhanced with the addition of JSOW

in fiscal year 1999 and JASSM in fiscal year 2002.

For more than 35 years, the B–52 Stratofortress has been the primary strategic

heavy bomber force for the United States. The B–52 has the combat proven capability of dropping or launching a significant array of weapons in the U.S. inventory.

It is the only Air Force aircraft capable of delivering all of the following precision,

standoff weapons: the AGM–129 Advanced Cruise Missile, the AGM–86B Air

Launched Cruised Missile, the AGM–84 Harpoon anti-shipping missile, the AGM–

86C Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile, and the AGM–142 missile. Additionally, the B–52 has the capability to integrate future standoff and precision conventional munitions.

Rounding out the Air Force global attack assets are the Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM fleets. Both the Minuteman and Peacekeeper systems provide rapid,

precision strike capability. The Minuteman fleet is undergoing modernization programs, including propulsion and guidance replacements, to continue to ensure the

fleet remains a reliable and credible deterrent to nuclear attack. The Peacekeeper

fleet will continue to be a nuclear deterrent until deactivated under the provisions

of START II.

Rapid Global Mobility

Rapid global mobility ensures our nation can rapidly respond to the full spectrum

of contingencies—from combat operations, to humanitarian relief, to peacekeeping,

with the right force, at the right time, and the right place. Air mobility missions

include the airlift and/or airdrop of troops, passengers, supplies, and equipment to

locations around the globe, as well as air refueling for Air Force, sister Service, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
72

allied aircraft. Air mobility forces also provide worldwide aeromedical evacuation of

patients, participate in special operations, and support other national security requirements. Rapid global mobility is the joint team’s most reliable combat multiplier.

Airlift and air refueling forces provide tremendous speed and flexibility in deploying, employing, and sustaining America’s military forces. Air mobility forces operate

as part of a larger joint warfighting team, working closely with air, land, and naval

forces to meet operational requirements for the unified commanders.

The C–17 is rapidly becoming the new core airlifter of the Air Force’s mobility

fleet. Its ability to carry outsize cargo into austere airfields is essential in deploying

our forces virtually anywhere on the globe—a capability no other nation in the

world has. This capability was recently showcased during CENTRAZBAT 97, a combined force exercise consisting of forces from the U.S., Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,

Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Turkey. In this exercise eight C–17’s flew 7,800 miles nonstop from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to air drop troops and equipment in Central

Asia—the longest air drop mission in history.

In 1997, the C–17 supported our forces in Bosnia, Haiti, and the Middle East,

while accomplishing numerous global movements on short-notice. From transporting

Army rocket launchers from Oklahoma to Korea, to supporting the evacuation of

non-combatants from Liberia, to humanitarian relief flights to Central Africa, the

C–17 continues to carry the load for the joint force and will provide unparalleled

reach well into the new millennium.

Another important aspect of our mobility capability was demonstrated in 1997 by

members of the 352nd Special Operations Group and 100th Air Refueling Wing.

These forces deployed to Libreville, Gabon, in West Africa, as part of an enabling

force to support the Joint Task Force Operation Guardian Retrieval. This operation

was initiated to evacuate the estimated 550 American citizens in Zaire to protect

them from the violence associated with the civil war there. The airmen joined about

400 soldiers, sailors, and Marines comprising the joint task force ashore in West Africa.

The deployment came just weeks shy of the first anniversary of Operation Assured Response when Air Force Special Operations Forces (SOF) units deployed to

Africa to help evacuate more than 2,400 people from Liberia. Our SOF forces maintain the highest tasking rate in the Air Force and it is critical that they are properly

equipped to deal with the increasing number of military operations other than war.

These operations require long range vertical lift capability presently supplied by

MH–53J and MH–60G aircraft.

Our plan to acquire CV–22’s for our SOF forces will provide long range, adverse

weather, clandestine penetration of medium to high threat environments in politically or militarily denied areas to execute personnel recovery operations, infiltrate,

exfiltrate, and resupply SOF forces. The CV–22’s speed, extended range, and survivability will significantly increase the warfighting CINC’s ability to conduct operations in denied territory. Air Force Special Operations Command will receive 50

of the tilt-rotor aircraft. The CV–22 is expected to make its maiden flight in 2000.

Hurlburt Field, Florida, will receive operational aircraft beginning in 2004.

We are also modernizing our executive fleet by replacing the VC–137 fleet at the

89th Airlift Wing at Andrews AFB, Maryland. The VC–137’s will be replaced with

four C–32A (Boeing 757) and two C–37A (Gulfstream V) aircraft. All aircraft will

be delivered in 1998.

Global Access, Navigation, and Safety (GANS) is an Air Force management initiative established to harmonize requirements and acquisition of several navigation

and safety-related programs. The purpose of GANS is threefold: to organize related

navigation and safety programs and integrate Air Force efforts through combined

Air Staff and Major Command integrated product teams; to serve as a requirements

and acquisition management tool; and to establish an avionics acquisition modernization strategy designed to minimize platform downtime and integration costs.

The GANS process provides implementation planning for one of the largest of these

programs, Global Air Traffic Management (GATM). We will sustain our rapid global

mobility core competency by acquiring state-of-the-art GANS systems for our air mobility forces to preserve access to prime global airspace routes in the future.

Additionally, latest technology, commercial ground and air traffic warning systems using digital terrain database displays and GPS have been established as

standard equipment for all Air Force passenger capable aircraft. This equipment is

to be installed as soon as possible, but not later than 2005, to enhance our ability

to safely operate in higher traffic densities of the 21st century.

Modernization of the Active and Reserve Component C–130 airlift fleet is on

track. This program consists of modification of our existing C–130’s and limited procurement of the C–130J. Programmed modifications are designed to increase reliU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
73

ability, maintainability, combat capability, and safety. Our current plan is to modernize over 350 existing aircraft between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2009.

Our Pacer CRAG (Compass, Radar And GPS) avionics upgrade to the KC–135

fleet is also on track. This commercial off-the-shelf modification program will eliminate the need for a navigator on most missions. Recent additions to the Pacer CRAG

program include a Traffic Alerting and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), an Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (E-GPWS), a Standby Air Data Indicator, and a Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) Compliant Air Data Computer. These systems will serve as the foundation for future GATM modifications

and ensure our KC–135 fleet maintains the capabilities necessary to meet wartime

requirements.

Information Superiority

In today’s environment, information superiority is critical to the execution of Air

Force core competencies and overall mission success. The essence of information superiority is the ability to collect, control, exploit, and defend information and information systems. These ‘‘information operations’’ are important to the entire range

of military operations, from peace to all-out conflict. The Air Force provides information superiority to the nation by executing information operations in air, space, and

increasingly, in cyberspace. One of the fundamental benefits of information superiority is effective command and control of our military forces.

We are committed to integrating command and control (C2) into aerospace operations, eliminating duplication of effort, and increasing commonality between C2

systems. To implement and oversee these initiatives, we stood up the Air and Space

Command and Control Agency in 1997. This agency, together with the Air Force

Communications and Information Center (the Air Force’s center of excellence for

communications and information, also established in 1997), will be pivotal in expanding our nation’s information edge and enhancing our warfighters’ capabilities.

We are aggressively pursuing innovative C2 capabilities to improve Air Force expeditionary operations. For example, in September 1998, we will conduct Expeditionary Forces Experiment 98 (EFX 98) to demonstrate C2 capability and help focus

our C2 operations and investment. EFX 98 will consist of a simulated combat scenario with emphasis on the rapid deployment and employment of an AEF to conduct

offensive air operations. It will combine elements of live-fly exercises, modeling and

simulation, and advanced technology to demonstrate new operational concepts such

as near-real time sensor-to-decision maker-to-shooter capabilities, Joint Force Air

Component Commander enroute employment planning, Distributed Air Operations

Center concepts, and Agile Combat Support using In-Transit Visibility and Total

Asset Visibility. EFX 98 will establish the baseline for a series of advanced

warfighting experiments we plan to conduct annually.

One system that is key to meeting the warfighters’ command, control, communication, computer, and information (C4I) needs is the Global Command and Control

System (GCCS). GCCS is a part of the overall Defense Information Infrastructure

Common Operating Environment (DII COE) which affords all the Services interoperability and eases joint operations; it is a DOD integrated C4I system that provides a joint, worldwide classified network to facilitate the dissemination of critical

information. We have fielded GCCS at all Major Commands, Numbered Air Forces,

and most Wings. GCCS provides a full complement of C2 capabilities such as readiness assessment, crisis action and deliberate planning, intelligence mission support,

secure communications, and a common operational picture. We are migrating Air

Force C2 systems to this common operating environment to enhance interoperability.

Effective C2 depends in large part on our ability to accurately identify all of the

hostile, friendly, and neutral entities in the battlespace—referred to as Combat

Identification (CID). Accurate CID hinges on our ability to effectively process data

to build a three-dimensional picture of the battlespace. This in turn permits realtime application of tactical options so weapons can be employed at optimal ranges

against the most critical enemy targets. The acquisition of CID systems and development of associated tactics, techniques, and procedures will maximize operational

effectiveness, reduce casualties due to fratricide or enemy actions, and move us closer to the goal of full spectrum dominance.

The Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) is the linchpin of airborne

C2 systems as the airborne surveillance and battle management platform for the

Joint Force Commander. We have modernization efforts underway to ensure

AWACS remains an effective and survivable airborne C2 platform through 2025.

In 1997, the AWACS Radar System Improvement Program successfully completed

its initial operational test and evaluation. This program will greatly increase the detection range of low radar cross section targets, provide improved electronic counterU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
74

counter measures, and reduce radar failure time ten-fold. Additionally, the collection

of initiatives comprising the Extend Sentry program will reduce maintenance downtime, reduce the number of mission aborts, and increase aircraft availability. The

Extend Sentry program is critical to ensure the AWACS will remain available to

meet real-world taskings.

Timely, accurate information provides the National Command Authorities and our

military commanders with the ability to quickly assess developing crises and respond appropriately. The operations of U–2, Predator, and the RC–135 Rivet Joint

aircraft around and over Bosnia and Iraq graphically illustrate how the integration

of air and space assets has improved the timeliness and accuracy of our information.

The U–2 has the ability to deliver digital near-real time information to ground stations in the continental United States, which in turn process it and relay it by satellite to theater commanders around the globe.

These ground stations, known as Contingency Airborne Reconnaissance System

(CARS) Deployable Ground Station (DGS) 1 and 2, are located at Langley AFB, Virginia, and Beale AFB, California. They serve as collection and assessment points for

the U–2’s raw intelligence data. Each DGS consists of two squadrons, an Air Combat Command unit that provides imagery analysis expertise, and an Air Intelligence

Agency unit that provides signals intelligence, logistics, and communications expertise. These units determine the capabilities and posture of potential adversaries and

provide near-real time intelligence products to deployed forces in Bosnia and Southwest Asia using Mobile Stretch (MOBSTR) communications relay technology.

Deploying a DGS into a theater of operations would require six C–5 Galaxy transports to move approximately 200 tons of equipment and more than 200 people. However, with our ‘‘reachback’’ capability, we achieve the same effect by deploying 30

people with smaller ground stations to collect and relay the U–2’s data from the theater of operations to the United States for processing and dissemination.

The U–2’s impressive capability is complemented by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

(UAV’s). The Predator Medium Altitude Endurance (MAE) UAV has been deployed

to Bosnia since March 1996. This versatile system transmits live video feeds to front

line commanders via the Joint Broadcast System—furnishing our joint forces with

unparalleled situational awareness.

On 1 August 1997, the 15th Reconnaissance Squadron at Indian Springs Air Force

Auxiliary Field, Nevada, was activated as the second Air Force Predator MAE UAV

squadron. One week later, Predator became the first Advanced Concept Technology

Demonstrator (ACTD) to transition to a formal acquisition program under DOD’s

ACTD initiative. We have overcome several challenges and learned some lessons in

making Predator the success it is today. We are using this valuable experience as

we work with the high altitude UAV program offices to ensure a smoother operational transition once these programs prove themselves.

In the area of manned reconnaissance, Rivet Joint continues to be our most flexible and responsive platform. During 1997, Rivet Joint remained in high demand,

providing accurate, timely tactical information to a broad range of users in Bosnia,

Southwest Asia, and around the world. In 1997, the first three aircraft of the 14

aircraft Rivet Joint Fleet were modified with current technology to establish a new

baseline configuration. Two additional Rivet Joint aircraft will be added to the fleet

beginning in 1998, helping to alleviate this system’s high TEMPO rate. Additionally,

we plan to complete most of the reengining program for the RC–135 fleet by the

end of the Future Years Defense Program.

Our more specialized RC–135 assets, COMBAT SENT and COBRA BALL, provided critical technical intelligence throughout 1997 to support weapons development efforts, theater force protection, and weapons proliferation assessments.

Surveillance is also crucial to information superiority. The Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) provides commanders with a set of ‘‘eyes’’

to ‘‘see’’ what the enemy is doing on the ground in all weather, day or night. The

Joint STARS combination of moving-target indicators and synthetic aperture radar

produces images that enable operators to pick out individual vehicles in a moving

convoy. This capability played an important role in enforcing the Dayton Peace Accords when both of the Bosnian factions could see and understand that their every

movement was being monitored.

Over the course of 1997, Joint STARS participated in several exercises where it

provided critical situational awareness to commanders and troops. For example,

during the Hunter Warrior exercise, the Red Team commander expressed frustration that he was unable to move his forces without detection by friendly forces when

Joint STARS was on station. Similarly, the Joint STARS received excellent reviews

for its work in the Foal Eagle exercise conducted in the Republic of Korea—the largest air base defense exercise in the free world. During the Foal Eagle exercise, the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
75

Joint STARS significantly increased the situational awareness of battle commanders

in South Korea by providing the real-time location of friendly and enemy forces.

Joint STARS also has tremendous potential to assist with real-time targeting of

enemy positions by attack aircraft. As an experiment, a Joint STARS mission was

flown over Bosnia in which a Hand-held Terminal Unit (HTU) was used to send

real-time target designation and other data by burst transmission to F–16 aircraft

equipped with the Improved Data Modem. While the HTU is not currently integrated into Joint STARS, this experiment demonstrated the potential capability to

pass real-time information from Joint STARS directly into the cockpits of attack aircraft.

Joint STARS, which declared initial operational capability in December 1997, has

now successfully deployed to the European, Southwest Asia, and Pacific theaters in

four deployments. It continues to demonstrate its benefits as the DOD’s only fielded

real-time, long range, wide area surveillance and battle management asset. Together, the Joint STARS and the other Air Force information superiority assets provide the battlespace awareness necessary to conduct today’s complex military operations.

We must safeguard our information to prevent our forces from becoming the target of an adversary’s information warfare campaign. We have an increasing need

to defend information from its point of production to its point of delivery to the

battlespace commanders. To aid in the defense of systems and the information they

contain, Air Force investigators and counterintelligence personnel rely on the

unique capability to detect and counter unauthorized network access afforded by the

computer forensic laboratory. Within the laboratory, an impressive media analysis

branch is able to dig clues from mountains of information stored in a variety of formats. This capability is complemented by a network intrusion squad capable of

tracking intruders through the complex maze of cyberspace.

Our Service was recently designated as executive agent for the new DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory. This laboratory will offer us an opportunity to play an

important leadership role in developing techniques to protect key information systems across the DOD. Our other current information operations capabilities include

the Automated Security Incident Measurement System, Modeling and Simulation

programs, the Information Warfare Battlelab, and the Computer Security Assessment Program.

In the area of offensive information warfare we have a variety of capabilities like

those provided by the EC–130H, Compass Call. As DOD’s only wide-area offensive

information warfare platform, Compass Call provides disruptive communications

jamming and other unique capabilities to support the Joint Force Commander

across the spectrum of conflict.

For localized targeting of specific avenues of communication, the EC–130E Commando Solo is available to commanders. This weapon system is the mainstay information operations aircraft for peacekeeping and peacemaking operations and humanitarian efforts which comprise a large percentage of today’s military missions.

With the capability to control the electronic spectrum of radio, television, and military communication bands in a focused area, the Commando Solo aircraft can prepare the battlefield through psychological operations and civil affairs broadcasts. In

1997, the Commando Solo supported the U.N.’s Operation Joint Guard mission by

shutting down anti-SFOR propaganda through radio and TV broadcasts over Bosnia-Herzegovina in support of SFOR operations.

Agile Combat Support

The success of the joint force ultimately rests on our ability to sustain deployed

forces. Agile combat support will enable our rapid, responsive, and flexible forces to

become more expeditionary in nature by eliminating the need for massive deployed

inventories. Improvements in information and logistics technologies will make this

possible.

When combatant commanders require an item, integrated information systems

will ‘‘reach back’’ to U.S. locations and ‘‘pull’’ only the resources required. Streamlined depot processes will release materiel in a timely fashion so that time-definite

transportation can complete the support cycle by rapidly delivering needed resources

directly to the user in the field. Integrated information systems currently being tested provide total asset visibility throughout this process, tracking resources throughout their delivery cycle. Mobility assets equipped with this technology can be

tracked in near-real time through the exchange of GPS data, two-way message text,

and aircraft cargo information.

We are improving interoperability and commonality of combat support information systems with the Global Combat Support System-Air Force (GCSS-AF) program. GCSS-AF is another component of the DII COE; it is a software modernizaU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
76

tion program to provide interoperability and sharing of data between base-level information systems.

Agile combat support will allow commanders to improve the responsiveness, readiness, deployability, and sustainability of their forces. The efficiency and flexibility

of agile combat support will enable aerospace forces to engage quickly and decisively

and sustain operations as necessary anywhere on the globe.

Enabling Technologies

Our Service continues to explore and invest in promising technologies that enhance our core competencies and contribute to our vision for the future. Examples

include: our development, demonstration, and maturation of the high-power laser

technology that was transitioned to the Airborne Laser system; our execution of the

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’s Space-Based Laser Research Demonstrator;

and our cooperation with NASA to explore the potential of reusable launch vehicle

technology for militarily unique applications. Additionally, we continue to investigate a range of new technologies from those intended to enhance the expeditionary

capability of our aerospace forces to those designed to enable target identification

from space. We feel it is important to explore revolutionary technologies like these

as a hedge against the potential threats our nation may face in the future.

Our defense laboratories and test centers are often the birthplace of key technologies. To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of these facilities, we streamlined the Air Force Materiel Command laboratory structure in April 1997 by forming a corporate Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). This new organization realigns the former Armstrong Laboratory at Brooks AFB, Texas; Phillips Laboratory

at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; Rome Laboratory at Rome, New York; Wright Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research at Bolling AFB, Washington, DC, under a single AFRL commander

headquartered at Wright-Patterson AFB. The AFRL will likely play a major role in

harnessing emerging revolutionary technologies that will transform the way we employ military forces in the future.

Revolution in Military Affairs

A revolution in military affairs (RMA) is said to occur when the innovative application of new technologies, combined with dramatic changes in operational and organizational concepts, fundamentally alters the character and conduct of military

operations. The Air Force exists today because of an earlier RMA that combined the

new technology of manned flight with innovative operational concepts to create a

military force with a global perspective.

Our Service has evolved over the years by leveraging leap-ahead technology and

developing the appropriate operational and organizational structures to employ that

technology. We are committed to the research, testing, and evaluation of promising

new technologies that may lead to the next RMA. Stealth, supercruise, the Airborne

Laser, precision guided munitions, Joint STARS, UAV’s, integrated information systems, and space-based assets are all examples of leading edge technologies that are

changing the way we conduct military operations.

We are exploring the implications of leap-ahead capabilities in such areas as information operations, space operations, and directed energy to ensure we are postured to exploit the next RMA to build the aerospace capabilities necessary to protect America’s security interests well into the 21st century.

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY

Sustaining and strengthening our core competencies will depend on getting the

most out of limited resources. We are downsizing personnel and taking other actions

to streamline operations and increase efficiency in all areas to help fund our modernization program. We are looking to innovation and revolutionary business practices to improve our operations and reduce costs.

Innovation

Innovation is critical to our Service’s continued success. It is essential that we aggressively look ahead and seek new ways to employ aerospace power that will enable us to respond quickly to new strategic requirements and take advantage of new

technological opportunities.

Battlelabs

One of the major engines for operational innovation is the Air Force battlelab concept. Battlelabs are small, focused, and rely on field ingenuity to identify creative

operational and logistics concepts for advancing the Air Force’s core competencies

in joint warfare. The Air Force established six Battlelabs in July 1997 to identify

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
77

innovative ideas: Aerospace Expeditionary Force, Command and Control Battle

Management, Unmanned Air Vehicle, Space, Force Protection, and Information

Warfare. Successfully demonstrated battlelab concepts will be introduced to the

CINC’s and their components through exercises and wargaming, and via the newly

established Service and joint experimental organizations. New concepts adopted by

the Air Force may prompt revisions to Air Force organization, doctrine, training, requirements, or acquisition to enhance the Air Force’s ability to meet future challenges.

Modeling and Simulation

Modeling and Simulation (M&S) technologies are an array of computer and software tools for creating and interacting with artificial representations of reality. We

have always used modeling and simulation, but advances in computer technology

have enabled simulations that are highly detailed, increasingly realistic, and more

affordable. Our challenge is to develop models and simulations that more accurately

capture the contributions of aerospace power on the modern battlefield.

We envision a ‘‘joint synthetic battlespace’’ that uses a mix of live participants,

human-in-the-loop virtual simulators, and computer-generated constructive simulations to organize, train, and equip our forces. To realize this vision, we are actively

supporting the development of joint, interoperable, and reusable models and simulations. Specific examples include the Joint Warfare Simulation (JWARS), the Joint

Simulation System (JSIMS), and the Air Force-directed Joint Modeling and Simulation System (JMASS).

JWARS is intended for joint campaign analysis and is being directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. JSIMS focuses on the operational level of war and will

develop and deliver an M&S system capable of joint battlestaff training by 2000.

JMASS provides a common environment focused on detailed tactical modeling for

requirements development, acquisition, and testing. When these efforts are complete, we will be able to replace an aging suite of legacy models and simulations

to more accurately simulate modern aerospace power.

Wargaming

Wargames are invaluable tools with which to explore innovative ways to employ

military forces. Our Service is sponsoring a series of Global Engagement wargames

with the support of our sister Services to better understand the contribution of air

and space forces to the Joint Force Commander.

We initiated this series in 1996 with Strategic Force 96 and followed it up last

year with Global Engagement 97 (GE 97). GE 97 was enhanced by the addition of

a seminar-based policy pregame where a select group of players, representing many

principal advisors to the National Command Authorities, explored the implications

of increased space and information capabilities on national policies and international treaties.

Global Engagement 98 (GE 98) will also include a policy-level pregame to be held

near Washington, DC, in June 1998. The operational game will be held the following

November at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. GE 98 will explore the transition of forces

from a small scale contingency to a major theater war in the 2008–2009 timeframe.

Scenarios will challenge current CINC’s’ staffs to test and evaluate emerging concepts of operations against viable threats and plausible enemy actions. Key aspects

will include the employment of an AEF and the application of a rapid halt of advancing enemy forces to limit the conflict and avoid attrition warfare.

Revolution in Business Affairs

In addition to operational innovation, we must adopt innovative, modern commercial business practices to free up precious resources for modernization. We must remove redundancy; use competition to improve quality and reduce costs; and reduce

support structures both to free up resources and to focus on core competencies.

We are capitalizing on the revolution in business affairs by moving away from traditional means of doing business in acquiring and supporting our forces. We have

instituted an aggressive series of reforms in this regard that extend across the

range of our activities.

Strategic Business Planning

Sustaining the current force while simultaneously investing in the systems necessary for operations in the 21st century is a significant challenge in today’s fiscally

constrained environment. Our key Air Force leaders responsible for accomplishing

and supporting acquisition and sustainment have joined together to embark on a

shared vision and commitment toward a strategic business plan that moves the acquisition and sustainment communities toward better business practices and continU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
78

uous process improvement. The goal is to reduce costs without sacrificing mission

capability.

Partnership with Industry

In June 1997, our senior leaders in acquisition, requirements, and planning and

programming signed a memorandum encouraging Air Force members to communicate more openly with industry to promote a better understanding of our requirements in terms of mission and affordability issues. The intent is to promote innovative and more affordable business solutions. This new partnership is already showing progress in the form of acquisition reform, commercial off-the-shelf acquisitions,

lean logistics, and competition and privatization.

Acquisition Reform

We are changing the culture of acquisition. The emphasis is to acquire all products used by the Air Force ‘‘better, cheaper, faster’’ and in a ‘‘smoother’’ more

streamlined, well understood process. Virtually every new acquisition program is

taking advantage of commercial practices by altering its strategy toward commercial

specifications and standards, privatization, competition, commercial off-the-shelf

technology, and contractor system responsibility. Through our Lightning Bolt initiatives in streamlining, teaming, and innovative acquisition strategies, we have realized $7.1 billion in savings from previously budgeted funds and $11.8 billion in cost

avoidance. Newer efforts focus on continuous process improvement and establishing

strategic steps to ensure that acquisition reform becomes the norm. To accomplish

these objectives, we will continue to advance the professional development of our acquisition workforce by providing quality continuing education and training.

Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Products

Using commercial and non-developmental items is a key factor in achieving the

needed economy of Air Force resources. Our focus is on increasing the use of current

commercial non-developmental products, processes, and practices while improving

the public-private sector business environment to enable a greater use of COTS.

Some initiatives include: the conversion of 17 percent of our military product specifications to commercial item descriptions or non-government standards; the establishment of a market research working group to define commercial market research

techniques that reveal the best commercially available items to insert into military

systems; and the preparation of a draft COTS Handbook to aid in identifying and

procuring commercial items.

Lean Logistics

Lean logistics includes a number of complementary initiatives designed to improve the capabilities of operational units by integrating and applying state-of-theart business practices across all logistics functions and processes. For example, we

have implemented a new method to compute base and depot stock levels which have

reduced expected backorders by 17 percent, saving $70 million in depot repair dollars and eliminating $60 million in unfunded repair requirements. We have also instituted an automated method to prioritize depot repair and distribution actions to

optimize fleet aircraft daily availability.

The objective is to maximize operational capability by using high-velocity, timedefinite supply and delivery processes in lieu of large inventories to manage mission

and logistics uncertainty. This results in shorter cycle times, reduced inventories

and costs, and a smaller mobility footprint, which are critical to achieve Air Force

agile combat support objectives.

Competition and Privatization

We are taking a long-term approach to competition and privatization. This entails

charting a strategic path for us—now and in the long run—to make the most effective use of private sector capabilities while maintaining or improving our readiness

and quality. Innovative solutions, improved performance, and increased savings

should result from the increased competition inherent in the OMB A–76 cost comparison process and the increased role of the private sector. With no growth planned

for total obligation authority, the savings accrued from competition and privatization will be key for future modernization. Our competition and privatization initiatives are designed to preserve ‘‘tooth,’’ streamline ‘‘tail,’’ and support modernization.

We are pursuing dual and joint-use initiatives for workloads with the private sector to use more efficiently the existing industrial capacity at the three remaining

Air Logistics Centers that remain after BRAC 95. For the workloads not required

to support core capabilities at McClellan Air Logistics Center, California, and San

Antonio Air Logistics Center, at Kelly AFB, Texas, we are continuing with publicprivate competitions. The results of the first of the public-private competitions, the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
79

C–5 Programmed Depot Maintenance at Kelly AFB, Texas, were announced in 1997.

Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia won this competition with an expected savings of $190.2 million over the next seven years. Currently, two additional

public-private competitions are planned—one for consolidated depot maintenance

workloads at McClellan AFB, California, and the second for propulsion workloads

at Kelly AFB, Texas. These competitions should be completed in 1998.

In the area of privatization, we are pursuing initiatives in housing and utilities.

We are using privatization to upgrade, improve, and replace substandard family

housing and eliminate our 14,000 unit deficit. Of the 110,000 housing units in the

Air Force-wide inventory, 58,000 require upgrade, improvement, or replacement.

Seven projects are currently proceeding through the privatization process with more

anticipated.

We are also moving forward with the privatization of base utilities in response

to the Secretary of Defense’s Defense Reform Initiative Decision. The first privatization project in this area will be awarded in July 1998 for the electrical distribution

at Youngstown Air Reserve Base, Ohio. Under the current execution rules, we anticipate conversion of at least 175 water, wastewater, electrical, and natural gas systems.

Financial Reform

We continue our efforts to improve financial management systems and practices.

We need better financial management in order to provide our commanders with

high-quality financial information, eliminate financial irregularities that damage

public confidence, and comply with the law.

Improving financial management requires several key steps. Compliance with the

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is one of them. GPRA is important to financial management because it mandates the creation of output measures

that can be used in financial reports and related to financial data. During the past

year, we have supported OSD efforts to develop output measures and comply with

other requirements of GPRA. We have also incorporated some GPRA output measures into our financial statements required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO)

Act. We are experimenting with activity-based costing, training our people on its

use, and assisting in studies. Several of our commands are experimenting with new

approaches to capturing the cost of ownership in order to identify areas to reduce

operating costs and to help decision makers determine ways to reduce costs.

We are also improving our CFO financial statements. These statements are publicly available and provide us an opportunity to demonstrate that we are good stewards of public funds. We have achieved relatively clean audit opinions on our military and civilian pay accounts and improved the information related to contingent

liabilities. Now we are focused on making the statements more useful to commanders and seeking early implementation of some new statements required by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

Finally, we have undertaken an aggressive effort to improve our financial systems

in order to provide better information to our commanders and comply with the CFO

Act. In the near term, this effort involves modifying existing systems to provide better cost data and deploying already-developed systems (such as our Automated Business Services System) that can reduce errors in financial data. In the longer run,

we must replace most of our existing systems. In most cases, we will choose the

best-of-breed from among all service systems and modify the winner to comply with

the CFO Act and provide adequate cost data. During the last year, we have made

substantial progress on several systems efforts including one to replace the existing

financial systems at Air Force depots with a modified version of a system in operation at Navy aircraft depots.

Environmental Restoration and Compliance

Environmental compliance, restoration, and conservation are essential to ensure

the Air Force has continued access to ranges, airspace, and installations. Stable

funding allowed the environmental restoration program to maintain its 1997 cleanup schedule at all contaminated sites. The firm commitment to know and obey environmental laws and regulations has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number

of open enforcement actions against the Air Force from 263 in 1992 to only 16 in

1997.

In May 1997, the Air Force received 4 out of 14 White House Closing the Circle

Awards which recognize people and groups for leadership in pollution prevention.

The winners were: the Space and Missile Systems Center, Environmental Management Branch, Los Angeles AFB, California, for improved launch rocket systems; the

375th Civil Engineering Squadron, Scott AFB, Illinois, for its recycling program; the

Environmental Management Directorate, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
80

Utah, for waste prevention; and Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley AFB,

Virginia, for its global environmental outreach program. Additionally, the Secretary

of the Interior characterized Eglin AFB, Florida, as the best protected, best managed property that he had seen anywhere in the world. These examples represent

our commitment to protect America’s natural resources as we execute our missions.

Partnerships with governmental and non-governmental organizations are fostering biodiversity and integrated ecosystem management at many installations. We

are working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state

partners to seek common sense ways to achieve common goals. In November 1997,

we signed an agreement at Vandenberg AFB, California, with the EPA and the

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District to reduce environmental program costs and apply savings directly to reducing pollution from the base. Vandenberg AFB was the first DOD installation to sign such an agreement with the EPA.

We plan to direct environmental compliance funds into water conservation and air

and water pollution projects. We will use the savings to purchase and operate cleaner operating boilers and equipment for the base’s power station. The result will be

less money spent on administration and more invested in improving air quality. The

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security cited Vandenberg as

the model for this type of partnership. Environmental investment agreements are

an important cooperative step toward sustaining both community and Air Force operations.

Base Transfers and Realignments

We continue to work with the communities impacted by base closure/realignment

to put the property and facilities into economic reuse. For example, Pease AFB, New

Hampshire, is now Pease International Tradeport, employing 1,219 people at a

brewery, a consular center, an airfield, and a steel manufacturer, among others—

where only 400 civilians were employed when the base was active.

In 1997, we completed Economic Development Conveyances (EDC’s) for property

at six closure/realignment bases. Most notably, we signed an EDC with the Greater

Kelly Development Corporation for Kelly AFB, Texas, just two years after the base

was announced for realignment. We have also reached final agreement on the terms

of an EDC with the County of Sacramento and are working very closely to complete

the documentation required to facilitate the transfer of McClellan AFB, California,

from the Air Force to the County.

Other Cost Cutting Initiatives

Additional ongoing cost cutting initiatives implemented or investigated in 1997 include: (1) replacing government bills of lading with commercial bills of lading for

air express cargo shipments; (2) using commercial express carriers for small arms

and ammunition shipments; (3) increasing functionality between Air Force and commercial carrier transportation data and software; (4) using express carriers to ship

classified material; (5) discontinuing volume printing of regulations and instructions; and (6) reengineering distribution of publications via electronic media such as

the internet and CD–ROM.

CONCLUSION

America is an aerospace nation and its aerospace forces are an essential element

of our nation’s military capability. They possess the flexibility to fight across the

spectrum of conflict anywhere on the globe, with the speed and range necessary to

halt aggression in its tracks.

America’s Air Force will remain a preeminent tool of U.S. military power with

rapid global ranging forces empowered with stealth and precision weapons. We will

continue to sponsor research and development to exploit the full spectrum of aerospace technology and continue to assist all the Services’ transition to effective exploitation of our space assets. Finally, we will remain a key enabler of U.S. land

and sea forces by ensuring air dominance, and through robust airlift, air refueling,

and space support.

The Air Force has come a long way in the past five decades and has an exciting

journey ahead. We are laying the groundwork for that future today as we execute

our contemporary military mission, shape our Service for the future, and develop

the airmen that will lead us in the 21st century. This is a journey that will take

us into new, uncharted territory. And it is one that will benefit every member of

the joint warfighting team.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
81

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF F. WHITTEN PETERS

F. Whitten Peters is undersecretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for all actions of the Air Force on behalf of the secretary of the Air Force

and is acting secretary in the secretary’s absence.

Prior to being appointed to his current position, Mr. Peters was the principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Defense where he worked a wide range

of issues, including acquisition reform, countering domestic terrorism, protecting the

department’s information systems and affirmative action. Before serving as a senior

executive with the federal government, Mr. Peters was a litigation partner at the

Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly, where he specialized in complex

civil and criminal litigation, including the defense of government contract fraud,

antitrust, tax and security cases. He has extensive experience in representing individuals and corporations in compliance and ethics programs, internal investigations

and suspension and debarment proceedings. He has written and spoken extensively

on acquisition reform, legal ethics and criminal law issues.

Mr. Peters and his wife, Monnie, have three daughters: Elizabeth, Mary and Margaret.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF GEN. MICHAEL E. RYAN

General Michael E. Ryan is chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.

As chief, he serves as the senior uniformed Air Force officer responsible for the organization, training and equipage of 750,000 active duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian

forces serving in the United States and overseas. As a member of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff, he and the other service chiefs function as military advisers to the secretary

of defense, National Security Council and the President.

The general entered the Air Force after graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1965. He has commanded at the squadron, wing, numbered air force and

major command levels. He flew combat in Southeast Asia, including 100 missions

over North Vietnam. He also served in staff assignments at the major command

level, Headquarters U.S. Air Force and the Joint Staff. As commander 16th Air

Force and Allied Air Forces Southern Europe in Italy, he directed the NATO air

combat operations in Bosnia Herzegovina which directly contributed to the Dayton

Peace Accords. Before assuming his current position, the general was commander

of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander, Allied Air Forces Central Europe,

with headquarters at Ramstein Air Base, Germany.

General Ryan and his wife, Jane, have four children: Michael, Mary Kathleen,

Sean and Colleen.

CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, I note your distinguished record before you came

to Government and I think we are very fortunate to have a person

of your background be willing to be Secretary of the Air Force. I

hope you take no offense when I tell you that when you mentioned

the fact that you have the power to close bases, in an election year,

as an Acting Secretary, you send shivers through everyone’s back.

I hope you recognize the difficulty that we would have in getting

approval of your budget should you carry out that threat.

Now both you and the general have mentioned that you would

like to close bases. I would be happy to have you give me a list of

the bases you would like to close. The difficulty is that the savings

we made out of the last three rounds of base closures were more

than absorbed by expenditures that were not authorized by Congress in deployments to Bosnia and other places around the world.

We have had to reprogram, reprogram, reprogram, and reprogram, and we have decided we are not going to reprogram anymore.

Now the real problem with it is we spend more of our time and

so do the members of the Air Force trying to figure out where to

get the money that has been spent without authorization, how to

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.000
82

reshuffle accounts, than we do in trying to figure out what to do

for modernization.

I believe we are going to have to close some bases. But until we

see some action with regard to McClellan and Kelly, which were

kept open during the election process by the President as a candidate, I don’t think you are going to get support for the BRAC

process.

Now the idea that we should be berated about not closing bases

at the beginning of a hearing on how can we find the money to continue right now with this supplemental just crossing my desk, the

only way we are going to swallow that is to declare it all emergency. I really think that we are jeopardizing the future of our

modernization program if we do not make savings. I don’t think it

is clear yet that the only saving we can make is through base closures.

I come from a State that was the only State in the Union that

was invaded in World War II, and one of the reasons it was was

its bases were denuded in the long peacetime period before World

War II.

If you want to talk to me or the Senator from Hawaii about readiness, we would be happy to quote some history to you.

The difficulty I have right now is I don’t know where we are

going to find the money for modernization and I agree we should

make savings. I would urge you to start looking at some of the

things we have been talking about up here and that includes consolidation of functions. Consolidation of bases really has not given

this committee any money to shift around to the modernization

program—none.

We have not had $1 go from base closures into modernization. I

would be glad to have you prove that and if you want to look at

it, I will show you the figures. We spent more money, as I said, in

unfunded, unauthorized operations in Bosnia and other activities,

such as we are now spending in Iraq. But we are going to cover

that with this emergency funding and I hope Congress will join in

the emergency.

But I would urge you to stop complaining about base closures

and start telling us how to save money in other areas. For instance, we maintain training schools for pilots. Each one of the

services does, and for the same aircraft. Why shouldn’t we consolidate those functions? What have the services done about consolidation of functions rather than consideration of bases?

I do not think consolidation of bases automatically saves money

at all. One thing that bothers me right now is, if we look at what

is going on right now, General—and you mentioned it in your

statement—we now have four times greater OPTEMPO than in

1989, but with one-third less end-strength. We now have had 33

percent of the active pilots completing tours reenlist. I think that

is the lowest since I entered the Congress.

Under those circumstances, it seems to me that morale, which

would be highly disturbed, Mr. Secretary, by a political decision to

close bases, as opposed to one that was based on the Base Closure

Commission, it seems that morale is going to be affected by bases

being closed without the proper process being followed.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
83

So I hope we have heard the last of that, Mr. Secretary—again,

respectfully. I do not want to be threatened again. And I think the

committee feels threatened by that concept.

Our budget covers specific bases. If you want to close some, I

would urge you to tell us what you want to close. We will help you.

If you want to close some bases, we will do it in the 1999 bill. But

tell us where they are and why and stop telling us that we ought

to do it without telling us where you want to do it.

General, I really think the problem about pilot retention has a

lot to do with the overall pay scale now as compared to private aircraft, private concerns, and the way they are hiring away your pilots. I would like to see you give us a suggestion. We had to cover

this once before with the doctors in the military. We had to cover

it before with scientists in the military. Why shouldn’t we face the

fact that if you are going to keep the top grade pilots, we have to

pay them more?

I would urge you to give us not just the incentive pay concept

or the reenlistment bonus concept, but raise their pay across the

board. I have talked to several of these young people. They left because they felt their families would be better off. They are passing

their prime years flying in the service and they didn’t feel the compensation was high enough. I think the Congress would be ready

to adjust the pay of pilots to meet this problem of retention.

Last, the one thing that really worries me right now, Mr. Secretary and General, is the report from Europe that at least two

fighter squadrons were not able to maintain readiness, were redlined too often, and were not capable of meeting the overall goal

of the Air Force, particularly when deployed. It is bad enough to

have that happen here at home. But if it is true that there were

two fighter squadrons in Europe that could not maintain their aircraft availability because of lack of spare parts, I think something

has to be done about the logistical concept of distribution of parts

and their availability. We would be happy to work with you on

that.

I would hope that, above all, once we deploy forces overseas, they

are not shortchanged with regard to parts. That report was very

disturbing to me when it first came in.

If you have any comments about what I said, I would be glad to

let you comment. But I have to tell you that that article disturbed

me no end.

FUNDING REQUEST OVERVIEW

Mr. Secretary, do you have any comment?

Mr. PETERS. Senator, the point of the discussion that I had and

also to a certain extent that General Ryan had at the Air Force Association [AFA] last week was clearly that BRAC is the right way

to go if we are going to reduce infrastructure because it is the way

that is best for the communities that have supported the military

for so many years.

There really are three reasons at this point why we think we

need to be able to close bases. Money is one of them but is not necessarily the most important. There are two other reasons that are

really critical.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
84

First, with respect to our forces, we are at a point now where,

as General Ryan said, the forces who are left at home are working

very long hours because the number of people left on the bases

from which our deploying squadrons leave are not large enough to

maintain the base during the time of deployments.

We think we have the right overall force structure, but what we

need to do is put those forces on fewer bases. Now that can be

done, obviously, without closing bases. But it also will stress the

bases from which we take those people and probably we would be

better, rather than stressing a lot of bases, simply to close several

and go on from there.

Second, as the GAO has noted in recent studies and as we have

looked at in our own planning process, it makes sense to try to consolidate our aircraft into larger units. Again, that requires taking

units off of bases and moving them.

In the QDR we have looked at both of those options and some

of the QDR numbers actually depended on taking significant numbers of aircraft off of bases and relocating them. When we went

down and talked to Secretary Cohen about that for this year, for

the fiscal year 1999 program, a decision was made that we would

not do that in favor of trying to get a BRAC process.

These are really important things we are going to have to do. If

BRAC is simply not going to happen, we have to look at other ways

as best we can to consolidate forces and to consolidate aircraft.

For example, one of the places where we had hoped to get modernization aircraft for the National Guard was by taking them out

of an active duty fighter wing. We have not done that. We still

need to look at that. The best way to do that would probably,

again, be to actually close a base and simply take those aircraft

and move some of them off to the Guard.

That is where we are. On the money, we believe we have made about $5.6 billion off the BRAC rounds for the Air Force and that

number goes through 2001. That is the net number. Some of those

savings will continue to go on for many years. There is no question

that that money has not gone all for modernization. But we still

need to be able to get that money.

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

Senator STEVENS. Hasn’t any of it gone there? We spent more

than $8 billion in Bosnia. We have had to put that up. None of it—

I take that back—about $1 billion was requested, finally, last year.

But at least $7 billion was spent against $5.6 billion in savings.

I don’t see how that has gone to modernization. Until we find

some way to assure that the money that we save is going to go into

modernization, I think that is another problem we have with

BRAC. I would like to put it into an account so that you can only

use it for BRAC. We have to look at that in terms of amending the

BRAC law.

I hear you. Mr. Cortese reminds me that the bill is still not in

on the environmental costs on the bases we closed. It is probably

going to exceed the savings by the time we are through.

Mr. PETERS. The number I just gave you is based on our estimate

of the environmental costs. That is the net above environmental

costs through 2001. We think we are going to be, in the Air Force,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
85

net over $5 billion, including the environmental costs. We actually

have turned to net savings at this point. There was an up-front

cost for environmental. There is no question about that. There are

continuing costs. But our estimate is that by the end of 2001, we

will be net positive in the Air Force of about $5.6 billion.

Senator STEVENS. We hear you. I know we have to get some

money from somewhere. I don’t like this budget. This budget from

now to the year 2003 is not going to increase despite the fact that

we are going to start building up a surplus before—you know, it’s

not really a surplus in the overall connection of the national debt.

But the balanced budget goal was 2002 and it is balanced now.

I think part of that came from the fact that we paid peacekeeping costs out of defense and we don’t have the money for modernization that we should have had.

Now I hope also to have something to say about whether that

happens again.

Again, our problem is how to get the money to help you. I don’t

think you are going to get it in terms of the money we need for

modernization, base closures, particularly with the forces deployed

overseas the way it looks like they still are going to be, for an indefinite period ahead, if I understand what the President said. I

don’t know how you are going to move those savings into anything

other than paying the costs of the deployments in Bosnia and Iraq.

So this is a tough one for us.

Senator Bond.

F–15A’S

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

General Ryan, I raise an issue concerning our National Guard

general purpose squadron. I understand the procedural restrictions

on upgrading F–15A’s, but there are A’s out there which still have

a lot of life on them, and as I understand it, many of them with

more life than some of the early model F–15C’s.

Now I understand that the Air Guard F–15A to F–15C replacement program the Air Force anticipates will be forced to the right,

extending the sunset date of the F–15A because of other procurement problems. There are, as we know, Guard units out there right

now and will be for the foreseeable future.

Is there anything we can do to help with an F–15A system upgrade, such as accelerating an installation of fighter to fighter data

link to bring them to tactical parity with the rest of the Air Force

TACAIR inventory? Do you see any way to speed up the process

to take advantage of the experience of Guard pilots when they are

asked to integrate with other deployed units of the total force?

General RYAN. Senator Bond, we continually look at the force

structure out there in our Guard and Reserve units and try to

make sure, as best we can, that they are compatible with the active

force because we intermix them all the time, as you well know.

We have looked at the F–15A models. Extending their life for a

significant amount of time would cost about $11 to $15 million

apiece. We will continue to look at that as we look at what happens

to our force structure as we move out and how our budgets are approved.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
86

But, as you know, we are committed to making sure we have the

interoperability. In this year’s budget with our Guard forces we increased the amount of data links that we are going to have on our

aircraft. We eventually want to get to everyone being compatible

with Link 16. In the meantime, we are doing EPLRS on our F–16’s

in the Guard. We are increasing their capability for precision guided munitions. We will go back and look at the A models in light

of what our force structure will be in the future to see if there is

something we need to do to that force if modernization pushes out

to the right. If it does not push out to the right, then the A–B models fall into that timeframe where we cannot upgrade.

But I will give you an answer for the record.

[The information follows:]

F–15A’S

The USAF is aggressively pursuing force structure modernization programs. As

a result, we expect the conversion of F–15A’s to F–15C’s to occur on schedule. Instead of modifying the F–15A’s, we will continue with plans to upgrade to F–15C’s

in anticipation of their introduction into the National Guard.

PILOT READINESS

Senator BOND. I appreciate that. Obviously, we want to see the

schedules maintained. But around here, I have only been here for

a couple of years and I have seen schedules tend to slip, particularly when you have as many other requirements as our chairman

has just mentioned on it.

I mentioned some ideas about pilot training and readiness. Do

you have any thoughts on that?

General RYAN. On our pilot training, as the Secretary mentioned—correction—as the chairman mentioned and the Secretary

talked about, our pilot retention numbers are not what they ought

to be. We have polled our people and asked them what is it that

would increase your proclivity to stay with us.

You have to remember that these men and women are the people

who have already served 9 years in our service. Most of them have

families. Most have been deployed to the desert multiple times.

They are looking for stability in their lives as much as they are

looking for anything else and that their families be well taken care

of.

We are working those issues as hard as we can. We have cut

down on the deployment time that they are gone to 45 days so that

they do not lose their skills. We have, with the governments in the

region, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, been allowed to train there, not

just do figure eights in the sky. Turkey has allowed us training

days each month for our forces to go out and train as they need

to and we have gotten similar capabilities in the gulf.

That is not as much of a problem as it was before.

We think that the bonus, that the committee was very instrumental in helping us get, has kind of stemmed the tide. What we

are looking for is something to turn it back around.

THE TUNNER

Senator BOND. We will want to follow up on that. I have just one

very quick, last question.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
87

Could you give me your views on the performance of the 60–K

loader and your near-time procurement strategy?

General RYAN. You know, we call it the ‘‘Tunner,’’ named after

General Tunner, who ran the Berlin airlift and, in fact, flew the

Hump. I was with his wife 4 or 5 days ago, a marvelous woman,

who herself is an aviator.

The Tunner is probably a huge step forward for us because of its

capability to move equipment from high loads to low loads quickly

and reliably.

Senator BOND. Is it working well?

General RYAN. It is working great. We have not had any problems with it and we are going to buy 300-plus of them and put

them around the world to help with our mobility throughput.

Senator BOND. I would like to help you with that.

Thank you very much, General.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Ryan, you mentioned that the biggest problem the Air

Force faces is retaining pilots. You pointed out the numbers to illustrate the problem. I wonder, given the fact that you said you

were trying to deal with housing problems and other quality of life

issues to try to help retain pilots, how does that coincide with the

low amounts being requested for family housing, military construction, and the other things that you really need to do in order to

improve these quality of life situations? I notice that the military

construction request, for example, is down $160 million in terms of

National Guard and Reserve military construction.

The other part of the budget is down $332 million from the fiscal

year 1998 budget. The family housing budget is down $100 million

from the funding level of 1998.

Do we need to add more money for these items?

General RYAN. As we worked our way through our budget, what

we tried to do, was balance the modernization and the readiness

accounts along with our people and our quality of life. Those were

our three main pillars.

No; it is not what we want. It is not what we think our folks deserve. But it was what we had to distribute in our budget and we

tried to do it in a very balanced manner.

We are looking at other ways to leverage that money, too, and

that is in the private sector, particularly with family housing, to be

able to partner with local communities and the capability to renovate homes, and then be able actually to do a rental agreement.

We have several tests of this going on in Texas, at Lackland. We

are doing this with a group of houses to give us more leverage on

the money we have.

But, to answer your direct question Senator, we would like to

have spent more money in our quality of life side. We will always

want to spend more money on our quality of life side to take care

of our folks.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
88

PILOT TRAINING

Senator COCHRAN. One other impact that is possible from this is

the pressure on pilot training facilities. At Columbus Air Force

Base in Mississippi, for example, I am told that they may need to

increase their pilot production by over 225 percent to train new pilots to take up the slack from those who are retiring early. This

is over a 3-year time period, from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year

1999, a 225-percent increase.

Are there funds in this budget request that will help deal with

the problem at the pilot training bases?

General RYAN. Yes; we have looked at our pilot production to

ramp it from our low several years ago of about 500 pilots a year

for the active duty force up to 1,100 pilots for the active duty force

by the year 2000. That is a big increase.

Quite frankly, we made a mistake in the Air Force in our drawdown when we cut our pilot training back. It was not a smart thing

to do. Now we are suffering some from that decision.

We have in the budget the capability to ramp. In the 1999 budget, included in there is our ramp-up in pilot training. We are still

studying how to get to the 1,100 number which includes expanding

our pilot base to include other bases, other than the current pilot

training bases.

We have worked with the Navy, to answer your question, Mr.

Chairman, in increasing our capability with them. As you know, we

are jointly training our pilots with the Navy right now. The Army

does all of our helicopter pilot training. So we have combined these

functions as best we can in ramping on up. We are buying a common airplane, a JPATS airplane, for the Navy and the Air Force

and we are looking for every opportunity to produce pilots.

If you look at the numbers right now, if the Army, Navy, Air

Force, and Marine Corps let every pilot go who was eligible to

leave, that would not one-half fill up the bucket of the 13 major airlines’ needs over the next 10 years. So we are in a deficit war here

for the service of these folks.

The airlines are hiring mightily and they will continue to hire.

If you look at it with the commuters, it does not even come close

to one-quarter of the requirement. This is a national problem, not

just an Air Force problem.

AIRBORNE LASER

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Secretary, both you and General Ryan

mentioned the fact that you had put money in this budget for the

Airborne Laser Program. The amount is $292.2 million. Is the fact

that the Air Force is willing to put this in their own budget an indication of how important this program is to the Air Force and the

capacity to defend against missile attacks?

Mr. PETERS. Yes, it is, Senator. It is a very important program

to us. We think it is on track. We have looked at the various test

results we have gotten. We think we are where we need to be and

that we, in fact, are going to be able to test this thing in the air

in 2002, which is the goal.

This is the only program we have at the moment in the theater

missile area which can knock a missile down in the boost phase.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
89

It also has important collateral benefits in terms of tracking missiles as they come up. Information about missiles, the leakers that

get through, can be given back to others, the theater missile defense [TMD] units, and it is a very, very important program for us,

one that I think is essential both for force protection and also as

an enabler for the other theater missile defense systems.

Senator COCHRAN. Is the amount of money available to you related to the date of deployment of the weapons system? In other

words, if we appropriated more money than you requested, would

that accelerate the deployment schedule and further enhance the

protection of our forces?

Mr. PETERS. I believe the answer at this point is no, that we are

technology driven and research and development driven through

2002, which is what we need to get to. We really need to make sure

this works correctly before we invest additional funds. But I think

we are where we need to be through the 2002 date.

Senator COCHRAN. As I understand it, one of the attractive aspects of this system is that you are able to attack a missile in its

boost phase and that this enhances the ability to protect against

damage, destruction from hostile weapons. Is that one of the driving forces, one of the reasons why this is such an attractive option

for us?

Mr. PETERS. Absolutely, Senator. This is the only boost phase

intercept program we have ongoing at the moment. As we worry

more about weapons of mass destruction, we certainly would like

any weapons of mass destruction to fall back on the shooter rather

than on our forces.

So this is very critical to us. It looks like the only technology

right now that can do a boost phase.

Senator COCHRAN. Somebody in the Secretary of Defense’s office

has criticized this program as being susceptible to problems because of atmospheric turbulence. Is that a realistic criticism? Is

that based on science or supposition?

Mr. PETERS. In this area it is based, we believe, on some early

test results which we believe our data collection efforts have

disproven.

There are technologists on both sides of this argument as to what

extent the laser beam will be defracted and made turbulent by the

air that it has to shoot through.

We had set some minimum parameters. We believe, based on

data we have collected around the world, that the turbulence we

are going to experience is within those parameters. We believe that

the measures we have to correct for that turbulence are right

where they need to be.

So at this point, it is our sense that the only way you are going

to be able to resolve this argument is by putting an airplane in the

air, shooting the laser, and seeing what happens. I think we are

in the area where you can argue about it or go try it. We are at

the go try it place at this point.

General RYAN. I would say that that argument is also waning.

We have had multiple investigations of the phenomenon of refracting the beam as it goes through and most of the serious scientists

now say yes, we’ve got it pretty well solved.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, General.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
90

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Harkin.

PILOT RETENTION

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary and General Ryan, I just have two things I want

to cover. First is on the retaining of pilots. This has always been

a problem. It has been a problem since I was a pilot in the Navy.

You get trained and you find out that you can get more money on

the outside, that things are more stable in the civilian world. You

are always going to have that problem in a free society and in a

market economy. This is why I have always advocated that we pay

more attention to our Reserve forces and our National Guards.

I was a Navy pilot. I left the Navy. I joined the Reserves. I flew

every weekend. I put in 4 weeks of active duty every year. I was

better trained and qualified in the Reserves than I was on active

duty at the cost to the taxpayers at one-third as much money.

I did not have all of the collateral duties and I was not training

to be CNO or anything else. I just wanted to fly an airplane. So

I think we shortchange a lot of our Reserves and our National

Guard forces.

A lot of these pilots that are leaving the Air Force, just like they

are leaving the Navy, want to continue to fly. They like to sit in

that seat. They could do that in the National Guard and in the Reserves at probably one-half, no, one-third as much of what it costs

us to keep them on active duty.

We ought to be focusing on that and provide that kind of structure for them because they can be called up and sent into active

duty at any minute as well qualified. General—I am sure you will

agree with me.

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

We are talking from the same sheet of music. We are trying to

hire every one of those folks who come out of active duty into our

Guard and Reserve forces. Our Guard and Reserve force in the Air

Force provide us with integral capabilities that we use all the time.

In fact, we are stressing those forces fairly heavily right now.

We are using our Guard and Reserve forces to the maximum extent that they think they can sustain right now.

Senator HARKIN. That they can sustain?

General RYAN. That they can sustain.

Senator HARKIN. I think our job is to give them an ability to sustain even more. That’s what I am saying. They may be at their

limit. I am just saying that I don’t think that limit is enough right

now. That is my point. I am saying that as a policymaker.

We have a lot of people out there who are qualified pilots who

are leaving, who we could keep in the force. I know them. I know

what they are like. I know where their heads are.

General RYAN. Yes, sir; and we are trying to recruit every darn

one of them to come to us into the Guard and Reserve.

Senator HARKIN. And I’ll bet you that it is not too hard to recruit

them for Reserve duty or National Guard duty, either.

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HARKIN. Do you think it is hard?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
91

General RYAN. In our Guard and Reserve, we have two different

kinds of pilots. We have pilots who are full-time pilots with the Reserve.

Senator HARKIN. Right.

General RYAN. About one-third of our force, our Reserve forces

are full time.

Senator HARKIN. I understand.

General RYAN. The other two-thirds——

Senator HARKIN. Are the weekend warriors and stuff like that.

General RYAN [continuing]. We can get the weekend warriors

pretty well. What we are having trouble getting, and the Reserves

and Guard are working very hard on, are those folks who are full

time, which is a similar problem that we have.

Senator HARKIN. I understand that.

General RYAN. They are the backbone that holds those units together as the part timers come in and out.

Senator HARKIN. I understand that problem. I would like to

know what we can do to help beef that up, because those people

tend to be more stable. They are located in a community. They are

not moving around, they are not deployed. So what can we do to

entice more people into that line and then help beef up the weekend warrior situation?

General RYAN. One of the things that we look at very carefully

is not so much how much the Guard and Reserve can help us in

our two major theater war paradigm but how much the Guard and

Reserve can help us with our OPTEMPO right now. That is the

driver.

RECRUITMENT

Senator HARKIN. I understand.

There is one other issue that I really wanted to cover with you.

I am not going to get into weapon systems and all the big ticket

items that you have.

I was reading your posture statement and on page 17 you discuss

recruiting quality people. You say that recruiting remains a challenge. U.S. commitments abroad have decreased the pool of interested, qualified, potential recruits. Annual youth attitude surveys

show the interest of young men serving in the Air Force has

dropped from 17 percent in 1989 and stabilized at 12 percent.

Well, General, Mr. Secretary, since World War II, we have had

an organization in the Air Force that develops leadership, discipline, motivation, interest in aviation, and flying. It is called the

Civil Air Patrol [CAP]. And yet, for the last 13 years that I have

been in the Senate, the Air Force has been treating it like an illegitimate child—get rid of it, ignore it, shunt it aside, defund it, everything else.

Mr. Chairman, the Air Force now is supporting, as I understand

it, establishing the Civil Air Patrol as a grantee organization under

OMB Circular 110. That would require the Civil Air Patrol to apply

for funds through a grant review process and not be a part of, or

receive funds through, the DOD appropriations process. This would

make the Civil Air Patrol a nongovernment organization, similar to

a hospital or research laboratory and would move the CAP from its

present position in the Air Force budget process.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
92

I just want you to know that I am absolutely, totally opposed to

that. I look at your budget request on Civil Air Patrol and it goes

down every year. In 1997, 1998, and 1999, it went from $19 million

down to $13.9 million. I have to tell you that I think you are going

in the wrong direction.

Do you want to get young people interested?

I had breakfast not too long ago with a man that I met recently,

a very, very successful business man in Baltimore, an AfricanAmerican. I was having breakfast with him and I said well, I have

to leave now because I have a group of kids over on the Capitol

steps who are CAP kids from Ohio. He said oh, the Civil Air Patrol.

He said you know, I would not be where I am today, when I was

stuck in the inner city of Baltimore, if it had not been for the Civil

Air Patrol. He said that is what gave him the discipline and the

motivation to succeed in life.

So I went over to the steps of the Capitol and met these kids

from Cleveland, OH. The more I think about it, the more I think

we are missing a great bet here. There are kids in these inner cities that need this, that want it, and it is not a big buck item.

If you want to increase the pool of young people that are motivated and that have an interest, this is where it is, General. This

is where it is, Mr. Secretary. It is a small item.

And yet I have fought for 13 years in this Senate to keep the

Civil Air Patrol alive, to keep it in the Air Force, to keep it from

being shunted aside, to give it new duties and responsibilities.

A few years ago, we gave it the responsibility of drug interdiction

and they have done a remarkable job. I keep pointing out the Civil

Air Patrol can fly 1 hour of drug surveillance—oh, I don’t know my

figures right now—but it was at like $40 an hour, something like

that.

First of all, what you get is your pilots, General. They are out

of the Air Force, they are flying for the airlines, they are in business, they are weekend warriors, and they love to go out and do

this. They volunteer their time. They take their own cameras and

we buy them the gas. It costs $40 an hour.

For the same National Guard helicopter in Iowa to do drug surveillance in Iowa is like several hundred dollars an hour.

Look at the recent A–10 crash in Colorado, for the benefit of you

people out there. For that A–10 crash in Colorado, people searched

high and low. The Air Force searched and everybody searched. Who

found it—the Civil Air Patrol.

Eighty-five to ninety percent of all of the search and rescue done

in this country is done by the Civil Air Patrol, and quite successfully, too.

So every year I give this speech. But this year I am hotter on

it than I have ever been before because, hopefully, we have some

new leadership down there. I hope you will take a look at that

budget. It is just wrong when you are going from $19 million down

to $13 million.

Here is the Air Force on rescue and recovery services at $46 million last year. The Civil Air Patrol was $2.1 million, and yet it is

the Civil Air Patrol that does 85 to 90 percent of the search and

rescue in this country. I have to ask what is that other $46 million

going to the Air Force for?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
93

I just hope that we will take a new look at the Civil Air Patrol.

I want to know what your intentions are in terms of shunting it

off and making it a grantee organization. If that is where you are

headed, you are going to have a battle. I may be alone in it, but

you are going to have a battle because I am going to fight it.

I think you could not say it better than in your posture statement. You want young people, motivated, interested in aviation.

The Civil Air Patrol is the pool out there from which you can get

them. I will just leave it at that.

Mr. Chairman, we need summer camps for Civil Air Patrol. We

need weekend activities for kids in inner cities to go out to our

bases and be involved in Civil Air Patrol. Yet we are not doing any

of this.

I think it would be a great recruiting technique plus it will answer a lot of the problems you are going to have in the next 20 to

30 years for recruiting people.

I have had my say. I would like to hear your response.

General RYAN. First of all, sir, you are striking a chord with

somebody who used to be a CAP cadet. I was in the Civil Air Patrol

when I was a teenager.

CIVIL AIR PATROL

Senator HARKIN. Where are you from?

General RYAN. At the time, I was living in Nebraska, in Omaha.

Senator HARKIN. Interesting.

General RYAN. I had the leadership of the CAP in and sat down

and talked to them about where we are going with the CAP. I have

asked the Commander of Air Education and Training Command to

come back to me and tell me how we can revitalize the program.

I have asked our folks in the air staff to tell me the ins and outs

of why we are going with the circular 110 definition of whether this

is a grant or is direct funded in our budget kind of activity. It does

not make a lot of sense to me that we change horses in the middle

of the stream because of a legal interpretation. And if it is a legal

interpretation, I would like to come back to you and see if we can

get legislative relief so that we can directly fund the Civil Air Patrol.

I would like to meet with you also and talk about our Civil Air

Patrol and how we can revitalize it. I am committed to that.

Senator HARKIN. I would look forward to that. I would love to sit

down and talk with you about it. You have been involved in it for

a long time. I didn’t know you were a cadet. That is interesting.

That’s great.

Mr. PETERS. Let me add to that, Senator. In the 95 or so days

that I have been the Acting Secretary, I have been to CAP functions twice, including the Martin Luther King function here at Andrews, where we brought many of these inner city kids from the

District of Columbia out to Andrews for an evening. There are

some very, very dedicated people there.

Senator HARKIN. That’s right.

Mr. PETERS. We intend to continue to fund this. I have beat up

my general counsel, as recently as this morning, saying that we

have to get this resolved because we need to know a definitive anU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
94

swer from OMB one way or the other, and if we need legislation

to make this continue, we will try to get that.

Senator HARKIN. If you do need legislative relief, we ought to discuss that and we will come up with it. Again, I would like to talk

to you about your projected budget on Civil Air Patrol and what

you are looking at in the future. I don’t like what I see in here.

Let’s see what we can do to revise that. I would like to meet with

you about that.

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir; we’ll get together.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, General, Mr. Secretary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. General, I would like to be included in those

as an ex-Civil Air Patrol legal officer, as you probably know, but

beyond that, as a pilot, too. The Senator was mentioning primarily

young people. The search and rescue in my State is done by reservists and National Guardsmen who also volunteer as Civil Air Patrol. There is a bifurcated function there that we have to preserve.

I welcome his comments about the outreach for pilots, and I notice your comment about increasing pilot training. I just think we

ought to open up the doors and train more people. We cannot get

by with allocating the shortage among the services as far as I can

see.

Senator Dorgan.

AIRBORNE LASER

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary and General, welcome.

That question was asked of you a few moments ago on the airborne laser. I would like to just add to the question. There was a

GAO report, critical of the program, and the press picked up on it.

Would you give me your impression of the criticism and what the

Air Force is doing to respond to it?

General RYAN. When I first came to this job, I tried to get heavily into ABL. I have had people from laboratories come and talk to

me. I have had the testers come and talk to me. I think the program, the criticism of the program, was based on lack of facts. I

think the facts are in now and you don’t hear the criticism that you

heard before.

The facts are that the physics of the capability are there. We

think we can do it. We have done the sampling, we have done the

testing, we have done the warping of the mirrors, we have done the

hard physics work to make this a viable program. What we are

really looking forward to now is how to mechanize it so we can put

it on the aircraft and fly the aircraft and do an airborne demonstration. That would happen in the year 2002.

We are well on course to that. It is a great capability. We should

not be stuck in the defense of our folks in rear areas, in theaters

where ballistic missiles are a threat, to being only able to catch

them as they come in. We need to be able to go out and attack

them where they are on the ground and catch them airborne in a

whole series of defensive layers.

We think this is a vital capability and we think it is going to

work.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
95

TANKER FORCES

Senator DORGAN. The only reason I asked the question is the

criticism that was leveled had real wings. I mean, it took off and

was repeated and continues to be repeated.

I would encourage you to move aggressively in response to it because it is an important program.

Thank you for your response.

General, your predecessor, General Fogleman, was very high on

the concept of basing the Air Force’s tanker aircraft at core tanker

bases. Has that thinking changed or are you pretty much in line

with General Fogleman’s thinking on that?

General RYAN. We have our tanker forces both stationed in theater and in the United States. But yes, we are trying, for efficiency’s

sake, to keep them in fairly large piles. That is still our motivation.

Senator DORGAN. So the concept of the core tanker base——

General RYAN. Is still there.

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask a question about the Iraqi crisis.

We had a lot of questions about basing options for aircraft with

respect to any potential operations in Iraq. The question of where

we might and might not be able to base certain aircraft in dealing

with the Iraq crisis was something that was publicized widely. I

would like to know if the Air Force was satisfied with the basing

options that were available to it during the most recent crisis. If

not, does that suggest a need for more long-range airpower?

General RYAN. I was happy with the basing options that we were

presented with. What was unclear was whether we were going to

be able to use the bases where we had the aircraft bedded down

to prosecute an attack. That was the real issue.

Though there were declaratory statements made by many of the

governments over there, we never came to a conclusive decision on

whether those aircraft would be used or not. I was over in the theater not too long ago and traveled to all the countries where we had

our Air Forces bedded down and talked to the leadership there. For

the most part, they were very supportive, Kuwait particularly.

We will always, I think, need access to bases in regions where

we have potential conflict. If we do not have access to those bases

or do not have allies in those areas, then our long-range capability

will be stressed—not only our long-range capability in bomber capability, but our ability to extend our forces out using our maritime

forces also.

So there is always this balance that you will have to go through

with that kind of activity. Each one of these has a different flavor.

What we would do in Bosnia is much different than what we

would do in Iraq, and perhaps in the Korean Peninsula, and how

we would apply the forces. So each one is different.

One of the problems with our long-range capability is the cycle

times that we need, particularly with our bomber forces, in which

I know you are very interested.

To be able to project the power from the continental United

States, that far, and back is something that we can do. And we

have a very good bomber force to do it.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
96

But a sustained effort requires access closer. I would like to move

the bombers in closer, quite honestly, to where we can get these

cycle times down and use the full capability of the bombers.

REPORT STATUS

Senator DORGAN. Well, our B–52’s have moved to Diego Garcia,

and the cycle times from that island would not be too high. But,

I would like to submit for the record some further questions on the

bomber force, with the chairman’s permission.

Let me ask Secretary Peters one additional question that relates

to the question that the chairman asked on base closings.

The Congress has prohibited the formation of another BRAC

Commission until the Pentagon submits a report back to the Congress. I offered the amendment in the Senate, which is now law,

that required the report.

It is not a message to the Department of Defense or to the Air

Force that we will not be supportive of downsizing or base closing

in areas where we have facilities that are unneeded. We understand all of that. But the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that we do not have currently a very good method or a very

good system of determining what the costs and the benefits have

been of the base closures that we have already done.

We have ordered the closing of about 100 bases. Well over onehalf have now been fully closed. The Congressional Budget Office

says we would be very unwise to proceed until we understand what

it is we have done and what the consequences are of what we have

done.

On that basis, we decided, despite a call for more base closing

rounds, to stop and ask for a complete report and an evaluation of

what have we done, what has been done, what have been the costs

and benefits.

Can you respond to that and tell us where you are in the process

of trying to gather together these facts and the information for

Congress?

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

Secretary Cohen intends to try to submit that report, I think, in

the April timeframe. We have also had the DOD inspector general

and in the Air Force our own audit agency going out to look at

these costs.

The DOD inspector general has been working this and, in at

least one of the years—I don’t know which one—has found that our

costs were actually less than estimated and our benefits were actually greater than estimated. But that data collection effort is going

on right now.

I know that because the Air Force is a couple of weeks overdue

in providing the data, which I am reminded of almost daily. I believe that report will be coming in the April timeframe.

Senator DORGAN. What kind of overcapacity do you think exists,

Mr. Secretary?

Mr. PETERS. At this point, we have not actually figured out exact

numbers. But it is clear to us—and we have asked our planners to

go back and look at this—that, as we become more of an expeditionary Air Force, we need to have larger bases.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
97

In the POM cycle we currently are in, we have tasked our planners to look at consolidating and reorganizing various forces, including, for example, where training occurs and who does it: Active,

Reserve, or National Guard. We have also asked them to come back

to the Chief and me with a plan for how we would plus up these

highly stressed forces, such as security forces and mechanics.

We will have that in the POM 2000 cycle. We are going to try

to resolve a lot of those issues. That is where we are.

We know, though, from the QDR experience that we needed to

take out one more active fighter wing in order to get aircraft for

the National Guard. We did not do that because the Secretary felt

that it was more important to try to go for a BRAC round. What

we had planned to do was to pull substantial assets off of several

bases. But doing that without BRAC is not the first choice.

So we know that, even to reach our QDR targets, we have to take

a substantial number of aircraft off of existing bases.

BRAC PLANNING

Senator DORGAN. General Fogleman was remarkably candid last

year when I asked him about this issue. He said well, I won’t be

here when the next round occurs. But he said if I were doing it,

I would probably call for only one additional round. That was at

odds with what had been discussed publicly.

Have you any comments on that?

Mr. PETERS. We are looking at our planning process right now.

Our sense is that it will take two. But we are looking right now

at trying to come up with an overall concept for what people have

nicknamed superbases, that is, a base from which we could have

substantial assets deployed without ruining the quality of life for

people still left on the base.

In other words, we would like to avoid having our security forces

who are left at home go to 12 hour shifts when we deploy with security forces overseas. So we are looking at that right now to try

to come up with a better sense of exactly what skills those are, how

many we need, and what their best locations would be.

General RYAN. One of our problems in our previous drawdown

was, conceptually, what kind of Air Force were we going to be,

going into the future. It has evolved that we are very much an expeditionary Air Force. We are going to be called to go overseas, provide our own force protection, provide our own living conditions,

not live on the economy because of the seriousness of the threats

that are out there from terrorists and others.

Given that paradigm, we are not structured for that kind of activity. We are spread very thinly around a lot of bases. We need

to bulk up so that not only the forces but the infrastructure for the

base is of sufficient size to keep it busy at home and efficient at

home but also effective overseas. So what is happening to us right

now, particularly in our security police forces, for instance, is we

take them from many different bases and spread the load. So most

of the bases out there are on 12 hour shifts for our security forces.

Our forces in the gulf, in Turkey and other places, are on 12 hour

shifts. Then we switch them. So we are running 12 hour shifts on

our folks both at home and overseas. We just have to stop that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
98

What we save in a BRAC is interesting from my perspective, but

what we gain is our capability to do this mission that we have been

at for the last 8 years and asking our folks to suck it up at home.

We are, in fact, abusing them in some ways.

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.

Senator Domenici.

CONTRACTING OUT SAVINGS

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I was not here for your entire opening remarks

and your questions, but I want to join in the portion for which I

was here. I want to join you in your comments with reference to

how much we have taken out of the regular budget of the Defense

Department for these unforeseen contingencies and events that

were not planned for, led by Bosnia.

Frankly, I don’t believe that we can have the United States military be bound by a multiyear, firm, in-place budget, the only part

of our National Government so bound, and then insert and inject

upon them the mandate that they pay for interventions like Bosnia, out of their regular budget. That is why we are here, with all

these strains in terms of how are they going to live within their

numbers.

You take $5 to $7 billion and it will fix a lot of the problems we

are talking about. Maybe it is $8 billion. But whatever it is, that

is a big strain.

I want to raise one point that I have learned about from General

Ryan and others in the Air Force that I do not have an answer to.

But I want to suggest that there is a great, big problem waiting

out there if the U.S. Air Force is expected to meet its budget targets in some of the ways suggested.

One is to contract out various activities in the Air Force. Unless

I am mistaken, that means that through contracting out, the Air

Force intends to have 29,000 fewer jobs in the civilian part of the

Air Force under this budget and 23,000 jobs will be military positions. If you add those up, that is a 52,000 job reduction expected

in ultimate force structure, and they are to be paid for by $5 billion

that are to be saved from a formula approach to contracting out.

The formula says that when we do these contracting outs, here

they all are, we will save 25 percent on average on every one; that

is, over what it would cost doing it the normal way.

First, I want to be the first one on record to say I do not believe

you can get this job done. I don’t believe you can contract out and

privatize that much to achieve that kind of saving.

I base this on anecdotal information, but I have been around

when there were just a few jobs being canceled because of contracting out and privatization. By the time you are finished with it

working its way through the Congress and through the disputes between the unions that currently have membership that are being

reduced, it takes a lot longer than planned and, frequently, we

never get it done even though it is supposed to get done.

So I guess I add another problem that you have, Mr. Chairman,

in trying to get this defense budget put together. But I think that

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
99

is a very, very serious one and it will cost much more than

planned. And the Air Force will not be able to reduce the manpower as recommended.

I would be glad if either or both of you wants to comment. I have

only given you my version, and if I have misstated anything, then,

clearly, I would like for you to correct any misstatements.

Mr. PETERS. Senator, I think the numbers are generally in the

right order except that the savings we are looking to for this is only

about out $1 billion. We have booked $1.1 billion through the

FYDP at this point. There may be more there. Of the savings we

have booked, actually some of the other savings that may be in

that number you are talking about are the savings from working

the depot issues in public/private competitions, where we have had

a 29-percent cost saving on the only one that actually has been

awarded yet.

For the other two, the RFP’s I hope are coming out in the next

30 days, with an effort to try to award them toward the end of this

fiscal year.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Secretary, let me say that my number is

entitled to a clarification. My $4.8 billion is for 5 years, or about

$1 billion a year.

Mr. PETERS. It is $1.8 billion total over the FYDP which is the

number we have been working with, of which $700 million is depots.

Senator DOMENICI. We will confirm the number. In any event, it

is a rather large number. The $4.8 billion is from your own budget

briefing.

Could I just talk about some parochial issues with you very

quickly, General and Mr. Secretary?

Senator STEVENS. If you would wait for just one second, I have

to step out for just a few minutes.

When you have finished, the next person is Senator Shelby. But

I will be back.

AIR FORCE SPACE LABORATORY

Senator DOMENICI [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will

be finished very shortly.

When the airborne laser was being discussed by two different

Senators, I did not chime in. I know quite a bit about it. It was

invented and dreamed up in Albuquerque, NM, at Kirtland Air

Force Base and the military space lab there. It was researched

there, it was built there, and it was tested there. I have been there

and talked to everybody there. Frankly, the GAO frequently makes

mistakes and I believe they have just made a mistake in their report. They did not fully listen to both sides of the debate.

They took one little piece of history and documented it for the

public as if this program was destined not to work scientifically

and physically. That is not the case. In fact, it is now touted by the

military as the only significant laser that may be in our arsenal in

the not too distant future with reference to space.

If I have misstated anything, I would ask you to correct that.

General RYAN. No, sir; I don’t think that is parochial, either. I

think you are dead-on and those are facts.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
100

Senator DOMENICI. With reference to the laboratory, the Air

Force laboratory, the space laboratory that used to be called Phillips, in Albuquerque, am I correct that, even though you have restructured the way you were going to manage this, that which will

be done, that is, the mission of the former Phillips Laboratory, will

remain the same, that it will be the major space research laboratory for the U.S. Air Force?

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. We have been told that and I assume that is

still the case.

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

General RYAN. Yes, sir; I know of no plans to change that.

F–117

Senator DOMENICI. The F–117 is at Holloman Air Force Base. I

am concerned that there will remain enough capability to adequately service and maintain the F–117. With the reduction in

military personnel, is that in any way going to affect the operation

and maintenance of the F–117?

General RYAN. I don’t think so, sir. We have protected as best we

can in our budgets, even with the outsourcing and privatizing that

we talked about, the core capability to be able to generate our

forces and execute them. So I do not anticipate a problem with the

F–117.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT [EIS]

Senator DOMENICI. Holloman Air Force Base is fortunate to be

the recipient of some German training missions. I understand that

an EIS, an environmental impact statement, is being completed

with reference to an additional group of German training missions.

Do you foresee any problems with this EIS and the implementation of that plan?

Mr. PETERS. Senator, I do not. That is a high priority for us at

this point and I am not aware of any problems that exist there. It

is also a very high priority for the German Government, to get that

to happen because they are losing some of their training space in

Europe and we need to get them on to Holloman to get them the

training that they need. So that is a very high priority for us and

we are working that as fast as we can.

Senator DOMENICI. Do I gather that, Mr. Secretary, in general

you continue to be committed to working with the local community

with reference to the various concerns that are had about where

you will fly these planes and where their missions will be?

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir. Absolutely.

PARTNERING

Senator DOMENICI. Last year, we had a shared facility that was

directed to be built in the city of Alamagordo as an experiment.

They are planning a brand new hospital. The Air Force was thinking of adding to theirs. They have put together a plan wherein both

would save and both would have what they need.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
101

We are supposed to get a final from the Air Force on their evaluation before they move forward. When might we expect that?

General RYAN. I would like to answer that one for the record to

give you the exact date. But I can tell you that we are very, very

positive about that partnering with Alamagordo and Holloman Air

Force Base. We think that is a wonderful idea. We think it is good

for the city, we think it is good for our folks. I will give you the

exact date of when we will have that report back to you, sir, in an

answer for the record.

[The information follows:]

SHARED FACILITY

The Air Force will submit a report to Congress, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), containing its analysis and recommendations regarding this sharing proposal no later than May 31, 1998.

Senator DOMENICI. The other air base, Cannon Air Force Base,

has had some reductions because of the acceleration of phasing out

some of the F–16’s—no——

General RYAN. The F–111’s, sir.

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. The EF–111’s. We were going to

have some and they are going to be leaving earlier.

Some of that vacuum is supposed to be filled by some training

missions from the Republic of Singapore. Might I ask, when might

that agreement be finalized? Or would you like to state that for the

record?

General RYAN. I will give you the exact date in an answer for the

record, sir. But right now, we foresee no problem with that agreement with the Republic of Singapore. We think that is a go, subject

to an environmental assessment that we think will show much less

of a problem using F–16’s rather than F–111’s at the numbers we

are talking about.

Senator DOMENICI. It is not a very large number and it is a different airplane

General RYAN. A different airplane.

[The information follows:]

CANNON AIR FORCE BASE

Pending the outcome of the environmental assessment, we anticipate a finalized

agreement with Singapore by April 1999. Singapore plans to begin moving some of

its aircraft and personnel into Cannon AFB between October and December of 1998

with the full training complement beginning in December 1999.

BOMBER TRAINING INITIATIVES

Senator DOMENICI. You are going through a realistic bomber

training initiative, where you are looking for some places to fly

bombers at low levels. You know that New Mexico is not averse to

having many of these kinds of air space utilizations by the Air

Force taking place in our State. But we are concerned that way up

in northern New Mexico, in the communities of Taos and Santa Fe,

that they are concerned about whether this will work up there.

I am not convinced that it is an appropriate location, but I leave

that up to the evaluations and studies.

Will you continue your commitment to hold additional meetings

to provide interested residents with information and answers in

that regard?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
102

Mr. PETERS. Yes, Senator, we will. Senator Bingaman and I met

about this several weeks ago and at that point he asked that we

extend some deadlines. That has been done. We will continue to try

to work with you and the communities in New Mexico to make sure

they feel they have a full opportunity to comment.

Senator DOMENICI. I have the cumulative competitive resource

savings that we discussed earlier. I will hand it to you. It’s your

own briefing. It says for 6 years it is $4.8 billion. Maybe you can

tell us if this is wrong now, and you have reduced your savings projections.

Mr. PETERS. If I may, I would give you that for the record. We

will do that.

Senator DOMENICI. Please.

Mr. PETERS. I think those are not the numbers we have been

working with.

Senator DOMENICI. Something may be added to it.

[The information follows:]

O&P SAVINGS

In our fiscal year 1999 PB, the Air Force is projecting $1.8 billion cumulative savings from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003 from competitions and reengineering efforts. The cumulative savings by year are:

Fiscal year:

1998 ................................................................................................. $79,500,000

1999 ................................................................................................. 258,800,000

2000 ................................................................................................. 494,800,000

2001 ................................................................................................. 854,700,000

2002 ................................................................................................. 1,300,000,000

2003 ................................................................................................. 1,800,000,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE CAPABILITY

Senator DOMENICI. I think Senator Shelby is next.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. I will try to be brief, General.

Information technology, you are familiar with the standard systems group and other organizations that comprise the Electronics

Systems Center [ESC]. We are concerned about the software capability and what is in-house and where is it going and everything.

Do you believe it is necessary, General, for the Air Force to retain

an in-house software capability to develop and to support software

for military essential activities like standard systems?

General RYAN. I wish I could give you a ‘‘yes’’ or a ‘‘no’’ to that,

Senator.

I have asked our Director of Communications and Information,

our chief communicator, to go back and tell me whether in this day

and age, the assumption that we can get it cheaper on the outside

than building it on the inside still pertains. If you look at what is

going on in the business world today, you see a lack of capability

out there. One in every 20 jobs, that require computer skills, is

going vacant. There are 20,000 jobs in the Washington, DC, area

that are unfilled by competent computer-literate folks.

I have a son who is a captain in the Air Force who is a computer

officer. I get first-hand knowledge of those kinds of capabilities and

the Air Force’s thrust in that area.

Our real issue is can we build those kind of people in the Air

Force and retain them vice——

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
103

Senator SHELBY. Absolutely, and cost has to be a factor, too.

General RYAN. Cost has to be a factor, vice contracting out that

capability. Clearly, we can contract out that capability.

Senator SHELBY. But at what cost?

General RYAN. But is it cheaper to do it? That is what I have

asked them to tell us.

Senator SHELBY. We have some information, and I don’t know if

you have it, that it would cost more to contract out. I don’t know

if that is right.

General RYAN. I don’t know, either, sir, and that is what we are

trying to pursue. Before we make any decisions about this business, we must go through that analysis.

Senator SHELBY. Absolutely.

RESTRUCTURING OF ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS CENTER

I am also aware, General, that General Kadish has proposed to

reorganize the Electronic Systems Center in the decision to restructure the program management authority from a standard systems

group to ESC.

What consideration was given to the contractor support relationship there? If it was assumed that the reorganization would not impact contractors, can you assure us that the program execution will

not be hampered by the proposed restructuring?

I know why you restructure or try to. But is this a good thing?

General RYAN. I would like to request to take that one for the

record and get back to you, sir.

Senator SHELBY. All right.

[The information follows:]

IN-HOUSE SOFTWARE CAPABILITY

In response to your questions concerning the development of software, the Air

Force views software development and maintenance as a commercial-like activity

that is neither inherently governmental nor military essential. Today we have several software activities, including the Standard Systems Group (SSG) at Maxwell

Air Force Base, Alabama, and the Materiel Systems Group (MSG) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, that provide software support for our standard base and

depot systems. They use a mix of active duty, government civilians and contractors

to accomplish their mission.

Just as we do with other commercial-like activities, we are reviewing the SSG and

MSG to ensure these activities are providing the best value to the taxpayer. The

decision process used to increase effectiveness and gain efficiencies in software development and maintenance will consider a full range of options, to include

outsourcing, privatization and reengineering.

Labor is clearly the single biggest cost driver for software whether it’s done inhouse or by contractor. When comparing in-house and commercial software programmer labor costs, we must go beyond a simple comparison of fully-burdened

labor rates and weigh other factors, such as training, retention, and productivity.

We are looking very carefully at the whole picture to include the training and experience required to produce reliable, efficient, effective software. For example, if a

first-term programmer decides not to reenlist, a substantial training investment has

been made with marginal near-term and no far-term return. If a second-term airman does not reenlist, we have made an even greater investment with, again, only

a marginal return. We are concerned that despite offering selective reenlistment bonuses, the reenlistment rate for first-term airman programmers continues to decline. So far this year, it stands at 32 percent and for the second year in a row it

is below our goal of 55 percent. Reenlistment is even bleaker for second-term airman

programmers—a 28 percent reenlistment rate so far this year, and for the fifth consecutive year we are below our goal of 75 percent.

Another factor in the economic equation is the expected software life cycle.

Outsourcing software maintenance for systems we will deactivate in the near future

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
104

may not be cost effective due to contractor ‘‘spin-up’’ costs associated with gaining

adequate experience levels. In cases where we are replacing a system, it may make

more sense to continue in-house software maintenance for the legacy system and

procure software development and maintenance for new systems.

In summary, we will look at all the cost components of our organic software capability, to include personnel, infrastructure, equipment and supplies. While we are

building the cost models to help us in the decision process, we have made no decisions regarding the future of our software activities.

In response to your questions concerning the restructure of the Electronic System

Center (ESC), the Standard Systems Group (SSG) is a subordinate group under the

ESC organization. Program management authority has always been the responsibility of the ESC Commander. The restructure at ESC was a prudent action to take

in response to the revolutionary changes in the information technology environment.

With regard to the expressed concern about program execution, you have my assurance that one of the restructure’s key objectives is to strengthen the emphasis on

program execution. The restructure carefully considered the relationships among the

military users, government acquisition offices, and the contractors. The government

and contractor support staffs were pooled under the SSG Executive Director to better balance workload assignments and standardize processes throughout SSG. Program execution has been enhanced as a result of the restructure.

JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE [JASSM]

Senator SHELBY. The joint air-to-surface standoff missile, or

JASSM, you are very familiar with. What is the status of the program with respect to analysis of alternatives?

General RYAN. The analysis of alternatives is currently being

briefed up through the OSD and service chain. It is a process that

I think we will be through by the end of this month.

In any case, we are looking toward a decision on the JASSM capability. As you know, the alternatives were the SLAMMER and

the JASSM variation.

We should know the answer to that here this month.

Senator SHELBY. Do you have any idea if the Navy will stay with

the program?

General RYAN. I won’t answer for the Navy, but I can tell you

from what I know of the analysis that, clearly, I think JASSM is

a very, very good system and it shows lots of potential for the future. But I cannot speak for the Navy in that, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary.

Mr. PETERS. I am sorry, but I can’t, either, on that. I know that

our competition we think is going to be very good. We are getting

very good prices. But we will have to wait and see how the analysis

of alternatives comes out.

Senator SHELBY. It has been a good weapon, hasn’t it?

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PETERS. Yes.

Senator SHELBY. I just want briefly to hit on national missile defense, if I could.

The Air Force officials, I understand, General, have repeatedly

argued that the Minuteman option complies with the ABM Treaty.

But they have never stated how it would be made treaty compliant.

Can you tell us how this can be done? If you don’t want to address that now, you can get it back to me.

General RYAN. As you know, Senator—and I will clarify it for the

record—we have offered a Minuteman solution to a small raid capability that appeared to us to be treaty compliant. I know that the

study is ongoing right now on what other alternatives there are out

there to meet that kind of raid capability and whether Minuteman

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
105

is the right missile to be used in that case. That should come to

fruition here in the next several months.

[The information follows:]

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

The Air Force has suggested the use of modified Minuteman missiles to perform

the role of ground-based interceptor (GBI) in an NMD system. Before any selection

of any NMD GBI, however, the USD(A&T), supported by DOD’s Compliance Review

Group (CRG) must determine whether a particular design is consistent with U.S.

treaty obligations. Unless, and until, the USD(A&T) rules, no definitive answer can

be given as to whether Minuteman-based GBI is treaty compliant.

Nevertheless, there are reasonable arguments that we could proceed with Minuteman-based interceptors and maintain good-faith compliance with both the ABM

Treaty and START:

—Under the ABM Treaty, Minuteman-based interceptors could have such changes

that they could be considered legal ABM components and not illegally upgraded

versions of previously existing missiles.

—Under START, the Minuteman-based interceptor could be considered an ICBM

used for delivering objects into the upper atmosphere or space, in the same

manner as a space-launch vehicle or booster for communications payloads. Each

Minuteman-based interceptor would count towards START central warhead limits, and be subject to the applicable START provisions.

—Although Minuteman-based interceptors would be subject to both the ABM

Treaty and START simultaneously, the two treaties are separate legal entities.

Compliance with each must be assessed in light of the specific applicable treaty

language.

Senator SHELBY. Should you not get a determination from the

compliance review group before you move way down the road on

this? Mr. Secretary, do you want to address that?

Mr. PETERS. Senator, if I may answer that, in my last life as the

Deputy General Counsel of DOD, we were looking at this. The compliance review group is working on this. But they needed to have

a relatively clear architecture before they started to work because

it is a very highly fact-intensive work. But that is ongoing.

I am not sure what the date for completion is. It is a complicated

issue.

Senator SHELBY. Yes, very complicated.

Do you want to get back to me on it and explain what you plan

to do, if you plan to do anything, and how?

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

TREATY COMPLIANCE

The Air Force strongly supports the National Missile Defense (NMD) Joint Program Office process identifying the best system from among various options—including the Minuteman NMD option. As part of this process, the government will select

the booster within 90 days after contract award. The LSI contract was awarded on

April 30, 1998. On or about July 30, 1998, the booster part of the NMD architecture

will become known. It is only after this point that the Compliance Review Group

would definitively rule on treaty compliance of the booster selected, whether Minuteman or an alternative design.

EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE [EELV]

Senator SHELBY. What about the evolved expendable launch vehicle? General, are you familiar with that?

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SHELBY. I understand the Air Force has announced a

new acquisition strategy for this program that appears to leverage

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
106

the commercial market for space launch and will meet the cost-saving requirements and national security objectives.

Explain your new strategy and how it benefits the military, industry, and, of course, the taxpayers, which is very important.

General RYAN. Sir, space is the new frontier. We have seen on

the commercial side today an increase in the use of space to the

point where the military, even the Government, will be the minority member out there as we move into this next century. The

amount of money that is going to be spent on space support and

orbital capability is kind of mind boggling.

As we went into the strategy for EELV, we were thinking about

down-selecting to one or the other. It appears that in the commercial market out there, they will be planning for both.

Senator SHELBY. Good opportunities, yes?

General RYAN. Good opportunities, and this is a partnering between industry and the Air Force that will benefit both.

We think that the EELV will get the cost per pound launch to

orbit significantly down. If we are going to become an aerospace Air

Force, if we are going to become an aerospace Nation, we have to

get the cost per pound to orbit down significantly, and this is a

really good step on the way to that.

Senator SHELBY. It is a good opportunity and you can, hopefully,

do it.

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Are you familiar with what Boeing has done in

my home State?

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary, do you have a comment?

Mr. PETERS. No; I think this is really the way we ought to be

going.

We are looking, in the Air Force, at trying to leverage our dollars

both for acquisition and for science and technology research with

industry and with other Government agencies. I think it is clear to

us that we need to partner with the commercial world in many

ways that we are not doing now because there will be a huge demand in that area. We still provide a lot of the lift services and

launch services and we need to look at how we are doing that.

Just earlier this month we signed a deal with the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO] and with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency [DARPA] to do a mobile tracking satellite

system in space. Each one of us is picking up about one-third of

the cost of that. We also are contributing an EELV to get it up in

space.

We have asked our Scientific Advisory Board [SAB], our science

advisors, to give us a plan that we call doable space. This is to look

at what industry and Government need to do to define critical technologies and to give us some ideas about how we could partner

with industry to achieve those technologies by using joint funds. I

think that is clearly the way we are going to go and I think EELV

is a good example of the many benefits that can be obtained by getting private industry to participate at the same time that we are

participating in the programs.

Senator SHELBY. Basically you are looking to the market for

some help?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
107

Mr. PETERS. Yes, absolutely.

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. Yes, sir.

Senator Bumpers.

MODERNIZATION OF C–130’S

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary and General Ryan, let me ask you both this question.

In your posture statement, on page 35 you state that your current plan is to modernize more than 350 existing C–130’s. Let me

just say at the outset that I strongly agree with that. I notice that

you are only asking for one C–130J. I don’t want to get into the

C–130J fight. I am sure it is a fine airplane, but it costs $64 million.

My guess is—and I am not privy to what precisely it would cost

to do the modernization of these C–130’s—my guess is that you

could probably modernize about eight C–130’s for what it would

cost to buy one new C–130J.

The modernization plan could take those planes’ usefulness up to

the year 2030 or so. That seems to me like one of the best ways

in the tight budgetary constraints of DOD and the Air Force, and

particularly this morning, to do this. It seems like an immensely

wise thing to do.

Incidentally, I assume that that is the plan now, since it is in the

posture statement.

Mr. PETERS. Senator, let me address that, if I may.

We have asked our air mobility commanders to give us a better

idea of how to structure this program. As you know, we have had

C–130 modernization money in the budget for some time. General

Kross has given us the preliminary view that we would probably

do better by spending that money in a different way to create

something he has called the C–130X, which is a glass cockpit, modernized C–130, rather than doing it in drabs as these things go

through program maintenance.

He is coming in his year 2000 program objective memorandum

[POM] with a program that will do that, to let us look at that.

Senator BUMPERS. That is fine, too, Mr. Secretary. I am for that,

too.

Mr. PETERS. I think we are definitely going in that direction.

With respect to the J’s, we have done two things in the 1999

budget. We have added one to round out the number that we have

been given. Second, we have added all the spare parts and support

equipment that are necessary to run all of the other ones that have

been added by Congress. So our hope is that, at the end of 1999,

we would have a useful fleet of J’s in the budget and that we would

also have a roadmap for what to do with our older C–130’s, some

of which will obviously be retired because it will not be economical

to upgrade them. But many of them should be upgraded to a common cockpit.

Senator BUMPERS. General Ryan, would you like to add anything

to that?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
108

General RYAN. No; it will be a balance between J’s and what we

call X, bringing the old ones, eight different models that we have,

up to a common configuration.

AIR MOBILITY COMMAND UPGRADES

Senator BUMPERS. We are talking about getting the biggest bang

for our buck. That is the reason I raised the question. I don’t want

to get into the fight if you have the money and you can see fit to

do that. But I think it would be foolish to limit ourselves to a $64

million plane when you can get the same capability, essentially, for

probably around $8 million with the existing planes we have. It

would be foolish not to do that.

Incidentally, I think Air Mobility Command now wants to buy

more C–17’s, isn’t that correct?

General RYAN. The Commander of Transportation Command has

said that he needs another 15 to fill out the special operations capability that he is on tap for.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, I would not fight about that. It is a good

airplane. I always thought it was too expensive and I would have

done something different. But now that we have it and we are

building it, why I don’t object to that.

On a parochial issue, regarding the National Guard’s 188th

Fighter Wing, in Fort Smith, AR. Since 1994, I have been trying

to get those F–16’s updated or replaced. We know that we are not

buying any more, even though Lockheed wants to sell us some

more.

I think those aircraft should undergo what Lockheed calls a midlife update program.

Incidentally, I would like to get in on that myself, a midlife update. [Laughter]

GUARD AND RESERVE UPGRADES

Tom Harkin, to whom I would defer on this because of his own

expertise, being a fighter pilot and so on—the other day we were

told that only 29 percent of our pilots were reupping.

General Ryan, we talked this morning about the major effort you

make to get those people in the Reserves who do not reup. The

point I want to make is this.

If you have an F–16 pilot who is not reupping and you say to him

why don’t you join the 188th Fighter Wing here in Fort Smith, and

he is looking at a plane that is really outdated compared to the one

he has been flying—well, I won’t say it is outdated, but it sure has

less capability than the one he has been flying—would you not consider that a deterrent to him on whether or not to enlist in the

Guard?

General RYAN. I believe that we have done a very, very good job

in providing the Guard with modern capability. Our A models that

are still in the Guard are well maintained and are very, very good.

They lack some of the state-of-the-art things that we have in some

of our other aircraft, like precision munitions, et cetera.

So yes, we were looking at how to upgrade and divest ourselves

of all of our F–16A and B models in this last budget that we went

through. We will continue to try to upgrade those kinds of capabilities.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
109

One of the problems we ran into was this idea that we could not

shift a wing out of the active component into the Guard and get

the tumble-down effect of the better capability because it would

download bases. So we kind of got trapped a little bit in not being

able to get those forces, particularly the ones that you are talking

about, out of the inventory.

We will continue to look at it, sir, and in our next budget we will

address the modernization of those less capable aircraft, for instance, the F–15A and the F–16A models.

Senator BUMPERS. I hope you will, General. This is my last year.

This will be the fourth year, at least, that I have worked on trying

to get a modernization program for new planes in that fighter wing

in Fort Smith. It is a fine organization.

The Europeans are doing this, are they not? Are they not doing

the midlife update on their F–16’s?

General RYAN. They are doing the midlife upgrade. Yes, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. There is one other point on that. I asked General Hawley about this and he wrote me back a strange letter that

I do not understand. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

He says that plans to update the 188th have been scrapped because of discussions between the administration and the Congress

on BRAC legislation. I didn’t understand that. What is the relevance of the BRAC legislation on upgrading the F–16’s?

General RYAN. When we had built our budget for this year, the

1999 budget, part of the QDR, the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review,’’

said to move a wing from the active component into the Guard and

that would allow us to modernize some of these aircraft. We were

unable to do that because of the resistance that the administration

felt would be there in downloading bases without a BRAC legislation. I think that is where he is coming from.

F–22’S

Senator BUMPERS. We are now talking about buying 339 F–22’s,

is that correct?

General RYAN. That’s correct, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. We are looking now at a 5-month delay in

testing and delivery of the first five F–22’s because, apparently, of

this new high tech casting of titanium parts, as opposed to aluminum.

You know, and I make no bones about it, that I have been an

ardent, adamant, long-time opponent of the F–22. I am about ready

to concede that I have lost that. So I got a spending cap put on last

year’s authorization bill. That was the Armed Services Committee

and Senator Levin and Senator Warner agreed to it.

What is this 5-month delay going to do to the spending cap?

General RYAN. We see no impact on the spending cap. The delay

is 5 months.

Senator BUMPERS. You think it will still come in under the cap

that we had in the bill last year?

General RYAN. Yes, sir; we have the agreement of all of the manufacturers to be able to do that.

The 5-month delay has to do with the third aircraft that is going

to come off the line. Remembering that we are in the EMD phase,

engineering and manufacturing, this was one of the things that we

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
110

have an EMD phase for, to determine the viability of the manufacturing techniques. We have gone back and redone the technique of

not only how to do the weld but to inspect the welds to make sure

they are secure.

That has put us behind, on that aircraft, 5 months. We have a

catchup plan that, by the time we get to the seventh airplane, we

will be caught up.

Senator BUMPERS. And when is that?

General RYAN. I can give you a date on that, sir. I will give it

to you for the record.

[The information follows:]

F–22

The F–22 Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) start (August 2002)

and Milestone III (July 2003) have not changed due to the recent manufacturing

delays. The Air Force has replanned the F–22 flight test work to accommodate a

2 week to 5 month delay to deliver aircraft from manufacturing to flight test. These

delays affect test aircraft 4003 (5.3 months) through aircraft 4006 (2 weeks). The

schedule for aircraft 4007 is not affected by the manufacturing issues, and it will

meet the original planned first flight date in September 2000.

General RYAN. But our ninth—we have nine airplanes in that

EMD phase. Then we start into the production airplanes, the production decision being made this year for the first two.

Senator BUMPERS. What is the initial phase—five for the first

year of production, five F–22’s? Is that in 1999?

General RYAN. There are two in the first lot for this year.

Senator BUMPERS. That is for 1998?

General RYAN. That’s for 1999.

Senator BUMPERS. For 1999? You have two in the budget for next

year?

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. For year 2000, you have five?

General RYAN. There are six, and then I will give you the ramp.

Senator BUMPERS. You can supply that for the record, if you will.

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

F–22 Production Quantities

Quantity

Fiscal year:

1999 .................................................................................................................. 2

2000 .................................................................................................................. 6

2001 .................................................................................................................. 10

2002 .................................................................................................................. 16

2003 .................................................................................................................. 24

2004–11 ............................................................................................................ 1 281

Total ............................................................................................................. 339

1Maximum production rate is 36 aircraft per year.

BOMBER STATUS

Senator BUMPERS. On bombers, let me ask you this.

How many B–1’s do we have left? We lost another one the other

day.

General RYAN. Right. We are at 92, I think, total in the active

inventory.

Senator BUMPERS. Is the B–1 now purely for conventional use?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
111

General RYAN. Yes, sir; it has been deemed that under START

II negotiations, that it would be so equipped and that it would not

be equipped to deliver nuclear weapons.

Senator BUMPERS. How many B–52’s do we have in the Middle

East right now?

General RYAN. We have, on the ramp at Diego Garcia, 14.

Senator BUMPERS. Fourteen?

General RYAN. And we have three B–1’s.

Senator BUMPERS. Three B–1’s?

General RYAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. I take it they are not there just for show. We

would use those in the event of an attack against Iraq?

General RYAN. Absolutely.

Senator BUMPERS. How many B–52’s do we have left?

General RYAN. B–52’s?

Senator BUMPERS. Yes—in the Air Force. Is it 150?

General RYAN. Right now, we have 94.

Senator BUMPERS. One hundred seventy-four?

General RYAN. Ninety-four total B–52’s.

Senator BUMPERS. What is the longest life expectancy of those

planes?

General RYAN. They go out to 2030.

Senator BUMPERS. OK. Back to C–130’s: I want to be sure that

the record is clear on this.

If we go through this modernization of 350 C–130’s, which, according to your posture statement is your present plan, most of

those planes would be viable until the year 2030–40, is that correct?

Mr. PETERS. That is an approximate number, yes.

Senator BUMPERS. I want to close my questioning, Mr. Chairman, by again reiterating my strong support for that idea. As I say,

I am not trying to stop the production of the C–130J’s. But I think

the C–130X makes a lot more sense. I think the modernization of

that fleet makes a lot more sense.

You know what your budget constraints are. In my opinion, you

are just getting a lot more there.

Now I have a parochial interest. I have Little Rock Air Force

Base which is the major C–130 training base in the United States.

I want it to stay that way, of course.

Incidentally, you just put a new engine facility down there the

other day, and I thank you for that. But I like to think that I am

looking at this above and beyond my parochial interests. I would

think that you would have that same interest given the budget constraints in which you are operating.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, gentlemen.

I do have just two short questions. I am sure you are aware of

the CBS ‘‘60 Minutes’’ show that highlighted the C–141 midair collision with the German aircraft off Africa. Two years ago, after the

crash of Secretary Brown’s plane, we put money into the bill, $32.5

million, for aviation and safety equipment, which included the enhanced ground proximity warning system with the digital terrain

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
112

data base to address controlled flight into terrain [CFIT] and the

traffic alert and collision avoidance system [TCAS]. We have also

had predictive windshear, radar, and cockpit voice recorders and

flight data recorders.

I want to ask about TCAS. I was surprised to find that TCAS is

not on the C–17?

Mr. PETERS. It is not currently on the C–17, Senator, but there

are plans to reengineer it onto the C–17.

Senator STEVENS. I thought we put up enough money and we got

the plan to satisfy all the requirements for DOD passenger carrying aircraft?

Mr. PETERS. The C–17 can carry passengers. But the emphasis

is in putting it on our fleet that only carries passengers first, such

as the C–20’s and the aircraft the 89th Wing flies and others.

Those are at the head of the line, followed by the aircraft that

carry cargo and passengers.

Senator STEVENS. I am told that the private commercial airline

industry has voluntarily equipped its entire fleet with the enhanced ground proximity warning system and that we are lagging

behind that. I think, particularly on the planes that are going to

be used for the deployment of our forces, the C–17 is, basically, for

deployment of our forces abroad, as I understand it, beyond being

a cargo plane.

I want to ask you one more question. Why is there not a plan—

I thought we funded a plan to assure that all passenger aircraft of

the Air Force, particularly the large troop carrier aircraft, would

have the latest safety equipment. Now if you need money, I would

like to know that for the record.

What would it cost to assure that is the case? I cannot believe

we should not have that equipment on the C–17.

Mr. PETERS. Senator, right now, at the current schedule I believe

our passenger carrying aircraft will all have TCAS and these other

safety enhancements by around the year 2000, and the TCAS will

be going on all of our aircraft by 2005.

Senator STEVENS. What about the C–17’s? You can get more people on C–17’s than any other airplane when we carry them and

when our troops are going to be deployed overseas. They are the

ones, I would think, that would need that basic system.

Mr. PETERS. Let us get back to you for the record with the exact

date that it is going on the assembly line. It is in development and

there is a date on which it gets put on the assembly line. Then it

gets retrofitted back onto the C–17’s. I don’t have that date with

me today. But let us get back to you for the record on that.

[The information follows:]

SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS

The Air Force will have the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)

installed on C–17 production aircraft (P–71) beginning in fiscal year 2001; retrofits

for the first 70 aircraft will be complete by fiscal year 2002. Therefore, all C–17’s

that the Air Force possesses as of fiscal year 2002, will be equipped with TCAS; new

C–17’s received after that time will be delivered with TCAS already installed.

Senator STEVENS. My mind slips back to the rescue mission to

take people out of Iran. Had there been a TCAS on that plane, we

would not have had to abort that mission.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
113

The real problem about that is, if we deploy to Iraq or anywhere

out there, we must be using C–17’s almost daily in this deployment. Aren’t we?

General RYAN. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Isn’t that a passenger aircraft, then, General?

General RYAN. It is both a passenger and air cargo. Yes, sir. But

our primary passenger aircraft are first in our prioritization

scheme.

C–17 SUPPORT

Senator STEVENS. I would hope that the ones that are carrying

the largest number of troops would be moved up in that schedule

if it is at all possible.

Again, if you need money, we ought to be able to find money for

that.

Last, on the C–17, let me leave you with this comment and you

can make some comments for the record if you like.

As I understand it, the C–17’s are going to be at McCord, they

are going to be at Altus, in Omaha, and in Charleston. That is

where they will be based.

If they are the primary deployment mechanism of our combat

forces, that means that Fort Lewis and Fort Bragg, in particular,

will be the enhanced area for troops to be deployed with the C–17.

If you also then have megalopolis sort of bases now for the fighter aircraft, it looks like we are heading toward a situation where

we will have very, very few bases for the Air Force. Is that really

the plan?

I should think we learned a lesson from Pearl Harbor about putting all of our assets in one place. If we are going to have the Army

in Fort Lewis and McCord built up, if we are going to have

Charleston built up for C–17’s and Fort Bragg, we, obviously, are

going to lose a lot of, really, the safety in deployments at several

other locations in the country.

I am hearing you this morning saying you would rather have

enormous bases now for the fighter aircraft and for the other aircraft, just as we are going to have for the C–17’s.

That plan is not really reflected in this posture statement.

Mr. PETERS. No; at this point, Senator, it is not. This is in the

works. We are trying to work this out.

I think enormous is a stretch because there are other considerations such as proximity to air space and, as you suggest, distributing troops in multiple bases.

But what we need to do is—we need to make sure that we have

enough people on our primary bases from which we deploy so that

when people are deployed, the people who are left at home do not

have to work 12 hour shifts and do not have many of the same

problems they have when they deploy.

What we need to do to lift our retention, we think, is to try to

make sure that, when people are at home base, that they have

more of a regular workweek, a 40-hour workweek, a time to be

with their families, and a time to decompress from the stresses of

deployment.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
114

So what we are looking at is a basing scheme that will facilitate

that.

Our sense is it means that we will have a number of larger

bases. But there are other alternatives, such as we have done with

the security forces, where we have a core security forces group and

people fall in with them.

So we are doing a planning effort on that this year, to try to figure out exactly what the implications of that are.

We don’t have an answer to that yet. This is really a response

to the fact that we see that money alone is not the answer for retaining our key people. We need to provide them with quality of life

when they are at home training that is more normal and allows

them to do the things which all of us want to do during the workweeks when we are at home.

That is what we are trying to look at, trying to figure out how

to balance our forces to get there.

Senator STEVENS. We would be interested in that.

I see for the three locations for the C–17—I don’t know what the

plan is to deploy forces from California, Arizona, or Texas. Are you

going to fly the C–17’s south to go back north again? Similarly, if

you look at the forces deployed in New England, the C–17’s are

down in Charleston. I am seeing the Army start to consolidate its

deployment around the bases where they know the C–17’s will be.

That is what I am saying. I am not sure that has been thought

through yet.

I would like to have your comments later on that.

[The information follows:]

SUPERBASES

Consolidation of similar forces and complementary missions at the same base enables the Air Force to realize efficiencies—both operational and financial—as we

execute our global responsibilities.

We believe that by consolidating our forces on fewer bases, we can meet the challenges of today’s expeditionary Air Force in two important respects. First, this consolidation enhances our versatility to operate during deployments. Second, it enables us to ‘‘manage’’ the workload levied on those personnel not deployed—relieving

them of ‘‘routine’’ 12-hour workdays.

Finally, force consolidations enable us to reduce our infrastructure saving valuable resources—as we match our basing structure with our post Cold War reduced

force structure.

With respect to C–17 basing, proper force consolidation is a complex issue, one

that requires extremely careful analysis. As our basing plans mature, we will consult with the Congress at the appropriate time.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator STEVENS. We will be submitting additional questions

from various Senators to the Department for your response in the

record.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
115

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY F. WHITTEN PETERS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

F–22

Question. Last year the Air Force insisted that it could deliver 438 F–22’s for $48 billion. Can you explain why 339 F–22’s will now cost $43.4 billion?

Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in May 1997 reduced the production quantity from 438 to 339, reduced the Low Rate Initial Production quantity

from 70 to 58, and reduced the maximum production rate from 48 per year to 36

per year. This reduction in aircraft quantity and efficient production rates causes

the F–22 unit costs to increase. The decrease in efficient production results in an

increase to contractor overhead, an increase in the cost of materials due to smaller

quantity buys, and an increase in subcontractor risk and cost. The combined effects

of the QDR changes reduced the production cost from $48 billion to $43.4 billion.

Question. As the F–22 begins flight testing and avionics integration, what risk

areas are being carefully monitored by the Air Force?

Answer. During flight test the Air Force will monitor mechanical performance

(such as landing gear and braking capabilities), structural loads, the flying qualities

of the aircraft, and engine capabilities. During avionics integration the Air Force

will particularly monitor the radar performance in the flying test bed, the delivery

of Communications/Navigation/Identification (CNI) hardware and software, and Mission Software integration. The Mission Software coordinates the sensors, processors,

controls, and displays in the aircraft.

In addition to monitoring all technical performance items in flight test and avionics integration, the Air Force is closely monitoring the cost and schedule status

of all critical systems and subsystems.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

PRIVATIZATION

Question. How did the Air Force arrive at the number of civilian and military jobs

to be eliminated and/or contracted out?

Answer. Through an Air Force initiative called Jump Start, the Air Force reviewed our total work force to determine the positions that could be competed with

the private sector. We then removed from consideration any position, civilian or

military, that was considered wartime deployable, forward based, military essential

or inherently governmental. The remaining positions fell into the Office of Management and Budget category of commercial activity, which is the category of positions

the Air Force considers for competition. In addition, we decreased this category of

positions for competition consideration to account for rotation base to support overseas and career field sustainment.

Question. Were specific, individual studies performed to analyze the savings and

appropriateness of activities to compete? Or, was a goal imposed ‘‘from the top?’’

Answer. A goal was not imposed ‘‘from the top’’ regarding activities to consider

for competition. Through an Air Force initiative called Jump Start, the Air Force,

in coordination with the major commands, reviewed the total work force to determine if a function was a commercial activity that could be competed with the private sector. We then removed from consideration any position, civilian or military,

that was considered wartime deployable, forward based, military essential or inherently governmental. The remaining positions fell into the Office of Management and

Budget category of commercial activity which is the category of positions the Air

Force considers for competition. In addition, we decreased this category of positions

for competition consideration to account for rotation base to support overseas and

career field sustainment.

Question. How did the Air Force determine that contracting out saves 25 percent?

Why do the Army and Navy assume different savings? Please provide copies of the

analysis you performed to come to the conclusion that 25 percent was the right

number.

Answer. The Air Force does not presume that our A–76 cost comparisons will result in a contracting decision since historical data indicate 40 percent of the cost

comparisons are retained in-house. The 25 percent savings is calculated based on

our historical cost comparison data that are maintained in a data base called the

Commercial Activities Management Information System (CAMIS). CAMIS is a DOD

required data base that has been in-place since 1979. Air Force data indicate that

since 1979 the average savings the Air Force has achieved in conducting cost comU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
116

parisons is 24 percent regardless of whether we contract the function or retain it

in-house under a most efficient organization (MEO). However, savings for cost comparisons over the last 10 years have been 34 percent. Therefore, in projecting our

cost comparison savings for the fiscal year 1999 President’s Budget, the Air Force

used a conservative percentage of 25 percent to ensure we could achieve our savings

goal. The Air Force cannot address the Army and Navy’s savings. The analysis is

a running average and is the actual result of studies extracted from the CAMIS

data base which contains over 1,200 A–76 initiatives conducted since 1979.

Question. With fewer military personnel and DOD civilians after all this contracting out, what will be the impact on overseas rotations and ‘‘perstempo’’ problems?

Answer. The Air Force continually analyzes the effects of competition and privatization efforts on both enlisted and officer career fields to identify early on any impact on overseas rotations and perstempo. When analysis reveals a potential impact

on overseas rotations or perstempo, that particular skill will be removed from consideration for competition. The Air Force has a formal process to identify its minimum military essential requirements with a key element of this minimum military

essential requirement being overseas rotation. This process is ongoing and will continue to be used in the future to ensure mission readiness. The Air Force is committed to competition and privatization, but not at the expense of mission readiness or

unacceptable impacts on our people.

Question. How will the Air Force monitor and document the progress in achieving

your outsourcing programs and achieving the planned savings? How will these data

be confirmed by an outside party?

Answer. The Air Force will monitor and document the progress and savings of

cost comparisons and direct conversions through the Commercial Activities Management Information System (CAMIS). CAMIS is a DOD required data base and

CAMIS data is available to any interested party at any time.

Question. What actions do you plan if the savings do not materialize as planned?

More outsourcing? Cuts in procurement? Force structure? Readiness?

Answer. Air Force has stated that our competition program is aggressive and has

risks, (e.g., supplier availability, level of savings). If the Air Force is able to execute

our planned competition candidates, we should be able to meet our projected savings. If we find that we cannot achieve the projected savings, we will need to rebalance our modernization and readiness accounts to reflect the reduced savings.

Question. Please list the specific positions, functions, and locations to be competed

or outsourced for the state of New Mexico. When will this data be available, if you

do not have it now?

Answer. The data is shown below:

Base/function

Announced

authorizationsAnnounced date Decision date

Cannon AFB: Military Family Housing Maintenance ....... 21 April 1996 ........... February 1998.

Holloman AFB: Military Family Housing Maintenance .... 66 May 1997 ............ November 1998.

Kirtland AFB:

PMEL 1 ..................................................................... 51 May 1996 ............ August 1997.

Base Supply 2 ......................................................... 170 May 1996 ............ November 1997.

Communication Functions ...................................... 54 April 1997 ........... May 1998.

Base Communications ............................................ 228 November 1997 ... October 1998.

Dormitory Management 3 ........................................ 6 February 1997 ..... May 1998.

1 Tentative Decision for PMEL was In-House; pending completion of the administrative appeal process.

2 Tentative decision for Base Supply was Contract; pending completion of the administrative appeal process.

3 Direct conversion to contract.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG

PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

Question. In the past, the Administration has indicated that the Partnership for

Peace program will help decrease international military tensions. It further stated

intentions to enhance and strengthen the program and to ensure that Russia is included, not excluded. Your statement indicates that ‘‘recently, the focus of our cooperative engagement and stability enhancement efforts have been in our Partnership

for Peace participation.’’ Has Russia been included in any Air Force Partnership for

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
117

Peace efforts in the last several years? If so, what is the Russian reaction to the

Partnership for Peace program?

Answer. The most recent effort was last fall when Russia participated in

CENTRAZBAT 97, an ‘‘in the spirit of Partnership for Peace’’ exercise in Central

Asia which focused on peacekeeping. At the operational level, Russian reactions are

positive. Challenges remain in the political sense in so far as many Russians link

Partnership for Peace to NATO expansion. Compounding the problem is a lack of

Russia’s financial resources. We are encouraged by the signing of the Founding Act

last May. More dialogue has since taken place and the GOR signed an Individual

Partnership Program in January of this year, a very positive indicator for future activities.

Question. Do you think the program decreases possible Russian concerns about

NATO expansion? Some specific examples please?

Answer. The results at the operational level are positive where the Russians can

see the benefits of cooperation, such as last fall at CENTRAZBAT 97. We expect this

benefit to expand as the Russians observe less and participate more with the signing of the Individual Partnership Program in January. Many in Russia see a direct

link between Partnership for Peace and NATO expansion. The USG will continue

to have a major political challenge convincing Russia that NATO expansion is not

a threat. Programs such as Partnership for Peace engage the GOR and help alleviate Russian fears.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

Question. In September and October 1997 there were news reports of a possible

U.S. Air Force decision to terminate all atmospheric sciences, electro-optic sensor,

and photonics Science and Technology base research starting in October 1988. It

was reported that the proposal would possibly force the closure of the Atmospheric

Sciences Division and the Electromagnetics and Reliability Directorate at Hanscom

AFB, Massachusetts, and result in the elimination of several hundred jobs. Please

provide information on the Air Force’s near and long term projections for those

Science and Technology programs, including specifically any work programmed for

Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts?

Answer. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has no plans to terminate all

atmospheric sciences, electro-optic sensor, and photonics research beginning in October 1998. Air Force Science and Technology (S&T) funding for Hanscom Air Force

Base (AFB) activities has been reduced approximately 16 percent in fiscal year 1999

from the fiscal year 1998 President’s Budget (equates to an 8 percent reduction from

the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level); however, there will be no involuntary reductions in fiscal year 1998 and there are no planned involuntary reductions in fiscal

year 1999 for S&T personnel at Hanscom AFB. In addition to any future potential

personnel cuts triggered by fiscal year 1999 budget reductions, a reduction of nine

military positions has been planned as part of a previously mandated workforce

drawdown.

As the Air Force becomes more dependent on space assets, space-related requirements will demand more S&T activities. Some of this work, including the study of

space environments and solar effects, will continue to be conducted at Hanscom

AFB. We value the contributions of Hanscom AFB over many years and look forward to significant work from Hanscom in the future.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

FUNDING FOR CONTINGENCIES

Question. When must the Air Force receive reasonable assurance that supplemental funding for contingencies will be made available?

Answer. The Air Force must receive reasonable assurance by the end of April/

early May that supplemental funding will be received by July 1998. If funding is

not received by then, we will be forced to curtail or defer operations, maintenance,

training, and sustainment activities in the fourth quarter in order to support the

significant cost of responding to the crisis in Southwest Asia, resulting in severe

readiness impacts and mission degradation.

Question. When must the Air Force receive the funding in order to preclude adversely affecting readiness?

Answer. The significant costs of continuing our presence in Bosnia and responding

to the crisis in Southwest Asia cannot be managed beyond July without an intolerable impact on readiness.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
118

Question. What actions will the Air Force likely be forced to take if the assurance

and the funds are not made available?

Answer. Peacetime flight training will be severely curtailed in early fiscal year

1998/4 in order to continue Operations Southern and Northern Watch, Bosnia and

Counterdrug operations. As a result, for those units not directly supporting these

contingencies, we anticipate crew readiness will decline, aircraft mission capable

rates will continue to erode, and spare parts and inventories will further be depleted. Pilot training will be curtailed, further aggravating the pilot shortage. Bottom line—the current decline in retention and readiness will accelerate, requiring

two to three years and an increase in funding to recover.

F–22

Question. GAO recommended Congress defer $595 million from fiscal year 1999

for the first two F–22 production aircraft due to program delays. What is the Air

Force’s position on this?

Answer. The Air Force does not support the GAO recommendation because it

would seriously impact the program. A one year slip to the program would break

the EMD and production cost caps, cause a $2.75 billion total funding impact, and

force an IOC slip of 12 months.

The GAO’s recommendation is based on three concerns: (1) delays in the flight

test program; (2) a perception that the F–22 program has fewer stable manufacturing processes compared to other civilian and military programs; and (3) delays in

avionics software development and testing.

The Air Force disagrees with these concerns. The F–22 is ready for production

based on 43,889 hours of wind tunnel testing, 6,200 hours of engine testing, 2,100

CPU hours modeling and simulation, and 180 flight test hours that will occur this

year.

By December 1998, 75 percent of avionics hardware will be delivered using production rather than developmental processes. Also, it is invalid to compare the F–

22’s manufacturing processes to other programs because of differences in technologies, manufacturing processes, tolerances, degrees of maturity, level of commercial components in the design, etc.

Avionics software risks are well defined. The current schedule has 5 months of

margin in the development of software Blocks 1 through 3.1.

Question. With the reduced F–22 buy of 339 aircraft, what assurances can you

give that the aircraft can be produced without cost growth normally experienced

when a program is reduced and stretched?

Answer. The Air Force and Contractor team are committed to live within the Congressionally mandated cost caps and are realizing significant potential production

cost reductions. The F–22 contractors are progressing toward validating cost reduction initiatives valued at $15.2 billion. Our post-QDR goal was $12.7 billion while

our current estimate is $15.2 billion. The government-contractor team signed a

Memorandum of Understanding on January 14, 1998 committing to deliver 339 aircraft under the Congressionally mandated cost cap. The cost cap represents the cost

of delivering a 339 aircraft program as determined by a joint government-contractor

team.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GEN. MICHAEL E. RYAN

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

CONTINUATION PAY AND AVIATION CAREER INCENTIVE PAY

Question. What percentage of pilots receiving Aviation Continuation Pay and

Aviation Career Incentive Pay are in non-flying billets at this time?

Answer. Twenty-eight percent of the pilots currently receiving Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) and 23 percent of the pilots receiving Aviation Career Incentive

Pay (ACIP) are in non-flying billets. These pilots are either attending Professional

Military Education, filling leadership positions, or providing operational expertise to

Air Force and joint staffs.

PAY EQUITY

Question. Is there equity in pushing to increase pay for pilots again in fiscal year

1999, without addressing the needs of aircraft maintenance professionals and other

specialties vital to the mission?

Answer. The Air Force is not requesting a pay increase specifically for pilots in

fiscal year 1999. The Air Force’s retention gameplan is designed to reduce tempo,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
119

improve quality of life, enhance compensation, and improve personnel policies.

These initiatives address the concerns of all Air Force members.

Many of the following compensation enhancements we requested and received in

the 1998 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) were designed to improve the

quality of life for all of our members. The NDAA:

—Increased Family Separation Allowance from $75 to $100 per month for those

members separated from their families for more than 30 days;

—Included provision to protect an individual’s total pay from decreases related to

their assignment to field conditions at home station or deployed; and

—Provided new authority to pay up to $300 per month to those assigned to locations considered less desirable or safe which present ‘‘quality of life hardships’’.

The Air Force will continue to use a variety of tools, to include selective reenlistment bonuses, to ensure retention of critical enlisted specialties within the Air

Force. The Department of Defense is also evaluating whether increased pays, including new authorities, are necessary to improve the retention of selected career

enlisted specialties.

PERSTEMPO

Question. Given the PERSTEMPO turmoil associated with peacekeeping missions,

why has the Air Force limited deployments to 45 days, when increased lengths

would provide stability to rear area units?

Answer. Shorter duration deployments for some Air Force aviation units ensure

the highly technical skills developed in our airmen do not atrophy because of limited

training opportunities while deployed.

Shorter deployments also favorably address several key quality of life concerns

identified by our people. Given sufficient notice prior to deployment, disruption is

minimized and the benefits include: Improved management of pre- and post-deployment training requirements; overall unit readiness is better sustained over the

course of a 45-day rotation; and reduced length of family separation.

FLYING HOUR PROGRAM

Question. I understand that the Air Force is continuing to experience shortfalls

in the flying hour program, particularly in spare parts. What is the current shortfall

and how are you resolving it? Do you project a problem in fiscal year 1999?

Answer. High OPTEMPO and aging aircraft continue to increase the cost of our

flying hour program. The flying hour program is predicated on historical cost data

that reflects program costs from the two previous years. The current shortfall for

fiscal year 1998 of $209 million will be reflected in our Omnibus reprogramming

submission at the end of April. Recently our fiscal year 1999 Unfunded Priority List

identified a shortfall of $219 million in reparable spares funding. This shortfall will

continue to be refined as consumption factors are updated. We will again assess the

fiscal year 1999 shortfall during the execution year.

JASSM

Question. How will the Air Force employ the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Munition (JASSM)?

Answer. JASSM provides the warfighter a unique, adverse weather, ‘‘launch-andleave,’’ PGM-quality weapon with a long-range standoff capability. The weapon’s

precise attack capabilities enable JASSM to place high value, fixed or relocatable

point targets at risk while minimizing aircrew and launch platform exposure to

enemy air defense systems. Potential JASSM targets range from non-hardened

above ground to hardened, shallow buried targets. JASSM is designed to be compatible with both fighters and bombers.

This missile will contribute significantly to the Secretary of Defense’s guidance to

rapidly defeat the enemy’s initial attack in the earliest phase of a conflict. In the

subsequent stages of conflict, the missile would be employed against selected high

value, heavily defended targets. Additionally, JASSM employment could be tasked

as part of a crisis action response directed by National Command Authorities

(NCA’s).

Aircraft delivery methods can be accomplished from low-to-high altitudes and are

scenario-dependent based on enemy defenses, range-to-target, weather, and launch

aircraft capabilities. Via the target of opportunity mode, the aircrew, prior to missile

release, can retarget relocatable high value targets by updating GPS geo-referenced

target location data. JASSM terminal guidance for targets of opportunity is provided

by GPS/INS only.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
120

MANNED RECONNAISSANCE

Question. It is my understanding that the Air Force is in the process of reviewing

options for a new generation manned reconnaissance plane. This contradicts the Department’s previously stated objective to replace manned reconnaissance with

UAV’s. Has the Department changed its strategy with regard to airborne reconnaissance?

Answer. The Air Force has not changed its position with respect to the airborne

reconnaissance mission. We are committed to maintaining the existing manned and

unmanned reconnaissance assets, while developing additional vehicles to augment

and potentially replace current platforms. The existing high-altitude manned reconnaissance aircraft, the U–2, will be viable for the foreseeable future.

The Global Hawk is one of two complementary air vehicles being developed, along

with a Common Ground Segment, in the High Altitude Endurance (HAE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration

(ACTD). The Global Hawk is envisioned to be a long-dwell, stand-off collection platform, similar to the U–2.

If the HAE UAV ACTD is successful and a decision is made to acquire and operate the Global Hawk, it will initially augment the U–2.

BASING OF UNMANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM

Question. Have you developed plans for the basing of new unmanned reconnaissance systems, such as Global Hawk or the Tier III Minus Darkstar? How will you

take into account operational training and global deployment factors in making

these basing decisions?

Answer. The Air Force has established a High Altitude Endurance (HAE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Integrated Process Team (IPT) that has been meeting

since November 1996. While preparing for potential introduction of the HAE UAV’s

into the Air Force inventory, this team has dealt with a great many questions pertaining to fielding, operations, employment, training, basing, and manning. Air

Combat Command conducted preliminary site surveys for potential HAE UAV bed

down locations, however, no decisions or recommendation have been made at this

time. Since Global Hawk and DarkStar are still Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD), they are not Air Force assets and still must prove military utility and be deemed affordable.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

READINESS

Question. What do your latest, 1998, data show about pilot retention? Is it getting

better or worse? Is it better or worse for married pilots? With families?

Answer. Our latest retention data confirms we are in a challenging pilot retention

environment. The Air Force’s leading pilot retention indicator, the Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) take-rate has declined slightly from fiscal year 1997 levels. We

closed out fiscal year 1997 with a 34 percent long-term ACP take-rate, to include

38 pilots who originally declined the bonus in fiscal year 1997, but accepted the

higher rates in fiscal year 1998. Our current fiscal year 1998 long-term ACP takerate is 28 percent; however, we feel it is still too early to draw any conclusions from

this data. To date, only 31 percent of the fiscal year 1998 eligible pilots have made

their ACP decision. We are cautiously optimistic that the increased ACP coupled

with Air Force efforts to reduce TEMPO and improve quality of life will increase

pilot retention. As for pilots with families, the long-term ACP take-rate has always

exceeded the rate for our single pilots. The following spreadsheet highlights this

fact:

ACP TAKE RATES

[In percent]

Fiscal year

Status

Family Single

1989 ................................................................................................................................ 72 53

1990 ................................................................................................................................ 44 27

1991 ................................................................................................................................ 47 30

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
121

ACP TAKE RATES—Continued

[In percent]

Fiscal year

Status

Family Single

1992 ................................................................................................................................ 73 65

1993 ................................................................................................................................ 80 76

1994 ................................................................................................................................ 80 76

1995 ................................................................................................................................ 81 54

1996 ................................................................................................................................ 75 49

1997 ................................................................................................................................ 36 19

Question. What are the socio-economic profiles of the pilots leaving? Staying?

Answer. The Air Force does not track the socio-economic profile of pilots beyond

marital status and number of dependents; economic status is limited to knowledge

of the individual’s pay and bonuses. The Air Force does conduct pilot bonus nontaker surveys to identify reasons why pilots are leaving the Air Force. Our survey

results highlight TEMPO (19 percent), quality of life concerns (14 percent), and airline hiring (11 percent) as the top three reasons why pilots are separating from the

Air Force. The survey results show the close relationship between increased tempo

and quality of life concerns.

Air Force personnel are being deployed at four times the rate they were during

the Cold War. Frequent deployments have social impacts particularly with family

members—increased periods of separation, longer work hours at home station, and

a general lack of planning stability. Eighty-three percent of our pilots are married.

Although we don’t track the employment status of our pilot’s spouses, a growing

trend throughout society is the working spouse. Military service inherently requires

frequent relocations and the increased absence of the military member due to deployments complicates any spouse’s career plans.

Airline hiring is another significant factor affecting pilot retention. Our analysis

reveals that economically, a pilot will have greater life stream earnings if they separate from the military and obtain a job with a major airline at the earliest opportunity. If pilots are strictly motivated by money, they will separate from the Air

Force and fly for the commercial airlines at the earliest opportunity. While we suspect our young pilots may be making economic decisions, we feel the majority of our

pilots join and continue to serve in the military for other reasons, to include camaraderie, benefits package, flying opportunity, and the opportunity to serve the nation.

Question. Are you aware of surveys of pilots showing that a major complaint is

lack of respect for Air Force leadership? What are the specific complaints about?

Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the Air Force surveyed all pilots who declined the

pilot bonus and the number one reason flyers gave for getting out was tempo (19

percent). The second most cited reason was Quality of Life concerns (14 percent) and

when we peeled that issue back one layer, the reason was too much time away from

home. In other words, tempo was driving 33 percent of our pilots to turn down the

bonus and get out.

Concern with leadership actually ranked 9th on the list of concerns—only mentioned by 4 percent of those exiting. The main concern seemed to be at the squadron

and group command level and we are addressing these concerns.

Each MAJCOM holds squadron commander selection boards to pick only the best

leaders possible. Once selected they must attend Pre-command Squadron Commander Training. Similarly, all colonels compete on the new Command Selection

Board for Group command positions. This stringent screening process, coupled with

an intense 2–3 week preparation course, is another positive step to ensure only the

best are selected for command.

In addition, the CSAF has implemented a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) program

to articulate the Air Force’s senior leadership’s efforts regarding a variety of issues.

This program provides commanders at all levels first-hand information on issues of

importance allowing them to get the ‘‘real story’’ out to their troops.

QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS

Question. Which of your ‘‘quality of life’’ programs are working? Which are not?

Which generate the best pay-off in terms of retention? Please provide the data and

analysis to substantiate your answer, or are you using judgement or anecdotal evidence to assess the degrees of success or failure?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
122

Answer. In a quality of life survey conducted across the Air Force last fall, twothirds of our enlisted and three-quarters of our officer members indicated satisfaction with their quality of life and over 70 percent indicated their families remain

supportive of career service.

While we strive to quantify the retention value of quality of life programs we do

not have quantifiable data at this time. We maintain that the success of some of

these programs is best seen in how they contribute to keeping airmen focused on

the mission rather than worrying about their basic needs. The Air Force emphasizes

quality of life initiatives and objectives across seven priority areas which address

a wide-range of needs for our members. Our 1998 Quality of Life Focus paper outlines the initiatives associated with each of the following priority areas: (1) pursue

fair and competitive compensation and benefits; (2) balance the impact of high

tempo levels; (3) provide access to quality health care; (4) provide access to safe, affordable, and adequate housing; (5) preserve retirement systems and benefits; (6) increase and enhance support to community programs; and (7) expand educational opportunities and access.

Question. Does the Air Force have any studies on these issues? By independent

organizations?

Answer. The Air Force used the 1997 Quality of Life (QoL) Survey to gather data

on the effectiveness of our people programs. Recent QoL survey results cited health

care, educational opportunities, commissaries and exchanges, fitness centers, and

housing as the most important QoL efforts influencing retention.

The OSD Quality of Life Office recently contracted an independent study to explore service returns on quality of life investments in terms of retention. This study

will investigate specific quality of life programs, their influence on retention, and

compare the investment costs of these programs to attrition costs.

Question. What changes have been occurring in spouse, child, and substance

abuse for the past two years? Please differentiate between officers and enlisted,

length of service, and among major military specialties and PERSTEMPO rates.

Answer. The Air Force’s data on spouse, child, and substance abuse is not detailed

enough to differentiate between officers and enlisted, length of service, major military specialties, and PERSTEMPO rates. The data we do have shows a decrease

over the past two years in the number of spouses and children treated for abuse

in Air Force treatment facilities. The data also shows a decrease in severity of abuse

treatment. Air Force drug testing results over the past two years show no change

in the rate of positive findings, even with the CY 1997 increase in the drug testing

rate from 50 to 75 percent of our end strength.

Question. What is the role of the current high PERSTEMPO in any changes in

family or substance abuse? Please provide copies of any analysis you have of the

relationship.

Answer. We do not have any scientifically based data reflecting the relationship

between PERSTEMPO and family or substance abuse.

Spouse abuse rates remained steady from 1993–1995, then declined in 1996 and

1997; severity of cases also decreased over this time period. Child abuse rates show

a slightly decreasing trend over the same period and also a decrease in severity.

According to the latest report of the DOD Worldwide Survey of Health Related

Behaviors, between 1992 and 1995 alcohol use, illicit drugs use, and tobacco use all

decreased. These data are supported by Air Force drug testing results over the past

two years showing no change in the rate of positive findings on urinalysis, even with

an increase in the CY 1997 drug testing rate from 50 percent to 75 percent of end

strength.

The next worldwide report will be available in late 1998. The 1998 survey will

include PERSTEMPO deployment data, which should prove beneficial statistically.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS IN BOSNIA

Question. What impact does the open-ended deployment of U.S. troops in Bosnia

have on the Air Force’s ability to contribute to the defense of vital interests elsewhere?

Answer. Present Air Force contributions to the Bosnia peace process will not inhibit our ability to support the National Military Strategy of the United States.

Should operational taskings escalate in response to a particular crisis, the National

Command Authority will prioritize taskings and allocate available resources to meet

those requirements.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
123

Question. Could you characterize for me the impact the mission in Bosnia is having on Air Force readiness across the board?

Answer. The Bosnia operation, by itself, has had no major impact on overall Air

Force readiness. Bosnia does add stress on our individual high demand-low density

systems such as U–2, Predator, and Rivet Joint.

Question. What is your estimate of the future Air Force costs of the Bosnia mission, and how do you propose to prioritize those costs against competing demands

on limited resources? Specifically, what programs would drop below the funding line

if we continue, ‘‘for an undefined period of time,’’ the Bosnia mission? Answer. The projected Air Force cost to support the Bosnia mission is $250.7 million for fiscal year 1999. To pay for continuing operations without approval of the

budget amendment would require the Air Force to decrement other programs within

the already constrained fiscal year 1999 budget. At this point, we have not identified specific programs that would fall below the line if the Bosnia mission is indefinitely extended. However, the most likely candidates are in our carefully balanced,

time-phased force modernization program.

NATO ENLARGEMENT

Question. We have heard widely varying estimates of the cost of NATO enlargement. If, as we have heard, the DOD budget, and the Air Force budget as well, is

a zero-sum game, then which programs specifically will be sacrificed to allow NATO

enlargement? What is the Air Force plan to accommodate NATO enlargement?

Answer. The Army is the DOD executive agent for NATO enlargement. The Air

Force does not expect to pay and it has no plans to pay for any NATO enlargement

requirements from the Air Force budget.

INFORMATION SECURITY

Question. In light of recent reports of attempts to hack into Air Force computer

networks, what legislation can we or must we amend, alter, or enact, to help make

your ability to conduct information operations easier and more secure?

Answer. In the wake of recent intrusions into DOD computer networks, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has directed a department-wide review of policies and practices that affect information operations. This review is being conducted on several

fronts, including an examination of whether or not there are legal constraints that

hamper our efforts to conduct effective information operations. Thus, it is premature

for us to advocate specific legislative changes in this area.

It is our hope that the OSD-led effort, in which we are actively participating, will

result in a clear articulation of the legal issues surrounding information operations

as well as proposals for any legislative changes that may be deemed necessary to

ensure our ability to identify and respond to on-line attacks.

READINESS

Question. To paraphrase your own statement concerning readiness, readiness is

a function of personnel, equipment, training, logistics, and financial resources. If we

look at each of these areas individually we see an air force comprised of 40 percent

fewer personnel responding to over four times as many deployable commitments.

And I’m concerned the details behind the headlines would provide even more cause

for alarm—I think it all points to a readiness level that is either at a degraded level

now or will be significantly degraded in the future. What are your specific plans to

deal with these readiness challenges?

Answer. The Air Force has already done much to address the challenges to our

readiness in the face of increasing demands for our forces:

TEMPO Initiatives

Global Sourcing—adjudicates CINC’s requirements across the Combat Air Forces

Global Military Force Policy—establishes limits on tasking of selected high demand/

low density assets for contingency operations

Reduced Joint/Air Force Exercises

Post deployment stand downs—1 day ‘‘down’’ for each 7 days deployed; up to 14

down days maximum

Eliminated Quality Air Force Assessments

Reduced Operational Readiness Inspections (10 percent in fiscal year 1998; 30

percent in fiscal year 1999)

Implemented temporary duty/deployment tracker

Shortened the duration for aviation unit deployments from 90 to 45 days

Funded 2 Additional RC–135’s

Stood Up a Reserve Associate AWACS Squadron

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
124

45-Day Rotations to SWA

Aircraft Spare Parts Funding

95 percent in fiscal year 1998; 95 percent in fiscal year 1999

Compensation Initiatives

Pay Raise (2.8 percent fiscal year 1998; 3.1 percent fiscal year 1999)

Increased number of AFSC’s qualifying for Reenlistment Bonuses (from 20 to 88)

Increase Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay

Increase Family Separation Allowance

Subsistence Allowance for Dorm Residents

Rated Management Initiatives

Reduce Rated ALO’s by 47 Positions

Convert 20 percent Rated Staff Positions to Ops Staff Officer

Increased Pilot Bonus and Pilot Production

Quality of Life Initiatives

E-mail access to deployed airmen

Outreach Program—Squadron-level volunteers available to assist with family

issues while member is deployed

$296 million for Family Housing in fiscal year 1998.

We believe the demand for aerospace power will continue well into the future, and

we recognize the need to restructure ourselves to better support this demand. In

particular, we are looking for ways to increase the depth of our support structure

by consolidating state-side bases. This will allow us to support forward deployments

and home station demands more effectively and efficiently.

Question. Can you continue to expend large portions of your TOA on operations

like Bosnia and Southwest Asia, while maintaining discipline to your plans for modernization? If so, How?

Answer. Without a supplemental appropriation, we cannot continue to expend the

level of funding required to support ongoing operations in Bosnia and Southwest

Asia. Initially, from within our Operations and Maintenance accounts, we will

among other actions begin civilian furlough actions, defer aircraft and aircraft engine maintenance, cancel operational training exercises, terminate real property

maintenance contracts, and postpone the opening of 4 child development centers. To

avoid unacceptable reductions in equipment and training readiness, we plan to rely

heavily on furloughing civilians. However, further actions would be needed to include requesting a formal reprogramming action. This would place our carefully balanced, time-phased modernization program at risk. Funding and execution of certain near-term (C–17), near-mid-term (bomber upgrades and precision-guided munitions), later-mid-term (F–22, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, and Space-Based

InfraRed System) and far-term (Airborne Laser and Joint Strike Fighter) requirements would have to be restructured and slipped, potentially degrading tomorrow’s

readiness and our ability to meet our future global engagement commitments.

FIGHTER AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS

Question. Can you give us your perspective on what we need both the F–22 and

the JSF in the current timeframes being pursued?

Answer. A mix of F–22’s and Joint Strike Fighters (JSF’s) is the most effective

solution to the Air Force fighter modernization challenge. When the F–22 reaches

Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2006, the average age of the F–

15 fleet will be 26 years when the JSF achieves IOC in fiscal year 2010, the average

F–16 will be 24 years old. Neither of these airframes would be able to fly much

longer unless an expensive service life extension program was undertaken. These

extension programs would provide only a marginal improvement to their current capability but at a significant cost. Additionally, the advancement and proliferation of

air-to-air and ground-to-air threats could put both F–15 and F–16 fighters in a position of inferiority and threaten our ability to achieve air superiority in a major theater war.

The F–22 is the ‘‘force enabler.’’ Its emphasis is on dominant air superiority capability while retaining a significant air-to-ground capability. It will allow a theater

commander to rapidly achieve air superiority and enable all other Joint missions to

take place unhampered by enemy airpower.

The JSF will provide the ‘‘bulk’’ of the Joint Commander’s offensive airpower. Its

affordable cost will allow us to procure it in enough numbers to sustain a high operations tempo. However, the JSF’s affordability depends on the technologies leveraged from the F–22. Together the F–22 and JSF provide the optimum ‘‘high/low’’

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
125

mix of dominant capability and high operations tempo that allows the Air Force to

support the Joint Vision 2010 goal of full spectrum dominance.

F–22

Question. Are you concerned that anything short of full funding will impact the

ability to stay on course with the F–22 within Congressionally mandated caps?

Answer. Yes, we believe that anything short of full funding up to the Congressionally mandated cost caps will impact the F–22 program’s ability to complete Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) and the production program within

the caps. A deferral of funds will require an extension of EMD, which in turn will

exacerbate problems with diminishing manufacturing sources. For the production

program, there are inflation impacts, industrial base slowdown and restart risks associated with the qualification of new vendors and subcontractors. Additionally, altering the production program will void previous commitments made with the F–

22 contractor team which enabled it to minimize subcontractor risk and cost increases.

Question. Are you experiencing any challenges during EMD that you would characterize as abnormal for a program at this stage in development?

Answer. No. The F–22 has experienced two manufacturing challenges and a problem with debonding of the stabilator. All have been resolved. These issues are typical of the challenges encountered during Engineering and Manufacturing Development. Provided funding and quantity stability, we expect to overcome future challenges that may occur during Engineering and Manufacturing Development.

T–6A

Question. I see you plan to replace the T–37 with the T–6A (the new JPATSTexan); obviously this would have an impact on the current pilot situation. Can you

outline for me your distribution plan for the T–6A Texan II at pilot training bases

and identify how this might impact the rate at which you produce new pilots?

Answer. The Air Force currently plans to beddown the T–6A sequentially at Randolph AFB, TX, Laughlin AFB, TX, Vance AFB, OK, Columbus AFB, MS, and

Sheppard AFB, TX. The timing of the transition from T–37 to T–6 at each base has

been optimized to minimize the impact on pilot production rates—no impacts are

expected under the current bed-down plan.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

READINESS IMPACT

Question. What is the readiness impact of maintaining a surge force in the Gulf

over a long period of time?

Answer. The principal readiness impacts of maintaining the surge force are increased workload and increased deployment time. These, in turn, adversely impact

retention of our experienced people. By June 1, 1998, nearly 50 percent of the aviation units presently deployed to the Gulf will exceed our maximum desired temporary duty rate of 120 days away from home station in a 12 month period.

AIRBORNE LASER

Question. How does the Airborne Laser fit into the Tactical missile defense architecture?

Answer. The Theater Missile Defense (TMD) architecture has four layers or tiers:

attack operations, boost phase intercept, midcourse, and terminal phase. ABL is the

only boost phase system. Destroying enemy missiles in the boost phase is extremely

important for several reasons: (1) presents an enemy with the possibility that missile debris, including the warhead, may fall back on their territory—in this way,

ABL serves as a viable deterrent to the use of weapons of mass destruction; (2) reduces the number of missiles that the midcourse and terminal defense systems must

engage, enhancing their effectiveness; and (3) kills missiles before any early release

of submunitions (ERS), as ERS is a very significant challenge for hit-to-kill defense

systems.

In addition to its role as a boost-phase ‘‘shooter’’, ABL will also possess significant

sensing capability that will improve performance of other TMD layers by: providing

quick and accurate missile launch point estimates which cue attack operations assets; passing trajectory data and impact point predictions on missile warheads to

midcourse and terminal systems to narrow their sensor search patterns and extend

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
126

their range; and predicting accurate and timely impact points to enhance passive

defenses in the target areas.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER [JSF]

Question. What is your position on the need for a Joint Strike Fighter alternative

engine program?

Answer. The Air Force supports the JSF Alternate Engine (AE) program. There

is no operational requirement for an AE in the JSF. However, an AE program may

offer some potential benefits such as: improved operational readiness since a single

engine problem would not ground the entire JSF fleet; improved contractor responsiveness due to competition; and maintenance of the U.S. fighter engine industrial

base.

Question. How much will it cost?

Answer. The total Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Alternate Engine (AE) program cost

is estimated at $1.8 billion. Currently, the Services have fully funded the AE program through its Concept Demonstration Phase (fiscal year 2003). Funding for the

AE Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase, scheduled to begin in fiscal

year 2004, will be addressed by the Navy and Air Force in their respective fiscal

year 2000 POM’s.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

LONG-RANGE AIR POWER PANEL

Question. Given the dynamics of the creation of the Long-Range Air Power Panel,

most people think of it as studying the question of whether or not the Air Force

should buy more B–2 bombers. The Panel is dealing with the same problem that

we in Congress have had to address: the B–2 has some amazing capabilities, but

further procurement would put the defense budget under enormous pressure. It is

possible that the Panel will weigh the cost of buying another B–2 bomber against

other, more cost-effective ways to keep our bomber force robust. Would you view it

as appropriate for the Panel to come back with recommendations that affect the entire bomber fleet?

Answer. The Panel’s Report was released subsequent to the March 4 hearing. The

Long-Range Air Power Panel was established to evaluate the adequacy of current

planning for United States long-range air power and the requirement for continued

low-rate production of B–2 stealth bombers. The panel, as part of its evaluation and

review, could consider: Trade-offs between additional B–2 bombers and other programmed DOD assets in meeting various scenarios; desirability of an increased rate

of purchase of precision-guided munitions for aircraft in the existing B–2 fleet; the

desirability of improving the low observable characteristics of the existing B–2 fleet;

and affordability of additional B–2 bombers in the context of projected levels of future defense funding.

The Long-Range Air Power Panel provide several far-reaching recommendations

for fully exploiting the current B–1, B–2, and B–52 bomber force, and for upgrading

and sustaining the bomber force for longer term. These recommendations warrant

careful review as the Air Force prepares its Program Objective Memorandum for the

Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2000–06 Future Years Defense Program.

START III AND BOMBER FORCE STRUCTURE

Question. Although the START III process is stalled at the moment, given the fact

that the Russian Duma has not yet ratified START II, these strategic arms reduction treaties affect the number of bombers deployed in a strategic role. Is the Air

Force at all concerned about the impact of START III on the strategic or conventional bomber force? What effect could the treaty have on bomber force structure

generally? Are we taking precautions so as not to jeopardize our conventional bomber capability?

Answer. With decreasing forward-basing options and overflight concerns, sustaining our long-range bomber capability is a top priority to the Air Force. Without a

clear START III framework, it is premature to discuss the effects this treaty would

have on our bomber force structure. START III negotiations have not yet begun.

Once we have clear START III guidelines, we will work closely with OSD and JCS

to ensure our conventional and strategic force structure continues to meet our national security objectives.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
127

DEEP ATTACK WEAPONS MIX STUDY

Question. Am I right in understanding that the Deep Attack Weapons Mix Study

came to its conclusions about bomber force structure needs based on certain assumptions in its models about what force structure was available for a deep strike?

What assumptions did the DAWMS models make about the number of B–52’s in the

force structure? Did the DAWMS study ever include in its models’ assumptions a

force structure of 94 B–52’s? If not, what deep strike capabilities would additional

B–52’s bring into play?

Answer. Part II of the Deep Attack Weapons Mix Study (DAWMS) was tasked to

examine tradeoffs between long range bombers, land and sea based tactical aircraft

and missiles used to strike the enemy’s rear area. It was subsequently expanded to

examine tradeoffs, including options that would involve more than 20 B–2’s as

matched against carrier assets and missile assets. The Quadrennial Defense Review

(QDR) subsumed the assessment of force structure sufficiency while Part II of

DAWMS was scaled back to only examine tradeoffs for more than 20 B–2’s.

Throughout all of these analyses (DAWMS as well as QDR), the Department of Defense used current, funded, ‘‘combat coded’’ aircraft. Although the size of the entire

B–52H fleet is currently 94 aircraft, force structure analysis and deliberate war

planning use only combat-coded aircraft. The number of combat-coded aircraft determines the number of aircrews available and level of war reserve spare parts. Of the

94 B–52H aircraft in the inventory, 44 are combat-coded, 31 are attrition reserve,

12 are training aircraft, 6 are backup available aircraft, and 1 is a test aircraft. Attrition reserve aircraft are only funded for recurring maintenance and aircraft upgrades, not operations and training. Thus, there are only enough aircrews, maintenance personnel and spare parts to support the 44 funded combat-coded aircraft

used in QDR and DAWMS scenarios.

It is difficult to assess the impact of additional B–52’s without modeling and analyzing the interrelationships of joint force operations in a dynamic campaign environment. The addition of any type of deep-strike capable asset would probably increase U.S. capabilities, however, the total number of assets deployed to a theater

are sequenced and measured according to lift requirements and capabilities, and

beddown limitations. As the addition of any asset would likely result in the removal/

delay of others, the impact of adding B–52’s can’t be assessed independent of a thorough campaign analysis.

AIRBORNE LASER

Question. Looking ahead, what might be the major criteria the Air Force will use

when it decides where to base the ABL?

Answer. The ABL basing site survey is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2000 with

a decision in fiscal year 2001. Right now, the important criteria the Air Force will

use to decide ABL basing include, but are not limited to:

—Is there an established existing Base Infrastructure? (Use of existing facilities

helps minimize military construction requirements.)

—Can the airfield support a 747–400 aircraft (e.g., no modifications to runway,

approaches lights, taxiways, navigation aids, basic POL (petroleum, oil and lubricants) storage, or tower required)?

—Does the base have sufficient ramp space (parking apron), alert facilities and

laser fuel servicing for seven aircraft?

PILOT RETENTION

Question. If Congress wanted to address the problem of pilot retention more aggressively than the Administration is proposing to do, how might we best do that?

Answer. The Air Force is optimistic the current pilot retention gameplan designed

to reduce TEMPO, improve quality of life, restore compensation to original levels,

increase pilot production, reduce pilot requirements, and improve personnel programs will help Air Force pilot retention. We feel that more time is needed to accurately evaluate the effects of our initiatives. Continued Congressional support for

TEMPO reductions, quality of life improvements, aviator compensation initiatives

and pilot production alternatives is key to ensuring the success of our efforts.

NAVIGATOR TRAINING

Question. My understanding is that the Air Force has had problems lately not

only with the retention of navigators, but also with their training. Could you please

comment on the new joint navigator training program? Is the Air Force satisfied

that this joint training system is meeting the Air Force’s needs?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
128

Answer. Joint training initiatives began in response to the April 15, 1993 Secretary of Defense Memo on the ‘‘Roles, Missions, and Functions of the Armed Forces

of the United States.’’ This memo identified three distinct areas for joint training:

fixed-wing primary, advanced airlift/tanker/maritime patrol training, and Naval

Flight Officer/Weapons Systems Officer (WSO)/Electronic Warfare Officer Training

(EWO). Joint Undergraduate Navigator Training began in October 1994 on a limited

scale with all active duty WSO’s receiving their training at NAS Pensacola, FL.

Since October 1995, all Air Force Navigators, WSO’s and EWO’s have started their

training at Pensacola. With the exception of heavy aircraft navigators (tankers, airlift, reconnaissance) who finish their advanced training at Randolph AFB TX, all

others complete their training at NAS Pensacola or Corry Station FL. Current annual navigator production is set at 300 active duty students per year.

The Air Force is satisfied with the quality of the graduates from the Navy program.

CONTRACTING OUT

Question. In March of 1995, the services’ personnel directors told the Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee that civilian personnel ceilings, not workload, cost or

readiness concerns, are forcing them to send work to contractors that could have

been performed more cheaply in-house. Also in that month, GAO reported that ‘‘the

personnel ceilings set by OMB frequently have the effect of encouraging agencies

to contract out regardless of the results of cost, policy, or high-risk studies.’’ Contracting out because of personnel ceilings raises some concerns. There is no publicprivate competition, because there simply aren’t enough federal employees to do the

work. We all know that the Air Force’s civilian workforce will get smaller, and that

there will be more contracting out. But if the Air Force has the money to do work

that needs to be done, the Air Force should be able to use federal workers if inhouse performance benefits the warfighter and the taxpayers. Is the Air Force adhering closely to the authorization and appropriations provisions that prohibit management by personnel ceilings? How can we make this prohibition stronger and ensure greater compliance with the will of the Congress? Isn’t it true that using personnel ceilings is a relatively recent practice?

Answer. The Air Force is complying with the intent of Congress and is adhering

to the authorization and appropriations provisions that prohibit management by

personnel ceilings. The Air Force has certified to Congress that, unless Congressionally directed, the Air Force does not use any constraints or limitations in terms of

man years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number of employees in managing the civilian workforce. Consistent with Congressional, OMB,

and Department of Defense guidance, the Air Force manages the civilian workforce

based on workload requirements and budget. Congressional guidance such as the

Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act contains language that prescribes limitations on the size of management headquarters and management support activities, requires reductions in the Defense Acquisition Workforce, limits the

number of civilian employees of a military department who are non-dual status military technicians, and prescribes level of depot-level maintenance and repair that

may be contracted for performance by non-governmental personnel. In addition, previous Congressional guidance, such as the National Performance Review Report and

the Federal Workforce Restructure Act of 1994, has placed constraints and limitations on civilian workforce management. The Air Force does not use personnel ceilings as a management practice.

SUPERBASES

Question. One of the themes of your testimony is that the Air Force is considering

moving towards a new concept of basing—which you called ‘‘superbases.’’ Would any

Air Force bases currently fit into the superbase category?

Answer. The Air Force is still in the early stages of developing this basing concept; thus, it is premature to say if any base currently fits into this category.

Question. In your analysis of this concept, have you projected the military construction investments that would be required in order to create superbases? Would

you agree that the more drastic the change to superbases, the more new construction would be required?

Answer. Analysis has not started on the Milcon investments required to create

this basing concept. The Air Force is in the early stages of developing a strategic

basing concept which will focus on operational considerations and ensuring deployments are equitable and predictable to Air Force people. Consolidation of missions

and bases could drive new construction requirements.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
129

Question. Do you have a notional estimate of how much military construction

funding would be required to make such a shift in basing philosophy possible? How

would this compare to the amount of money saved at bases to be closed?

Answer. We do not have notional estimates on construction costs.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I am sorry

to have kept you for so long.

Again, I mean no offense about your statement, Mr. Secretary.

I understand you must be frustrated. But God, I hope you don’t do

that. If you want to do it, give it to us and we will do it for you—

if you really want to do it. But don’t make a political decision. I

think that would be very bad right now.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA04.001
(131)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1998

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Bond, Inouye,

Bumpers, and Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

STATEMENTS OF:

HON. JOHN H. DALTON, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

ADM. JAY L. JOHNSON, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVY

GEN. CHARLES C. KRULAK, COMMANDANT, U.S. MARINE CORPS

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. My apologies to you, Secretary Dalton, Admiral Johnson, and General Krulak, I just made an opening statement to the group that’s honoring 30 years of the Sea Grant Program, and like all events, it took longer than I anticipated.

We are pleased to have you this morning to testify on the Navy

and Marine Corps 1999 budget. The committee’s initial look at the

Navy and Marine Corps’ budget suggests you have built a solid

budget which lives within the funds available; however, there will

be, I am sure, some challenges to the allocations you have recommended.

We all recognize that people are the heart of our armed forces.

The Navy has seen negative trends in pilot retention as well as a

disturbing trend in recruitment, in general. The ‘‘Operations and

maintenance’’ account is basically flat compared to the fiscal year

1998, while there is no question that operational tempos have increased.

It is our goal to try to make certain that the Navy and Marine

Corps can maintain readiness within this budget request. Both the

Navy and Marine Corps also face a number of near- and far-term

acquisition challenges, the Navy must try to maintain a fleet of 300

ships, which requires the construction of 10 ships, but the 1999

budget will support only 7 ships, and the commandant has consistU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
132

ently told us he needs $1.2 billion annually for modernization, and

the 1999 procurement budget for the Marine Corps is $745 million.

The Navy is beginning to develop the future aircraft carrier as

well as the future surface combatant vessel, the DD–21. In a budget that’s likely to be flat to the year 2003, these competing demands will present the Navy, Marine Corps team, and the Congress with very difficult decisions on allocating the limited dollars

that we have available for this modernization.

We look forward to working with you on the fiscal year 1999

budget, as well as planning for the future, and we’re going to make

your full statement a part of the committee’s record.

Before you proceed let me call on my colleague from Hawaii, the

distinguished former chairman of this subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish to

join you in welcoming Secretary Dalton, Admiral Johnson, and

General Krulak. I believe our Nation is most fortunate to have this

fine team to represent our Naval and Marine forces.

I have been especially impressed to see how well they all work

together to advance the goals of our sea surfaces. As many of us

know, this has not always been the case, but in recent years it has

been clear that the Navy and Marines have come together under

the leadership of these gentleman to speak with one voice on the

collective priorities.

These are challenging times for the Navy and Marines. The Navy

has been reduced from a planned force of 600 ships to one today

not much above 300. Our Marine Corps has been able to hold on

to much of its force structure, but are seeing manpower cut by 14

percent.

The request before the subcommittee is $79.2 billion for Navy

and Marine programs. This amount is approximately $1 billion

more than funded for the current fiscal year, but it is not all good

news.

Our counterpart Military Construction Subcommittee will see a

cut of over $670 million for Navy and Marine programs, and so

when you adjust for inflation the total Navy Department’s budget

has a real cut of 11⁄2 percent.

With that knowledge, I must say I’m concerned how the Navy

and Marines will continue to maintain the quality and ready forces

that they have today. I think we have seen some cracks already.

In recent years we have had flying hours and spare part shortfalls. Today, the Navy is having a difficult time meeting its recruiting goals, and retention has been a constant struggle.

At the same time I understand that we are asking more from our

forces. Our marines are being tasked to respond to crises at record

levels, and our carrier battle groups are being asked to re-deploy

with less training time.

Mr. Chairman, I join you in commending our witnesses for doing

their best to respond to these challenges, but I’m concerned that we

might be asking too much of them.

In a balanced budget environment we cannot expect to provide

more resources to address these problems, instead we must all

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
133

work together to ensure that the resources we have spent are most

effective in an efficient manner.

There will be no margin for error, no room for that, no room to

waste resources on duplication, and this fact must be realized and

endorsed by the administration, by the Department, and by the

Congress. It’s not going to be an easy chore, but I do hope that

when the dust settles we will continue to have a Navy and Marine

Corps that will be able to carry on our Nation’s work in the manner that we have been privileged to receive from them.

I thank you very much.

Senator STEVENS. Does anyone have an opening statement that

they wish to make?

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to have the opportunity to put a statement in the record, I don’t want to delay the

hearing. We are happy to have the witnesses here, and we are kind

of anxious to hear their testimony.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to join you in welcoming this distinguished panel of

witnesses to review the budget request for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps for fiscal year 1999.

One of my concerns about the fiscal year 1999 request is the Navy’s shipbuilding

program, which I think falls far short of meeting the Navy’s requirements for 300

ships. With the average life span of a ship being approximately 35 years, the Navy

needs to procure approximately 10 ships a year to maintain a 300 ship goal.

Mr. Chairman, the Navy’s procurement rate for new surface combatant ships will

not meet their stated goal of 300 ships. The current Future Years Defense Plan calls

for only 5 ships in fiscal year 2000, and only 7 ships per year through fiscal year

2003.

At this rate, we will procure an average of only 6.4 surface combatant ships per

year from fiscal year 1999–2003. I also understand the Navy’s projected ship procurement rate for fiscal year 2004–2015 will also fall below the 10 ships per year

required to meet the stated goal of a 300 ship Navy.

I know there are some new ‘‘smart’’ technologies that can help reduce manning

and other costs of operating and maintaining our fleet. There are also some initiatives such as the program to convert older CG–47 cruisers to Theater Ballistic Missile Defense capability and include Smart Ship control systems which can extend

service life of these ship. I support these efforts.

I am also pleased that the Navy has included full funding for the TAGS–65

Oceanographic Ship, the last ship in its class, which will provide much needed research and other support for the Navy’s missions around the globe.

While I support these new initiatives and programs, as well as the Navy’s recently

announced multi-year procurement of DDG–51 Destroyers, we must not lose sight

of the ever-widening gap that is developing between our 300 ship goal and the

Navy’s actual and projected ship procurement rates.

Other issues that I hope our witness will address today include OPTEMPO and

the Readiness of our sailors. According to the Navy’s Posture Statement, readiness

of deployed units remain high, but constrained resources and the pace of operations

are affecting the readiness of non-deployed forces. Several recent articles have highlighted these concerns.

—January 15, 1998 Norfolk Virginian-Pilot article quoted a senior Norfolk officer

as saying ‘‘Keeping two carriers in the gulf is causing us some real headaches.’’

‘‘Hopefully the next deployer (Stennis) will go out on time, but, after that, all

bets are off.’’

—March 5, 1998 Washington Times reported that in testimony to Congress,

VADM Dan Oliver, the Navy’s senior personnel expert, indicated it is ‘‘very difficult’’ to keep pilots, submariners and others. He cited the hectic pace of Navy

life and the loss of a chance to command a ship, due to the decommissioning

of many ships, among the reasons for retention problems.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
134

—March 7, 1998 San Diego Union Tribune reported that during a March 6, 1998

hearing of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House National Security Committee a ‘‘Marine sergeant told congressman that some units have .50-caliber machine guns manufactured during the 1940’s and it can take up to 18 months

to get the heavy weapons repaired or replaced.’’

Mr. Chairman, I know the Secretary, the CNO and the Commandant are well

aware of these problems and I look forward to hearing from them today.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Senator Bond.

Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I join

you in welcoming the Secretary, the Admiral, and General Krulak,

and I share the view of our distinguished ranking member that

your team is being asked to carry a major portion of the burden,

while not being adequately resourced.

We hear news, the Pentagon is having difficulty trying to realign

its forces to cover both the Arabian Gulf presence and the reemerging threats to peace and security in the Balkan regions, and

these are not close to being the two major regional contingencies

[MRC’s] we thought we’d be ready to face.

I know that many of my colleagues would join in expressing concern over the services’ ability effectively to meet their mission requirements making deep and risky cuts in critical supply, stocks,

accelerating appreciation, not to mention the additional strain put

on personnel, and we are all concerned about the abysmal retention

rates of pilots in the services, and I submit that simply throwing

money at the problem is not the answer. I gather the considerable

bonus package only engendered about a 3- to 4-percent increase in

the retention rate.

I understand that many of the people who joined the service did

so for very noble reasons, and the financial considerations are not

the entire problem, and the exodus of individuals now spans the

rank structure, and I think that we are seeing some problems with

incentives for command being hamstrung when junior officers are

paid more than their seniors.

I hear from people in the service that over the years, recent

years, the individual tactical flight time has been dramatically curtailed. I am sure that way back, Admiral, your logbook had only

a few blank lines in the monthly accounting of your flights, and I

venture to say that a lieutenant today has a lot more blank space

in the logbook, and much of the time dedicated to other than war

contingencies is not really increasing their warfighting skills.

I think it is also important that we reflect on the intangibles,

which made you, Admiral, and you, General, when you were butter

bars, look up to the unit commanders, which when you became

commanders gave you authority and accountability to stand up and

lead.

We have warned in this committee over the years that the Department of Defense’s policy of low-balling funding requirements

would exacerbate the fiscal problems facing all of the services’ abilities to conduct the operations required.

As I understand from Dr. Hamre’s comments last week, you are

already expending funds from the fourth quarter of the fiscal year

1998 budget for missions being conducted today, and we are only

in March.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
135

The emergency supplementals this year are going to be very important, but some of these operations have extended way beyond

any contingency, and we need to get some straight answers and

some straight priorities from the Department of Defense.

On another very important note, Mr. Secretary, we are looking

forward to the commissioning of the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman, we

have made a commitment to another carrier, and I am also concerned that we accelerate the evaluations of the F/A–18E/F not to

skip any testing, but to work as hard as we can to cure any anomalies, then we can begin a robust and, we believe, necessary

multiyear procurement.

We want to do everything. I am personally committed to providing the men and women who fly from the carriers the finest and

most advanced aircraft, to give them the edge so critical to today’s

high-tech, high-speed, highly dangerous air combat arena, and I

will have more to talk about in that in the Q&A period.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan, do you have an opening statement?

STATEMENT FROM HON. BYRON DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just put a statement in

the record, I am anxious to hear the witnesses instead.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

I would first like to thank these capable witnesses for their appearance before this

committee. I recognize, as the other Committee Members do, that their job is not

an easy one, given the current state of world affairs and the increased demands

being placed on our men and women in uniform. I am particularly impressed by the

retention rates of the Navy and Marine Corps. The statistics in this area say much

about the efforts and the abilities of the Secretary, the Chief of Naval Operations

and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as those who work for them. Although we know more must be done in this area, the Navy and Marine Corps are

to be commended.

The burden for managers in the military is a familiar one in government today:

doing more with the limited funds available. I would hope that the questions I pose

would be taken in that light. As other members of this committee, I am committed

to doing the most I can for our military personnel with the funds we have available.

Most of all, I want to ensure that the problems that are causing the exodus of some

of our most qualified people from the military are solved.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to

have your statement. All of your statements will be in the record.

OPENING REMARKS OF SECRETARY DALTON

Secretary DALTON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

Senator Inouye, distinguished members of this committee.

This is my fifth time to appear before this committee, and let me

say what a privilege and honor it is to be here to represent the Department of the Navy.

I am also very proud to be here with these two outstanding officers who lead our Navy and Marine Corps. They do an outstanding

job, and as you say, Senator Inouye, we really do work together as

a team. The Navy and Marine Corps team is, indeed, working very

well together.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
136

I would like to take a few minutes to reflect on where the Navy

Department has been in the last few years, where we are today,

and where we are headed. I would like to break that down, if I

could, in talking operationally, programmatically, and in personnel.

OPERATIONALLY

First of all, operationally. We are our Nation’s 911 force. When

there is a problem, it is the Navy-Marine Corps team that gets the

call. That is very evident today in the Arabian Gulf.

Today, we have two carrier battle groups, and one amphibious

ready group there, and I am very proud of the men and women

who are there doing such an outstanding job.

While there is debate today about the recent agreement that was

made between the Secretary General of the United Nations and

Saddam Hussein, we simply would not have that agreement to debate had it not been for the presence of the Navy-Marine Corps

team in the gulf. Winston Churchill had it right when he said, ‘‘The

best Ambassador is a warship,’’ and those warships that were there

showed the resolve of this Nation, and, indeed, provided an opportunity for that agreement to be signed.

Similarly, things have happened like that around the world in

the last few years: restoring democracy to Haiti; bringing the parties to the peace table to make the Dayton accords possible; bringing stability in the Taiwan Straits a couple of years ago, when that

troublesome problem arose; the rescue of Capt. Scott O’Grady; and

the noncombatant evacuation operations in Albania, and the

former Zaire. From A to Z, the Navy-Marine Corps team has been

there, has responded, has responded professionally, has answered

all bells, and I am very proud of the job the Navy Department has

done.

Operationally, this committee has been extremely supportive of

the Navy Department.

I am grateful to you, and we have come to you to ask for support

for carriers, submarines, ships, airplanes, big-deck amphibious

ships, and quality of life improvements for our people. This committee has not only responded and supported our request, but in

the past has, indeed, enhanced our requests, and we are grateful

to you.

I pledge to you that we will continue to pursue initiatives like

acquisition reform, so that we can provide the highest quality of

naval service possible for each tax dollar that we have as a resource.

PERSONNEL

In the area of personnel, I am so proud of the outstanding men

and women of the Navy Department. We simply have the finest

men and women serving in the Navy Department today that we

have ever had. It is no secret that in the last few years we have

had some difficult problems and challenges in that regard. We all

know that there was major adverse publicity a few years ago with

respect to very poor behavior on the part of some of our people. We

all know about a major cheating scandal we had at the Naval

Academy just a few years ago. However, we have addressed those

issues and attacked them.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
137

A recent report from an outside group, led by Adm. Stansfield

Turner and the president of Goucher College, showed that the

Naval Academy is, indeed, fulfilling its mission today. We have attacked the problem with respect to the behavior of our people, with

training required by every one of our people, education, to emphasize our core values of honor, courage, and commitment to ensure

that our sailors and marines treat their shipmates with dignity and

respect. I am very proud of the progress that we have made in that

regard. It is something we need to continue to work on, and, indeed, we are.

We have been very innovative with things like the battle stations

for our recruits at Great Lakes, and the crucible that the Marine

Corps is using at Parris Island and San Diego, to enhance the

training for our people. We made significant progress with diversity

in our officer ranks, and I am proud of that.

Our vision for the future is one that is bright. We are focused

on our ‘‘Forward from the Sea’’ vision. This is something that we

produced several years ago, in 1994, but it is the right vision. We

haven’t tried to reinvent ourselves and change that every 2 years.

It is the right vision, and we are moving forward, moving forward

with it.

We are committed to things like the revolution in military affairs

and the revolution in business affairs, to bring things on like information technology for the 21st century, network centric warfare,

and cooperative engagement capability.

We are thinking outside the box, utilizing things like the Navy’s

fleet battle experiment, and the Marine Corps warfighting lab,

things like the Hunter Warrior, Urban Warrior. We are moving forward and preparing this 911 force of the Navy Department for the

21st century.

PROGRAMMATICALLY

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the budget that we have presented

to this committee. It’s a solid plan, and I seek your support for it.

I would like to emphasize our priorities. F/A–18E/F Super Hornet

was our top priority last year, it is again this year. We are asking

for funding of advanced procurement for CVN–77. It is very important that we move forward with that, and DD–21, a land attack

surface ship for the 21st century, of revolutionary importance. The

intercontinental missile defense, the V–22, the AAAV, these are all

programs for which we ask your support.

We face challenges in readiness, retention, and recruiting. These

are indeed challenges we are addressing, and we will, indeed, address them for the future. There is no question that the economy

has been strong, and has complicated issues with respect to retention and recruiting.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for your very strong support and the support of this committee for the emergency supplemental that is before this body. We simply cannot deal with any offsets with respect

to that. We sincerely request your support for the emergency supplemental.

Similarly, we have a reprogramming request before this committee of $220 million for personnel issues, and we would ask for your

support for that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
138

We simply have too much infrastructure, and I would encourage

this body to support an additional round of base realignment and

closure. If we are spending money on things that we do not need,

like too much infrastructure, then we do not have adequate resources to deal with some of the issues that you raise with respect

to recapitalization and personnel.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, one additional area that I would like to

ask for the support of this body is the Law of the Sea Treaty. I am

concerned that the United States is not a party to the treaty. This

absence is incompatible with our Department’s active engagement

and leadership in maritime affairs, and has potentially negative effects for the credibility of our overall national maritime policy. The

treaty, in its improved current form, is a winning proposition for

the United States, and I ask each of you to support its ratification

at the earliest opportunity.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank you again

and thank this committee for the support you have provided the

Department of the Navy. On behalf of the sailors, marines, and civilians of the Department of the Navy it is my great honor to represent, I thank you very much for your support, and ask for your

continued support. We look forward to working with you, and I look

forward to responding to your questions. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We should be finished with the reprogramming on the personnel items this week.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN H. DALTON

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Distinguished members of the Committee. It is a

pleasure for me to address you for the fifth year on the state of the United States

Navy and Marine Corps.

America’s forward-deployed naval forces are engaged around the world on a daily

basis to carry out the National Military Strategy. Our forces are shaping the international environment, responding to the full spectrum of crises, and preparing now

for an uncertain future. There is an enduring need for the forward presence of our

Navy-Marine Corps Team. That need was validated by Secretary Cohen in his

Quadrennial Defense Review, the report of the National Defense Panel and the reality of day-to-day global involvement of our Sailors and Marines.

Our Navy and Marine Corps in the Arabian Gulf are demonstrating today the relevance of forward-deployed naval forces. In a region where land basing options are

limited, our two carrier battle groups and one amphibious ready group on station

there are a powerful symbol of American resolve. I believe that resolve, backed up

by the awesome strike potential of our ships and aircraft, played a major role in

the latest agreement between Iraq and the United Nations. As Winston Churchill

once said, ‘‘A warship is (indeed) the best ambassador.’’

The staying power of our forward-deployed expeditionary forces will also be crucial as we maintain our current force level in the Arabian Gulf for the foreseeable

future. America’s resolve to do the right thing does not have an expiration date, and

the Navy-Marine Corps Team remains up to the task. We will remain ready to respond, anytime—anywhere.

I want to refer back, briefly, to 1992. Where we have been as a Department since

that time illustrates how we are postured now, and for the future. We began, in

1992, a continuous process of transformation with publication of ‘‘. . . From the Sea’’,

which reflected the dramatic change in the international security environment.

Our transformation process continues today, exploiting technologies from the Revolutions in Military and Business Affairs to give our forces the power and efficiency

to dominate the battlefields of tomorrow. It is a process of innovation and growth

which leverages the unmatched power, timeliness and operational independence of

aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
139

Not only am I immensely proud of where we stand today, but I believe we have

a clear, forward-looking vision in place that will guarantee the right naval forces

for the future.

Certainly, the future holds great challenges for the Navy and Marine Corps. The

unrelenting operational demands on our forces and our people are threatening to

diminish our readiness. While we have not seen declines in readiness in our deployed forces, the overall tempo of operations is beginning to weaken our ability to

train the forces which will follow them on station. We must ensure adequate resources, training and quality of life initiatives to maintain the readiness of our Sailors, Marines and civilians.

We will need strong, positive leadership and teamwork now, by this Department

and by the Congress, to ensure our naval forces will continue to be just as ready

in 2010 and 2020. I want to discuss some of the budget and program issues that

are important to the future of the Navy and Marine Corps.

First, the budget. We have made a concerted effort over the past year to improve

what is already an active, engaged process for the budget, both within the Department of the Navy, and with Congress. I believe, as a result, we have a positive relationship which makes our tough choices more clear, and I thank each of you for

making that relationship a healthy reality.

With regard to modernization efforts, our programs will continue to harness the

potential of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). The Department of the Navy

is at the leading edge of this effort, actively embracing strategic concepts such as

information warfare, cooperative engagement capability, urban warfare, and network-centric warfare.

We are encouraging the creation of innovative concepts, through the Navy’s Fleet

Battle Experiments, the Marines’ Warfighting Laboratory, the upcoming Navy Warfare Development Command at Newport, as well as through active leadership to

stimulate ideas from within the force.

The revolution in military affairs is being aggressively coupled with the Revolution in Business Affairs (RBA) by the Department of the Navy. We are doing so by

streamlining processes in procurement and acquisition, support services and logistics, through the use of commercial off-the-shelf technology, and by plans to reorganize and reduce our infrastructure. These programs will guarantee future savings,

but they require dedicated funds to allow us to capitalize on these revolutions.

Our major modernization programs are on track, and I thank you for this committee’s active support. We have forwarded a plan for accelerated procurement of CVN

77, which will be the first new carrier of the 21st century, a dramatically advanced

platform, and will provide the vital bridge to our next generation carrier, CVX.

The F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet promises a great future for carrier-based aviation.

The over-publicized wing drop problem has been managed well and we are now in

the process of selecting the best fix among several workable options to fully correct

it. Our test plan is on track to finalize our solution next month. This will allow us

to incorporate our fix into all production aircraft. Super Hornet represents what we

demand for our carriers—the best strike asset we can afford.

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is an integral part of our forward-looking plan for

naval aviation. I have made visits to both design teams, and I am confident a

healthy competition is in place that will guarantee the Navy and Marine Corps the

right aircraft for our next generation strike aircraft needs. Our goal is to get the

most modern aircraft to the fleet as quickly and affordably as possible. Super Hornet and JSF do exactly that.

The Surface Combatant 21 family, led by its first member, the multipurpose DD

21, with its focus on land attack, will help revolutionize the Navy’s shipbuilding and

warfighting strategy. This modern surface combatant represents an exciting mainstay for our battle groups of tomorrow, because of the tremendous leap in effectiveness it will bring, at significant manpower and cost savings.

Another exciting program that we continue to develop is the Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) capability that is embedded in our Aegis cruisers and destroyers. These powerful ships are a promising first-line of defense for our forward-deployed joint forces.

Our shipbuilding plan, overall, produces technologically superior ships such as

DDG 51, LPD 17 and the New Attack Submarine. The average rate of production

in the future years defense plan (FYDP) is adequate in the near term to support

the projected fiscal year 2003 force of about 300 ships. However, beyond the FYDP,

this rate of production will not permit us to maintain the required ship and aircraft

inventory.

The operational commitments undertaken by the Navy and Marine Corps today

require a certain force level to satisfy both personnel optempo concerns and worldwide presence missions. Our rate of new ship and aircraft construction must recapiU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
140

talize the force in the long term to maintain this balance. We need to ensure that,

in the future, adequate modernization funding is provided in order to fulfill tomorrow’s tasking.

The Navy and Marine Corps’ worldwide commitments today include the extended

operations in Bosnia. In order to continue our forward-presence in this critical theater, we will need your support for a supplemental budget request to meet additional

costs for the Bosnia operation in 1998.

Let me turn now to what is my favorite topic: the Sailors, Marines and civilian

employees of the Department of the Navy. They are the most proud, professional,

diverse and intelligent this Nation has ever known. They are the primary reason

we remain the world’s greatest Navy and Marine Corps.

We ask a great deal of our people, and we continue to ask more. Our forces today

must be ready for a vast array of mission tasking, across the full spectrum of combat and non-traditional uses of military force. As a result, our people are warriors

in the classic sense, and compassionate and discriminate in the human sense. This

requires time, training and a truly multi-faceted and motivated Sailor or Marine.

We are proud of the tailored programs we have developed to transform the best

of our society into Sailors or Marines. New leadership development programs at boot

camp—‘‘Battle Stations’’ for the Navy, and the ‘‘Crucible’’ for the Marine Corps—

are already forging smarter Sailors and Marines, and giving them the skills and the

mindset to capitalize on the Revolution in Military Affairs of which they will be a

vital part.

On the recruiting front, we continue in our efforts to attract highly qualified and

culturally diverse officer and enlisted candidates. This is a challenging time: for the

first two months of fiscal year 1998, Navy recruiting accessed only 91 percent of

goal. If that trend continues through fiscal year 1998, it may lead to an annual accession goal shortfall of 4,000 personnel. On the Marine Corps side, we are on track

with our accession goals.

We are addressing the challenge for Navy recruiting head-on with a number of

new initiatives, including direct involvement by our top leadership. I have personally prepared a letter to go to over 20,000 high school principals around the country

to solicit their support for quality recruits. I would ask that wherever possible, each

of you use your leadership position on this committee to encourage your peers when

you are home, to mention the opportunities available in the Navy and Marine

Corps.

Retention, also, is a critical area of focus for us. Our people are our greatest resource, and indeed, my highest priority. We will continue to listen carefully to the

concerns of our Sailors, Marines and civilians, and we will continue to search for

innovative ways to improve health care, retirement, deployment schedules, housing

and other areas. We must work together in continuing to attract and retain the

highest quality people for our Navy-Marine Corps Team.

Success in the two critical areas on which I have focused—modernization of the

force, and taking care of our people—requires significant investment, now. Much of

that investment is in place with our aggressive initiatives to improve efficiency in

everything we do. But much more will have to come from a reduction in our infrastructure. We simply have too much infrastructure for the size of the force we envision in the next few years. To continue to operate this way is not good business.

The Department of the Navy will continue to make the tough choices that it must

in the budget process. I ask each of you to help us do the same, to reduce our overhead, anywhere that we can, primarily through additional base closures in the years

ahead.

One additional area I must mention is the Law of the Sea Treaty. I am concerned

that the United States is not a party to the Treaty. This absence is incompatible

with our Department’s active engagement and leadership in maritime affairs and

has potentially negative effects for the credibility of our overall national maritime

policy. The Treaty, in its improved, current form, is a winning proposition for the

U.S., and I ask each of you to consider its ratification at the earliest opportunity.

In closing, let me say that I am tremendously proud to serve as Secretary of our

Nation’s Navy-Marine Corps Team. We are a forward-thinking, forward-looking organization: we are both America’s premier fighting force, and a positive influence

for sustaining peace on the world stage.

We currently have a near-continuous presence in four major regions: the Mediterranean Sea, the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific and the Caribbean. On any given day of the year, day-in and day-out, over half of our Navy-Marine Corps Team is underway, at sea. A major challenge we face for future operations is ensuring that we can continue to meet this operational tempo required of

our forces—both in terms of people and equipment.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
141

Let me repeat that our vision of the way ahead is sound, and is in line with the

Nation’s fundamental interests. But the means to get there are becoming less and

less clear. I believe, as I know you do, that we have the appropriate vision, and it

is worth fighting for. I will say as I did earlier, we must ensure adequate resources,

training and quality of life initiatives to ensure our Sailors and Marines remain forward-deployed and ready, anytime anywhere.

Thank you for your leadership, enthusiasm and support for our Sailors, Marines

and civilians who stand the watch. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

today. I look forward to responding to your questions.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 1998 POSTURE STATEMENT

This posture statement reflects the continuing process of transformation initiated

by the Department of the Navy in 1992 with publication of ‘‘. . . From the Sea’’—a

bold step taken to ensure the Navy-Marine Corps Team remained at the forefront

of America’s defenses in a rapidly changing world. Since then, ‘‘. . . From the Sea’’

has been refined and expanded upon with publication of ‘‘Forward...From the Sea’’

(1994), ‘‘Operational Maneuver...From the Sea’’ (1996), and ‘‘The Navy Operational

Concept’’ (1997).

Our transformation process continues today, exploiting technologies from the Revolutions in Military and Business Affairs to give our forces the power and efficiency

to dominate the battlefields of tomorrow. By doing so, we are well on the way to

achieving our vision of highly effective, forward-deployed naval forces capable of

shaping the peace, responding to the full spectrum of crises, and preparing for future threats. It is a process of innovation and growth which leverages the unmatched power, timeliness, and operational independence of aircraft carrier battle

groups and amphibious ready groups which serve as the foundation of our Nation’s

forward defense.

The future holds great challenges for the Navy and Marine Corps, both operationally and organizationally, as we strive to protect our Nation’s strategic investment

in the world’s finest naval force. We must ensure adequate resources, training, and

quality of life initiatives maintain the readiness of our Sailors, Marines and civilians, and allow them to continue their heritage of Honor, Courage and Commitment.

This posture statement illustrates the framework adopted by the Department of

the Navy to achieve our vision of 21st century excellence, strengthening the

unrivaled Navy-Marine Corps Team so vital to America’s present—and future—security.

JOHN H. DALTON,

Secretary of the Navy.

ADMIRAL J.L. JOHNSON, USN,

Chief of Naval Operations.

GENERAL C. C. KRULAK, USMC,

Commandant of the Marine Corps.

THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM

Answering the Nation’s Call: Anytime, Anywhere

Forward-deployed and combat ready, naval forces embody the President’s National Security Strategy for a New Century. Our nation recognizes the vital role of

military engagement in supporting U.S. national interests and objectives. Because

they are forward deployed every day, naval forces are a critical component of our

nation’s global engagement strategy. As delineated in the National Military Strategy, they provide the essential tools to shape the international environment, to respond to the full range of crises, and to prepare for an uncertain future.

We live in a complex and ever-changing world. The growth during this decade of

democracies and free market economies is most encouraging. Yet nationalism, economic inequities, and ethnic tensions remain a fact of life and challenge us with disorder—and sometimes chaos. As both positive and negative changes take shape, the

United States has become what some call the ‘‘indispensable nation’’—the only nation with the technological capability and acknowledged benevolent objectives to ensure regional stability.

The National Defense Panel recently pointed to the rapidly changing international

environment and underlined the requirement for a ‘‘transformation strategy,’’ a coherent plan for creating the forces the United States will need to deal with the challenges ahead. The Navy-Marine Corps team recognized the need for such a strategy

more than five years ago, and began to transform itself with the seminal white

paper ‘‘. . . From the Sea.’’ That white paper, its companion ‘‘Forward...From the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
142

Sea,’’ and the concepts outlined in ‘‘Operational Maneuver...From the Sea’’ and

‘‘Forward...From the Sea: The Navy Operational Concept’’ changed the direction of

the Department of the Navy dramatically and began just such a transformation

strategy.

The focus of this strategic concept is to influence events ashore directly and decisively from the sea—anytime, anywhere. The strategic concepts embedded in

‘‘. . . From the Sea’’ and ‘‘Forward...From the Sea’’ easily adapted to the Quadrennial Defense Review tenets of shaping the international environment, responding to

the full spectrum of crises, and preparing now for an uncertain future. Shaping and

responding require presence—maintaining forward-deployed combat-ready naval

forces. Being ‘‘on scene’’ matters! It is and will remain a distinctly naval contribution to peacetime engagement. As sovereign extensions of our nation, naval forces

can move freely across the international seas and be brought to bear quickly when

needed. The transformation that the Navy-Marine Corps team has begun seeks to

build on these enduring attributes of naval power and ensure that they remain our

strengths in the next century.

The balanced, concentrated striking power of aircraft carrier battlegroups and amphibious ready groups lies at the heart of our nation’s ability to execute its strategy

of peacetime engagement. Their power reassures allies and deters would-be aggressors, even as it demonstrates a unique ability to respond to a full range of crises.

From their forward-deployed locations in the Mediterranean, the Arabian Gulf, the

Western Pacific and the Caribbean, naval forces offer the National Command Authorities (NCA) a wide range of options—in effect a ‘‘rheostat’’ that can be dialed

up or down to put the appropriate forces on scene when needed whatever the evolving crisis.

Operating in international waters and unfettered by constraints of sovereignty,

naval forces are typically on scene or the first to arrive in response to a crisis. The

inherent flexibility of naval forces allows a minor crisis or conflict to be resolved

quickly by on-scene forces. During more complex scenarios, naval forces provide the

joint force commander with a full range of options tailored for the specific situation.

From these strategic locations, naval forces shape the battlespace for further operations.

Tradition and Teamwork: Hallmarks of Success

Tradition is embedded in the Navy-Marine Corps team. As we look toward the

new millennium, we emphasize our traditional core values of honor, courage, and

commitment. These timeless ideals remain at the center of everything we do.

Teamwork is another Navy-Marine Corps trait. It ranges from teamwork within

individual units, to cooperative efforts among units, to coordination throughout the

Department of the Navy. The Navy and Marine Corps also can integrate forces into

any joint task force or allied coalition quickly.

Charting a Course for Future Success

The Department of the Navy is no stranger to innovation or to ‘‘Revolutions in

Military Affairs.’’ It has undertaken three such revolutions in the past one hundred

years: the first occurred in the 1890’s; another with carriers and amphibious warfare in the 1920’s and 1930’s; and the third with the ballistic missile submarine

force in the 1960’s.

In ‘‘. . . From the Sea’’ and ‘‘Forward...From the Sea,’’ we have sown the seeds of

yet another revolutionary change in naval power, one that will ensure our continued

contribution to our national security in a changing world. It revolves about an easily

understood axiom: the purpose of naval forces is to influence events ashore directly

and decisively from the sea—anytime, anywhere.

NAVAL EXPEDITIONARY FORCES: FULL SPECTRUM CAPABILITY

The President’s National Security Strategy for a New Century identifies engagement as a critical ingredient in maintaining peace and stability around the world.

Our National Military Strategy specifies three tasks: shape the international environment, respond to the full spectrum of crises, and prepare now for an uncertain

future.

Shaping the International Environment

Naval forces project U.S. influence and power abroad in ways that promote regional economic and political stability, which in turn serves as a foundation for prosperity. Naval forces remain continually engaged around the world as a visible tool

of U.S. foreign policy. The power-projection capabilities of our aircraft carrier battle

groups and amphibious ready groups provide a potent response to aggression. Our

forces shape the local security calculus by being there—a visible, powerful presence

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
143

with a full range of options. These same forces reassure allies of our commitment

to regional peace and stability. Routine exercises with allied forces enhance coalition

interoperability and add to our collective ability to respond to attack. Sailors and

Marines do this every day of the year. Nearly one-third of Navy and Marine Corps

operational forces—more than 60,000 men and women and 100 ships—are deployed

around the world. Carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups provide nearcontinuous presence in four major deployment areas: the Mediterranean Sea, the

Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific, and the Caribbean. In Japan, we

anchor regional stability with the forward-stationed Independence (CV 62) Battle

Group and the Belleau Wood (LHA 3) Amphibious Ready Group. Closer to home,

the Navy’s Western Hemisphere Group is shaping the environment by strengthening the bonds to South and Latin American allies. Each of these strategic locations

provides a launching point for quick reaction by naval forces to crises virtually anywhere.

Peacetime engagement is our primary means of shaping the international environment; it is a traditional role for the Navy and Marine Corps. Our forces participate in an array of engagement activities, becoming forces to be reckoned with in

the regional security environment. They participate in a complete range of shaping

activities—from deterrence to coalition building—establishing new friendships and

strengthening existing ones during port visits around the world. These visits promote stability, build confidence, and establish important military-to-military relationships. In addition, port visits provide an opportunity to demonstrate good will

toward local communities, further promoting democratic ideals.

Deterrence is another shaping factor. Because foreign nuclear weapons remain a

threat, we continue our vigilant efforts to discourage their proliferation and use,

along with other weapons of mass destruction. This nation must maintain a credible

nuclear-deterrent capability. Our ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet is a key

component of peacetime deterrence. The reliability and security of their commandand-control systems, and the superb accuracy and inherent flexibility of their weapons combine to convince any adversary that seeking a nuclear advantage—or even

nuclear parity—would be futile. Stealth and mobility make this force the most survivable element of our strategic nuclear triad.

However, we seek to deter more than simply the use of weapons of mass destruction. We also seek to prevent aggression with conventional forces. While the total

capability of our armed forces is a factor in such conventional deterrence, it is the

visible, forward-deployed naval expeditionary forces that have perhaps the most critical role. Naval forces act as local extensions of our sovereign national territory, able

to maneuver in international waters unencumbered by the political constraints that

may limit other forms of military power. Routine naval deployments signal both

friend and foe of our commitment to peace and stability in the region. This demonstrated ability to respond rapidly to crises—and to fight and win should deterrence fail—offers a clear warning that aggression cannot succeed. Moreover, the

ability of the forward-deployed forces to protect local allies and secure access ashore

provide a guarantee that the full might of our joint forces can be brought to bear.

Taken together these visible U.S. capabilities foreclose opportunities for aggression

and help shape a stable local peace.

One key element of this conventional deterrence is helping allies to help themselves. The Navy and Marine Corps execute a full exercise schedule with nations

throughout the world. The expeditionary nature of our forces promotes interaction

with the sea, land, and air forces of numerous allies. Each exercise, large or small,

directly contributes to successful coalition building. Credible coalitions play a key

role in deterring aggression and controlling crises. Our routine interactions promote

trust and confidence, and encourage measures that increase both our security and

that of our allies.

The Navy and Marine Corps role in both conventional and strategic deterrence,

including laying the foundations for future coalitions, is a critical ingredient in our

national strategy of peacetime engagement. Forward naval forces truly shape our

international environment every day in tension spots around our uncertain world.

Providing Options for an NCA ‘‘Rheostat’’

One enduring strength of naval forces is their balance. The combined capabilities

of a carrier battle group and an amphibious ready group offer air, sea, and land

power that can be applied across the full spectrum of combat. They are positioned

forward, able to provide an immediate, highly visible crisis-response capability, but

they can also be unobtrusive by operating beyond the horizon or from an undetected

submerged position. This balance and flexibility provides the National Command

Authorities (NCA) a range of military options that is truly unique.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
144

Forward presence provides an immediate response capability that prevents an aggressor from achieving a fait accompli. On-scene naval forces not only shape the

battlespace—they demonstrate our capability to halt aggression long before adversaries can achieve their objectives. While enhancing deterrence, naval forces simultaneously shift the military balance in our favor by offering numerous options in response to aggression. We force adversaries to consider multiple responses by injecting uncertainty into their planning, disrupting their ability to execute a coherent

campaign, and eroding their confidence in the likelihood of success. Naval forces can

provide security and employ unique operational and logistic capabilities, allowing

civil initiatives to work. Options may range from establishing a no-fly zone to ensuring delivery of humanitarian supplies.

The flexible, rapid movement of naval forces at the onset of any crisis is an ideal

way to signal our nation’s commitment. Our quick-reaction capability, combined

with self-sustaining logistics, enables the Navy-Marine Corps team to be on scene

at the outset and to remain as long as necessary to stabilize the situation. The advantage of our expeditionary nature is amplified when allied nations are reluctant

or unable to support crisis-response efforts. Naval forces provide numerous options

to the National Command Authorities, including: sea and area control; naval gunfire

for fire support; interdiction and deep strike missions; amphibious operations; special warfare operations; and Marine air-ground task force operations ashore. The

mobility and agility of naval units make them the force of choice in a wide variety

of situations. The presence of naval forces in the early stages of a crisis reminds

a would-be aggressor of the overwhelming power that can be projected from the continental United States.

There are numerous examples of the Navy-Marine Corps team providing instantaneous real-world support of the National Command Authorities. In mid-1997, the

Nassau (LHA 4) Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)) embarked, and the Kearsarge

(LHD 3) ARG, with 22d MEU(SOC) embarked, planned sequential noncombatant

evacuation operations in the former Zaire, Sierra Leone, and Albania. The geographic separation and unique requirements of each event clearly demonstrated the

flexibility of naval forces. Later in 1997, when Iraqi intransigence resurfaced, the

Nimitz (CVN 68) Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) rapidly repositioned from the Pacific

to the Arabian Gulf. Soon afterward, the George Washington (CVN 73) CVBG relocated from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Gulf, to emphasize U.S. resolve.

Partially in response to these movements, and in concert with vigorous diplomatic

efforts, the Iraqi government agreed to terms that allowed U.N. inspectors, including Americans, to return to work.

In the early stages of a crisis, our combat capabilities can defend allies and their

critical ports and airfields, needed for the arrival of follow-on forces from the continental United States. In the future, our emerging theater air-and-missile-defense

capabilities will enhance this protective shield for joint forces and allies—unobtrusively, from the sea. The mobility of these systems, currently being developed

around the existing Aegis surface combatant fleet, will be a critical force multiplier.

Our dynamic pursuit of area and theater-missile defense continues.

The ability to fight and win against any adversary is vital to the National Security Strategy. Throughout the joint campaign, naval forces will capitalize on our

command-and-control system to concentrate combat power from dispersed,

networked forces and project power far inland. Initial operations by swiftly responding naval forces often can halt aggression early in the conflict. In those cases where

aggression is not contained immediately, our initial operations will be critical in enabling a joint campaign to begin. The Navy’s ability to dominate the littorals ensures sea and area control, while defeating enemy area-denial threats. Naval forces

also can assert maritime superiority and provide strategic sealift to transport joint

and allied forces into theater. Our ability to counter enemy area-denial threats effectively—with potent information warfare, power projection, and force-protection capabilities—increases our decisive impact early in a joint campaign.

Naval operations are critical elements of the joint campaign. We deliver precision

naval fire support—strike, force interdiction, close air support, and shore bombardment. We seize the advantage of being able to operate on and from the sea. Using

high-tech information-processing equipment, we achieve superior speed of command

by rapidly collecting information, assessing the situation, developing a course of action, and executing the most advantageous option to overwhelm an adversary.

Throughout the joint campaign we keep the vital seaborne logistics pipeline flowing.

And, when the joint campaign is over, naval forces can remain on scene for long

periods to enforce sanctions and guarantee the continuation of regional stability.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
145

Preparing for an Uncertain Future

Today, the Navy and Marine Corps enjoy maritime superiority around the world.

We find ourselves at a strategic inflection point, during which we can think in different ways about warfighting in the future. We have an opportunity to be innovative and create new capabilities to overcome the threats that lie ahead. We must

embrace change and make it our ally. The Department of the Navy is committed

to exploiting emerging technologies, concepts, and doctrine to guarantee the military

superiority vital to our nation’s global leadership. In addition, we are examining

concepts that will capitalize on our national capabilities, going beyond jointness and

the interagency network. These concepts envision bringing together all elements of

national power including academia, laboratories, financial institutions, industry,

communications, humanitarian organizations—to meet the challenges of the 21st

century.

Similarly, we must acknowledge today’s realities. Although Navy and Marine

Corps deployed unit readiness remains high, a combination of constrained resources

and the pace of operations required to execute NCA tasking and fulfill the requirements of the Unified Commands are affecting the readiness of our non-deployed

forces. In concert with Congress, we must find ways to address this situation. We

must and will take advantage of the ongoing revolutions in military affairs and

business affairs to achieve our goals.

Revolution in Military Affairs

A revolution in military affairs (RMA) occurs when new concepts of warfare combine with new technologies to achieve a quantum leap in military capabilities. Carrier aviation, amphibious warfare, and ballistic missile submarines are vivid examples of such previous successes. We embarked on a similar innovative path with the

1992 publication of ‘‘. . . From the Sea’’, and further refined our strategic vision with

‘‘Forward...From the Sea’’ in 1994. The revolution has continued in the past two

years with publication of the Navy’s ‘‘Operating Forward...From the Sea’’, and the

Marine Corps’ ‘‘Operational Maneuver From the Sea’’ (OMFTS). These operational

concepts show how the naval service will execute its strategic concept and maintain

its operational primacy into the 21st century.

The Navy and Marine Corps are involved actively in developing concepts that will

combine in the future to attain revolutionary capabilities. These efforts include information warfare, precision strikes from the sea, Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), Network-Centric Warfare, theater ballistic missile defense, and Ship-toObjective Maneuver (STOM). These concepts enhance our broad mission areas of sea

and area control, power projection, presence, and deterrence. Our revolution is appropriate for the times.

Revolution in Business Affairs

An RMA must combine new concepts, technologies, organizational structures, doctrine, and programs. Modernization and recapitalization, using dedicated funds, are

necessary to exploit fully the RMA. We seek to find some of these funds by instituting a revolution in business affairs. Modernizing our force structure to better reflect

tomorrow’s challenges and streamlining our support services to make them more efficient are two methods we are using to realize additional fiscal savings for reallocation to support more robust modernization efforts.

The importance of achieving these savings cannot be overemphasized. Our shipbuilding plan produces technologically superior ships, such as Arleigh Burke (DDG

51), San Antonio (LPD 17), the New Attack Submarine (NSSN), and CVN–77, and

the average rate of production in the future years defense plan (FYDP) is adequate

in the near term to support the projected fiscal year 2003 force of about 300 ships.

However, beyond the FYDP, this rate of production will not permit us to maintain

the required ship and aircraft inventory. The operational commitments undertaken

by the Navy and Marine Corps today require a certain force level, to satisfy both

personnel tempo concerns and worldwide presence missions. Our rate of new-ship

and aircraft construction must recapitalize the force in the long term to maintain

this balance. We need to ensure that, in the future, adequate modernization funding

is provided in order to fulfill tomorrow’s tasking.

The Navy-Marine Corps team is the finest maritime force in the world today. To

maintain our preeminence, we must continue our investment in technological advances. Indeed, the rapid pace at which technology proliferates around the world

presents us with new challenges. In the information age, potential adversaries will

acquire knowledge of our systems and capabilities much faster than ever before. In

order to remain on the leading edge of technological innovation, we must undertake

a revolution in the way we procure systems and place them in the fleet—a revolution in business affairs. Further, we must learn from the successes of others, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
146

prepare to manage acquisition in a way that makes the most of every dollar spent.

The transformation of our forces must integrate the strengths of our people with

emerging technologies.

Institutionalizing Innovation

Both the Navy and the Marine Corps are moving swiftly to institutionalize the

generation of innovative concepts and ideas. The CNO’s Strategic Studies Group

(SSG) is dedicated to developing revolutionary naval warfare concepts 15 to 20 years

from today. The SSG fellows combine analysis of naval campaigns and scientific

methodology, to identify future warfighting concepts that offer an order-of-magnitude improvement over current capabilities. This continuing effort complements

Fleet Battle Experiments, which examine future concepts and doctrine 5 to 10 years

from now. The Marine Corps’ Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) and the Sea Dragon

series of experiments also are creating the necessary focus on new concepts and doctrine.

In 1997, the MCWL conducted the first in a series of Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE’s), Hunter Warrior, and is currently preparing for the second AWE,

Urban Warrior. The Marine Corps capitalized on the innovative momentum generated through the MCWL by creating the Office of Science and Innovation (OSI)

on August 15, 1997. The mission of the OSI is to develop visions focused on the development of policies and strategies associated with the exploitation of scientific innovation, modeling, simulation, and technology, in order to enhance Marine

warfighting capabilities. The OSI has taken the lead in incorporating the successes

of the MCWL into the Marine Corps Combat Development System.

In 1998, the Navy will establish the Navy Warfare Development Command in

Newport. This new command will combine the expertise of the Naval War College,

Navy Doctrine Command, and the CNO Strategic Studies Group into an organization capable of integrating concept development, experimentation, and doctrine

within the framework of the Navy strategic vision. This organization will formalize

a process for rapid generation and experimentation of innovative concepts. It also

will maximize the unique abilities at the Naval War College and empower the doctrine development process.

Our Navy and Marine Corps are focused on the future, building upon the firm

foundation of ‘‘. . . From the Sea’’ and ‘‘Forward...From the Sea’’. We will maintain

carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups forward, shaping the international environment and creating conditions favorable to U.S. interests and global

security. From their forward locations, our forces are positioned to respond to a full

range of crises and contingencies, and protect our national interests. Our continued

emphasis on innovative thinking is preparing us well for an uncertain future.

OPERATIONAL PRIMACY: 1997 IN REVIEW

Throughout 1997, the Navy and Marine Corps maintained an average of 119

ships, 62,300 Sailors, and 23,300 Marines deployed overseas in support of forward

presence missions, training exercises, and operations in more than 100 countries.

Sea-based and self-sustained, naval forces take advantage of bilateral training opportunities in countries with limited infrastructure or ability to support large scale

military deployments. These training exercises offer emerging democracies a unique

opportunity to train with U.S. forces. Forward-deployed expeditionary forces also

give theater commanders a flexible, responsive force that can be positioned in key

trouble spots for extended periods, as a visible example of U.S. resolve and commitment. During 1997, the Navy-Marine Corps team proved time and again that seabased forces are the premier forward presence asset.

Operations

Arabian Gulf/Red Sea

Iraq.—Operation Southern Watch (August 1992–present). Navy, Marine, and Air

Force units continue to enforce the ‘‘no-fly’’ zone over Iraq. Naval operations in 1997

included extensive Navy and Marine aircraft sorties from the aircraft carriers Kitty

Hawk (CV 63), Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Constellation (CV 64), John F. Kennedy (CV 67), Nimitz (CVN 68), and George Washington (CVN 73).

Operation Northern Watch (May 1997–present). Navy and Marine EA–6B squadrons are operating to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq.

CVN Thrust (October 1997–present). In response to Iraq’s expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors, Nimitz (CVN 68) accelerated its transit to the Arabian Gulf, while

George Washington (CVN 73) swung to the Gulf from deployment in the Mediterranean to provide a formidable force with massive strike capability.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
147

Saudi Arabia.—Operation Desert Focus (July 1996–present). In the aftermath of

the Khobar bombings, the First Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) provided counterintelligence team support for force protection to Joint Task Force-Southwest Asia

(JTF-SWA). The deployment was extended into fiscal year 1997 because of the continued terrorist threat.

Bahrain.—Reinforcement of Naval Security in Bahrain (April–June 1997). A reinforced platoon of the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) Company deployed

in response to a Navy Central Command (NavCent) request immediately following

indications and warnings of terrorist threats. Naval Reserve Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Units deployed to Manama, Bahrain, to augment port surveillance and

security.

Maritime Interception Operations.—(August 1990–present). Surface combatants,

amphibious ships, and maritime patrol aircraft continue the maritime intercept operations in the Arabian Gulf in support of U.N. sanctions against Iraq. Almost

25,000 queries, 11,000 boardings, and over 600 diverts of shipping have occurred

since the operation began. U.S. Navy ships are the principle tool for enforcing the

U.N. mandated sanctions against Iraq.

Africa

Democratic Peoples Republic Of The Congo (Formerly Zaire).—Operation Guardian

Retrieval (March–June 1997). As conditions in Kinshasa deteriorated, Nassau (LHA

4), with elements of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)) on board, was dispatched off the coast of Zaire. The remainder of

the 26th MEU(SOC) Forward on board Nashville (LPD 13) and Pensacola (LSD 38)

remained in the Mediterranean Sea to provide strategic reserve for the NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia. The 26th MEU(SOC) assumed the main effort

of a planned noncombatant evacuation operation named Joint Task Force Guardian

Retrieval. Kearsarge (LHD 3) and the 22d MEU(SOC) deployed two weeks early to

relieve Nassau and the 26th MEU(SOC); the former assumed responsibility for the

Joint Task Force (JTF) mission on May 2, 1997.

Sierra Leone.—Operation Noble Obelisk (May–June 1997). As Operation Guardian

Retrieval finished, the deteriorating security situation in Freetown, Sierra Leone,

required Kearsarge (LHD3) and the 22d MEU(SOC) to relocate quickly to another

crisis operating area. As commander for JTF Noble Obelisk, the 22d MEU(SOC)

evacuated 451 American citizens and 2,059 third-country nationals in four days to

Kearsarge. All evacuees were later transferred to Conakry, Guinea, for processing.

Europe

Bosnia.—Operation Deliberate Guard (December 1996–present). Earlier Bosnianrelated operations (Operations Deny Flight and Decisive Edge) transitioned to Operation Deliberate Guard in support of the Stabilization Force (SFOR). Carrier and

shore-based aviation squadrons continue joint and combined flight operations to enforce the ‘‘no-fly’’ zone over the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Additional Navy

and Marine F/A–18 and EA–6B aircraft, forward-deployed to Aviano, Italy, provide

suppression of enemy air defense, close air support, and electronic warfare capabilities to the SFOR. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Seabees and Marines augment Army civil affairs brigades to support specific peacekeeping operations. Nearly

500 Naval Reserve personnel were recalled to support Bosnian operations.

Adriatic Sea.—Operation Joint Guard (December 1996–present). During four of

five operational phases, SFOR designated deployed MEU(SOC)’s as the reserve in

support of the NATO-led implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords. In March

1997, Nassau and the 26th MEU(SOC) returned to the Adriatic Sea as a supporting

force after responding to the crises in the former Zaire and Sierra Leone. Nassau

was later relieved by Kearsarge and the 22d MEU(SOC). During 1997, Navy maritime patrol aircraft supplied reconnaissance support to area commanders. VMU–2,

a Marine Corps unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) squadron equipped with the Pioneer

UAV, transmitted a video data link to Navy P–3 aircraft for further relay to the

three multinational divisions. VMU–1 deployed in September 1997 to provide a

video link to officials during the Bosnian municipal elections. Marine active and reserve personnel augment USCINCEUR’s effort in Bosnia.

Albania.—Operation Silver Wake (March–July 1997). U.S.S. Nassau (LHA 4) Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), with the 26th MEU(SOC) embarked, conducted a noncombatant evacuation operation (NEO) in Tirana, Albania. Spreading anarchy in Albania compelled the evacuation of 877 Americans and third-country nationals. Following the evacuation, Marines provided security for personnel remaining in the embassy and housing compounds. These elements were later relieved by Marine Corps

Security Forces from Naples, Italy, and Souda Bay, Crete.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
148

Caribbean and South America

Counterdrug Operations.—Active and reserve Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft continue detection and monitoring missions in the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Navy and Marine Corps personnel serve as tactical planners, analysts, and mobile training teams in drug-source countries to enhance hostnation law enforcement. Marine Corps units have also conducted 55 missions along

the Southwest border, in support of domestic law enforcement agencies. Navy personnel operate and maintain re-locatable over-the-horizon radar (ROTHR) sites in

Virginia and Texas, providing wide area surveillance of the transit zone. Efforts are

underway to construct a ROTHR site in Puerto Rico, which will extend surveillance

capabilities to the source countries. Additional surveillance is provided by a Naval

Reserve E–2 radar early warning aircraft squadron established in support of

counterdrug operations. The Director of Naval Intelligence maintains dedicated,

maritime-focused counterdrug intelligence support and interagency coordination via

multisource fusion analysis of commercial shipping and noncommercial vessels.

These intelligence sources provided information to law enforcement and Department

of Defense personnel.

Haiti.—New Horizons Haiti (formerly exercise Fairwinds) (April 1996–December

1997). Navy Seabees, Marine engineers, and Navy medical units supported the nation building efforts of ‘‘U.S. Support Group Haiti.’’ These units provided important

humanitarian assistance to the Government of Haiti through the completion of engineering projects and medical support.

Cuba.—Cuban Migrant Support (August 1994–present). Marines from the Second

Marine Expeditionary Force (II MEF) continue the Cuban and Haitian migrant handling, processing, and security missions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Navy personnel

provide medical and logistic support to the migrants. Since September 1994, as

many as 40,000 migrants housed at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Facility have been

repatriated.

Peru.—Operation Laser Strike (September 1996–June 1997). Marines supported

the counter-drug operations of U.S. Southern Command (CINCSOUTH) with a

ground mobile radar and communications team.

Asia

Korea.—Naval sea and air power forward-based in Yokosuka, Sasebo, and Atsugi,

along with Marine expeditionary forces from Okinawa, continue to provide a visible

and unambiguous presence around the Korean peninsula. Four at-sea training exercises were conducted with South Korean forces: Sharem 120 featured Thach (FFG

43), Hewitt (DD 966), and Topeka (SSN 754) in an antisubmarine exercise; MCMEX

tested anti-mine warfare expertise with Guardian (MCM 5) and Patriot (MCM 7);

Foal Eagle 1997 was a large-scale carrier battle group exercise centered on the Independence (CV 62) battle group, combatants from 3rd Fleet, and numerous support

ships; Ulchii Focus Lens 1997 is a major joint and combined command and control

exercise for the Blue Ridge (LCC 19), 7th Fleet’s command ship forward deployed

in Japan. These highly beneficial exercises are integral to our ability to operate in

a nearly seamless fashion with South Korean forces.

Guam.—Operation Pacific Haven (September 1996–March 1997). Navy personnel

from Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Five, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Seabees based in Guam, Marine translators, and a reinforced Marine rifle company from Okinawa supported the USCINCPAC effort of screening and processing

Kurdish refugees from northern Iraq.

Korean Airlines Flight 801.—Crash Recovery Operations (August 1997). Navy helicopter units provided medical evacuation assistance to survivors to the U.S. Naval

Hospital in Guam. The Navy’s medical and dental personnel were instrumental in

the recovery and identification of victims. In addition, a seven-member special psychiatric rapid intervention team (SPRINT) was dispatched from the Naval Medical

Center, San Diego, two days after the crash to provide counseling and emotional

support for rescue workers. Seabees provided further rescue and salvage support to

the National Transportation Safety Board.

Cambodia.—Operation Bevel Edge (July 1997). Marines from the Third Marine

Expeditionary Force (III MEF) deployed to Utapao, Thailand, to support a

USCINCPAC JTF mission. The 31st MEU(SOC) was placed on alert for a possible

NEO from Cambodia.

Exercises

West African Training Cruise (WATC).—This annual deployment provides interaction between U.S. Naval forces and their host-nation counterparts for military

training, expanded military-to-military relations, and to maintain familiarity with

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
149

the West African littoral environment. The Navy and Marine forces in the Whidbey

Island (LSD 41) during WATC 97 also participated in UNITAS 97.

UNITAS 97.—The annual UNITAS deployment is a primary means of supporting

regional stability in the Western Hemisphere. Active and reserve surface combatants and P–3C aircraft, Marine forces from II MEF, a submarine, reserve medium

lift transport aircraft, and a U.S. Coast Guard cutter join to conduct multinational

exercises with Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and

Brazil, while circumnavigating the continent during a five-month period. This year,

France, The Netherlands, Canada, UK, Germany, and Portugal also participated

during phases of the nine-nation, 29-city deployment. These exercises often provide

the only opportunity for Latin American forces to train with U.S. and other allied

forces.

Partnership for Peace.—The Partnership for Peace (PfP) program continues to be

the centerpiece of NATO’s strategic relationship with Central and Eastern European

nations. These operations, part of our bilateral military-to-military contacts program, included basic seamanship exercises and familiarization visits with the regional forces. Surface ships, aircraft, and submarines participated in many exercises

in 1997 including: BALTOPS 1997, Ioklos, Briz, Posidon, and 5 other bilateral cooperative exercises which took place in the Mediterranean, Baltic, and Black Seas.

These exercises are central to Sixth Fleet’s participation in PfP endeavors.

Black Sea Operations.—Navy and Marine Corps units have conducted training operations with forces from Romania, Ukraine, and Bulgaria. Sailors and Marines

make a major contribution to national efforts aimed at building Black Sea alliances

and furthering relationships via Partnership for Peace. Through exercises such as

Rescue Eagle and Sea Breeze, forward-deployed, self-sustained naval forces provide

excellent opportunities for initial bilateral training with the armed forces of emerging democracies.

Baltic Challenge 97.—The second Baltic Challenge exercise involved 2,800 personnel from nine nations: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ukraine and the United States. Focused primarily on peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, naval active and reserve forces demonstrated a range of capabilities that support operational objectives in Europe, including the stationing of

a Maritime Prepositioning Force in the Baltic Sea. Additionally, reservists made up

nearly 25 percent of the Marine Forces deploying to Estonia, showcasing the readiness and skill inherent in the ‘‘total force.’’

Blue Harrier 97.—This biennial, multinational mine-warfare exercise highlighted

the newly converted mine countermeasures (MCM) command-and-control ship Inchon (MCS 12). This exercise provided NATO mine warfare units the opportunity

to interact in tactics and procedures, which promoted cooperation and mutual understanding amongst its participants.

Tandem Thrust 97.—Tandem Thrust 97 was conducted in the Shoal Water Bay

Training Area, Australia. As part of a Combined Task Force (CTF) headed by Commander Seventh Fleet, forces from Independence (CV 62) Carrier Battle Group, an

Amphibious Ready Group built around the New Orleans (LPH 11), III MEF, and the

11th MEU(SOC) worked with other U.S. and Australian forces on a short-warning

crisis-action scenario. The exercise implemented USCINCPAC’s cooperative engagement strategy and demonstrated U.S.-Australian cooperation.

Carat 97.—Regional stability in Southeast Asia is supported by the Pacific Fleet’s

cooperation afloat readiness and training (CARAT) program, patterned after

UNITAS. Active and reserve surface combatants, maritime patrol aircraft, a special

purpose Marine air-ground task force, medical detachments, and a U.S. Coast

Guard cutter conduct exercise with six countries in the South China Sea region for

two months each year. In 1997, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand participated. Our naval forces exercised with the host nation’s air, sea, and

land forces to promote regional maritime interoperability, increase readiness, enhance military-to-military relations, and ensure stability of Southeast Asian sea

lanes of communication.

Kernel Blitz 97.—This large scale amphibious exercise was conducted at Camp

Pendleton, California in June 1997. As a maritime contingency response to a freedom-of-navigation challenge, Kernel Blitz 97 demonstrated the inherent flexibility

of the Navy-Marine Corps team with at sea, amphibious, and subsequent operations

ashore. The use of emerging technology was a key underlying concept to Kernel

Blitz 97. Using the Global Command and Control System (GCCS), all participating

units received a common tactical and imagery picture from multiple sources.

Arctic Care 97.—Navy and Marine reservists of the 4th Force Service Support

Group participated in a joint civic action exercise in isolated villages in the YukonKuskokwim Delta in Alaska. This exercise provided valuable training for 150 Marines and Sailors as they augmented the understaffed rural health care system. HuU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
150

manitarian medical, dental, veterinary, and light engineering support were afforded

to the indigenous Yupik Eskimo population.

Military Support To Civil Authorities

Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force.—In response to the threat of weapons of mass destruction against American interests, the Marine Corps Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) provided support for national events during

1997—beginning with a deployment to Washington, D.C., for the second inauguration of President Clinton. The CBIRF, consisting of both Marine and Navy personnel, was positioned to quickly respond to a terrorist chemical or biological attack.

Functioning within the Federal Response Plan and working with the First Army’s

Response Task Force, the CBIRF developed a helpful relationship with other first

responders. In addition, the CBIRF supported the Summit of Eight in Denver, Colorado during the summer of 1997.

Western U.S. Floods.—(Winter/Spring 1997). Nevada and California experienced

record rainfalls and rapid winter snow melts in 1997. Widespread flooding forced

the evacuation of thousands of residents and caused extensive damage. Naval Reserve emergency preparedness liaison officers (EPLO’s) were assigned to the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Guard emergency operations

centers to coordinate Federal, Department of Defense, and state assets. Navy

EPLO’s coordinated Naval Construction Battalion efforts to repair weakened dams

and bridges, and coordinated logistical support requirements, including shipment of

more than one million sandbags.

Great Plains Blizzard and Flood.—(Winter/Spring 1997). North and South Dakota’s record-setting snowfall and subsequent snow melt produced extensive flooding.

During these events, Navy EPLO’s were responsible for coordinating support equipment from nearby bases. Navy EPLO’s established themselves on site and became

the official Department of Defense representatives for coordinating DOD support

with the 5th Continental Army.

When later Spring floods again affected South Dakota and Minnesota, Navy

EPLO’s were on scene. Marine Corps and Coast Guard personnel entered the fray,

and Navy EPLO’s were requested to once again help coordinate support efforts.

Navy EPLO’s worked with the Department of Defense Disaster Coordination Office,

the other armed services, and many local agencies.

Freedom Of Navigation

The ability to move U.S. forces when and where they are needed depends upon

unfettered access to the world’s oceans and international airspace. To ensure access

as a matter of legal right, U.S. naval forces in 1997 conducted more than 20 operations to protest excessive maritime claims, in support of the President’s Freedom

of Navigation Program. These assertions supported the U.S. foreign policy objective

of adherence by all nations to the International Law of the Sea.

Similarly, the Department of the Navy strongly supports U.S. accession to the

Law of the Sea Convention as amended in 1994. A majority of the world’s nations

now are signatories to the Convention, including all major maritime powers except

the United States. Worldwide acceptance of the Law of the Sea Convention remains

the best guarantee of a stable ocean’s regime that recognizes navigational and overflight freedom crucial to naval operations. Accession by the United States also provides less of an incentive for states to make and enforce excessive claims. That

should, in the long term, result in a decline in the number of excessive maritime

claims which restrict our rights of mobility and access.

The Department of the Navy is operating today to provide for America’s interests.

The forward-deployed strategy is cost-effective for the nation while simultaneously

providing a ready, responsive force capable of meeting the challenges of today’s chaotic world. Conducting daily operations and exercises with allies reinforces our commitments to friends and potential adversaries alike.

SAILORS, MARINES AND CIVILIANS: OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE

People are the heart and soul of the Navy-Marine Corps team. With a fiscal year

1997 end strength of 395,000 active duty and 95,898 Reserve Sailors, 174,000 active

duty and 42,000 Reserve Marines, supported by 220,000 federal civilian employees,

the Department’s personnel form a flexible, well-trained and responsive team.

A key element in recruiting and retaining a high quality all-volunteer force must

be a military compensation package that allows the Department of the Navy to keep

faith with our people and is reasonably competitive in the civilian labor market. A

solid and sensible compensation plan remains essential to maintaining operational

readiness. Compensation competitiveness is determined by the real-dollar value of

basic pay, food and housing allowances, special and incentive pays or bonuses, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
151

such benefits as commissary and exchange privileges, medical and dental care, retirement, and paid leave. Given the extraordinary demands placed upon Sailors,

Marines, and their families, it is imperative that we ensure all factors of compensation, from basic pay and dependents’ medical care to retirement benefits, are adequately addressed. This is even more vital given the vast array of private sector opportunities which continue to attract our most talented, highly trained, and experienced Sailors and Marines.

Together, the Navy-Marine Corps team has served as the shield of the republic

since the earliest days of our nation. Navy and Marine Corps personnel have performed together magnificently as a result of our ability to recruit, train, and retain

the highest quality personnel. For over two centuries, Navy and the Marine Corps

personnel have exemplified our shared core values of honor, courage, and commitment. At the leading edge of the new century, the significance of our forward-deployed Navy-Marine Corps team has never been greater. The unique culture and

traditions that have brought success in the past need to be sustained and nurtured

in the future.

Shaping the Total Force

Navy-Marine Corps end strength is approaching steady-state, but will require further modest reductions to implement the recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Consequently, the operational readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps depends, now more than ever, upon our ability to recruit and retain the

very best men and women with the right mix of skills and experience. Ensuring the

quality of life and professional development of our Sailors and Marines is of primary

importance. We must provide rewarding career opportunities, a quality standard of

living, and fair and adequate compensation.

Recruiting Tomorrow’s Leaders

Attracting the high-caliber youth needed to maintain our future force is the recruiting focus of the Department of the Navy. Although low national unemployment

and an increase in college enrollment created a challenging recruiting environment,

1997 proved to be a successful year for Navy and Marine Corps recruiting. Recruiting strategy focused on attracting highly qualified individuals for particular skills

in the Fleet and Fleet Marine Forces. Navy recruiters achieved 100 percent of their

overall recruiting goals, employing targeted marketing to achieve 100 percent of nuclear field and critical-ratings goals. In addition, the academic quality of Navy enlisted recruits remains high: more than 95 percent earned high school diplomas, and

66 percent scored in the upper half of the Armed Forces Qualification Test. The Marine Corps attained more than 100 percent of enlisted recruiting goals and exceeded

Department of Defense goals in all tier and aptitude categories for the previous 30

consecutive months. This singular accomplishment is directly attributed to the dedicated efforts of our Marine Recruiters.

Traditional commercial advertisements, emphasizing our core values of honor,

courage, and commitment continue as the mainstays of our recruiting effort. The

Marine Corps also has developed a series of advertising campaigns designed to attract more women and minorities into officer and enlisted programs. They are increasing the use of radio, print, and direct-mail advertising specifically tailored for

women, as well as such high-profile marketing opportunities as sponsorship of the

Extreme Games and Hoop-It-Up.

Partly responsible for this success is the boost special duty assignment pay

(SDAP) has given to maintain a quality recruiting force. The Navy and Marine

Corps recruiting commands continue to assign the highest-caliber commanders and

most stringently screened Sailors and Marines to recruiting duty. A number of initiatives are in place to improve the quality of life for recruiters and their families

assigned away from major bases or stations.

As we continue in our efforts to attract highly qualified and culturally diverse officer and enlisted candidates, we are ever-mindful of the formidable challenges the

future presents. Historically low unemployment, record high college enrollment, and

a declining veteran population which reduces exposure to the military as a career

option, contribute to a potentially lower propensity to enter the military services.

For the first two months of fiscal year 1998, Navy recruiting accessed only 91 percent of goal. If that trend continues through fiscal year 1998, it may lead to an annual accession goal shortfall of 4,000 personnel.

Realizing that recruiting top quality people is one of the most significant challenges facing the Department, we have developed a recruiting campaign involving

the entire chain of command. As an example, the Secretary of the Navy has sent

letters to high school principals throughout the Nation, urging them to actively discuss the potential of a Navy or Marine Corps career with their students. We also

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
152

are attempting to address the challenge head-on with a number of new initiatives,

including accessing more females, recruiting more general detail (GENDETS) personnel, and increasing opportunities for Navy veterans to return to active duty. Extensive use of Internet homepages to advertise highly technical careers in the Department also has proven to be a superb recruiting tool. Additionally, funding has

been increased for traditional advertising, enlisted bonuses, and the Navy College

Fund (NCF) program to help in all aspects of retention and recruiting.

We made improvements in increasing minority accessions in both officer and enlisted ranks through the enhanced opportunities for minorities initiatives (EOMI)

program. While solid progress was made for enlisted accessions, more work is needed in the area of officer accessions. Additionally, we are exploring better ways in

which to achieve a better distribution of minorities across technical and nontechnical ratings. Our efforts are not focused on achieving quotas, but rather continuing

to accept and promote only the best qualified and highly motivated personnel to

serve in the Department of the Navy.

The Department’s ability to recruit an exceptionally well-qualified and diverse civilian workforce has been enhanced through a series of coordinated recruitment programs, which have brought Navy and Marine Corps activities together with college

and university students. To invest in future civilian recruitment, special residential

and scholarship programs were established to acquaint outstanding high school and

college students with the Department’s technical missions.

Retaining the Best and the Brightest

Maintaining a skilled, motivated and ready force is the foundation for the future

of the Navy-Marine Corps team. By fiscal year 2000, after several years of downsizing, we will be at a point where every loss to the Navy must be offset by a recruit

in order to maintain stable end strength. This will be challenging. The United

States has a strong economy with plentiful employment options. Moreover, fewer

young people today express interest in joining a military service. Although faced

with further reductions associated with the Quadrennial Defense Review, it is prudent that we start retooling our retention program now. For example, we continue

to offer a selected reenlistment bonus to keep critical billets filled. The percentage

of Sailors offered this program was greatly reduced during peak downsizing years,

but current personnel levels demand an increase in those eligible for this bonus.

Other career stabilizing initiatives include affording Marine Corps first-term reenlistees the option of choosing one of three duty stations for their second term.

Similarly, Navy homebasing initiatives give families more stability by serving in a

single fleet concentration area.

Educational opportunity remains a cornerstone of Department of the Navy careerincentive programs. New Navy recruits report that the Montgomery G.I. Bill was

the number one reason for enlisting, and the Navy College Fund (NCF) continues

as a primary incentive program for specialized-skill areas. This past year, Navy increased the NCF to provide a total of $40,000 in benefits for nuclear program enlistees. In addition, tuition assistance is available for self-motivated Sailors and Marines. At sea, or when deployed to remote locations, the Program for Afloat College

Education (PACE) and the Marine Corps Satellite Education Network (MCSEN)

continue to accelerate the use of distance learning for further education.

A stable and competitive officer corps is essential to lead the Navy and Marine

Corps. Nuclear officer incentive pay, medical officer incentive special pay and Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) are some of the tools enabling the naval services to

retain capable, talented and technically oriented leaders in the face of ever-increasing private sector competition. Using the higher authority approved in the 1998 National Defense Authorization Act, the Navy and Marine Corps are addressing pilot

retention issues within selected warfare communities.

Adequate compensation fosters improved retention in mission critical skills, increases morale, and maintains high readiness. The basic allowance for housing

(BAH) system, authorized by Congress in the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act, will be phased in over a six-year transition period. The BAH is expected

to provide an immense benefit for Sailors and Marines stationed in high-cost, metropolitan coastal areas, and improve the lives of our junior enlisted personnel.

Passage of the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (Redux) has decreased

considerably the benefits of making military service a career. Studies have shown

that a typical enlisted member with 20 years of service will receive 25 percent less

retirement compensation than before Redux. This erosion of benefits translates into

a growing perception that a military career is less advantageous than civilian employment. This, in turn, affects force retention and stability in our mid-grade officer

and enlisted personnel. The Department supports the exploration of alternative retirement savings programs.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
153

Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Contribution

The Naval and Marine Corps Reserve provided an unprecedented level of support

during the past year. Increasingly used as a force multiplier to accomplish everyday

missions, the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve is no longer just a force-in-waiting—

to be called upon in the event of global war. To this end, Reserve contributory support to the active Fleet has more than doubled since 1991, to more than two million

man-days of direct mission support in 1997.

The Naval Reserve plays a significant role in virtually all major operations and

exercises. Reserve ships and aircraft are increasingly used for counter-drug and

other fleet operations, such as a Mediterranean deployment for the operational reserve carrier John F. Kennedy (CV 67) and a deployment to Europe for a multinational mine countermeasures (MCM) exercise for the reserve MCM command ship

Inchon (MCS 12). A driving force in this increased deployment of reserve force ships

and aircraft has been to lessen active duty personnel operational tempo. This increased role is highlighted by the fact that five of the ten reserve frigates were deployed for periods of four to six months in 1997. These deployments included

CARAT, BALTOPS and counter-drug operations, which were missions previously assigned to active units. Naval reserve force ships have expanded their role in these

deployments by rotating selected Reservists that make up one-fourth the crew.

The reserve expanded their support of the fleet in other ways as well. Reservists

filled critical positions in fleet hospitals, naval hospitals and with the Marine Corps,

and participated in virtually all naval medical exercises. Even critical leadership positions have become an area for Reserve personnel to assist the fleet.

In addition to the traditional mobilization posture, the Naval Reserve has expanded its utility to the active component, as a contingency response team and a

vital pool of manpower and equipment. Structured to support the fleet on a daily

basis, the Naval Reserve provides 100 percent of the Navy’s forces in such mission

areas as: adversary aviation squadrons, fleet aviation logistics support, mobile

inshore undersea warfare, and naval control of shipping.

The Marine Reserve component is a critical element of the Total Force. The active

component, as the nation’s most ready force, has primary responsibility for forward

presence, operations other than war, and crisis response. The Marine Corps Reserve

supports these missions with individuals and units as required. During fiscal year

1997, Marine Reservists worked and trained alongside their active counterparts in

numerous operations and exercises. More importantly, the Marine Reserve augments and reinforces the active component, creating a Total Force capable of sustained combat in the event of a major theater war.

Today, more than 95 percent of the units of Marine Forces Reserve are assigned

to active component forces in support of the Marine commitment to joint operations

plans. Reserve participation is essential with today’s smaller active-duty force. Success throughout the full range of possible missions, from military operations other

than war (MOOTW) to augmenting and reinforcing the active component in periods

of crisis, demands the seamless integration of both forces.

The Marine Corps Reserve exists to enhance the operational capabilities of the active component. The Marine Corps Reserve currently contributes 26 percent of the

force structure and 37 percent of the trained manpower to the Total Force Marine

Corps. One hundred percent of the adversary squadrons, civil affairs groups, and

battalion-sized reconnaissance units; 50 percent of the tank battalions and theater

missile defense detachments; and 33 percent of the artillery battalions are provided

by the Marine Corps Reserve. The full integration of active and reserve personnel

into combined-arms air-ground teams are the nation’s force-in-readiness—the highly

capable Marine Corps.

Naval Training: Today’s Investment, Tomorrow’s Capability

The Navy Training Continuum

The Naval Training Center in Great Lakes, Illinois, has initiated an innovative

boot camp final exam named ‘‘Battle Stations.’’ This was done to ensure that Sailors

were ready to join the Fleet. New Sailors use teamwork, basic seamanship and nautical knowledge gained during the boot camp curriculum to master seven training

stations during a pre-graduation battle problem. ‘‘Battle Stations’’ uses fleet experiences to create a more challenging and relevant training regimen for the Navy’s

newest Sailors.

To continue preparing junior Sailors for career success after basic recruit training,

the Navy uses basic and advanced-skills schools in areas such as engineering and

weapon systems. Employing electronic manuals, remote video classroom techniques,

and on-board systems, the Navy is training more Sailors with greater productivity.

Afloat training groups at fleet concentration areas are used to tailor training to

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
154

meet the needs of individual commands. Tailored training eliminates duplication,

saves time and concentrates on correcting individual and unit weaknesses. In addition, through careful planning, operational exercises provide windows of opportunity

for follow-on at-sea training.

The Navy’s leadership continuum puts career-spanning rigor into leadership

training, for both active and reserve personnel. The leadership continuum is the

Navy’s vehicle for imparting leadership qualities into a program of recurring training from recruitment to retirement. The purpose of the training is to produce warriors whose individual skills and values enable them to bond together as a cohesive

combat-ready team.

Leadership training commences at accession training and is reinforced through

eight courses for officer and enlisted personnel, which form the basis of the continuum. Enlisted personnel attend the leadership training after selection to E–5, E–

6, E–7, and Command Master Chief or Chief of the Boat. Officers attend the leadership training en route to specific leadership assignments. These progressive and sequential courses are all two weeks in length with the exception of the nine week

Senior Enlisted Academy.

Four major themes are the foundation of all the courses: values; responsibilities,

authority, and accountability of leadership; unity of command, Navy and services;

and continuous improvement. The training is a deliberate process to transform behavior and attitudes, rather than just ensuring compliance with regulations, by providing a common perspective on the real importance of the Navy’s core values of

honor, courage, and commitment. As each Sailor progresses through the leadership

training courses, they acquire the knowledge, skills, and experience to form the

basis of leadership techniques. The formal leadership training is periodically reinforced in warfare and specialty pipeline training, at annual All-Hands training, and

during development/professional assignments. Current education and training programs, which include leadership modules, are being aligned with the continuum

themes to ensure consistency, and to eliminate redundancies and conflicts.

Marine Corps Transformation Process

Transformation is an ongoing and dynamic process of making Marines, and consists of four phases: recruiting, recruit training, cohesion, and sustainment.

Recruiting.—The transformation process begins with the first contact with a Marine recruiter. A demanding and extremely selective screening process follows:

Those who qualify enter an improved delayed-entry pool to prepare for recruit training; enhanced physical conditioning, study guides, and instruction on Marine Corps

history and traditions become integral parts of that preparation; and potential recruits also receive their introduction to Marine Corps core values. In addition, the

recruiter introduces them to the concept of total fitness—body, mind, and spirit.

From the outset, it is made clear to recruits that they will be expected to undergo

a transformation to become a valued part of an elite organization.

Recruit Training.—On October 1, 1997 recruit depots implemented significant

changes to the focus and content of recruit training. Recruit training was lengthened from 11 to 12 weeks for both males and females. This provides additional time

for drill instructors to teach, mold, and mentor their recruits. Supporting this

change is a significant increase in core values training, totaling more than 50 hours

of instruction, discussion, and training reinforcement critiques. The most notable enhancement to recruit training is the addition of the ‘‘Crucible’’ event, intended to

test the mettle of every recruit at the culmination of recruit training. As the true

rite of passage from recruit to Marine, the Crucible is a 54-hour field training evolution, emphasizing the importance of teamwork in overcoming adversity. The regimen includes food and sleep deprivation and an operational tempo that poses continuous physical and mental challenges.

Cohesion.—Unit cohesion is defined as the intense bonding of Marines, strengthened over time, resulting in absolute trust, subordination of self, and an intuitive

devotion to the collective actions of the unit. To achieve this, the Marine Corps is

forming teams of Marines immediately after recruit training and assigning those

teams to follow-on skill producing schools. Subsequently, they are assigned to operational units in the Fleet Marine Force. Changing from individual assignment to

unit assignment is a major modification of personnel policies—but one that will improve combat efficiency.

Sustainment.—The sustainment of the transformation process is continuous, and

spans all that Marines do throughout their service. Professional military education

schools educate Marine leaders—officers, staff noncommissioned officers, and noncommissioned officers—in ‘‘whole Marine’’ character development. Leaders in both

the operating and in support forces conduct business and accomplish their missions

in ways that support and reinforce both core values and team building. Leaders are

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
155

also expected to manifest core values and mentor their subordinates. Living the Marine Corps ethos is a shared responsibility for all Marines and continues until the

day a Marine hangs up the uniform for the last time—and beyond.

Voluntary, Professional, and Graduate Education

Voluntary education programs have made a significant contribution to recruiting,

retention, and readiness. The latest recruiting survey indicates that over 25 percent

of Navy’s enlistees cited ‘‘money for college’’ as the primary reason they joined the

Navy. Our enlisted force has shown that pursuing follow on education remains a

high priority. For the past several years, a majority of our E–4 to E–6 potential career force retention candidates have used tuition assistance (TA). The interest in advanced education prompted the Department to consolidate the Navy and the Marine

Corps tuition assistance programs in 1995. This ‘‘centralized’’ TA system saved $1

million in its first year of operation. These and future savings will translate in more

courses for our personnel.

The Department of the Navy is committed to making it just as easy for personnel

at sea to have access to educational opportunities as those ashore. In fiscal year

1997, the Navy’s Program for Afloat College Education (PACE) became available in

every one of the 346 ships in the Navy, and over 20,000 Sailors participated in the

program. Using tools such as PACE and the Marine Corps Satellite Education Network (MCSEN), most Sailors and Marines are able to pursue an education during

off-duty time, regardless of duty assignment or location.

To increase access to education, the Navy is moving to establish academic skills

learning centers worldwide. By fiscal year 1999, 21 centers will be activated, with

a total of 52 centers planned by fiscal year 2001. These centers provide Sailors with

the opportunity to improve basic academic skills, assist them in retaking the Armed

Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) tests, help prepare them for college

work, and achieve their educational potential. The MCSEN also provides the technology to deliver a standardized military academic skills program to all major Marine Corps installations, which guarantees accessibility to basic skills improvement

courses in reading, writing, communications, and mathematics.

As the largest single source of Navy and Marine Corps officers, the Naval Reserve

Officer Training Command (NROTC) prepares men and women at civilian universities to assume junior officer positions in today’s technical Navy and Marine Corps.

NROTC scholarships at our nation’s finest universities gives the Department added

visibility to recruit tomorrow’s leaders.

The Department of the Navy is evaluating our graduate education programs to

ensure that its leaders are prepared for the challenges of warfare and national security in the next century. Naval flagship education institutions, which include the

Naval Postgraduate School, Naval War College, Marine Corps University, and the

United States Naval Academy, provide multiple opportunities for officers to attain

graduate education in a military setting. Opportunities for naval personnel to obtain

postgraduate education at civilian universities also exist in several disciplines under

the graduate education at civilian institutions program. Joint postgraduate education enables naval officers to function within the joint environment and master

the intricacies of joint warfare planning and operations. The Naval Academy now

offers a graduate program in leadership, culminating with a Master’s degree for junior officers. Navy graduate medical education programs prepare medical officers for

the challenge of operational and peacetime roles. In addition, the Navy and the Marine Corps have ensured that tuition assistance remains a continuing option to complete graduate education for enlisted and officer service members.

The Department of the Navy civilian leadership development program identifies

certain leadership competencies that commands and activities use to establish formal leadership programs. The program provides all employees with opportunities to

acquire knowledge and skills that enhance their competitiveness for higher level positions. Civilian leadership development also supports the Defense leadership and

management program, which offers advanced leadership and executive-level skills

and professional military education to GS–14 through Senior Executive Service

(SES) employees. These programs support Department of the Navy initiatives to

bring civilians into high-demand technical career paths. These programs start at the

entry level and can help highly motivated and successful employees move to senior

management and executive levels.

Fostering Excellence

Core Values: Principles By Which We Live

The Navy and Marine Corps are committed to sustaining our tradition of building

strong character and ethical behavior. Character, ethics, and core values underscore

morale and personnel readiness to improve mission performance. People who are

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
156

trained and led by role models of high character are inspired to attain equally high

levels of integrity and commitment.

The emphasis placed upon our core values of honor, courage, and commitment is

the foundation of Navy and Marine Corps efforts to combat such unacceptable behavior as sexual harassment, alcohol and drug abuse, hazing, and fraternization.

Ethical awareness and adherence to core values is at the forefront of Department

policy, planning, and action. In 1996, we promulgated our core values charter, which

highlights the bedrock principles of the Navy-Marine Corps team. Character, ethics,

and core values are emphasized throughout the career of each Sailor, Marine and

civilian. This approach ensures that character, ethics, and core values are visible

continuously at all levels, and reemphasized as each individual grows in tenure, responsibility and authority.

Equal Opportunity

The Department of the Navy offers every Sailor, Marine, and civilian employee

equal opportunity to succeed and achieve his or her fullest potential, regardless of

ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, or religion. With strong emphasis on core

values, the Department ensures that each individual is treated with dignity and respect. A recent amendment to Department of the Navy regulations prohibits participation in any supremacist organization espousing discrimination based upon race,

creed, color, sex or national origin. In addition, the Department of the Navy continues to emphasize the critical role of women in the fleet.

Since 1994, women have been eligible for assignment on board combat ships and

aircraft. With the exception of submarine duty and special operations, women train

and serve in every Navy community and career field. Moreover, the women at sea

program continues to expand career opportunities for women on combatants and in

aviation. In fiscal year 1998, more ships and another carrier air wing will become

gender integrated, bringing the gender-integrated ship total to 133 and the air wing

total to five.

The Department of the Navy’s focused efforts to eliminate sexual harassment

were reflected in the 1995 Department of Defense Sexual Harassment Study, which

reported that the Navy and Marine Corps showed the greatest declines in reported

sexual harassment incidents among all the Services. We continue to reemphasize

our commitment to eradicating sexual harassment, unprofessional relationships, and

unacceptable conduct. Active efforts concentrate on oversight, leadership, policies,

and training, while providing assistance and formal assessments of our programs.

In a recent survey, Navy and Marine Corps focus groups reported we are successfully communicating to the field our core values and policies on sexual harassment

and unprofessional relationships. When policy infractions occur, our toll-free advice

lines, victim/witness assistance programs, counseling, advocacy, and other community support services are working effectively with our commanders to take action

to eliminate the problem and prevent recurrence.

Quality of Life: Taking Care of Self and Family

The Department of the Navy recognizes quality of life as a vital component in recruiting and retaining the quality men and women needed for the force of the 21st

century. The Departmental focus is to provide an acceptable level of quality housing,

health care, and community support services to Sailors, Marines, and their families,

regardless of duty station. Key elements of the quality-of-life program include an

adequate compensation and benefits package, as well as a positive environment that

provides our personnel the requisite tools to reach their full potential. To this end,

the Department of the Navy has established minimum quality-of-life guidelines, and

is working toward consistent and professional delivery of all quality-of-life components.

Alcohol and drug abuse can seriously impact the quality of life of Navy and Marine Corps members and their families. Alcohol abuse accounts for almost half the

accidental deaths each year in the Navy and Marine Corps. It is also associated

with many safety, health, discipline, and family problems. We are actively and aggressively addressing these issues and promoting an environment and culture which

will not accept alcohol abuse. We have established a standing committee on alcohol

use ‘‘deglamorization’’ that monitors the Navy’s ‘‘Right Spirit’’ campaign and the

Marine Corps ‘‘Semper Fit’’ program. These initiatives have contributed to the declining trends in alcohol abuse.

Additionally, our ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ policy has significantly reduced drug abuse.

Positive drug-test results have declined from 14 percent in 1981 to less than 1 percent today. More recently, both Navy and Marine Corps have initiated pre-employment drug testing at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) which should

further reduce drug abuse within our active duty forces.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
157

Housing the Force

Properly housing our personnel and their families remains a core quality-of-life

issue. New initiatives underway in family housing, bachelor quarters, and housing

allowances underpin our commitment. The military housing privatization authorities are rapidly becoming the sharpest tools in our kit. Erasing maintenance and

repair backlogs and suitable-housing deficits hinges on the careful use of these authorities, in concert with the traditional application of appropriated dollars. Changes

to the housing compensation system now provide allowances that more closely

match actual housing costs.

The availability of family housing program dollars continues to challenge the Department in its desire to eliminate maintenance and repair backlogs. With more

than 45,000 homes in need of major repair or replacement, the Department is developing projects to be funded through a combination of family housing funds and an

aggressive public-private venture (P/PV) program. By calling upon the strengths and

capabilities of private-sector housing providers and experts, the P/PV authorities

will allow the Department to accelerate revitalization goals and stimulate the development of quality housing units.

The Navy is reexamining the requirements necessary to achieve the barracks

standard of ‘‘1∂1’’ (e.g., two single-occupant rooms that share restroom and bathing

facilities) for permanent-party personnel in grades E–1 through E–4 and have committed to the development of installation-level implementation plans. The Navy plan

will be completed by April 1998. Construction funds have been programmed through

the current Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to help the Navy attain the ‘‘1∂1’’

goal. The Marine Corps plan began in fiscal year 1996 by identifying priorities at

each installation, based upon projected manning requirements, the current inventory of adequate spaces, and proposed new construction. As an interim step in executing its plan, the Marine Corps has programmed more than triple the historic

funding level to replace approximately 10,000 inadequate barracks spaces and meet

a ‘‘2∂0’’ standard by 2005 (e.g., double-occupant room with a private restroom and

bathing facility).

Child Care

Affordable, high-quality child care also is a critical quality-of-life requirement. Initiatives to expand availability include: contracting for spaces in qualified off-base civilian centers, expanding family child care to incorporate off-base residences, enhancing our resource and referral program, school-age care partnerships, and regional contracts with local providers.

Community and Family Support

Rounding out quality-of-life services for Marines, Sailors and families are community support programs, entailing individual and family support services. A full range

of family support services, emphasizing basic skills for living, are available. The Marine Corps’ formal Key Volunteer Network Program and the Navy’s Ombudsman

Program work at the grass roots level to assist spouses and families while the service member is deployed. In addition, the Marine Corps is implementing LINKS (lifestyle, insights, networking, knowledge, and skills) to assist new families adapt to

life in the Marine Corps. These outreach efforts are an integral part of readiness

and retention.

Single Sailors and Marines represent the largest category of personnel in our

Armed Forces. Typically, they live in modest accommodations, and need programs

which enhance their physical and mental readiness, provide recreational opportunities, and offer meaningful and beneficial activities during off-duty hours. The single

Sailor and Marine programs address these specific needs. Initiatives include safe

and secure storage for personal belongings and vehicles during deployment, pierside laundry facilities for those who live on board ship or are deployed overseas, and

quality fitness equipment. The Great Lakes Training Center even has a recreational

facility, providing activities for recruits during the recruit training curriculum.

Meeting Spiritual Needs

Quality of life for Sailors and Marines also means ministry at sea, in battalions,

on flight lines, and in housing areas. More than 900 chaplains in the Navy, including 350 serving with Marine Corps units, mold values by facilitating the free exercise of religious faith, providing around-the-clock pastoral care and counsel, and encouraging spiritual growth. As key players during crises, chaplains provide intervention skills and spiritual, emotional, and practical support during times of personal

loss, bereavement, and transition. Chaplains interact with Family Service Centers,

the Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society, American Red Cross, and other agencies

to ensure that military personnel always receive superb support.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
158

Drug Demand Reduction Task Force

The Secretary of the Navy’s Drug Demand Reduction Task Force (DDRTF) continues its contribution to the war on drugs and is committed to increasing Navy and

Marine Corps readiness. The cornerstone program, drug education for youth

(DEFY), provides constant positive influence for 9- to 12-year-old children of Sailors

and Marines. In 1998, the DDRTF is producing television public service announcements, spotlighting the ‘‘It’s a Life or Drugs Situation’’ campaign.

Serving our Retired Shipmates

We are committed to fulfilling our promises to the more than 460,000 Naval Service Retirees. The Navy and Marine Corps have established Retired Activities Offices

worldwide, manned by volunteers who provide counseling and assistance to retirees

and family members.

Health and Fitness

The goal of the health promotions program is to develop physical health and readiness of all Department of the Navy military personnel. Progress in achieving and

maintaining a healthy lifestyle is evaluated through semiannual physical fitness

and body-composition testing programs. Today’s Sailors and Marines are more fit

and healthier than at any other time in our nation’s history.

Morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs support the mental and physical

readiness of our Sailors. Our fitness and sports activities are the cornerstones of our

approach to ensure all Sailors meet mandatory fitness standards. Our main focus

is to engage naval personnel in a comprehensive fitness program for the benefit of

the individual, the unit in which they serve, and the Department as a whole.

To better prepare Marines for the rigors of combat, the Marine Corps is developing training and education programs that will provide access to basic sports-medicine information. These courses will be offered on the Internet and in CD–ROM format. Sports medicine and rehabilitation therapy (SMART) clinics at both San Diego

and Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depots were established to assist recruits

who receive sports-related injuries during their initial training. In addition, Marine

Corps Base, Quantico, has established the Wellness Center in Larson Gym, to provide preventive medical care.

Medical

Quality health care is the hallmark of Navy medicine. In recent years, average

accreditation scores for Navy hospitals have been in the 90th percentile, exceeding

average civilian hospital scores.

Navy medicine will continue to find innovative ways to provide medical and dental care as close to the worksite as possible. Pierside clinics, deployment of healthcare specialists with the operating forces, and new programs at recruit training activities that save valuable training time by delivering health care to trainees on-site

are just the first steps.

New technology enables the Navy to provide specialty consultation in remote

areas and achieve cost and time savings by reducing the need to transport patients.

It also greatly enhances the ability to provide quality health care for forward-deployed operating forces and at remote medical treatment facilities. The successful

telemedicine technology developed in our operational testbed, George Washington

(CVN 73), is now being applied to support operational medical services in other locations.

Navy medicine is committed to providing an atmosphere of health care excellence.

Guiding Navy medicine are three basic themes: taking health care to the deckplates;

moving information not people; and making TRICARE work. TRICARE’s triple option health plan offers opportunities to reduce family member out-of-pocket expenses

and improves health care access. While the HMO option of TRICARE (Prime) is

most likely the best choice for most family members and retirees, the program offers

traditional fee-for-service options for those who prefer more freedom of choice in selecting a health care provider.

We are working to improve the ways we assist people who have experienced problems with the health care system. We demonstrated a TRICARE Advocacy Plan at

several facilities recently which has shown very promising results. The Department

plans to expand this program to more Navy and Marine Corps bases.

In conjunction with the Department of Defense and other Services, the Navy is

working to ensure TRICARE’s success. As TRICARE approaches full implementation in 1998, delivery of patient-focused, consistent health care to all beneficiaries,

regardless of geographical location, remains our goal.

Beneficiary education and customer-focused marketing are some of our important

priorities. The Navy and Marine Corps leadership is promoting improvement of

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
159

services and our response to the needs of Sailors, Marines, retirees, and family

members. Encouraging current legislative authority allows the Department of Defense to proceed with the Medicare subvention demonstration project. Although the

subvention test sites have yet to be approved, Navy is preparing to participate in

this important demonstration. Working with DOD and the other services, we look

forward to demonstrating our ability to offer TRICARE Prime to our valued retirees

age 65 and older. We also are continuing to assess options to improve access to medical care for our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Indeed, we estimate that only half

of our medicare-eligible population lives near a military treatment facility and

would therefore not be eligible to join TRICARE even if it were authorized across

the country. Navy supports all initiatives to assess alternative health care options

for our retirees. We are acutely aware of the ‘‘broken promise’’ of lifetime care expressed by many retirees, especially those over 65 years old and not eligible for

TRICARE. Recent efforts by DOD to review options to the present programs are

fully supported by the Department. Our study of this issue will hopefully help us

develop an equitable and consistent health plan for all retirees.

READINESS

Today’s Readiness: Mission Capable

The Department’s forward-deployed naval forces remain the most viable means

for the nation to respond rapidly to contingencies around the world. On any given

day, one-third of our ships, submarines, squadrons, and Marine units are deployed

overseas. Multiple demands placed on non-deployed forces—units that recently returned from a deployment or are preparing for an upcoming commitment—require

nearly one-half of these assets to be at sea or away from home port during that

same day. Never has the Department asked more of its people and equipment during peacetime than today. Yet, the Navy and Marine Corps team remains ready, in

all respects, to execute fully its many mission areas.

Continuous naval presence in critical regions worldwide provides the National

Command Authorities (NCA) a wide range of military capabilities. A visible, credible

force possessing deep strike, amphibious, command and control, peacekeeping, and

even environmental compliance enforcement capabilities is core to this nation’s

standing as the preeminent superpower. Presence is the key—and naval forces provide it every day in every corner of the world.

Through their continued forward presence, naval forces help maintain global stability. Even though the fleet and the number of Sailors and Marines in uniform

have been reduced, we remain ready to protect America’s interest both at home and

abroad. However, with a smaller force available to maintain the same level of commitment, it becomes increasingly important that non-deployed forces complete required repairs and training as scheduled. This is necessary in order to have units

fully ready to meet follow-on forward-deployed operational commitments and overseas presence missions. Although the incremental costs for contingency operations

are relatively small due to our forward presence, we must still divert programmed

operations, maintenance, and training funds away from non-deployed forces to support such requirements. In the past, these actions were nearly transparent due to

the size of the fleet. But with today’s smaller force, absent supplemental appropriations, such actions have a more noticeable effect on readiness.

Tomorrow’s Readiness Challenge

Readiness remains a top priority and the fundamental gauge by which the NavyMarine Corps team measures its ability to respond to current and future national

tasking. Accordingly, we constantly monitor and assess our readiness to determine

the right fiscal balance among operations, modernization, and recapitalization accounts. The Department’s readiness monitoring system has proved reliable in identifying deficiencies quickly so that appropriate action can be taken.

Naval forces are operating at a satisfactory, but lower, level of readiness. Today,

deployed and non-deployed readiness continues to remain sufficient to meet all National Military Strategy commitments. We continue to assess the balance between

operational and procurement accounts to ensure that we do not jeopardize our ability to transition instantly from peace to crisis to conflict.

Readiness is not only limited to our ability to meet today’s commitment; our readiness must be able to answer both near-term and long-term requirements as well.

Providing the necessary tools our people need to operate both today and into the

future is essential to maintaining operational primacy. Our current equipment readiness remains satisfactory. In some major warfighting systems where it is cost-effective, equipment is being remanufactured or given a service-life extension (SLEP) to

keep it operational. Two aircraft types, the electronic warfare EA–6B Prowler and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
160

the maritime patrol P–3C Orion, are perfect examples of systems that are upgraded

to keep their warfighting edge. Other major weapon systems are substantially upgraded to provide a bridge to future systems. The F/A–18E/F Super Hornet and the

remanufactured AV–8B Harrier will ensure Naval air superiority and potent strike

options are maintained until the Joint Strike Fighter joins the fleet. Likewise, the

retrofit of the AAV–P7 amphibious assault vehicle will keep it capable of conducting

its mission until the advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV) becomes operational.

The Department is also formulating innovative systems for the future that will

improve long-term readiness. Even as the most modern ships in the world leave the

shipyards, active research and development efforts and budget conscious procurement plans for their replacement are underway. For example, 13 more Arleigh

Burke (DDG 51)-class destroyers will join the fleet in the next four years under a

cost-effective multilayer procurement plan, yet we are developing an innovative DD–

21 design for next century. The Navy’s budget request includes funding for CVN–

77. Its design will make it an affordable transition carrier for a new concept ship,

the CVX. The New Attack Submarine and the San Antonio (LPD 17)-class amphibious ship are innovative replacements for their aging predecessors and are necessary

to maintain long-term readiness. The vast amount of work in research, development,

and fielding of Navy theater missile defense systems is yet another example of longterm investments that are paying off today. In short, aggressive long-range planning

ensures Marines and Sailors will continue to have the tools that they require, at

an affordable price.

We also are examining innovative ideas to substantially reduce overhead costs.

Smart Ship and Smart Base are initiatives to find ways to reduce personnel requirements on board our ships and bases. Similarly, we are investigating innovative technologies to improve efficiency and reduce crew size in new ship designs such as CVX

and DD–21. Regardless of whether we are giving new life to existing systems or taking a technological leap into systems of the next century, proper funding of modernization accounts is critical to our continued operational primacy and future readiness. Striking the correct balance between current and future readiness is vital.

Safety: Reducing the Risks

Effective operational safety and occupational health programs are fundamental to

preserving our resources and protecting our Sailors, Marines, and civilian employees

from the daily hazards they face around the world. The Department’s commitment

to saving lives, and ensuring a high level of personnel and equipment readiness,

have led to its unparalleled emphasis on safety programs.

In response to congressional concerns, the Office of the Secretary of Defense chartered a Defense Science Board Task Force on Aviation Safety. The Department of

the Navy supports the key task force recommendations including efforts to achieve

a goal of zero mishaps, to institutionalize operational risk management (ORM) and

to increase implementation of key commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) aviation-safety

technologies.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps and Chief of Naval Operations have signed

new instructions that implement ORM. Training courses are under way to incorporate ORM into our daily operational routines. The Naval Safety Center provided

an ORM ‘‘Train the Trainer’’ course, in order to jump-start implementation of operational risk management. The Marine Corps Combat Development Command and

the Naval Doctrine Command are incorporating and embedding ORM in doctrinal

publications. The Chief of Naval Education and Training and Marine Corps University will begin formal instruction of ORM during fiscal year 1998. Additionally, the

Naval aviation Human Factors Quality Management Board (HF/QMB), started in

1996, has made huge strides in addressing human factors causes in mishaps, while

serving as a platform to review technologies, policies, standardization, information

dissemination, and cultural issues.

The Navy and Marine Corps Class A operational mishap rate in fiscal year 1997

was second lowest ever. Navy aviation set a new record for safety in fiscal year

1997, including going 118 days without a Class A mishap. Leadership involvement

and focus on operational safety, accountability, and implementation of ORM were

instrumental in achieving this significant milestone. Current naval safety-of-flight

programs include cockpit voice and flight data recorders, global positioning systems

(GPS), ground proximity warning systems (GPWS), and helicopter health usage

monitoring systems (HUMS) providing enhancements that will ensure long-term

operational success and loss reduction.

Aviation commands are developing and employing flight risk assessment and aircraft risk assessment matrices. A computer-based squadron assistance/risk assessment (SARA) program, developed by Boeing Military Aircraft Company (formerly

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
161

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace) in cooperation with Marine Aircraft Group-13, will

be incorporated into all Marine Corps squadrons in fiscal year 1998. Navy aviation

units are preparing to adopt SARA. Additionally, the 3d Marines, an infantry regiment, significantly reduced mishaps by incorporating ORM into all training and exercises.

These operational safety and survivability initiatives, implemented in conjunction

with the Naval Safety Center, the Naval Postgraduate School, and Fleet and Fleet

Marine Force (FMF) units, are reducing characteristic losses of the past. In units

that activated the HF/QMB to address human factors in aviation, there was a 45

percent reduction in mishaps and have operated for more than 580 days without an

operational flight fatality. The previous fatality-free record was 170 days. New windows of human performance information and opportunity are being explored. The

recent surge exercise by U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN 68) proved to be an excellent opportunity to measure the effect of fatigue. Through such efforts, we are moving swiftly

toward the goal of reducing losses due to human factors by 90 percent in five years.

The Department of the Navy remains committed to maintaining the balance between current readiness and aggressive modernization, which is critical to future

readiness. Judiciously applying fiscal resources, improving safety records, and maintaining equipment contributes to today’s readiness. Carefully planning for tomorrow

through sound modernization practices will help create the most cost-effective force.

TECHNOLOGY: INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION

The last decade showcases the diverse types of missions the Navy and Marine

Corps undertake. From combat operations to disaster relief, from humanitarian assistance to civilian evacuations, our forces will need to adapt even more to the challenging operations of the future.

The explosion of new technologies has transformed the way militaries conduct

warfare. Capabilities available today were not considered possible a mere decade

ago. It is evident that the growth rate of these technologies will continue to accelerate. This phenomenon of rapid expansion in technology requires that the Navy and

Marine Corps become experts in the innovative application of emerging technology

to new and existing weapon systems. Innovation is critical in order to transform the

aggregate impact of leading-edge technology into battlespace dominance. Together,

the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory and the Navy At-Sea Battle Labs provide

a venue to institutionalize innovation within the Department of the Navy.

Marine Corps Warfighting Lab.—The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory

(MCWL) is the test bed for warfighting innovations within the Marine Corps. The

MCWL investigates concepts and technologies and coordinates results with other

Marine Corps organizations, defense industry, scientific research labs, academia,

and the other military services. The MCWL developed the five year experimentation

plan (FYEP), which consists of three phases, and is the cornerstone document for

concept-based experimentation and the introduction of science and technology into

the operating forces. Each phase is composed of limited-objective experiments (LOE)

and culminates in an advanced warfighting experiment (AWE). The first phase,

called Hunter Warrior, was completed in March 1997 and examined the contribution

that a Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) could make if provided with selected

conceptual and technological improvements. Through the use of: enhanced targeting;

precision fires; command, control, communications, computer and intelligence (C4I);

and a limited deep operational maneuver capability—a force resembling a notional

Marine expeditionary unit demonstrated a capability to shape the battlefield beyond

current force-employment options. The next phase, Urban Warrior, will examine

MAGTF operations in the urban littoral environment. This will be an advanced

warfighting experiment (AWE) conducted on the east and west coasts of the United

States in densely populated urban centers. Following Urban Warrior, the first FiveYear Experimentation Plan will culminate in Capable Warrior. This last AWE will

experiment with naval expeditionary forces in an urban littoral environment.

Navy At-Sea Battle Labs.—Reflecting the inherent mobility of naval forces, the

Navy’s battle labs are not single physical entities, but rather the fleet itself. To

bring technology and operational concepts together with real world conditions, the

Navy employs fleet units as at-sea battle labs. Creating a virtual laboratory, the

Navy initiated a series of fleet battle experiments (FBE) that use operational forces

engaged in training exercises. The FBE’s take forward-looking programs and integrate them with innovative operational concepts. These experiments focus on future

programs that align the Navy with Joint Vision 2010 and other emerging operational concepts. In September 1997, the Third Fleet sponsored a sensor-to-shooter

demonstration as part of Fleet Battle Experiment Bravo. A SEAL team on the

ground in China Lake, California, transmitted an image of a target, via satellite,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
162

to San Diego. The image was transferred to a classified web page and downloaded

to Coronado (AGF 11), the Third Fleet flagship. The final destination for the target

image was the cockpit of an F/A–18, enabling the pilot to see the target, fly to it,

and conduct a successful air strike. After the strike, the target image was retransmitted to the same locations to aid battle-damage assessment.

Network Centric Warfare.—In April 1997, the Chief of Naval Operations declared

that the Navy was shifting from platform-centric to network-centric warfare. This

is warfare which derives its power from the networking of a well-informed but geographically-dispersed force. The enabling elements are a highly-webbed information

service, access to all appropriate information sources, weapons reach with precision

and speed of response, value-adding command-and-control processes—to include

high-speed, automated assignment of resources to need—and integrated sensors

hosted on the information network and closely coupled in time to the shooters and

command-and-control processes. Network-centric warfare is applicable to all levels

of warfare and contributes to the coalescence of strategy, operations, and tactics. It

is transparent to mission, force size, and composition, and geography.

Information Technology 21.—Joint Vision 2010 highlighted the critical role information plays in the success of military operations. Increased processing power, networking capabilities, and software enhancements will have a dramatic and decisive

impact on future warfighting. Under the Information Technology-21 (IT–21) concept,

the Navy is building a communications-and-networking backbone that will support

the rapid exchange of information between naval and joint platforms. New doctrine

and organizations also are being developed to allow the Navy to take full advantage

of these changes.

Trader’s War Game Series (1995–1997).—In 1995, the Marine Corps initiated an

effort to address a key reality of the future battlefield: widely dispersed units relying on longer range engagement through indirect fires, with the concomitant problem of engagement coordination, stressing information management and rapid, intuitive decision-making and pattern analysis. The initial phase of this program was

conducted at the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) to extract relevant lessons from the daily ‘‘information war’’ occurring on the trading floor. This program

is now poised to consider other nonmilitary organizations that confront the rapid decision-making dilemma, including large city police and fire departments, search and

rescue organizations, the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control process, and medical trauma units.

Wall Street Game.—The Naval War College brought an eclectic group of professionals together to conduct a war game at the World Trade Center. Wall Street leaders, government experts on trade and finance, bankers, foreign policy specialists,

and military officers from all the services examined the impact of a major regional

conflict in the Middle East on trade and international financial markets. The war

game also examined the market effects of systematic information warfare on power

grids, telecommunication systems, and banking data bases. Its lessons learned will

enrich our understanding of the symbiotic relationship between international

events, communication systems, energy infrastructures, and military affairs.

Exploiting Technology in Major Programs

After technology and innovative concepts are identified, tested, and validated, the

Department of the Navy’s acquisition process ensures technology insertion into important programs. Some examples include:

F/A–18 E/F.—Throughout the development of the F/A–18E/F, the insertion of key

technological capabilities and sensible systems engineering trade-offs were made resulting in an affordable aircraft that is second to none. Its use of current and cutting-edge technologies make it a cost effective aircraft with sufficient growth potential to meet long term threats and evolving requirements. For example, the extensive use of composite materials in an enlarged airframe, combined with a new engine, extended the range of the Super Hornet by 40–50 percent, greatly improved

its ability to stay ‘‘on station’’ in support of ground forces, and increased its weapons

payload over that of the F/A–18C/D. The combination of radar cross-section reduction, defensive electronic countermeasures, better endurance, and integration of

standoff weapons improved survivability in a balanced, affordable way. It has vastly

superior offensive capabilities due to the integration of joint standoff guided munitions, combined with sufficient growth margins to accept next generation electronics

and weaponry.

CVX.—This next generation nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is scheduled to begin

construction in 2006 to replace Enterprise (CVN 65). To accomplish the dramatic

technological changes which are envisioned, CVX will begin a formal 5–6 year design process in 2000. This process will include a comprehensive research and development effort to determine the best CVX big-deck carrier design. The result of this

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
163

study will be a carrier that has substantially lower life cycle costs, improved capabilities, and more flexibility. The new carrier fleet must accommodate a dynamic

range of missions in an increasingly uncertain world. CVX, with a projected 50 year

life, will be the centerpiece of a carrier fleet that will lead naval aviation well into

the next century.

New Attack Submarine (NSSN).—NSSN will be the most technologically advanced

submarine the Navy has developed, with built-in flexibility to ensure easy insertion

of new technologies. Additionally, it is being designed and built with a host of advanced technology systems that can be broadly grouped into four categories:

—Operational-Requirements: new technologies, such as the lightweight wide-aperture array, and a more advanced electromagnetic silencing system that support

warfighting improvements.

—Affordability: technologies that reduce overall cost, such as modular isolated

deck structures, an open-system architecture command and control system for

easy technology upgrades, and a ‘‘life of the ship’’ reactor core.

—Re-engineering: use of existing submarine technology that can be scaled to the

NSSN, such as the ultraquiet, high-power-density main propulsion unit, and

weapons launch and handling system components, which will be smaller, fewer,

and less expensive than those on Seawolf (SSN 21).

—Environmental Requirements: technologies to set the standard in environmental

compliance, such as non-ozone depleting air-conditioning plants and less hazardous hull coatings.

DD–21.—DD–21, the designation given to the first ship in the SC–21 class Land

Attack Destroyer, will represent a dramatic advance in precision strike and naval

surface fire support for forces ashore. By including industry early in the design process, many of the ship characteristics and systems designs will exploit leading-edge

commercial technologies and commercial supportability. The ship will possess a single, fiber-optic based, real-time distributed computing environment, using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) processors and user-friendly common displays. This system

alone will significantly reduce the number of Sailors required to operate, maintain

and support the ship. The integration of Joint C4ISR systems will permit the creation of a real-time tactical picture needed to respond to calls for fire from troops

ashore in a timely and accurate manner. An advanced multifunction radar, fully integrated shallow-water-capable sonar system, cooperative engagement capability,

and extended-range guided munitions will ensure that DD–21 plays a significant

role in supporting three-dimensional battlespace dominance, at sea and ashore. In

order to operate extensively in the littoral, DD–21 will possess full-spectrum signature reduction, active and passive self-defense systems, and will incorporate cuttingedge survivability features. A highly efficient hull form, along with fuel efficient propulsion, will support significant reductions in operating costs.

MV–22 Osprey.—The MV–22 Osprey is a revolutionary, advanced technology, vertical and short takeoff and landing (V/STOL), multipurpose aircraft that provides

the performance of a turboprop transport with the hovering capability of a helicopter. With more than 78 percent of the MV–22’s load-bearing structural weight

fabricated from composites, the aircraft is more than 700 pounds below the specification weight. Increased reliability and maintainability have been part of the MV–

22 design process from the start. Maintenance, as all other aspects of MV–22, has

been tested for human factors such as adequate access, reduction of MV–22 unique

tools, and use of on board monitoring systems that determine when components

need replacement by providing extensive fault-detection capabilities. The MV–22

construction also incorporates many features that enhance its combat survivability,

including: composite structural components that provide increased ballistic tolerance; triple-redundant, digital fly-by-wire flight controls; and a cabin overpressurization system that provides chemical and biological protection.

Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).—The AAAV uses the most powerdense diesel engine in the world. The AAAV also is the first U.S. combat vehicle

to use fully retractable hydro-pneumatic suspension units, providing land mobility

equivalent to or better than the M–1A1 main battle tank. For high-water speed propulsion, the AAAV uses two newly developed internal 23-inch waterjets. Speeds in

excess of 20 knots are achieved by retracting its suspension and deploying appendages to create a large planing surface. The AAAV is incorporating recent advances

in embedded training and electronic technical-manual technologies, as well as stateof-the-art diagnostics capabilities. The vehicle incorporates the newest nuclear, biological and chemical protection system, and it has a fully stabilized turret capable

of mounting a variety of weapons that are more accurate and lethal than currently

fielded weapons. Finally, the AAAV armor is composed of state-of-the-art ceramic

tile on advanced composites, providing ballistic protection while reducing the vehicle’s weight.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
164

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).—JSF represents a Department of Defense initiative to

produce an advanced aircraft with extensive capabilities at a minimum cost. Advances in technology promise to create an aircraft with substantial combat mission

radius, high survivability against air defenses, and a potent payload. Advances in

electronics, composite materials, flight control design, aircraft propulsion, and manufacturing processes are at the core of these capabilities. Technological innovations

will allow JSF to be a multi-role aircraft capable of maritime operations as well as

short-take-off and vertical-landing flight operations.

Non-Lethal Weapons Development.—The four services and the U.S. Special Operations Command have joined together in an effort to field quickly a low-cost alternative to lethal weapons.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, as the Department of Defense’s executive

agent, has taken several aggressive steps to organize and coordinate the efforts in

this critical area. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate serves as the focal

point for all DOD nonlethal weapons activity, as well as a clearinghouse for exchange of unclassified information on nonlethal technologies with other U.S agencies

and foreign governments. Efforts to date have provided operational forces with nonlethal weapons, to include: 40 mm sponge, sting-ball, and foam baton rounds; tactical water cannons; and hand grenade dye markers.

Research and Development Opportunities

History has demonstrated that superior technology can provide a decisive edge in

warfighting. The Department’s fiscal year 1997 science and technology program developed new technology options to meet the worldwide spread of warfare capabilities. Basic research programs expanded our fundamental knowledge of maritime

sciences and engineering, materials, and information sciences; our applied research

exploited and evaluated technology options for specific naval problems; advanced

technology development programs demonstrated the operational capability of new

technologies—as stand-alone systems and as enhancements to existing systems; and

our manufacturing technology programs worked to ensure novel technologies can be

affordably manufactured.

Because technology opportunities always are richer than the available resources,

funds were leveraged through partnerships with the other services, government

agencies, academia, and industry for many programs. For example, successful fiscal

year 1997 program partnerships included the joint countermine advanced concept

technology demonstration; SandyDuck 97, a comprehensive field study of coastal dynamics, an area vitally important for nearshore naval operations; the thermal spray

nanoscale coatings initiative, which developed a new coating for ships, aircraft, and

land vehicles to prevent wear and erosion; and the power electronic building blocks

program, which promises to revolutionize naval and commercial power systems.

During fiscal year 1997, basic naval research investments had global implications,

including the discovery of the atom laser, successful testing of a combination of antirejection drugs for transplant recipients, and a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry.

Navy medical researchers continue to work on several initiatives to reduce the number of battlefield deaths from loss of blood. These efforts will not only improve delivery of lifesaving blood products to casualties in a combat environment, but also

would relieve the logistical demands of storing and regularly replenishing different

blood types.

While our future adversaries may not be known, it is very clear that emerging

technologies have forever altered our concept of future conflicts. The role of technology and our ability to exploit its advances demands that the Navy and Marine

Corps maintain a robust science and technology program to research, develop, apply,

and perfect revolutionary technologies. It is imperative that the Department of the

Navy support a solid basic and applied research effort so that tomorrow’s conflicts

are fought with the most technologically advanced systems available.

Exploiting Technology to Improve Training

Increased use of distributive training and distance learning and technology have

the potential to change dramatically the way we train and educate Sailors and Marines. Just as modern weaponry has influenced warfighting, investments in education technology will shape the way in which we teach and train our force. Sailors

and Marines from around the globe, ashore and at sea, will have continual access

to instructors and educators previously available only to resident students. The Department’s training and education plans emphasize that an investment in modernization and recapitalization in educational technology will improve training effectiveness for better performance and operational readiness of our fighting force.

The Department is exploring a variety of advanced technologies for developing

and delivering instructional products where they are most needed. In the near fuU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
165

ture, Sailors and Marines can expect to use the internet and intranets, learning resource centers (LRC’s), interactive multimedia instruction (IMI), video tele-training

(VTT), and embedded training (ET) to learn new skills.

The Navy modeling and simulation (M&S) roadmap focuses on utilizing M&S

tools to enhance operational training, in port and under way. Current Navy M&S

initiatives include: research, evaluation, and system analysis (RESA) maritime simulation, which is used to replicate naval systems and movements in wargaming; and

the enhanced naval wargaming system (ENWGS). ENWGS is a computer-based simulation system which provides realistic wargaming in all aspects of naval warfare,

from the tactical to strategic level of play, and provides pertinent decision-making

training for battle group staffs. The next-generation M&S training tool is the joint

simulation system (JSIMS). JSIMS-Maritime will be the primary M&S tool to support operational training, education, mission rehearsal, and doctrine development.

The Marine Corps received an addendum to the Joint ORD to include Marine Corps

specific requirements. It also will complete the JSIMS-Maritime concept of operations and initiate its conceptual modeling effort. Finally, interactive multi-sensor

analysis training (IMAT) is revolutionizing undersea warfare training. IMAT uses

advanced computer visualizations of threat platforms, environmental effects, and

sensor/processor systems, to build conceptual training for complex sensor operation

and tactical planning tasks. IMAT has been adopted by aviation warfare and by

ship sonar technician apprentice schools, and is being used in 13 advanced courses.

The Marine Corps modeling and simulation master plan (MCMSMP) articulates

M&S vision, objectives, and management framework for Marine Corps. The Marine

Corps M&S investment strategy (MCMSIS) delineates the Marine Corps plan to

achieve the desired M&S end state. These documents provide a common structure

for coordinating M&S within the Total force, and will be combined into a single comprehensive plan in early 1998. Examples of progress under the MCMSMP and

MCMSIS include the construction of a Range Instrumentation Systems Concept Exploration Experiment at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center in

Twentynine Palms, California. This experiment led successfully to the production of

the Operational Requirement Document for Range Instrumentation Systems. Additionally, Marine Corps is fully vested in high level architecture compliance mandated by the Department of Defense, in close coordination with the Navy.

EFFICIENCY: EXPLOITING THE REVOLUTION IN BUSINESS AFFAIRS

Acquisition Reform

The Department of the Navy’s research, development and acquisition team continues to be the engine for developing, procuring and supporting technologically superior and affordable systems for the Navy and the Marine Corps, as well as joint and

allied forces. These critical goals are being attained through strategic acquisition reforms, the application of a range of tools, and the implementation of the Federal

Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act.

The Department of the Navy is confronting key management issues and developing tools such as ‘‘cost as an independent variable’’ (CAIV) to reduce total ownership

costs. Acquisition specialists are inserting commercial dual-use technologies into

fielded weapon systems, to make operations and support costs more affordable. The

Department is accelerating the move from military specifications and standards to

performance-based specifications through Navy-developed software tools such as

TURBO STREAMLINER, SPECRIGHT!, and the Single Plant Process initiative.

Acquisition Center of Excellence.—The Department of the Navy is committed to

developing the infrastructure that enables large distributed work teams to produce

higher quality systems at reduced cost over a shorter period of time. The embodiment of this commitment is the Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE), an institution that will serve as a test bed and development site for the Navy’s simulationbased acquisition (SBA) effort. The SBA initiative is expected to revolutionize the

design and procurement of major systems, thus reducing total life-cycle cost and acquisition time.

Acquisition Work Force.—Today’s acquisition workforce is approximately half the

size it was in 1989, numbering 95,895 as defined in the Fiscal Year 1998 DOD Authorization Act at the end of fiscal year 1997. Reducing the work force has been

steady and controlled, accomplished largely through retirement incentives, base realignment and closure actions, and organizational restructuring. At the same time,

procurement has become more technologically complex and the expectations of the

fleet even greater. As we further reduce manpower levels to 86,868 by the end of

fiscal year 2003, it is imperative that the acquisition force structure be composed

of the right people, with a balanced education, training, and skill mixture.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
166

The Department has had difficulty over the past several years bringing young

people into the acquisition field. To meet this challenge, the Department implemented a plan during the past year that triples the acquisition intern program. This

initiative should help to ensure the availability of highly qualified people to fill senior acquisition positions.

Acquisition Reform Success Stories.—The Department’s bold approach is reflected

in many successes. Some examples include: —F–14 Precision Strike Fighter Team.—This program has demonstrated what

teamwork and innovative thinking can accomplish. Partnering with Lockheed

Martin, the team used the LANTIRN targeting system to give the F–14 a night

and precision-guided munitions delivery capability. The first fully operational

system was deployed 223 days after contract award, two years ahead of schedule. By using commercial off-the-shelf technology, the team realized significant

savings estimated as more than $173 million. —Chemical Biological Incident Response Force.—The Marine Corps Systems Command rapidly procured and fielded a suite of equipment to support Marine

Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) requirements.

Using an abbreviated acquisition program (AAP) strategy, commercial-off-theshelf (COTS) and non-developmental items (NDI) were examined. Equipment

for the CBIRF was acquired to fulfill mission-critical and mission-essential requirements. Procurement and delivery of equipment to CBIRF was accomplished in less than nine months time.

Joint Maritime Communications Strategy (JMCOMS).—JMCOMS will provide an

extensive communications infrastructure to meet tactical and support communications requirements. Capabilities range from real-time transmission of intelligence

and weapons targeting data to the ability of our men and women at sea to communicate directly with loved ones at home. The Navy has reduced system acquisition

time from 4–7 years to less than 2 years. Using innovative architecture, one key

subsystem—the UHF miniaturized digital assigned multiple access (mini-DAMA)

terminal—achieved savings estimated at 50 percent of acquisition costs and 30 percent of total life cycle costs, compared to previous terminals.

Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS).—This multinational cooperative development program is aggressively using open systems architecture,

commercial products, innovative acquisition streamlining techniques, and cost as an

independent variable. The terminal architecture implements nonproprietary open

commercial standards that will facilitate technology insertion throughout the life

cycle of the program. The average recurring unit cost of MIDS has been reduced

from an early estimate of $428,000 to well below $250,000. The technical and costs

management success of the program has attracted the attention of numerous European nations.

Tactical Air Moving Map Capability (TAMMAC).—The TAMMAC team developed

an integrated acquisition and logistics concept that emphasized current technology,

standardized unit configuration for all aircraft, minimized use of military specifications and maximized use of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware and organization-tocommercial depot maintenance. Traditional internal configuration control responsibility for system components was transferred to the original equipment manufacturers, improving the visibility of manufacturing resource and industrial base

issues. The TAMMAC cost savings estimates are more than $360 million over the

life of the system, with an 83 percent reduction of required spares.

Infrastructure Reform

Infrastructure reductions have not kept pace with force-structure reductions. Previous reductions in infrastructure as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC) process have proved helpful in bringing fleet and force support costs down.

Additional reductions under a similar program are needed to bring our infrastructure in line with our smaller force. To this end, the Department is conducting an

ongoing review of our organizations and our policies for operations, maintenance,

personnel, and training. We must run our ‘‘businesses’’ much as the private sector

does—with a minimum of duplication and red tape, and a maximum of service and

responsiveness. Any efficiencies gained through a leaner infrastructure can be invested in force modernization and readiness.

Two issues are critical to our efforts to increase efficiency: our regional maintenance strategy and the application of state-of-the-market business practices to reduce infrastructure costs.

Regional Maintenance Strategy.—The regional maintenance strategy implements

a fundamental restructuring and consolidation of our shore maintenance capabilities. During the past 3 years, the Navy has established 7 regional maintenance centers. These new maintenance organizations have contributed significantly to mainU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
167

taining high deployed fleet readiness despite a challenging operational tempo, base

realignments and closures, repair ship decommissionings, and decreased resources.

By aggressively executing the Navy’s regional maintenance strategy, our industrial resources are more fully utilized, particularly in the repair and maintenance

depots. Regional repair centers are moving into depots and are jointly manned by

civilian and military technicians. Consequently, regional facility footprints and associated expenses are being reduced. Job planning, coordination, material support,

and information distribution improvements and integrations are well under way.

For example, the most recent pilot initiative at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, provides a

methodical, phased approach to integrate completely the resources of the Naval Intermediate Maintenance Facility and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard into a new

maintenance organization. The resulting consolidated workforce forms a common

manpower resource pool that can be efficiently and effectively assigned as required.

A project management strategy will be used that is both responsive and cost efficient for all types of repair and maintenance work.

State-of-the-Market Business Practices.—The first step to implement new business

practices is to create an organizational structure that accelerates positive process

changes. Second, we need to improve installation management by focusing on business perspectives of efficiency, price competition, and customer satisfaction. Some

examples include:

—Marine Corps Continuous Process Improvement Program.—The Marine Corps

Continuous Process Improvement Program (MCCPIP) is the agent for reengineering key business processes of the combat development system (CDS).

The CDS translates concepts and requirements into integrated capabilities,

which in turn constitute the building block elements of Marine air-ground task

forces.

—Cruise Missile Command and Control Program Office.—This program office

teamed the Department of the Navy with the Defense Logistics Agency and

Federal Express to build a logistics support system that increased material

readiness while reducing logistics costs. The initiative has been a success: the

average transit time for material being requested by ship has been reduced

from 32 to 6.5 days, and overall cost avoidance to date is nearly $13 million.

Other examples of initiatives which are expected to improve operational or administrative efficiencies and reduce costs include:

Outsourcing.—In 1996, the National Performance Review (NPR), the Commission

on Roles and Mission (CORM), the Defense Science Board (DSB), the CNO’s Executive Panel and the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) recommended outsourcing noncore functions as a means of reducing overall costs of operations, improving business

processes across the Department of Defense infrastructure, and recapitalizing those

savings for modernization. The Department of the Navy has incorporated a comprehensive plan to reduce infrastructure costs through competition, privatization,

and outsourcing. An estimated 80,500 full-time equivalents (FTE’s) from the Navy

and 5,000 FTE’s from the Marine Corps have been programmed for study over the

future years defense plan. The Navy initiated studies in fiscal year 1997 on over

10,500 FTE’s and plans to study more than 15,000 FTE’s in fiscal year 1998, with

more in successive years.

Activity Based Costing (ABC).—ABC properly allocates all direct and indirect costs

for identified services and enabling management. ABC also identifies and improves

processes for reducing costs, raises cost consciousness, justifies budgets, satisfies informational requests from higher headquarters, and facilitates outsourcing cost comparisons. The Marine Corps has implemented ABC throughout the facilities maintenance organizations at continental U.S. (CONUS) installations and will expand this

capability to logistics and supply organizations over the next 2 years.

Marine Corps Force Structure Review Groups.—For years, the Fleet Marine Forces

have been operating below targeted manpower levels as we struggled to balance

structure requirements against available Marines. Using the Quadrennial Defense

Review as an opportunity for a self examination of roles, missions, and capabilities,

the Marine Corps focused on how best to organize for the challenges of the 21st century. The major objective of the active duty and reserve force structure review

groups was to identify and make recommendations to remove force structure which

no longer contributed significantly to the Marine Corps’ warfighting capability. The

successful attainment of the objective led to reductions in supporting establishment

billets and an increase to a 90 percent manning level in the Fleet Marine Forces.

In addition to the review groups, the Total Force Structure (TFS) Division was

formed at Marine Corps Combat Development Command in June 1997. This organization is continuing the evaluation of Marine Corps organizational posture as it relates to available billet structure and equipment. The review process involves a close

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
168

examination of the mission of each combat or supporting establishment element, its

organization, equipment, and the manpower required to accomplish that mission.

Regionalization.—The Navy has embarked on an aggressive effort to reinvent the

operation and management of our shore establishments to free resources for readiness and modernization. The Chief of Naval Operations, fleet commanders, major

claimants, and naval base commanders are conducting detailed analyses in Navy

concentration areas to consolidate installation management functions. The goal of

regionalization is to reduce base operating support costs through the elimination of

unnecessary management layers, duplicative overhead, and redundant functions.

Regionalization also facilitates better work force utilization, opportunities to

outsource across an entire region, standardization of processes, and regional planning and prioritization.

In another effort, Department of Defense components were directed to regionalize

base-level civilian personnel functions and reduce manpower to a 1:100 ratio between personnel specialists and the serviced population. Attainment of this servicing ratio requires reducing (by approximately 45 percent) the number of employees

providing base-level civilian personnel services by the year 2001. Regionalization

provides a return on investment by standardizing human resource services and

eliminating duplication.

Challenge of International Programs

Through international programs, the Department of the Navy provides assistance

to America’s allies and partners. Such diverse programs as Foreign Military Sales

(FMS), leases, and grants of defense articles and services; cooperative programs,

which promote bilateral interaction on a broader scale; protection of key technologies while facilitating release authority for transferable technologies; and training and education, produce mutually favorable relationships. Examples of the benefits produced by participation in international programs include:

—Cooperative research and development (R&D) projects reduced Navy R&D costs

by more than $1.6 billion since 1987;

—FMS reduces unit costs: Foreign sales of F/A–18 reduced the per unit cost by

$2.1 million, saving $2.3 billion since 1979;

—Foreign comparative testing leverages foreign non-developmental items: Existing systems and platforms like the F–14 Tomcat are modernized with digital

flight control systems;

—Security assistance helps sustain industrial base: Numerous production lines

are sustained by foreign sales.

Supporting U.S. industry and obtaining maximum results from increasingly constrained national resources are key challenges. The Department must join more efficiently and flexibly with allied nations to accomplish critical technology advances.

The core element necessary to meet this challenge is early engagement of allies,

during the missions needs analysis stage, to identify common mission problems and

acceptable performance requirements.

Recognizing the benefits as well as challenges, the United States and its allies are

increasing efforts to achieve desired efficiencies and improved warfighting effectiveness through international programs.

Environmental Issues

Effective environmental planning to meet the requirements of environmental statutes, executive orders, and regulations is essential for facilities management, acquisition programs, and military operations. Department strategies for establishing

partnerships with regulators, stabilizing funding, and reducing the cost of cleanup

at active and closing bases are paying dividends. The cleanup program cost-to-complete estimate continues to show reductions.

In the area of environmental protection, the Department has made substantial

progress with respect to shipboard pollution control. A solid-waste plan was developed for surface ships in order to comply with the Act to Prevent Pollution from

Ships. A submarine addendum to this plan is in development. Meanwhile, the Department is coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

coastal states to create uniform national discharge standards for military vessels.

At shore installations, the Department continues to serve as the Department of Defense executive agent for Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act implementation. The

Department works closely with EPA and states to ensure both compliance and protection of the military mission. The Department is achieving its natural resources

conservation goals by emphasizing stewardship of natural resources, preserving biological diversity, and developing partnerships for conservation.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
169

PROGRAMS

The following paragraphs describe the key programs involved in building the

naval forces that support and defend U.S. interests. These programs represent an

integrated—although unprioritized—snapshot of the diverse capabilities necessary

for the Navy-Marine Corps team to conduct a wide range of missions.

Shipbuilding and Naval Weapons Programs

Aircraft Carriers.—Twelve aircraft carriers form the centerpiece of naval global

forward presence and striking power. Harry S Truman (CVN 75) currently under

construction at Newport News Shipbuilding, is expected to be commissioned in fiscal

year 1998. At that time, the Navy’s oldest active commissioned carrier, Independence (CV 62), will transition to the inactive fleet. The keel for Ronald Reagan (CVN

76) has been laid for a fiscal year 2002 delivery, and CVN 77 will enter the fleet

in fiscal year 2008, as the two remaining Kitty Hawk-class carriers are retired. CVN

77 is being designed to serve as a ‘‘transition carrier’’ to the CVX, incorporating new

technologies and process design changes that will move naval aviation to a future

carrier design. The CVX will be commissioned in 2013, in time to replace Enterprise

(CVN 65), which will reach the end of its service life at 52 years. CVX will be the

most technologically advanced nuclear-powered carrier the Navy has ever developed.

It will employ technologies that reduce operating costs yet improve its warfighting

capabilities. Better survivability, more flexibility through an open architecture command and control system, an advanced aircraft launch and recovery system, a stateof-the-art propulsion system, and reduced manning will be incorporated in the new

design. It will facilitate joint and combined operations and will give the nation a

more flexible and less costly big-deck aircraft carrier for the next century.

Amphibious Lift.—The current amphibious lift modernization plan is formed

around the 12 amphibious ready groups (ARG’s) needed to meet the nation’s forward-presence and contingency requirements. The plan includes the fiscal year 1998

delivery of Bon Homme Richard (LHD 6) and Pearl Harbor (LSD 52)—the final

Harpers Ferry (LSD49)-class ship—and the fiscal year 2001 delivery of Iwo Jima

(LHD 7). The San Antonio (LPD 17) class of ships, another critical piece of our future amphibious force, will begin delivery in fiscal year 2002. The LPD 17 class incorporates major improvements in command-and-control and ship self-defense systems, which will increase its ability to operate independently of the ARG when required. This class is the critical link in achieving the goal of a modern 12-ARG force.

LPD 17 is the functional replacement for aged amphibious platforms including: LPD

4, LKA, LST, and LSD 36 classes of ships. This acquisition plan is key to maintaining the 2.5 Marine expeditionary brigade equivalents of lift, currently met by using

marginal Naval Reserve Force and inactive ship maintenance facility assets. Construction of LPD 18, the second ship of the class, is scheduled to begin in fiscal year

1999 with procurement of two additional ships planned for fiscal year 2000.

New Attack Submarine (NSSN).—NSSN plays a pivotal role in the Navy’s recapitalization plan. In fiscal year 1998, the Navy begins NSSN construction at a low

but efficient rate in order to build adequate numbers of our next generation of quiet

submarines. The NSSN counters the proliferation of advanced-capability submarines

and establishes the foundation for better technology insertion into the submarine

force. New modular-construction techniques and a contract-teaming plan combine

with an innovative design process to fundamentally enhance the production quality

and the affordability of this ship. Features include:

—Open Systems Architecture.—Using widely available public-domain standards,

the combat, communication, and information systems will have industry-standard interfaces that offer portability and software reuse to simplify cost-effective

upgrades.

—Fiber Optic Cable Systems.—A platform-wide fiber optic cable installation will

be sized for future growth. The structure of the network simplifies the attachment and integration of new equipment in a plug-in/plug-out manner.

—Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) Electronics.—Use of commercially available

electronics leverages the growth in signal and information processing and display technologies occurring in industry.

—Isolated Deck Structure.—This design facilitates ease of equipment integration,

provides shock and acoustic isolation sufficient to allow the use of COTS technology, and incorporates emerging noise-control technologies.

Seawolf (SSN–21)-Class Submarine.—Seawolf performed superbly during initial

sea trials in July 1996, demonstrating the fastest, stealthiest characteristics of any

submarine at sea. Seawolf will enhance significantly U.S. undersea superiority even

against our most capable adversaries.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
170

SSN 688 Class Submarine Modernization.—SSN 688-class submarines, which will

comprise 68 percent of the attack submarine force in 2015, must be modernized to

ensure that they remain effective against increasingly sophisticated undersea adversaries. The use of COTS and open systems architecture (OSA) will enable rapid (annual) updates to both software and hardware, and the use of COTS-based processors

means that sonar system computing power can grow at the same rate as commercial

technology.

A-RCI is a four-phased transformation of existing sonar systems (AN/BSY–1, AN/

BQQ–5, or AN/BQQ–6) to a more capable and flexible COTS/OSA-based system. It

also will provide the submarine force with a common sonar system. The process is

designed to minimize the impact of fire-control and sonar system upgrades on a

ship’s operational schedule, and will be accomplished without the need for major

shipyard availabilities. Phase I, which commenced in November 1997, will enhance

towed-array processing. Phase II will provide additional towed- and hull-array software upgrades. Phase III will upgrade the spherical array, and Phase IV will upgrade the high-frequency sonar system on SSN 688I-class submarines. Each phase

installs improved processing and control and display workstations. The current installation plan completes all SSN’s through Phase III by fiscal year 2003.

Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF).—Procurement of three additional MPF

ships, known as MPF enhancement (MPF(E)), will provide Marine air-ground task

forces (MAGTF’s) enhanced capability in naval construction, medical support, and

expeditionary-airfield construction. The first two MPF Enhancement ships, USNS

1st Lt Harry L. Martin and USNS LCpl Roy M. Wheat, are expected to be delivered

in fiscal year 1999. A contract award for the third ship is expected in fiscal year

1998.

Arleigh Burke (DDG–51)-Class Destroyer.—The DDG 51 class, along with its companion class of CG 47 Aegis cruisers, provide sea control and battlespace dominance—to include joint force air defense for carrier battle groups, surface action

groups, amphibious ready groups, and joint expeditionary forces. To keep pace with

advancing technologies and stay ahead of emerging threats, the Navy constructs

Aegis destroyers in flights, to introduce improvements in combat capability in a disciplined, but expeditious process. Twenty-one destroyers already are in commission.

We expect to build a total of 57 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The Aegis destroyers

requested under the multiyear procurement plan will incorporate Flight IIA

warfighting advancements, including improved surface-to-air missiles (SM2 Block IV

and Evolved Sea Sparrow), embarked helicopters, and the battle force tactical trainer. The first Flight IIA destroyer, DDG 79, is presently under construction. Future

ships will include other essential improvements such as the AN/SPY–1D(V) littoral

radar upgrade, cooperative engagement capability, and theater missile defense capability. The Burke-class destroyers will represent the largest component of the early

21st century surface-combatant force.

Aegis Cruiser Modernization and Conversion.—Capitalizing on the substantial investment made in our battle-proven Aegis cruisers, the Navy will modernize these

highly capable ships through a series of mid-life conversions to install area theater

ballistic missile defense, two 5 inch/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 guns, area air defense commander (AADC) capability, and smart ship control systems.

Naval Fires.—Fire-support requirements for the future are being addressed by

gun technologies and wedded global positioning systems (GPS) that will enable surface ships to engage targets ashore at ranges of more than 60 miles. The cornerstone of our near-term effort is the extended-range guided munitions (ERGM) and

the 5 inch/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 gun mount program. The ERGM is a five-inch projectile

that incorporates a rocket motor and internal GPS coupled with an inertial navigation system (INS). The 5 inch/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 gun mount is a modified five-inch

gun mount designed to handle, load, and fire the ERGM. Initial testing of the

ERGM and 5 inch/62 gun components proved successful in fiscal year 1997.

Other promising gun technologies for the longer term include the microminiaturization of guidance components and composite material technology. Combined, these

technologies both will reduce the cost of precision-guided gun munitions and extend

their range to targets up to 100 nautical miles away. Research-and-development

funding has been allocated to develop these capabilities for future application to

both the ERGM program and a 155 mm advanced naval gun planned for installation

on the next-generation surface combatant (DD–21).

The Navy is considering a variety of missiles to meet the ground forces requirements for responsive, longer-range naval surface fire support (NSFS). Two potential

solutions—the Navy tactical missile systems (NTACMS), a naval variant of the

Army tactical missile system (ATACMS), and the land attack standard missile

(LASM), a surface-to-ground variant of the Navy’s family of STANDARD Missiles—

are being evaluated as options to fill the land attack missile role.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
171

Land Attack Destroyer (DD–21) (First of the 21st Century (SC–21) Surface Combatants).—The SC–21 analysis of alternatives (AoA) completed examination of future surface combatant mission requirements and alternatives for providing those

requirements. The AoA found that a class of multi-mission ships focused on supporting land attack, and possessing hull and mechanical/electrical systems in common

with the follow on to retiring Aegis cruisers, provided the required capabilities at

the lowest life-cycle cost.

Key performance features identified in the AoA and reflected in the DD–21 operational requirements document (ORD) include: more vertical launch cells dedicated

to long-range precision-strike and shorter range fast-interdiction missiles; guns capable of firing extended range guided munitions; improved survivability against

antiship cruise missiles, torpedoes, and mines; full-spectrum signature reduction; a

single, survivable, fiber-optic-based, real-time distributed computing environment,

using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) processors and user-friendly common displays; a fully joint interoperable C4ISR system; a fuel-efficient propulsion system;

and significantly reduced ship manning, which lowers operating and support costs.

Current acquisition plans call for DD–21 to be designed using an integrated industry/Navy team. Key production features likely will include: a more affordable hull

design; COTS-based systems; design features to facilitate rapid and cost-effective

system upgrades; condition-based maintenance monitoring; commercial supportability; and embedded training programs.

Surge Sealift.—Surge shipping is the immediate transportation of heavy military

equipment that ground forces need to meet warfighting requirements. A total of 19

prepositioning or surge large medium-speed (LMSR) roll-on/roll-off (RORO) ships

will be required. Fourteen LMSR’s will be acquired through new construction. Five

more have been converted from existing container ships. The LMSR’s will provide

afloat prepositioning of an Army heavy brigade’s equipment and a corps’ combat

support, as well as surge capability for lift of a heavy division’s equipment from the

United States. The LMSR’s can load/offload in 96 hours, with a total lift capacity

of five million square feet—three million square feet of surge sealift and two million

square feet of prepositioning sealift—a significant part of DOD’s overall sealift capability. Each ship can carry 300,000–400,000 square feet of unit equipment at 24

knots over a 12,000 nautical-mile range. The lead ship in the class of new construction RORO’s, USNS Bob Hope (T-AKR 300), is scheduled for delivery in 1998. Delivery is scheduled for all remaining ships by the end of fiscal year 2001.

Mine Warfare.—Mine Warfare is an essential warfare capability integral to the

ability of naval forces to open and maintain sea lines of communication and to dominate the littoral battlespace. An imposing array of modern mine-countermeasures

(MCM) systems continues to be developed and procured to enhance the capabilities

of dedicated forces and vigorously pursue the transition to an organic MCM capability. The Navy’s dedicated MCM forces, composed of active and reserve surface MCM

ships, MHC ships, MCM helicopters, and explosive-ordnance-disposal divers are

among the best in the world. With the addition of the MCM command-and-support

ship Inchon (MCS12), the Navy possesses a true expeditionary mine countermeasures capability.

Aggressive development of organic MCM systems for forward-deployed carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups is under way. Focused science, technology,

and developmental efforts are producing solutions to difficult mine-warfare problems. For very shallow water, the shallow-water assault breaching system (SABRE)

system and the Distributed Explosive Technology net system are in development for

delivery in fiscal year 2001. These complementary systems are designed to defeat

mines and obstacles in the difficult surf-zone region.

Contributions from organizations outside the traditional mine-warfare community

are augmenting dedicated and organic MCM capabilities. For example, the Oceanographer of the Navy collects and disseminates environmental data essential to effective mine countermeasures. Mine warfare-relevant emphasis in projects dealing

with MCM digital-route surveys; maintenance of a global mine-like contact database; and development of mine warfare-specific environmental databases augment

our ability to rapidly assess, avoid, or neutralize the sea-mine threat.

Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUV).—The Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV)

program will extend knowledge and control of the undersea battlespace through the

employment of clandestine off board sensors. Although significant progress is being

made with on board sensors, it is clearly preferable to have off board sensors to

image tethered, volume, and bottom mines accurately. Complete knowledge of the

mine threat, without unduly exposing reconnaissance platforms, is vital to exploiting the tactical benefits of maneuver warfare.

The Near-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (NMRS) is a mine-hunting UUV

launched and recovered from a SSN 688-class submarine’s torpedo tube, and proU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
172

vides a first-time capability. The UUV, in combination with an SSN, represents a

long-endurance, clandestine reconnaissance system capable of mapping the undersea

environment and providing time-sensitive information on mining activities to the

theater commander. The NMRS will provide an effective and much-needed capability to the fleet in fiscal year 1998.

The Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS) will leverage developing

technologies and lessons learned from the NMRS. The LMRS also will be launched

and recovered through a submarine’s torpedo tube and will incorporate enhanced

endurance, range, search rate, and total search-area coverage.

Tomahawk.—The Tomahawk cruise missile enables surface combatants and submarines to launch attacks against land targets from long ranges in all types of

weather. The fiscal year 1999 budget includes funds to procure 114 remanufactured

Tomahawk missiles—15 in the Block III configuration, which includes the Global

Positioning System, and 99 in the Block IV (Phase I) Tomahawk Baseline Improvement Program configuration, providing improved terminal guidance and precision

strike capabilities. Last year, the Department proposed initiating a major revision

to the Tomahawk program, called the Tactical Tomahawk Initiative (TTI). Through

design and construction techniques, the TTI would provide new-production missiles

with enhanced capabilities at a lower unit cost than would be possible with remanufactured missiles. Although the TTI program has not been incorporated in the fiscal

year 1999 budget, it remains under active consideration and may be initiated later

this year or as part of the DOD fiscal year 2000 budget.

Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD).—Sea-based Navy area and theater-wide

TBMD systems will provide the United States, allied forces, and areas of vital national interest, defense against theater ballistic missiles (TBM’s). There is a

straightforward and compelling need to rapidly deploy defenses against TBM’s on

board naval ships at sea. First, the threat from theater-range ballistic missiles is

real and growing. Second, ships take advantage of the inherent flexibility and mobility of being at sea. Ships do not require host nation permission or support which

is critical to safe entry of our forces into overseas ports and airfields. This is increasingly important as more of our armed forces are becoming CONUS-based. Third,

and equally important, the United States has the opportunity to capitalize on its

significant investment in a fleet of highly capable Aegis cruisers and destroyers

which deploy routinely to hot spots around the world.

Navy TBMD programs are founded on an evolutionary development strategy

which leverages previous investments in the Aegis combat system, the standard

missile, vertical launching systems (VLS), and existing communication systems to

counter TBM threats. This builds on the solid foundation of Aegis ships, trained

crews, and existing industrial and logistic infrastructure. A comprehensive review

of Navy TBMD programs was recently completed, with the aim of developing a plan

to accelerate the fielding of a credible, forward deployed, sea-based TBMD capability. Key interrelated programs that form the pillars of our acceleration strategy include: (1) increased procurements to accelerate TBMD forward fit and backfit of

Aegis DDG’s and CG’s; (2) phased COTS-based improvements to the Aegis Combat

System leading to a fully distributed architecture needed for Navy Theater Wide

TBMD; and (3) upgrades to battle management and C4I necessary to execute TBMD

in a joint force network centric environment.

The Navy area TBMD system, which will field a user operational evaluation system (UOES) called ‘‘Linebacker,’’ on two Aegis cruisers in fiscal year 1999, will provide for engagement of TBM’s in the terminal phase of flight. Aegis ships with the

tactical area TBMD capability begin delivery in fiscal year 2001. The Navy theaterwide TBMD system will build on area system capabilities, adding an ascent and

mid-course intercept capability that can provide defense for an entire theater of operations. Other advantages of ship-based TBMD include high survivability, rapid relocation, and self-sustainability. Both TBMD programs, as currently designed, are

antiballistic missile treaty compliant.

Force Protection Systems.—Confining geography and the proliferation of antiship

cruise missiles combine to make littoral operations particularly challenging. Force

protection systems provide a layer of protection that enables battle groups to position themselves for successful mission execution. Key programs include:

—Quick Reaction Combat Capability/Ship Self-Defense System is a Navy plan

that integrates and automates the detect-control-engage sequence, and provides

layered force protection with electronic warfare and hard-kill weapons for ships.

More than 20 acquisition programs combine to provide a quick-reaction combat

capability (QRCC) and integrated command-and-control system. The QRCC system architecture integrates several existing stand-alone systems. The ship selfdefense system provides multisensor processing, target identification, and an

automated detect-control-engage capability. Shipboard sensors are linked to esU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
173

tablish accurate, correlated, firm-track criteria as early in the detection phase

as possible. Embedded electronic warfare doctrine automates soft-kill and hardkill weapons for a rapid, layered defensive reaction to any detected threat.

—The Rapid Antiship Missile Integrated Defense System (RAIDS) complements

the antiship-missile defense capabilities of Spruance (DD 963) and Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG 7)-class combatants. RAIDS is in production and has been installed in Spruance (DD 963). Installation in Oliver Hazard Perry-class ships

commenced in fiscal year 1997.

—The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) complements existing force protection systems, providing unique capability in adverse electronic countermeasures and advanced-threat environments. RAM is a lightweight, low-cost system that uses

existing active and passive ship sensors to augment force protection firepower.

RAM, a NATO-cooperative program with Germany, is in production and has

been installed in the LHA amphibious assault ships. Installations are ongoing

in LHD, LSD 41, and DD 963 class ships, and are planned in CG 47 through

CG 73, CV/CVN, DDG 51 through DDG 78, and LPD 17 classes.

—Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) provides a fast-reacting final forceprotection capability for surface ships against low-flying and steep-diving, highspeed antiship missiles. A high order language computer upgrade increases

computer capacity and provides advanced fire-control processing against maneuvering targets. The Phalanx surface mode, which allows engagement of surface

craft and low, slow aircraft, will complete testing in fiscal year 1998.

—The Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS) (AN/SLY–2) program was accelerated by the CNO on May 14, 1996. AIEWS Increment 1 (advanced electronic support) is scheduled for fleet introduction in fiscal year 2002,

and Increment 2 (advanced electronic attack) starts subsequent to the Increment 1 effort. AIEWS, as the replacement system for the AN/SLQ–32 shipboard

electronic warfare system, will use open architecture, lowering investment costs

and improving system effectiveness. Increment 1 provides improved humancomputer interface, increased emitter processing capability, and precision ESM

and specific emitter ID (SEI) in a new receiver package. Increment 2 will include an advanced electronic-attack subsystem and off board countermeasures.

—The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is a cooperative effort among 13 nations to improve the ability of the Sea Sparrow missile to counter low-altitude,

highly maneuverable antiship cruise missiles. The program takes the existing

RIM–7P Sea Sparrow missile and adds a new rocket motor and warhead. The

ESSM may be installed on LHD, CVN, and DDG 51 Flight IIA-class ships.

Common Missile Development/Standard Missile.—The Navy continues to build on

the proven Standard missile family by adding capabilities to counter existing and

emerging threats. Two new upgrades are in production:

—The SM–2 Block IIIB, approved for full-rate production in fiscal year 1996, incorporates a dual-mode seeker to provide an improved capability against missile

countermeasures. It will be deployed on Aegis vertical launching system (VLS)

cruisers and destroyers.

—The SM–2 Block IV complements earlier SM–2 medium-range variants for Aegis

VLS cruisers and destroyers. The newest variant, SM–2 Block IVA, builds on

the Block IV missile to provide improved defense against cruise missiles and

theater ballistic missiles.

Trident D–5 Missile.—To meet the requirement of the Nuclear Posture Review,

four Ohio-class submarines currently equipped with the Trident I C–4 missile will

be upgraded to carry the more capable Trident II D–5 missile. In addition, under

the conditions of the START II treaty, the Navy’s Ohio-class submarines will assume a role of growing importance within the strategic triad by carrying approximately one-half of the allowable strategic nuclear warheads.

Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS).—IUSS is comprised of fixed, mobile, and deployable acoustic arrays that provide vital tactical cueing to ASW forces.

The IUSS is a model for innovation and smart use of technology. Work stations, enhanced signal processing, and modern communication technologies enable remote

array monitoring, which reduces manpower costs and improves efficiency.

The Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) provides deep-water long-range detection capability. Consolidation of SOSUS by array re-termination, remoting, or closure was completed in fiscal year 1997. Recent closures include Bermuda, Adak, and

Keflavik. All other arrays will remain operational.

The Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor System (SURTASS), a prototype twin-line

array, was tested with outstanding results in a variety of locations around the

world. SURTASS is far superior to any other shallow-water passive towed-array system. SURTASS processing is being transferred to the AN/SQQ–89 towed-array

sonar system, to provide an immediate increase in detection capability without the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
174

need to modify or procure additional wet-end hardware. The minimum fleet requirement of eight SURTASS ships is funded through the FYDP.

The Fixed Distributed System (FDS) is operational and has demonstrated successfully the ability to detect, classify, and track quiet submarines. These results validate that acoustic ASW remains feasible against advanced-capability nuclear and

diesel-electric submarines. New fiber-optic technologies, algorithms, and enhanced

signal processing enable exploitation of weak signals in high background noise environments and provide timely and accurate detection and track data to tactical assets.

The Low-Frequency Active (LFA) system has detected submarines at long ranges.

The first LFA ship, TAGOS 23, is under construction. In the interim, a leased ship,

Cory Chouest, is being used to test and validate LFA technologies. Compact acoustic

source technologies are also under development and will provide a 50 percent reduction in weight and power requirements. Successful maturing of these technologies

will allow LFA-type arrays to be deployed from existing TAGOS 19-class vessels.

The Advanced Deployable System (ADS) is a theater-deliverable acoustic-surveillance system that provides continuous acoustic coverage over vast ocean areas for

extended periods. This system can detect quiet nuclear submarines, diesel-electric

submarines operating on battery, ships exiting or entering port, or minelaying operations. The importance of portability will intensify as our surveillance requirements

increase because of a greater focus on the littorals and the growing popularity of

diesel submarines, and the downsizing of our own force.

Ground Weapons Programs

Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).—The AAAV gives the Marine

Corps a weapon system fully capable of implementing ship-to-objective maneuver

(STOM). Currently in the demonstration and validation phase, the AAAV will allow

rapid, high-speed transportation of Marine combat units as they emerge from amphibious assault ships located well beyond the visual horizon. It is designed for

greater crew survivability and maneuverability than the current AAV–7A1, and will

incorporate a nuclear-biological-chemical protective system. The AAAV is targeted

for fielding during fiscal year 2006.

Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) RAM/RS.—A portion [64 percent] of the AAV

fleet will undergo a reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) upgrade, and

a rebuild to standard (RS) retrofit, to ensure Marine AAV’s remain maintainable

until the arrival of the AAAV. The RAM/RS program will incorporate a Bradley suspension and engine, and a new transmission. The projected savings of RAM/RS compared to the current inspect and repair only as necessary [IROAN] program—is

$400 to $500 million.

Lightweight 155 mm Towed Howitzer (LW155).—The LW155 155 mm towed howitzer will be a rugged, efficient weapon system. It will replace the aging M198

155 mm towed howitzer as the only artillery system in the Marine Corps inventory.

The LW155 is designed for expeditionary operations requiring light, highly mobile

artillery, and for transport by the MV–22 Osprey aircraft. The howitzer’s lighter

weight (9,000 pounds versus 16,000 pounds for the current towed howitzer, the

M198) and automated breech, rammer, and digital fire control computer will provide

the MAGTF commander greater operational flexibility, while increasing the responsiveness and efficiency of artillery units. The program is in the engineering and

manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the DOD systems-acquisition process.

Initial operational capability is planned for fiscal year 2002.

Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR).—The Marine Corps MTVR will

provide the backbone of future Marine Corps wheeled combat support and combat

service support. The MTVR will be a quantum improvement over existing trucks,

incorporating an electronically controlled engine and transmission, central tire-inflation system, antilock brakes, and a 22-year corrosion control package. Payload capacity will increase from 5 tons to 7 tons off-road and to 15 tons on-road. The MTVR

program is in the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the DOD

systems-acquisition process. Initial operational capability is expected in fiscal year

2000.

Third Echelon Test Set (TETS) AN/USM–657.—The Marine Corps faces unprecedented challenges in maintaining the current inventory of aging electronic ground

weapon systems while simultaneously fielding new sophisticated systems. The Marine Corps has adopted the TETS to satisfy this requirement. TETS is a diagnostictesting and fault-isolation system for communication-electronic and ground-weapon

systems. This portable test set can be mounted on the tailgate of a high-mobility,

multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) or housed within maintenance shelters.

Contract for the TETS was awarded in fiscal year 1997 and fielding will begin in

fiscal year 1999.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
175

Javelin.—Javelin, a joint Marine Corps and Army program, is a soft-launch, medium-range, fire-and-forget anti-armor weapon system. Capable of being fired from

enclosed structures, the Javelin offers greater protection for the gunner and greater

lethality against armor targets at medium ranges than previous anti-armor weapons. The Javelin consists of a reusable command launcher unit, which can be employed as a stand-alone thermal sight, and a missile. Initial fielding is planned for

fiscal year 1999.

Predator.—Predator, a short-range assault weapon (SRAW), is a Marine Corps

anti-armor program with fielding scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2001. It will fulfill the Marine Corps’ requirement for a lightweight, man-portable, disposable,

short-range weapon. The missile has a soft-launch rocket motor for firing from enclosed spaces, and the flyover, shoot-down profile facilitates warhead penetration

into the vulnerable top of the target.

Aviation Weapons Programs

F/A–18E/F Super Hornet.—The F/A–18 Hornet is the cornerstone of naval aviation strike warfare. The newest and most capable naval aircraft, the F/A–18E/F

Super Hornet, combines the outstanding characteristics of earlier F/A–18 models

with cutting edge technology resulting in an affordable aircraft with significantly

improved performance and endurance. F/A–18E/F is designed to execute the missions and meet the threats through 2015, with greater range and payload flexibility,

an ability to return to the carrier with more unexpended ordnance capability, room

for avionics growth, and enhanced survivability features. It will increase the capability for naval aviation to conduct night strike warfare, close air support of ground

forces, fighter escort, air interdiction, and fleet air defense. The Super Hornet is in

the flight test phase of engineering and manufacturing development, and has

amassed over 2,100 flight hours. Initial sea trials were completed in January 1997.

Approval for the low-rate initial-production (LRIP) of 62 aircraft was received last

year. Procurement of LRIP aircraft will begin the orderly transition from the Navy’s

F/A–18C and F–14A aircraft to this improved strike-fighter. The Super Hornet will

comprise most of the carrier-based strike-fighter assets by 2008.

MV–22 Osprey.—The MV–22 Osprey is a tilt-rotor, vertical-take-off-and-landing

aircraft designed to replace the Marine Corps’ CH–46E and CH–53D helicopters.

The Osprey has accrued more than 1,000 flight hours, and has entered the developmental and operational test phase. Its performance has been impressive, and its test

envelope continues to expand. Increased reliability and maintainability were part of

the MV–22 initial design process. All aspects of the MV–22 have been tested for

human factors such as adequate access, reduction of MV–22 unique tools, and use

of on board monitoring systems that determine when components need replacement.

Its construction incorporates many features that enhance its combat survivability,

including composite structural components that provide increased ballistic tolerance,

triple redundant digital fly-by-wire flight controls, and a cabin overpressurization

system that provides chemical and biological protection for crew and embarked

troops. Aircraft deliveries are scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1999.

AV–8B Remanufacture.—The AV–8B remanufacturing program continues on

track. Refurbished aircraft with better engines, COTS technology, and improved avionics have been joining the fleet since 1996. These aircraft will effectively conduct

the close air support mission until the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter. The Marine Corps now has three variants of the AV–8B Harrier in service: the day attack,

night attack, and radar/night attack aircraft. The night attack Harrier improves on

the original AV–8B design by incorporating an improved navigation system with a

forward-looking infrared sensor, a moving map display, and night-vision-goggle compatibility. The radar/night attack Harrier (Harrier II∂) incorporates these improvements and the AN/APG–65 multimedia radar. The fusion of night and radar capabilities makes the Harrier responsive to the Marine air-ground task force requirements for expeditionary, night-and-adverse-weather, offensive air support.

F–14 Update.—The F–14 Tomcat is now being configured as a potent precisionstrike fighter. Incorporation of the low altitude navigation and targeting infrared for

night (LANTIRN) system gives the Tomcat an accurate autonomous designation and

targeting capability for delivery of laser-guided bombs. Beginning in 1997, all forward-deployed carrier air wings had LANTIRN capability. In addition to LANTIRN,

two major flight-safety improvements for the Tomcat also are under way. The digital

flight control system (DFCS) has demonstrated significant improvements in departure resistance/spin recovery and improved flying qualities during shipboard recovery. Installation of the DFCS will begin in June 1998. The TF30 engine breatherpressure modification consists of an engine sensor that detects an abnormal condition to allow the pilot time to take action to prevent engine failure. With these

warfighting and safety improvements, the F–14 Tomcat will give battle group comU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
176

manders a proven warfighting aircraft with added flexibility for attack missions

until the F/A–18E/F enters the fleet.

EA–6B Prowler Block 89A Upgrade.—The EA–6B Prowler is the sole provider of

airborne electronic warfare jamming support to the Department of the Navy, and

recently was designated a national asset. The Block 89A upgrade program addresses

structural and supportability problems associated with the aging aircraft fleet. Numerous avionics improvements for safety of flight and joint operability—including

the ICAP-III program update—are included.

Navy Helicopter Master Plan.—The Navy’s Helicopter Master Plan reduces the

Navy’s types of helicopters from eight to two, reducing manpower and logistics-support costs. The Navy is procuring a U.S. Army UH–60L Blackhawk derivative, the

CH–60, to replace current logistics and combat helicopters. The Navy’s current inventory of SH–60B/SH–60F/HH–60H helicopters will be remanufactured into a single multimission helicopter, the SH–60R.

AH–1W Super Cobra/UH–1N Huey.—A commonality upgrade titled the H–1 Upgrades Program (4BN/4BW) replaces the current two-bladed rotor system on the

AH–1W and UH–1N aircraft with a four-bladed, all-composite rotor system, and also

adds a performance-matched transmission, drive system, and upgraded landing

gear. The 4BW also will incorporate a new, fully integrated cockpit and six weapons

stations. The 4BN maximizes commonality and supportability with the 4BW and returns the required aircraft power margin, while providing adequate mission-payload

and warfighting-capability growth potential. The upgrade program will reduce lifecycle costs, significantly improve operational capabilities, resolve existing safety deficiencies, and extend the service life of both aircraft.

CH–53D/E Sea Stallion.—The CH–53D Sea Stallion is used to transport personnel, equipment, and supplies during expeditionary operations ashore. Operational

safety improvement programs, including the global positioning system, improved radios, and night-vision goggle heads-up display, will ensure that the aircraft remains

capable until retirement. In addition to the funded operational-safety-improvement

programs of the CH–53D, the CH–53E Super Stallion will be provided a service-life

extension program that extends the Super Stallion’s service life past 2025 and will

include a forward-looking infrared system.

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).—The joint strike fighter program will develop and

field a tri-service family of next-generation strike aircraft, with an emphasis on affordability. The family-of-aircraft concept allows a high degree of commonality, while

still satisfying unique service needs. For the Navy, the JSF will provide a multirole

stealthy strike fighter, to complement the F/A–18E/F. For the Marine Corps, the

JSF will replace both the AV–8B and the F/A–18A/C/D, completing the Marine

Corps’ neck-down strategy of an all short-take-off- and vertical-landing fixed-wing

force. Using cost as an independent variable, a primary objective of the JSF program is the reduction of costs associated with development, production, and ownership.

In November 1996, designs from two contractors were selected to compete in the

JSF concept demonstration phase. This phase features flying concept demonstrators

(X–32 and X–35), concept-unique ground and flight demonstrations, and continued

refinement of the contractor’s preferred weapon systems concepts. Transition to engineering and manufacturing development begins in 2001. Significant savings are

anticipated from the joint approach to development. The United Kingdom’s participation as a collaborative partner in the concept demonstration phase provides additional savings. Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands are associate partners in the

program. Participation by other allied countries is anticipated.

Air-to-Ground Weapon Programs.—The most significant joint air-to-ground weapon development programs are the joint standoff weapon (JSOW), joint direct attack

munitions (JDAM), and standoff land attack missile expanded response (SLAM-ER).

JSOW is a family of air-to-ground glide weapons, designed to attack targets from

beyond enemy point defenses. JSOW is a Navy-led program and will be effective

against many targets during day, night, and adverse weather conditions. It will replace a variety of weapons in the current inventory. JDAM is an Air Force-led program to develop an all-weather capability for general-purpose bombs through the

use of strap-on global positioning system (GPS) guidance kits. SLAM-ER meets the

Navy’s requirement for a standoff outside area defense (SOAD) weapon. SLAM-ER

is an adverse weather, precision-guided weapon that simplifies mission planning, increases penetration, and nearly doubles the range of the original SLAM. The SLAMER∂ will add autonomous capability and automatic target acquisition (ATA) to the

SLAM-ER. The Navy also is planning to increase the inventory of laser-guided

bombs through the Skipper conversion program.

Area Air Defense Commander Capability (AADC).—The area air defense commander requires an advanced planning and execution capability that integrates

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
177

force planning and tactical operations functions. The Navy envisions the AADC embarked in an Aegis cruiser supported by a joint staff of 40 personnel or less. AADC

systems are planned for installation on 12 Aegis cruisers, with 2 additional systems

designated for training. A prototype system will be installed on an Aegis cruiser in

fiscal year 1999 in conjunction with Navy area theater missile defense development.

The cruiser conversion plan calls for an initial operational capability in fiscal year

2003, with full operational capability for 12 cruisers in fiscal year 2006.

Air-to-Air Weapon Programs.—The AIM–9X Sidewinder and the AIM–120 advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) continue to be the foremost joint

air-to-air-weapon programs of the Navy and Marine Corps. The Navy-led AIM–9X

program upgrades the current missile with an advanced guidance-control section, a

highly maneuverable airframe, and signal processors that significantly upgrade its

infrared counter-countermeasures capabilities. The Air Force-led preplanned product

improvements to the currently deployed AIM–120 weapon include enhanced electronic counter-countermeasures and improved kinematics. The AIM–9X and

AMRAAM missiles will serve Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aircraft well into

the future.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s).—Naval forces are employing the Pioneer UAV

system in support of a broad array of expeditionary operations, such as reconnaissance and intelligence support in Bosnia. Outrider is Pioneer’s potential replacement as the naval tactical UAV. Outrider is in the advanced concept technical demonstration phase of development. A new tactical control system will enable broad

UAV interoperability and connectivity to the naval command, control, computers,

communications, and intelligence (C4I) architecture.

Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS).—ATARS is the only

manned tactical-reconnaissance system for naval combat aircraft presently under

development, and will greatly increase the timely dissemination of imagery-intelligence information to theater, operational, and tactical commanders. The system’s

digital data-link capability will allow all levels of command to receive time-sensitive

imagery simultaneously, enabling accurate intelligence preparation of the battlefield

and pre-strike planning and post-strike analysis. ATARS is a suite of sensors and

data-link pods that will be installed in the F/A–18D and associated ground stations.

When fully operational in fiscal year 1999, ATARS will be joint-data-link capable

and will provide support to all services. It will provide high-resolution, near-realtime digital imagery, day and night, in all-weather conditions through infrared,

electro-optical and synthetic-aperture radar sensors. The imagery will be digitally

linked via the joint services imagery processing system (JSIPS) and tactical exploitation groups.

Information-Superiority Programs

Navy-Marine Corps C4ISR.—The Joint Vision C4I For The Warrior (C4IFTW)

challenged the services to develop ‘‘a global C4I system that satisfies the total information requirements of warriors when they fight as a team with a common mission.’’ For the Navy and Marine Corps, the challenge of C4IFTW became a key element in the development of our Naval vision for the future, known as COPERNICUS. This common vision enables the Navy and Marine Corps to adapt, evolve,

and fully integrate their command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities to conduct joint naval

expeditionary force operations in the 21st century.

COPERNICUS is the unifying vision to ensure C4ISR systems respond to the

warfighter, are fielded quickly, capitalize on technological advances, and support

warfighting concepts. COPERNICUS enables Navy C4ISR development and implementation, such as the Global Command and Control System (GCCS), Global Command Support System, Defense Information Systems Network, and the Marine AirGround Task Force C4I (MAGTF C4I).

The joint maritime communications system (JMCOMS) and Information Technology 21 (IT–21) are two implementation strategies which will leverage commercial

technologies to achieve the COPERNICUS vision. JMCOMS will improve communication bandwidth utilization whereas IT–21 will install an integrated communications suite at shore sites and on ships at sea.

The following are programs being implemented under the JMCOMS and/or IT–

21 strategy;

—Automated Data Network System (ADNS) is a secure, interoperable, multimedia intelligent network management system for data transfer. The development of ADNS is based on commercial and government off-the-shelf hardware

and software. ADNS is currently fielded on 25 surface ships and submarines

and will be installed on all ships and submarines by the end of fiscal year 2003.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
178

—Global Broadcast Service (GBS) is a revolutionary advancement in joint communications, providing high-speed one-way broadcast video and data service. GBS

becomes operational in February 1998, with the launch of the UFO–8 satellite.

—Challenge Athena is a program to lease commercial communications satellites

and facilities to provide wideband connectivity, including intelligence imagery,

to ships at sea.

—Joint Maritime Command Information System (JMCIS) is the Navy’s designated

command-and-control (C2) system for the future global command-and-control

system (GCCS). JMCIS follows an evolutionary acquisition process to meet

emerging fleet requirements. This system supports C2 and tactical intelligence

warfighting requirements for afloat, ashore, and tactical/mobile units. JMCIS

provides timely, accurate, and complete all-source C4ISR information management and develops a common operational picture for warfare mission assessment, planning, and execution. JMCIS incorporates the Marine air-ground task

force (MAGTF) command, control, communication, computer, and intelligence

(C4I) software. The next version of the system software will be defense information infrastructure common-operating-environment (DII COE) compliant and

will finalize naval implementation of GCCS, known as GCCS-Maritime (GCCSM). GCCS-M will avoid the year 2000 problem, greatly improve network centric

warfare, and be integral to information technology for the 21st century.

—Navy Tactical Command Support System (NTCSS) is the afloat system that

brings existing logistical support systems into a single communications database. This effort mirrors the strategy utilized by afloat tactical systems. NTCSS

provides the afloat commander key maintenance, supply, medical, and administrative information through the shipboard non-tactical automated program

(SNAP), the naval aviation logistics command management system

(NALCOMIS), and the maintenance resource management system (MRMS).

This NTCSS information will be used to complete the tactical picture for the

commander. NTCSS systems are currently interoperable with worldwide logistics systems inventory control and stock points. Standard data elements exist

through the use of standard military requisition format, national stock numbers, and other common Department of Defense data elements. The NTCSS initiative is vital to the rapid improvement of afloat logistics systems. By the end

of 1997, 65 percent of the NTCSS shipboard installations will be complete, providing the fleet with a wide-area networked-based logistics system.

COPERNICUS.—As stated earlier, COPERNICUS is the vision of complete integration of C4ISR systems in support of the warfighter. It provides the technical infrastructure that enables the sensor-to-shooter process. This system links targeting

information provided by the sensor directly to the shooter. Some programs key to

supporting the COPERNICUS vision for seamless connectivity of an operational picture are provided below:

—Global Command-And-Control System (GCCS) is the over-arching commandand-control system for the armed services. It is the single most important initiative in the joint C2 arena today, forming the backbone of the C4I for the warrior

concept. Since achieving initial operating capability, GCCS has expanded beyond its initial force deployment, planning, and execution capability with applications across all functional areas of command-and-control. In fiscal year 1998,

existing GCCS functions will become defense information infrastructure (DII)

common operating environment (COE) compliant. Future upgrades will include

intelligence, meteorological and imagery information on a common operational

picture (COP), as well as better crisis action tools.

—Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) are leased commercial systems that allow mobile users access to specifically tailored and wider-band, low-earth-orbit satellite

services.

—AN/PSC–5 Enhanced Manpack UHF Terminal (EMUT) is a lightweight, demand-assigned multiple access (DAMA), portable, line-of-sight and tactical-satellite-communications terminal that will serve as a primary command-and-control single-channel radio for MAGTF’s. Employed at battalion level and higher,

this radio provides increased range and reliability. EMUT will be used to transmit intelligence traffic, to interface with SINCGARS waveforms, and to transmit/receive command-and-control traffic. Initial operational capability will be in

early fiscal year 1998.

—Enhanced Position Location Report System (EPLRS) provides MAGTF C4I users

a dedicated data communications network and also serves as the primary source

for automated friendly position-location information (PLI) and navigation information. EPLRS is a computer-based, time-ordered, spread-spectrum radio system, operating in the Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) band. Integral error detection and correction, cryptographic security, and frequency hopping features proU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
179

vide resistance to electronic countermeasures (ECM). EPLRS data communications capability will be used by the tactical data network (TDN), tactical combat

operations (TCO) system, advanced field artillery tactical data system

(AFATDS), and the digital automated communications terminal (DACT) to improve data distribution below the regimental level. In addition to position location/reporting features, EPLRS provides the capability to transmit/receive data.

EPLRS will be used for data transmission at the regimental level and below.

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).—The increasingly complex threats in

the air-defense arena make it necessary to link geographically dispersed sensors, of

differing capabilities, with all potential firing platforms. CEC uses sensor netting to

make this possible. With CEC, it appears to each shooter’s combat system as if

every asset in the data link is that unit’s own sensor. Engagements using remotely

provided track data are possible for the first time. In addition, the ability to develop

composite tracks means that every participating unit has an identical, real-time picture of the battle space, including identification information. With the addition of

the airborne element of CEC in the E–2C Hawkeye, the reach of CEC will be dramatically increased. It will greatly enhance our ability to conduct overland engagement of cruise missiles, as well. In August 1997, CEC successfully passed initial

operational test and evaluation. During the all-service combat identification evaluation team (ASCIET) 97 exercise, CEC’s contribution to the establishment of a single

integrated air picture was showcased in the successful integration of Cape St.

George (CG 71) and a shore-based Marine Corps TPS–59(V)3 radar. Further CEC

demonstrations included a Marine Corps HMMWV-launched missile that received

its initial target data from the cruiser’s radar. Currently, Army and Air Force are

each continuing studies aimed at determining potential application of CEC to their

service-unique systems.

To take advantage of the benefits of CEC, the Marine Corps has developed a prototype CEC lab to evaluate the integration potential of CEC. The focus of the lab

is to fuse real-time attributes of CEC with the battle management information afforded by such non-real-time systems as Link-11 or Link-16. The CEC lab takes advantage of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment, Internet protocol, and capitalizes on commercial technology to distribute the air picture to the operator. Future demonstrations of the Marine Corps land-based CEC lab and node include the

Atlantic Command’s theater missile defense initiative (TMDI) exercise in the spring

of 1998. The Marine Corps also will continue support for the Navy’s operational

evaluation of CEC.

Marine Corps Aviation C4I Improvements.—Quantum improvements continue in

systems that support the aviation combat element of the MAGTF. Phase one’s initial

operational capability of the advanced tactical air command central (ATACC) occurred in fiscal year 1996, and is the integrating link between the aviation element

command and control (C2) and the MAGTF’s C2. The ATACC provides planners and

operators with the automated assistance needed to supervise, coordinate, and direct

the execution and planning of all MAGTF tactical operations. Also operational this

year is the improved direct air support central (IDASC) product improvement program (PIP) and the tactical air operations center (TAOC). The ATACC provides

great enhancements to interoperability with the Navy’s joint maritime command information system and the Air Force’s contingency theater automated planning system.

Marine Corps Fire Support C4 Improvements.—The fire support command-andcontrol system (FSC2S) is an interim system for providing semi-automated tactical

fire support and technical artillery fire-control for MAGTF operations. The followon advanced field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS), which will automate firesupport command-and-control, will commence fielding of 51 systems in fiscal year

1999. The approved acquisition objective (AAO) is 677 units through fiscal year

2002.

—The target location, designation, and hand-off system (TLDHS) is a man-portable tool for fire-support observers and controllers to locate targets with GPS

accuracy, designate them with a coded laser as appropriate, and pass them to

the appropriate fire support system for resolution. This is a key enabling capability that will maximize the effectiveness of supporting fires, accommodating

laser-seeking precision-guided munitions. The TLDH will provide the interface

with the AFATDS and with digital delivery systems on board aircraft, and will

use existing and planned communications assets for message transmission and

receipt. The TLDS is scheduled for initial fielding in late fiscal year 2000.

Information Warfare (IW)

The gathering and dissemination of information has emerged as perhaps the most

rapidly evolving, technology-based area of all the Warfare disciplines. Its effective

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
180

implementation will be critical to securing the battle space that allows the other

warfare commanders to perform their missions. In both platform-centric and network-centric warfare, IW remains a critical warfare element by itself, and a central

supporting element to the other warfare commanders. The availability of advanced

communication technologies in world markets increases the likelihood that they will

be employed by potential adversaries in advanced automated command-and-control

systems and as components of advanced weapons systems. The adversarial use of

these technologies and capabilities provides a clear challenge that must be countered.

COPERNICUS enhances the ability of Naval personnel to successfully conduct information operations (IO) and employ information warfare (IW). In an age of dynamically evolving command-and-control technology, the Navy has found that fleet

needs cannot always follow the extended, formal requirements and procurement

process. In response, the Navy has leveraged the dynamic operational interface of

the fleet information warfare center (FIWC) with the technical expertise provided

by the Naval information warfare activity (NIWA) to develop advanced technology

systems to meet rapidly emerging needs. FIWC and NIWA form a team uniquely

able to recognize, define, build, and deploy equipment to meet rapidly evolving IW

needs.

FIWC and NIWA also have been instrumental in expanding communications electronic attack capabilities within the Navy. Two initiatives include the advanced support pod (an airborne communications jamming pod) and the surface communications jamming capability (SCJC).

—FIWC’s Naval Computer Incidence Response Team (NAVCIRT) serves as the

Navy’s single point of contact for reporting, identifying, assessing, and recovering from computer attacks and viruses. A dramatic increase in the number of

computer intrusions, probes, viruses, and denial of service complaints were reported in 1997. To combat these attacks, the number of operational intrusion

detection sensors under FIWC’s analytical control were doubled. Similarly,

FIWC conducted nearly 100 computer network vulnerability assessments, more

than doubling the fiscal year 1996 total. A recent at-sea exercise included FIWC

as an opposing force intent on disrupting information networks.

The Surface Cryptologic Systems program is modernizing shipboard information

warfare to operate in the modern threat environment. Ships with Outboard, combat

direction finding (Combat DF), and ship’s signals exploitation equipment (SSEE)

will provide that capability in the near term, and future ships will incorporate highly automated, open architecture, modular IW systems to maintain this dominance.

Information Warfare (IW) Education and Training.—Education and training are

critical to IW awareness and the Navy is the lead service for formalizing IW training. IW education and training is conducted at the Naval Telecommunications

Training Center, at the Fleet IW Center, and at the Naval Postgraduate School.

Navy/Marine Corps Intelligence Systems

Joint Deployable Intelligence Support System (JDISS).—JDISS provides common

intelligence, communications, and office automation applications for U.S., NATO,

and coalition operations. JDISS provides a responsive, secure information network

between intelligence centers and operational commanders, including access to national databases.

Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension System (BGPHES) is a ship-based system for the remote operation of airborne signals intelligence collection systems and

control of local receivers on board the host ship. It extends the signal collection

range up to 700 miles depending upon the altitude of the aircraft. BGPHES completed its first operational deployment aboard John F. Kennedy in 1997, operating

with Navy ES–3A aircraft and Air Force U–2’s.

Common High Bandwidth Data Link (CHBDL).—A wideband data-link for the

transfer of signal and imagery intelligence data from reconnaissance aircraft to

shipboard processing systems is a reality. CHBDL is the Navy’s implementation of

DOD’s joint common data link (CDL) standard. It will initially be used with the battle group passive horizon extension system (BGPHES) for tactical SIGINT and the

joint service imagery processing system-navy (JSIP-N) for tactical imagery. This

point-to-point duplex link gives real-time control of airborne sensors with direct

downlink of collected data to afloat commanders.

CHBDL completed a successful first deployment with the John F. Kennedy (CV

67) battle group in 1997. CHBDL is programmed for installation on board all aircraft carriers, large-deck amphibious ships, and fleet flagships.

Marine Corps Intelligence Programs.—The Marine Corps’ research, development,

and acquisition of tactical intelligence systems continue to improve intelligence support to MAGTF commanders. Upgrades to tactical intelligence capabilities are being

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
181

addressed through programs within the joint military intelligence program (JMIP)

and tactical intelligence and related activities (TIARA).

Improvements to imagery intelligence capabilities are being accomplished through

the joint services imagery processing system (JSIPS) national-input segment, which

provides deployed Marine forces with national imagery support. Beginning in fiscal

year 1998, each Marine expeditionary force will receive a tactical exploitation group

to receive, process, and disseminate imagery from F/A–18D ATARS-equipped aircraft, and other theater and national collectors. Marine Corps signals intelligence

(SIGINT) improvements include the radio reconnaissance equipment program

SIGINT suite-1, the technical control and analysis center (TCAC), the team portable

communication intelligence system (TPCS), and the testing of improvements to the

mobile electronic warfare support system (MEWSS). Additionally, the Marine Corps

participates in the ongoing, congressionally-mandated tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP) program, designed to exploit national overhead reconnaissance systems and explore emerging technologies. Other program initiatives to

enhance Marine Corps intelligence capabilities include:

—Intelligence Analysis System (IAS) provides the backbone for tactical intelligence fusion in support of the Marine expeditionary force (MEF) command element down to the squadron. The MEF IAS configuration is a mobile system

with multiple analyst workstations in a client-server LAN. Lower echelon configurations can range from individual to multiple workstations. IAS is capable

of communication with other intelligence systems at the national, theater, and

tactical levels.

—Manpack Secondary Imagery Dissemination System (SIDS) enables the MAGTF

commander to collect, store, display, manipulate, and transmit digital reconnaissance imagery in near-real-time. SIDS consists of digital cameras and

palmtop processors, which allow reconnaissance units to take pictures and immediately transmit them back to a base station for exploitation and dissemination. SIDS is programmed to be fully operational by fiscal year 1998.

—Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Equipment Program (CIHEP) provides equipment to conduct controlled, surreptitious, and tactical intelligence

gathering operations that directly support antiterrorism and force protection.

CIHEP integrates audio, video, photo, communications, and automated data

processing to report and disseminate counterintelligence information.

Non-Lethal Weapons

The DOD-wide nonlethal weapons (NLW) program, directed by the Commandant

of the Marine Corps as executive agent, encompasses a broad range of nonlethal

technologies. These systems, which include 14 multiservice projects currently receiving joint research-and-development funds, provide the field commander more options

for response to contingencies, especially those dealing with military operations other

than war. Although Marine expeditionary units currently have NLW-capability sets

and deployed U.S. Army units have been trained in some basic (40 mm and 12

gauge) NLW munitions, these items provide only a modest nonlethal capability.

They do, however, provide the ground commander an ability to disperse or discourage crowds and seize or temporarily incapacitate individuals. Ongoing NLW projects

range from stingball munitions to acoustics and other directed-energy systems. The

fielding of these systems is planned over the next 7–10 years, with the more basic

munitions expected to be in the inventory by the year 2000.

CONCLUSION: CHARTING A COURSE FOR FUTURE SUCCESS

In the ‘‘. . . From the Sea’’ revolution, the Department of the Navy has begun to

lay out its transformation strategy and to chart a course into the 21st century. Our

challenge is clear: to be the best Navy-Marine Corps team in the world today, tomorrow, and in the decades to come. We are moving aggressively to meet that challenge on all fronts.

We recognize that forward, balanced, flexible naval forces will be a key part of

implementing our national security strategy of engagement, and that they will play

a unique role in shaping a stable and prosperous future. Accordingly, we must sustain our current operational primacy in a rapidly evolving strategic landscape. We

have already laid the foundation for our future primacy, but know that we must go

much further. We must explore still more ways of serving our nation’s changing

needs and we must expand the revolution in naval affairs that has already begun.

We recognize, too, that new concepts, in themselves, are not enough. We will

transform our forces with the technologies of a new age, and make rapid technological change our ally. That will mean streamlining—revolutionizing—the way we

do business. We will balance carefully our investments in people, readiness, techU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
182

nology, force structure, and modernization, to ensure that our people have the tools

they need, when they need them.

Finally, we recognize that our success ultimately depends on dedicated, innovative

personnel. Our naval forces are blessed with the world’s finest Sailors and Marines.

They are our ‘‘secret weapon.’’ We will nurture that core intellectual capital of our

revolution and encourage the new thinking that will keep our Navy and Marine

Corps team great.

The future of our Naval Service is bright. We will meet the challenges of a new

world, and we will thrive on them. We will ensure that this nation has a decisive

impact from the sea, today and tomorrow—anytime and anywhere.

OPENING REMARKS OF ADMIRAL JOHNSON

Senator STEVENS. Admiral Johnson.

Admiral JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning,

Senator Inouye and members of the committee. I will be very brief.

I would start just by saying that I share the Secretary’s enthusiasm for the Navy and Marine Corps team, I am intensely proud

of our great Navy. I think we have had a very good year, we intend

to have another one. The trend is in the right direction.

We are on station, where we belong, ready to execute the full

spectrum of tasking that may be laid upon us. I would characterize

it as an even strain out forward, and I talk to them almost daily,

and they are very much ready in every respect.

As to the budget, I would characterize it as a good balanced

budget. It does reflect the work we did in the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense

Review,’’ it does reshape the Navy to what I would call a leaner

but more capable force, which allows us to then reinvest and focus

our investments, if you will, on operation and maintenance, manpower, and procurement accounts, so that we will not have to,

hopefully, come back next year for the kind of reprogramming we

are just discussing now.

I believe it to be a very good budget, and like the Secretary and

the Commandant, I am very, very grateful personally and professionally for the support that we get from this body, and I am ready

for your questions, sir.

Senator STEVENS. General Krulak.

OPENING REMARKS OF GENERAL KRULAK

General KRULAK. Yes, sir; you have my testimony, so I will be

very brief.

First, like Admiral Johnson and the Secretary, I want to thank

you very much for what this committee has done for my individual

marines. There are a lot of big-ticket items that are important to

me, but nothing is more important than that individual marine,

and a lot of what you have done has made his life a lot better.

There are 24,497 of those marines forward deployed right now,

as we speak, as we sit here, almost 24,500, away from their families for 6 months to 1 year, and I just wanted you to know that

they are doing a hell of a job.

Third, sir, I hope that you are wearing that nice dark green uniform for me—as a marine. Just kidding, sir. [Laughter.]

I thought that you were wearing that for me, sir. I am ready for

your questions.

[The statement follows:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.000
183

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEN. CHARLES C. KRULAK

There is a direct and undeniable link between our strong and virile economy and

the stability of the world in which we trade. The Quadrennial Defense Review, mandated by Congress, validated the unique effectiveness of naval forces in contributing

to crisis prevention and crisis resolution—to promoting that stable world. The National Defense Panel provided an independent assessment. Once again naval forces,

with our ability to stand off a potential hotspot for indefinite periods of time—with

no issues of sovereignty, no issues of basing rights and with no host nation support

agreements required of any kind—was validated as one of our nation’s most useful

tools for maintaining world stability. Our ‘‘Presence’’—the presence of United States

Marines forward deployed at critical points around the globe contributes significantly to this nation’s ability to ensure world stability.

But, the old adage, ‘‘You have to spend money to make money,’’ is true. And you

have done just that. The money you have provided the Marine Corps has been well

spent. We have endeavored to be frugal. We fully understand and appreciate Congress’ efforts to balance our federal budget and provide for the financial security of

our nation. But even in the face of that daunting task, you have seen the value of

equipping and funding your Marines. And I want to thank you for that. I want to

thank you on behalf of that vigilant Marine standing his post in the rain on the

other side of the world. Due to your foresight, he’s warm and dry in his new GorTex parka. I want to thank you on behalf of the Marine infantryman, who is today,

walking in a pair of comfortable, quality boots—boots built to support him in ‘‘every

clime and place.’’ You cannot believe what a difference that makes. I want to thank

you for the ammunition, the spare parts, and operating moneys which translate into

training and readiness. Readiness is paramount.

I want you to know that we not only appreciate what you have done for us over

the last several years, but that we have endeavored to enhance our capabilities utilizing that which you have provided. We feel strongly that we have succeeded in

that undertaking. As an example, the funds provided for the Warfighting Laboratory

have been put to good use in our Sea Dragon experiments. The first Advanced

Warfighting Experiment (AWE), Hunter Warrior is complete. We learned much. We

anticipate learning even more from the next AWE, Urban Warrior which is now underway with an anticipated conclusion in the spring of 1999. In Urban Warrior we

are investigating new technologies, concepts and organizations for operations in the

burgeoning urban littorals—areas which the QDR and the NDP both agree will be

important in the decades ahead. But we are not just testing new ideas—not just

gathering data. As a result of the Lab’s conclusions, we are actually fielding new

capabilities. I’ve spoken before of the Chemical Biological Incidence Response Force,

now a unique part of the nation’s defense. But, there is much more. We have begun

to field non-lethal weapons sets with our Marine Expeditionary Units world-wide.

These sets don’t, in any way, dilute the lethality of the Marine Air-Ground Task

Force but rather they give the commander a broader selection of capabilities. And,

this summer, our MEU’s will deploy with the Dragon Drone, an Unmanned Aerial

Vehicle. In a short period of time—certainly very short when compared to traditional research, development and acquisition procedures—we have taken an off the

shelf piece of equipment, the Dragon Drone, enhanced its performance, conducted

experimentation, and then fielded a capability that greatly increases the battalion

commander’s ability to fight. This single UAV provides over-the-horizon day or night

reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and even delivers non- lethal weapons. Given its breadth of capabilities, this is an inexpensive system with a price tag

of between $45,000 and $90,000, depending on the configuration.

All these things and much, much more are discussed in our booklet ‘‘United

States Marine Corps Concepts and Issues 1998.’’ I commend it as an excellent resource which provides information on a range of Marine Corps topics from, procurement programs, to personnel programs such as recruiting and our transformation

process, to our operational concept, to the activities of the Marine Corps Warfighting

Laboratory and its series of Advanced Warfighting Experiments.

When I first came before Congress, I was asked, if I could have anything for the

Marine Corps, what would it be? I told you, I’d like to retire some of our Korean

War vintage personal equipment and outfit your Marines with modern gear that

would make them more effective in the field. You helped with that and so much

more. Again—thank you. I further thank you for recognizing the value of the V–

22 tiltroter aircraft. This aircraft exponentially increases the effectiveness of our forward deployed expeditionary forces. The QDR recognized this, and today, because

of the foresight of the Congress, the administration, and the Department of Defense

(DOD), we will more rapidly assimilate this unique capability, having moved 11

planes from the out-years into the current Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
184

This action had two very advantageous effects. First, it decreased the unit cost, and

saved the American people tens of millions of dollars. Second, and more importantly,

there is no new capability being procured by the DOD today which yields such a

significant—such a revolutionary—difference, in our ability to fight the nation’s battles, as the V–22 Osprey. And I don’t just mean a tactical difference, although the

scope of tactical applications is truly staggering. The procurement of an operational

V–22 capability has enormous strategic implications. Because it flies at speeds only

achievable with a fixed wing aircraft and because it can refuel in flight, the Osprey

can self deploy. We can pick up combat loaded Marines in CONUS and move them

to point of crisis—quite literally anywhere in the world. And, we don’t need an airstrip when we get there. It flies like an airplane, takes off, hovers, and lands like

a helicopter and has a greater payload and greater range than mid-sized helicopters.

When we field operational squadrons of V–22’s, the warfighting CINC’s and the

NCA will have a host of options never before available—options and capabilities

found in no other military in the world.

America depends on and uses her Corps of Marines. This has never been truer

than it is today. During the cold war, Marines were called upon to respond to crisis

about once every fifteen weeks. Since the cold war, that commitment has tripled to

once in every five weeks. Since my testimony just last year, the people have sent

us to do their bidding in the world, on ten separate occasions. We were there. We

were ready. And to ensure we continue to be ready, we maintain an average of

23,464 Marines forward deployed—ready to respond when the nation says, ‘‘Send in

the Marines!’’ We do two things for this nation, we make Marines and we win battles. Congress, who handles the purse strings of the nation, has done much to equip

us to win those battles. I want to tell you the people’s money has been well spent.

I ask you for your continued support.

CARRIER ROTATION IN THE GULF

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary, we did take part of the committee to the South Pole, and on the way we happened to see Adm.

Bob Natter, who was moving the Seventh Fleet, the Independence

battle group, around to the Persian Gulf. We had a very interesting

visit with him and some of his people, a very interesting coincidence. You mentioned that deployment.

Can you tell the committee a little bit more about what the rotation policy will be for the Navy, and your personnel now, in terms

of that deployment. It looks like an early and definite deployment.

Secretary DALTON. Well, we plan to have the two carrier battle

groups and the amphibious-ready group in the gulf for the foreseeable future. The Independence responded to the call, and I have a

personal good feeling for that ship.

I spent my youngster cruise on that when I was a midshipman,

and it is the oldest ship in our fleet today, and continues to do an

outstanding job, but we anticipate being there in the force that we

are there today for the foreseeable future.

In terms of the rotation, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson is steaming toward the gulf today and will be replacing or relieving the U.S.S.

George Washington. Excuse me. The Stennis. Excuse me. The

U.S.S. John Stennis will be relieving the George Washington, and

we are staying on our 6-month deployment schedules.

We learned a valuable lesson in the seventies when we reached

a hollow force by keeping our people deployed for long periods of

time, 8, 9, 10, sometimes 11-month deployments.

Our people come into the Navy and Marine Corps to go to sea,

they expect to deploy, but we have learned through experience that

6 months is the right period of time, and this 6-month rotation

cycle is one that we adhere to. For it to be broken, it actually has

to be approved by the Chief of Naval Operations, and he has only

done that rarely in the last few years.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
185

So by staying on that rotation, having these ships relieved by

their shipmates and counterparts coming into the gulf is the right

thing to do.

Obviously, keeping that number of carriers and that amphibious

ready group in the gulf for a long period of time does take away

from their capability to be someplace else, so that is a strain, and

we are also steaming these ships longer than their steaming days

per quarter, or higher, on the deployment in the gulf than they

normally would be, because they have a big job to do.

So that is the plan, and it is one that we can certainly carry out

for an interim period of time. If we had to do it long term, it would

put a strain on us and not be able to cover other commitments in

other parts of the world.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I hope the

committee will not run the clock, but I ask each of you to limit your

questions somewhere around 5 to 7 minutes.

NEW ATTACK SUBMARINE

Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, last year the Congress approved legislation for a contractor teaming arrangement

and the procurement of four new attack submarines over the coming years. Can you give this committee a status report on the new

attack submarine program?

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir, Senator. The Congress directed that

we budget four submarines in the fiscal year defense plan [FYDP],

and at this low production rate the most economical approach to

build submarines at two yards was to look for efficiencies in the

major portions of the production. This was an innovative, unique

approach to having these two yards team, and we appreciate the

support of this committee in allowing us to do that.

We think it will save some $600 million over the FYDP by having these two yards work together in this way, and I am very

pleased with the progress to date. So far, of the 12,000 drawings,

some 5,000 are already complete, the contract proposal was received from Electric Boat and Newport News in mid-December. We

expect to award the contract for the first submarine in the second

quarter, by the end of June. The project is on schedule for mockup

development and we will actually cut steel on production of a prototype of the bulkhead, in April. So the program is on schedule and

it is doing well. It is one that was a real innovation on behalf of

the Navy Department but I am convinced that it is in the best interest in the Department of the Navy and the taxpayer.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral Johnson, on November 21 of last year,

your Vice Chief of Naval Operations announced that the Pacific

missile range facility [PMRF] is the best choice to conduct antiballistic missile defense programs. Can you tell us why PMRF was

designated the best choice?

Admiral JOHNSON. Senator Inouye, there are several reasons

that brought the Vice Chief to that statement, and I will just state

a couple of them here. First, and really foremost, in my mind, is

the open, unencumbered space attendant to the Pacific missile

range facility.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
186

A secondary and also very important reason for us is that the

first two ships that will be equipped with the area theater ballistic

missile defense capability are home ported in Pearl Harbor. It is

a logical fit for them to execute the test program that will commence next year in the local area, for quality of life for the crew,

for what we have learned in the Mountain Top experiments that

we did previous, et cetera, so it is a very strong allegiance we have

with the PMRF.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Senator INOUYE. General Krulak, in your prepared statement

you note the high rate of crisis to which the marines are responding. In fact, you say that it used to be once every 15 weeks, now

it is triple, once every 5 weeks.

Other services somehow connect high rates of deployment to

their problems of retention and recruiting, and yet I note from your

report that you do not seem to be suffering from the same problem.

What is the reason?

General KRULAK. I think it is a couple of reasons, sir. One is the

ethos of the Marine Corps, they come in, as the Secretary says, to

deploy. They are the type of young men and women of character

who literally say we are going to come here, we know we are going

to be worked very hard, that is why we have come into the service,

and so that is their basic philosophy coming in.

Second, I think they get a heck of a challenge, they are doing

something very important for the Nation, and there is not a young

man and woman around who does not get fired up about the opportunity to do something meaningful for their country.

Third, I think they get good leadership, to be very honest, and

I do not mean from the general level, I mean from the corporal,

and the sergeant, and the gunnery sergeant level, maybe the captains and the lieutenants, but at the base level they are really

being led by tremendously fine men and women.

Fourth, that is reflected in not only our accessions, recruiting,

but more importantly, in retention. By the end of this first quarter,

we had utilized 88 percent of all of our available boat spaces to reenlist people.

At the end of 3 months we only had 12 percent of the corps left

to go, we literally had to slow retention in order to allow those people who were coming up in the following months to get an opportunity to reenlist in the corps, all of it, because I think they are

getting the type of challenge that they sought when they came in,

in the beginning.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, your commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Clemins, has made it a high

priority to have new housing and other facilities on Ford Island,

and obviously, we do not have that kind of money to budget this

type of activity, so a suggestion was made that the Navy enter into

agreements with the private sector to offset the costs of this proposal. Can you tell me what the status is?

Secretary DALTON. Senator, as you point out, Admiral Clemins,

CINCPACFLEET, has submitted a conceptual plan for the development of Ford Island. It is his judgment that this will provide a

focal point for Pearl Harbor, a quality residential community for

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
187

the Navy Department, and also establish a place for Navy history

and culture. He has also proposed draft legislation which would

give the Navy Department the broad authority to lease or convey

the property to private entities to construct and operate military

housing and other facilities. We are reviewing that proposal within

the Navy Department today, and I look forward to getting the

briefing and seeing if we can move forward with it as well.

Senator INOUYE. Are you optimistic?

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir; from what I know about it, it is a

good proposal, but I do not have the details yet. I know that Admiral Clemins feels very positive about it, and he and his staff have

done a great deal of work on it. I look forward to seeing it personally.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Bond.

F/A–18E/F

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and Admiral Johnson, we have heard that the E/F, the

Navy’s F/A–18E/F program is your No. 1 priority, can you also assure us that long-lead funding for the F–18 will be protected from

reprogramming raids, to fill other shortfalls, so that a multiyear

procurement may be securely negotiated in the near term?

Secretary DALTON. Senator, as I said in my opening statement,

this is our No. 1 priority, this program is doing extremely well. It

is on time, on budget, under weight. We are in the test phase of

the program, and there are always issues that we deal with in the

test phase, but this program is doing extremely well. We do want

to, indeed, protect this program, and go forward with the

multiyear.

The CNO has been actively engaged, actually been down to fly

the Super Hornet, as Congressman Cunningham has recently. We

always welcome that and would welcome any of you that would like

to go——

Senator STEVENS. They both came back safely——

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir, they did.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. The plane and the Congressman.

Secretary DALTON. Absolutely.

Senator STEVENS. Good.

Secretary DALTON. Let me ask the CNO to expand on that,

please.

Admiral JOHNSON. Only to say, Senator Bond, that personally I

want to build a fence around the E/F so that nothing encumbers

our climb to steady-state procurement, so that we can lock in the

multiyear, that is really important to us, that is why the 30-year

plan this year is important.

We have to get up on that ramp stabilized, so we can get those

airplanes, for the best dollar value, out to the fleet, ASAP.

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Admiral, and Admiral, addressing the Navy standoff, SLAM-ER, does the Navy have a

unique requirement for a man in the loop in your standoff air-tosurface weapon, and could you explain what parameter is met by

including a man in the loop, for the benefit of the——

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
188

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I think the best way to say it simply

is that the reason the Navy is so enthusiastic about SLAM-ER is

because it does satisfy the man-in-the-loop requirement, which

gives us the capability to reprogram that missile. Relocatable target flexibility, that is really what it is all about.

By the way, we have had four in a row, very successful, not trivial profile test shots with the SLAM-ER, so we are very excited

about that missile.

Senator BOND. But the man in the loop, as I understand it, is

because there is a pilot——

Admiral JOHNSON. Indeed.

Senator BOND [continuing]. Who is much close to the——

Admiral JOHNSON. Exactly.

Senator BOND [continuing]. Missile and the target.

Admiral JOHNSON. It gives you the combat tactical flexibility to

essentially deal with relocatable targets, real-time.

Senator BOND. That is the point I want to make. Thank you.

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Senator BOND. For a moving target you can make that——

Admiral JOHNSON. Indeed.

Senator BOND [continuing]. Reprogramming. Final question. Mr.

Secretary, I know your budgeting a funding plan which takes advantage of a proposed multiyear procurement for the T–45. Would

you please explain that for the committee?

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir, we are, and we are pleased with the

progress of the T–45. We had a very nice roll out of that down at

Meridian, MS, last year. The T–45 is doing well, and we are moving forward with the multiyear.

Senator BOND. What is your time line for the execution once authorization is granted?

Secretary DALTON. Let me answer that for the record, if I could,

please, Senator.

Senator BOND. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

The timeline for the execution of the T–45 Multi-Year Procurement is 15 aircraft

per year for fiscal year 1999–2002, and 4 for fiscal year 2003. This 64 aircraft buy

(at a savings of $47.4 million over the current non-MYP plan) completes the T–45

buy of 187 aircraft required under current planning factors. The final T–45C aircraft

bought in fiscal year 2003 will be delivered in fiscal year 2005. Once authorization

for fiscal year 1999 funds is received, the MYP contract can be awarded shortly

thereafter. Current plans are for a December/January award.

300 SHIP NAVY

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I

join you in welcoming this distinguished panel of witnesses before

our committee today.

In looking at the budget request for the Navy and the Marine

Corps, there are obviously very strong efforts to meet the needs

that we have for a mobile force that can project power around the

globe right now, that force is stretched pretty thin, and I think that

is very clear from not only the statements that have been submitted to the committee, but also the budget requests, particularly as

it relates to helping meet some of the needs for having equipment

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
189

and ships that are modern and capable to meet this ever-growing

challenge that we face around the world.

In that connection, I know that there has been a goal for some

time of 300 ships for the Navy. That is the operational requirement

that has been viewed as the Navy’s goal, but you look at the money

that is in the budget for ship building and it does not really keep

pace with the need for new ships coming into the fleet to maintain

a 300-ship Navy. I think the increased rate of construction that is

projected in this budget is something like 5 ships to 6 ships per

year, you really need to build about 10 ships each year over the

next several years to get us on the track to meet that goal.

Have we abandoned the goal of a 300-ship Navy, or are we getting ourselves in trouble in the out-years by not having more

money devoted to ship building?

Admiral JOHNSON. Senator Cochran, no, we have not abandoned

that. We, indeed, plan to be at 300-plus ships well into our future.

It does not make sense to build ships before we need them.

We, indeed, were building up to a 600-ship Navy during the

1980’s, so we have a relatively young fleet. It is important that we

build ships when we need them, but let me emphasize the point

that early in the 21st century we are going to need to build more

ships.

This DD–21, the surface craft of the 21st century that I referred

to in my opening statement, is a ship that we are going to be building more of, and that ship is going to have fewer sailors aboard,

less than 100 compared to the over 300 that we have aboard ships

that are of a similar type ship that we have sailing in the Navy

today.

The life cycle cost savings from that is some 70 percent. It is

really significant. We think that by taking that approach we will

be able to build more of those ships, and, indeed, keep our Navy

at the size that we need to be in order to meet the commitments

around the world.

We no longer need the 600-ship Navy that we once thought, because the ships that we are building today are so much more capable and can do so much more with even fewer sailors than those

that they are replacing.

LHD’S/LHA’S

Senator COCHRAN. We noticed also that the ship groups that you

have deployed in the Persian Gulf area, the general area, include

an LHD Marine Corps battle group, along with two carrier groups.

It illustrates the importance, I think, of the Marine Corps participation in that exercise, but also similar challenges that we have

had in the past.

One question that I raised the other day in a meeting with Admiral Johnson was whether or not you are planning to ask for long

lead funds for a new LHD.

It seems to me that at one point we were talking about a 12-ship

LHD fleet, we are substantially below that, and not going to be

able to reach that unless we do get some funds in the budget and

start preparing for the construction of another LHD. I would like

to get the Secretary’s reaction, and then both Admiral Johnson’s

and General Krulak’s response to what that need might be.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
190

Secretary DALTON. Senator Cochran, we are committed to the 12

amphibious ready groups for our Navy Department. We are studying the option of whether to procure another LHD, or to do a SLEP,

a Service Life Extension Program plan for the LHA’s. We are looking at that option, and also considering the option of perhaps even

accelerating the LHX, the next generation. However, we have not

made a decision with respect to that, we are addressing it in our

POM–00, which will be coming near term, and evaluating each of

those options. I think options is the key word with respect to that,

but let me ask the Chief of Naval Operations [CNO] and the Commandant to express themselves.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, let me just follow up with this additional question.

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. What is the preferred way—to build a new

LHD or to repair the LHA’s?

Secretary DALTON. There are pros and cons to each way, in terms

of considering costs, production, and also the ability to insert new

technology. Those are the things that we are considering as we look

at each of those options.

Senator COCHRAN. Admiral Johnson.

Admiral JOHNSON. Just a couple things to add, Senator Cochran.

One is, and I think it is very important for the record that I mention the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review’’ on the front end in my remarks. The ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review’’ validated what Chuck

Krulak and Jay Johnson would say is something that is fundamental to the future of the Navy and Marine Corps team, and that is

12 carrier battle groups and 12 amphibious ready groups, so as the

Secretary said, 12 is the right number. How we shape the amphibious ready group for the 21st century is very important to us, obviously.

We are looking at the options. For me, in order to provide for the

Commandant’s marines, I need the best, most combat-capable platform I can get that will allow me to keep ahead of the technology

curve, and however that translates into these options, that is what

we are going to go for, but we are very excited about the future

prospects for the 21st century.

Senator COCHRAN. I could not agree more. Twelve big deck

amphibs is key, not just for the Marine Corps, but for the Nation.

We have talked a little bit about where they are now, and we say

there is only one in the Persian Gulf. The reality is, it just got

there, relieved one that is now in the Gulf of Aden, there is one

that is coming through into the Mediterranean, as we speak, there

is one in Stonewater Bay, Australia, as we speak, so we have four

amphib ready groups right now operating, four deployed, for the

Nation.

The capability issue is key. You will want to have the most capable ship, you do not want to get something that is not going to take

you into the 21st century.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
191

CAPABILITY TO PERFORM MISSIONS

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the witnesses, I thank

Secretary Dalton and the General and the Admiral for being here.

The discussion about appropriations is normally a discussion about

unmet needs, which brings our attention to capability.

I read, and see, and hear from time to time people describing the

Defense Department and the military branches as not capable to

perform their missions, substantially weaker than at the height of

the cold war, and so on and so forth.

So I wonder if you could just give us the description of capability

at this point. Are you concerned about your capability, are you fully

capable of performing all the missions? And, again, I ask that question, understanding that the discussion about appropriations is always about unmet needs.

General KRULAK. That is a very good question, sir, because you

have come to the real hub, because it does have to do with money,

also. It’s the question of capability versus a system, or a platform,

or numbers of people, and too often we get wrapped around the latter and not around the former, which is a capability.

In the Marine Corps we are capable of executing that which we

have signed up to execute. We have never been a two MRC force,

we have always just been a one. We are capable of doing that.

Our problem is simply what’s going on behind the scenes, as we

come back, or as Jay will tell you, as he comes back. The ability

to get that carrier battle group or the amphibious ready group back

up on the step, ready to go out when the whistle blows, is taking

longer, and taking more money because of the systems. Now you

are on this end of it—because the systems are aging, and the cost

of maintenance and repair is increasing. The capabilities there, sir,

it is what backs that capability up as you prepare for the next

wave to go out.

Senator DORGAN. That relates to the kind of question Senator

Cochran asked about the replacement of ships, and so on——

General KRULAK. That’s correct.

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir. Absolutely.

Admiral JOHNSON. I would only add, Senator Dorgan, that the

committee knows well that we are a rotational force, and when you

cast it in the terms of capability, I would tell you, as Chuck did

for the Marines, that the Navy forces that are out forward are absolutely capable of executing the full spectrum of their mission

tasking.

The concern, the unmet need discussion, really, in my view, belongs on the nondeployed side of our lives, and that is where our

focus of effort is being put right now.

We are a tiered readiness force. We always have been by design.

We are fully combat ready when we deploy, when we come home

we step off the readiness ladder, if you will, and then work our way

back up over the period called the interdeployment training cycle.

What has happened to us right now is that if you describe that

interdeployment training cycle as a bathtub, I would use the term

that the bathtub has gotten deeper. The climb out of the bathtub

to go back on the deployment step comes later in the turnaround,

and it is a steeper climb out.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
192

That is where we are focusing our money, that is where we are

focusing our priorities, so that we can get ourselves back to what

I would consider a normal turnaround.

THEATERWIDE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator DORGAN. I have a couple of additional questions. Secretary Dalton, you and I talked yesterday, and I asked you about

the theaterwide ballistic missile defense system that the Navy is

developing.

Can you describe for us generally the capability of that system?

I had read that you are accelerating that program. What are the

consequences of that?

Secretary DALTON. Senator Dorgan, our Navy theater ballistic

defense program is on track, we feel very good about the progress

that we have made.

In the area defense program, the contracts are let and designs

and reviews are complete. The missiles are being built, the computer programs are in test. I am confident that we will achieve our

initial operational capability in 2001, as scheduled.

We are also very positive about the Navy theaterwide, and the

progress that we have made there. We have reviewed each capability and how well it is doing. Indeed, it is part of our forward deployed sea base theater ballistic missile [TBM] capability.

I think the Navy Department has, indeed, stepped forward, and

of all the services, we feel very positive about the contribution that

we are making in this regard. I think that it’s going to be very important to our future. Let me ask the CNO to expand on those remarks.

Admiral JOHNSON. Only to add, sir, that within the Navy budget

what we have done with the program you have before you is we

are preparing the force, if you will, preparing the fleet to accept

theater ballistic missile defense capability. We have put over $1.2 billion into the various programs that will

allow us to do cruiser conversions, that will allow us to forward fit

into the DDG–51’s, the CEC, and area theater ballistic missile capability. We have what I would consider a very robust program, because we think this is right, not only for the Navy, but for the

country.

Senator DORGAN. That potentially puts a seal over a carrier

group.

Admiral JOHNSON. Indeed, sir. The area, in terms of envelopes,

let us just say the area is designed to go forward with the battle

groups and provide protection for our forces, for the Marines, for

the Army, for the allies, whoever needs them in the execution of

a mission, in the littorals.

The theater systems have a much broader reach, and they are,

by orders of magnitude, larger in their capacity.

Senator DORGAN. Just one brief question. I have had some inquiries from North Dakota, General Krulak, about a marine reserve plan. Are you considering an operational unit of marine reserve in North Dakota?

General KRULAK. Yes, sir, we are. We should be nearing a decision. The time line I have been given is about 30 days to the decision point.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
193

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you again. I think the information provided this morning is very useful, and I appreciate

your being here.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Bumpers.

F/A–18 CAPABILITIES

Senator BUMPERS. Just so you can be thinking about it, I have

two major areas of concern. One is what seems to me like a premature retirement of a lot of good ships, and second is the F–18.

I confess that I have been adamantly opposed to the Air Force’s

F–22. I thought that based on all the best information I could get

that the F–18 was quite capable of defeating just about anything

for the next 20 years, and so I opted for the E/F, and have been

a staunch proponent of it.

Now, all the literature in the newspaper stories are casting very

serious doubts on the capabilities of the E/F, wing drop, and other

problems which the General Accounting Office [GAO] has identified.

This is like a lot of things, depending on who you talk to you get

different answers on how severe the problems will be. The wing

drop seems to be the most serious.

On the one hand the GAO says the development costs of that F–

18E/F, to correct the wing drop and other problems, could be very

substantial and well above the roughly $4.9 billion scheduled for

the development of the E/F and they are scheduled to come out

with a new report, which I do not think has been released yet, setting out in a more precise way what these development costs are

likely to be.

My question is: What do you say to the GAO report, which is

pretty damning on the F–18?

Secretary DALTON. Senator Bumpers, we have gone through the

GAO report and have very good answers for each of the points that

they raise. The F–18E/F Super Hornet is an outstanding aircraft.

It has much greater range than the C/D, its predecessor. It also has

much greater stealth capability and much greater payload capability, both taking out and bringing back. It has much greater room

for growth. There is no more room for growth in the C/D. The E/

F is an aircraft that we have advanced to a long degree, as I said

before, on time, on budget, underway.

The wing drop issue that you raise; on a scale of 1 to 10, I would

characterize it as a 2 or a 3, 10 being a very severe problem. We

have dealt with problems in this test program that are far more

serious than the wing drop. We had issues with engines, and hydraulics, and so forth that may be considered fours or fives in

terms of severity. This wing drop issue is not a significant problem.

However, it is important to us to address it, and we are. We have

a fix in hand to deal with that.

Senator BUMPERS. What is the fix?

Secretary DALTON. The fix is a perforated wing faring that is not

going to have any negative impact with respect to range, stealth,

any of the parameters that deal with the aircraft. We have done

some testing with it and the testing has been very positive. We

have not finished the testing but I am very optimistic that, indeed,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
194

this problem has been addressed. We just need to finish the testing

with it, but it is essentially done.

As I mentioned earlier, the CNO has actually been down to fly

the aircraft, and is an aviator by his own warfare specialty in the

Navy, and can address the specifics of it. Well, let me ask him to

do that, if I could.

Senator BUMPERS. Before you do that, let me ask you, you are

familiar, I am sure, with the GAO’s recommendation, quote, ‘‘That

the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Navy to not approve contracting for any additional F/A–18E/F’s until the Navy

demonstrates through flight testing that identified aircraft deficiencies have been corrected.’’ Are you adhering to that?

Secretary DALTON. Senator Bumpers, I would not ask the Secretary of Defense to approve a funding request for this aircraft

until I was convinced that, indeed, it was safe; that it had met the

performance characteristics, and met the requirements that the

aircraft should have.

So the Secretary does not have to worry about making the decision. I am not going to recommend that he make that decision until

I am satisfied. But as I say, I feel very good about where we are

today. All we need to do is complete this testing. We are very far

down that road with respect to having dealt with that problem.

Senator BUMPERS. Admiral Johnson.

Admiral JOHNSON. To add, Senator Bumpers, the test program is

a combination of flight testing, fluid dynamics testing, wind tunnel

testing. Every move is being vetted by an independent blue ribbon

panel of experts, so we have the right people working the issue.

As the Secretary said, this is not a big deal. Some would choose

to make it so, but it is not a big deal. By the time it has to be dealt

with in the context of the budget, the wing drop will be officially

behind us.

The pathway we are on will take us to a Navy program review

this month, if the weather allows to keep the flight testing going,

this month, and it will be done.

The GAO report showed us no surprises. I will tell you, we had

opened our books to them. We were very forthcoming with the test

team. There were no show stoppers or surprises in there. This is

a model program.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will submit a few additional questions in writing to the Secretary. The GAO report, incidentally, that was promised for late February or March, to my

knowledge, that has not come out, has it?

Secretary DALTON. No, sir; I have not seen the second report.

Senator BUMPERS. When I submit my questions, and I will put

in the letter to you, I would prefer no answers until that report has

come out, and we will see where we are then.

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir; I will be happy to comply with that.

SHIP SERVICE LIFE

Senator BUMPERS. My other question is this: I know that the

DDG–51’s, the Arleigh Burkes, those are highly preferable ships in

this environment, but we are retiring 5 frigates, 23 guided missile

frigates, and a couple of Virginia-class cruisers, I think, notably,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
195

the U.S.S. Arkansas, which is 19 years old, and was at the time

promised a 35-year life. I mean we depend on those things here.

When you tell us a ship has a 35-year life, we expect it to have

a 35-year life. Now, the rule is, No. 1, that it cannot meet the kind

of new threat that you expect.

I have a question on that, what is the threat, and who is offering

the threat? But you are familiar with Admiral Reason’s, I think,

where he said, ‘‘I would rather have three hulls than one Arleigh

Burke,’’ and we are putting a lot of good hulls that are not obviously quite state of the art in mothballs.

The U.S.S. Arkansas cost $300 million. Today that ship would cost in the neighborhood of $900 million. Now, if you can overhaul

and refuel that ship for $200 million, why is that not a good bargain for an additional 10 to 15 years of service?

Secretary DALTON. Well, Senator Bumpers, a nuclear-powered

cruiser like the Arkansas, the overhaul and replacing the nuclear

core, and so forth, it is a very expensive issue. As we have gone

through this right-sizing process of downsizing, and ridding ourselves of older ships, we have used benchmarks of times like that

to consider having ships like that decommissioned.

We have done the same thing with submarines.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have taken up too

much time already. General Krulak, I guess you are doing everything about right, I do not have any questions for you. [Laughter.]

Of course, as a marine, I would probably think that whether you

were or not.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

PERSONNEL PROBLEMS/STATISTICS

Senator DOMENICI. I just have a couple of questions. I understand there has been testimony regarding personnel problems such

as Naval Academy cheating, those things are being addressed, but

I would like to ask some other questions regarding personnel problems.

Do you have any way of comparing such things as spousal and

child abuse 7 years ago, 8 years ago, versus now, substance abuse

cases, maybe even divorces, while in the service, with families, versus another period of time?

I wonder if there is any indication that these kinds of problems

are changed by deployments, long periods of deployment?

Secretary DALTON. Senator, first of all, one of the primary lessons of leadership that we teach our people is take care of your

people. Indeed, we consider it the responsibility of commanding officers and unit leaders to be aware of what is going on in the lives

of the people that they lead. In addition to that primary responsibility. Yes, sir, we do surveys on a regular basis with respect to

seeing how we are doing with some of the things that you mentioned. For example, with regard to substance abuse, we have

made great progress in the Navy Department with respect to that.

In the eighties we had major problems with substance abuse, and

in some cases we had ships with some 50 percent of our people

testing positive with drugs. Today, we are essentially a drug-free

Department of the Navy, because we administer tests on a routine

basis, and, indeed, anyone who tests positively for drugs is signifiU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
196

cantly disciplined and, indeed may be out of the service. So we

have I think done very well with that.

Another issue that we have found that is at the core of some of

the problems that you refer to is alcohol abuse. We have made a

major effort in the Navy and in the Marine Corps to de-emphasize

and de-glamorize the use of alcohol. We call the program in the

Navy right spirit, and in the Marine Corps semper fit, and it is

working. We have made significant progress in reducing problems

that are related to alcohol, and we found that most of the things

to which you referred, 80 or 90 percent of the cases turned out to

be alcohol related. So getting to the core of that issue, I think, indeed, addresses it.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you have anything that compares years

past with now in these areas?

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir; I can answer that for the record. We

do have some statistics we can show you with respect to that.

Senator DOMENICI. I think for myself, the General and the Admiral, I think you ought to be concerned about trends in these areas

among the military personnel, because we all are looking at what

is going to cause things to fall apart, and frankly, if you have drug

abuse, and alcohol, and child and spousal abuse, and very high divorce rates, I mean pretty soon it is going to be very hard to keep

people in the military, or they are not going to be the kind of people you have been bragging about as the best suited and most fit

in the world.

So if you can supply something——

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. Showing some way to measure

success, and if you do not have it, then maybe you ought to state

in the record how you might go about doing some comparisons.

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir; I’d be very happy to do that.

Senator DOMENICI. That is enough for that.

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. The chairman has been very good in delaying

for me, who came very, very late. I want to leave you with some

written questions regarding the T–38.

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. I mean the F–18. Excuse me. In detail. I have

a number of questions about it, but now I want to ask you about

your respective budgets, as it pertains to contracting out, or privatization.

PRIVATIZATION/OUTSOURCING

How did the Navy and the Marine Corps determine that contracting out saves 20 percent, and why did the Air Force assume

a different savings? They claim 25 percent.

Could you tell us, what did you study and what are your models

for saying that we are going to save 20 percent if we do these

things?

Admiral JOHNSON. I will be happy to provide you the specific matrix for the record. I would comment, Senator Domenici, that the

commitment that the Navy has made in this budget and the subsequent years is to study, via the A–76 process, 80,500 full-time

equivalents. It gets back to the business of trying to control our inU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
197

frastructure, and reduce and be more efficient within our infrastructure.

I have heard numbers from 10 percent, to 35, to 40 percent goodness in those A–76 studies, depending on who you talk to and what

the specifics of the study are. I am not smart enough today to tell

you what the right number is, but I would tell you that our experience to date in the small samples we have had has been somewhere between 20 and 30 percent.

We will fund those studies to take us on a pathway to try to realize over $1 billion a year in savings by 2003. That is a very ambitious plan, but it is one that we are taking forward in earnest, and

I will provide the rest for the record, sir.

[The information follows:]

The savings reflected in the Navy’s FYDP are derived from our expectation that

‘‘competition’’ not ‘‘contracting out’’ will result in significant savings. This expectation is based on research and analysis performed by the Center for Naval Analysis

(CNA). CNA reviewed our experience implementing OMB Circular A–76 in the

1980’s and found that ‘‘competition’’, not ‘‘contracting out’’, resulted in cost savings

of approximately 30 percent, regardless of the outcome of the cost comparison. As

a matter of interest, approximately half of the functions studied remained in-house

after the competition, albeit in a more streamlined, efficient organization. CNA also

reviewed the Navy’s inventory of commercial activities and determined that conducting cost comparisons of activities involving approximately 80,000 full-time equivalents would yield the kind of savings we have incorporated into the Navy’s FYDP.

The CNA analysis formed the basis for Navy’s competition savings projections. I

cannot address the Air Force’s savings assumptions, but I will be happy to provide

you with a copy of CNA’s analysis that forms the basis of our estimate that competition yields average savings of 30 percent.

General KRULAK. Sir, we are very cautious about putting wedges

out there, thinking that we are going to reap great benefits.

We are doing exactly what Jay is saying, we are running the A–

76 studies, we are putting money up front to get a good idea of

what really we can expect in the out-years. But I think that both

Jay and I have seen what can happen if you get too overenthused

about money in the out-years if it does not come.

I would also echo the issue about the infrastructure, and go back.

I think we all see an infrastructure problem, where you have too

much infrastructure, and some of it is really not adding to the capability that you need, and sooner or later we are going to have

to get at that.

Senator DOMENICI. General, and Mr. Secretary, and Admiral, I

raise these questions because I understand how difficult it is when

others are doing a quadrennial defense review and the dollar

amount for you to save is set in advance from above.

You were told this is how much you have to spend on defense,

and then you go about putting the pieces together. I am very concerned that somewhere along the line we were not going to be able

to make ends meet. You came up with this privatization and contracting out to make the ends meet, and frankly, I do not think you

are going to achieve it.

I am not suggesting that any of you have ulterior motives in putting it in, I just do not believe when push comes to shove you can

save that much money. I do not think you are going to get them

done, and I guess I just worry about that, because every year we

think we have lived within our means, and there is always someU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
198

thing that turns up that we could not achieve, and this could be

a very big one when you consider all the services.

I would hope that you would advise us specifically how you are

going to go about measuring this and what are your time intervals

for making these decisions. Could you put that in a kind of record

statement for us, so we will have some information.

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I would be glad to, and we do have

a good system for measuring that, but we will provide that to you.

Senator DOMENICI. On my previous question, when I asked you

to submit more information, no aspersions on anybody at this table,

but the Defense Department, in general, has difficulty answering

questions like that in a timely manner. Normally, they take 2 or

3 months on any issues about marital abuse, drugs, and the like,

I do not think it will do us much good unless you do it rather expeditiously.

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir; we will provide an answer to you expeditiously.

[The information follows:]

SPOUSE AND CHILD ABUSE STATISTICS

Fiscal year—

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Reported Spouse Abuse Incidents ................ 4,169 5,605 6,345 6,344 6,057 5,228 3,424 3,357

(Rate of incidents reported per 1,000

spouses) ................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) (240) (25.5) (24.5) (22.4) (13.9) (16.3)

Reported Child Abuse Incidents ................... 3,735 4,997 5,351 5,368 4,122 3,822 2,435 2,606

(Rate of incidents reported per 1,000 children) ......................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) (13.1) (13.5) (13.8) (10.5) (7.1) (7.8)

1 Unknown.

Navy abuse incident reports have decreased significantly since fiscal year 1993.

This trend may be due to downsizing, improved screening of cases through use of

the Navy’s Risk Assessment Model, and/or fear of adverse career consequences leading to decreased reporting. The Congressionally directed Abuse Victim Study

showed that fear of negative career consequences for servicemembers was the major

disincentive for reporting family violence (Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1993 (Public Law 102–484)).

We have no evidence or indication that deployments or long periods of deployment

directly impact the incidence rates of child or spouse abuse. Personal childhood experiences, learned behavior patterns, and individual psychological factors are

thought to influence the incidence of child or spouse abuse more directly. Situational

family stress, such as work stress, does not appear to be a strong predictor of child

or spouse abuse, but may increase risk when found in interaction with other known

risk factors such as those above. We recently completed a survey of Navy recruits

at Great Lakes Recruit Training Center which indicates that a significant number

of recruits have a personal history of childhood physical and sexual abuse, along

with exposure to a variety of other traumatic events. This history of childhood trauma, which predates entry into naval service, is likely to contribute to a variety of

personnel and health problems unless assistance is provided. We are working on

intervention programs to minimize the potential for negative consequences in the

future.

ALCOHOL ABUSE STATISTICS

Fiscal year—

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Total Alcohol Incidents .................................. 5,986 5,850 5,750 6,123 5,717 5,225 3,063

(Percent of total Navy Population) ................ (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Underage Drinkers ......................................... 1,916 1,521 1,721 1,923 1,533 1,587 978

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
199

ALCOHOL ABUSE STATISTICS—Continued

Fiscal year—

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

(Percentage of total incidents) ..................... (32) (26) (30) (31) (27) (30) (32)

Total Navy DWI’s ........................................... 4,900 3,440 2,544 2,357 2,043 1,905 1,066

DWI Underage Drinkers ................................. 1,068 666 315 263 198 179 107

(Percent of total DWI’s) ................................. (21) (19) (12) (11) (10) (9) (10)

Discharges for Alcohol Abuse ....................... 832 1,052 836 611 489 587 576

(Officer/Enlisted) ........................................... (3/829) (5/1,047) (3/833) (1/610) (2/487) (0/587) (0/576)

DRUG ABUSE STATISTICS

Fiscal year—

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Total Sample Tested .......................... 1.40M 1.35M 1.22M 1.07M 992.8K 936.1K 446.5K

(Percent testing positive) .................. (.64) (.80) (.84) (.96) (.76) (.66) 1 (.84)

Discharges for Drug Abuse ............... 2,221 3,350 2,971 2,491 2,216 1,982 1,972

(Officer/Enlisted) ............................... (6/2,215) (2/3,348) (2/2,969) (1/2,490) (0/2,216) (0/1,982) (0/1,972)

1 Through 2nd quarter.

DIVORCE STATISTICS

Navy does not have sufficient historical data concerning personnel divorces to

show a trend in the last 7 or 8 years. 1997 was the first year questions concerning

divorce were included in our annual Navy-wide Personnel Survey. Divorce trends

can be determined as data from future Navy-wide Personnel Surveys are collected.

COAST GUARD/NAVY SHIP PROCUREMENT COMMONALITY

Senator DOMENICI. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, the

Coast Guard has told us it wants to start a new long-range cutter

in the year 2000, and it appears to us that there may be some commonality there between their program and your plans to start the

DD–21 ship.

Have you had any conversations with the Coast Guard to see if

it is possible to combine those programs for the efficiency that

might come from buying two vessels at the same time?

Secretary DALTON. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Chief of Naval

Operations has had some discussions with the Commandant of the

Coast Guard, let me ask him to——

Senator STEVENS. Admiral Johnson.

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I am talking to Bob Kramek, and our

staffs are engaged. We are looking at all kinds of options for commonality, as they go forward and we go forward. You are right on

with the question and the issue.

We need to do what makes sense for both of us. We are doing—

incidentally, at this moment, we have just, in kind of a test case,

turned one of our PC’s over to the Coast Guard for them to evaluate for their use as well. We have a lot of interchange going on,

and specific to DD–21, the answer is yes.

Senator STEVENS. Before he left Senator Bumpers asked me to

inquire from you about the reenlistment rate of naval pilots. In

past discussions we have now learned that the Air Force will cap

their deployments in 45 days in the Iraq area because patrolling

that no-fly zone is diminishing critical pilot skills for combat.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
200

Could you tell us how you are going to handle your deployments

there and what has been your recent reenlistment rate?

Admiral JOHNSON. Our deployments are fine, Mr. Chairman, in

the context of the pilots, and the flight time, and the training. Because we are rotational we set a 6-month portal-to-portal limit on

our deployments, a 2-to-1 turnaround ratio, minimum, and what

we call a 50-percent home tempo, cast 2 years forward and 3 years

back by the schedule. Those are the matrix by which we build the

plans to deploy.

Everything we are doing today and out forward, whether it is

two carrier battle groups in the Arabian Gulf, or wherever they

are, the plans contain that matrix. The specific concern about the

pilot retention is really a multifaceted reality, is probably the best

way to say it. I am very concerned about the retention of our pilots.

I do not believe that it is specifically tied to that deployment

scheme. I believe that the most significant impacts come on, as I

said earlier, not to pilots, but it relates directly to pilots, the nondeployed side of our lives.

We have to give them airplanes to fly. We have to give them the

training throughout the turnaround. We have to compensate them,

we have to care about them, and they will stay on the team, and

we are executing a multipronged attack to deal with the pilot retention challenge right now.

Senator STEVENS. Are the Navy pilots going to take up part of

the no-fly pattern——

Admiral JOHNSON. Indeed.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. Flying those no-fly squares out

there?

Admiral JOHNSON. Indeed. We have been part and parcel of Operation Southern Watch in the no-fly zone since the beginning——

PILOT RETENTION

Senator STEVENS. What has been your reenlistment record? The

Air Force is somewhere between 29 and 33 percent.

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir; ours is actually in the low thirties

right now. I would tell you that if you want to look at the bonus

take rate this year, if you aggregate the numbers, required versus

taking the bonus right now, we are sitting at 59 percent, which you

think, well, that sounds pretty good.

The truth of it is, in selected communities we are down in single

digits, and so I have serious concerns, but my pilot retention concern is one where I would say, today, my pilot retention is not as

critical as Gen. Mike Ryan would tell you, but as I tell him, I am

trying to draw lead on it, because in 2 years, if I do not pay attention, and we do not do the things I am describing, we will be right

where he is.

Senator STEVENS. I think that deployment, ready deployment,

ought to be a good place to test that, and I would hope that you

would monitor that.

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir, we do.

Senator STEVENS. I cannot think of a worst deterrent for a combat-trained pilot to send him or her out to fly 3 and 4 hours in the

morning and the afternoon on a square, I can tell you. A commuter

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
201

assignment on a local airplane, I believe, would be more preferable

than that to any pilot, in my opinion.

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. At least keep track of it for us, will you?

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I would only add to

you, sir, that we do have what I would consider a very good training and operational skill program that we execute in the gulf.

General KRULAK. I would also mention, sir, that we are out there

flying, too, having the same issues facing us. We fly the same

squares.

V–22

Senator STEVENS. I think it is going to impact us all. These are

definite deployments in such an environment.

General, I want to chat with you a minute about the V–22. I notice that Senator Cochran has a couple more questions. I am told

that the V–22 is now exceeding its maintenance goal by a factor

of 200 percent, but we do have some problems about a cost overrun

on the V–22.

Are you up to speed about the problems that the Marine Corps

is encountering with the V–22, and can you give us any indication

of what the program unit cost would be as a result of these problems?

General KRULAK. Well, first off, I would say that we really are

not experiencing anything that I would term a major problem. We

are right now, with the engineering manufacturing development

[EMD] models, over 300 hours of test flights on the overall program, over almost 1,200 hours.

It has met for the first time its speed requirements, its max

speed, it is doing well within the parameters. It has met or exceeded all the key performance parameters that we have established for

it.

The issue that has come up that has caused a little consternation

is a bearing problem that burned out on one of the test flights that

caused us to look very hard at that, slow down, our test program

for about 1 month, as we investigated what caused that to happen,

and what would be a solution.

We found out the cause, and, in fact, we have solved it, but that

put the testing back slightly. Obviously, when you have something

like that the cost of the test program goes up a little bit.

We see none of those impacting on the entry of that system into

the fleet, nor do they have a major impact on the overall cost of

the aircraft. As a matter of fact, in June 1999, the Marine Corps

will be standing up its training squadron for the V–22.

I mean we used to talk about, well, the V–22 is years and years

away, we are going to stand up the first training squadron in June

1999.

So this aircraft is coming, it may not be coming as fast as we

would all like it to come, but it is going to be here, and when it

gets here, it is going to change not only the operational capability

of all Armed Forces, there will be strategic implications with this

system.

Senator STEVENS. I have been told that because of a series of

critical problems that we are into a period of forced redesign porU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
202

tions of the V–22. I am pleased to hear what you are saying about

standing up the squadron, but can we do that with the rotor problems, and the problems of the bearing, and the nose gear, and

the——

General KRULAK. Absolutely. The vast majority of those are already fixed. Like I said, the bearing has been solved, the nose gear

is a minor fix. As we talk about any aircraft, as you go through the

EMD, that is what it is for, to test the aircraft, find out what is

not operating the way you want it to operate, and fix it.

There is nothing in this program that is causing me any concern.

I am very excited about where we are going.

Senator STEVENS. None of them are safety related yet.

General KRULAK. No, sir; the issue of the bearing obviously

caught our attention. We stopped flying in the parameter that that

bearing failed on, we brought in the experts, they have come up

with a fix, and we are back to flying at Pax River, and as a matter

of fact, this last month got 50 hours in, which is pretty doggone

good for a test in 1 month.

Senator STEVENS. I am sure you remember the history of that

plane in this committee. I want to make certain that it follows——

General KRULAK. Sir, I absolutely remember that, and I can tell

you, if anything came up that I was concerned with, I would be in

front of this committee immediately.

Senator STEVENS. Let me shift back to you, Mr. Secretary. What

about the year 2000 computer programming crisis that is affecting

the Department, is that a serious problem for your Department and

the Department of the Navy?

Secretary DALTON. Mr. Chairman, we are taking this problem

very seriously. It impacts potentially every ship, submarine, aircraft, and shore installation in the Navy Department, as well as all

of our supporting infrastructure. We are committed to preventing

any year 2000 failures within naval units and facilities, and we

have prioritized our funds to address accelerated resolution of any

problems. We have established the target date of this summer,

June 30, for completing the fixes.

I get quarterly reports on that, my next quarterly report for this

quarter, as a matter of fact, is next week. I will see just how well

we are doing with it. It also has the attention of Secretary Cohen,

and he is asking for periodic reviews.

It is simply imperative that we address it, and that we resolve

each of the problems within commands through the Navy Department to ensure that our critical warfighting and warfighting support capabilities all remain intact.

If we did not get this problem solved, clearly it would be a problem, a significant problem for the Department. So we are addressing it and are committed to it. We recognize the importance of it.

ADAK REUSE

Senator STEVENS. I am going to submit the rest of the questions,

but I want to ask one question concerning my State, and that is

the Adak series of questions that Senator Murkowski’s legislation

will deal with a permanent solution for Adak, we hope will be

signed this year, but there is no guarantee that will take place, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
203

I know that you have been reluctant to work out an interim leasing

arrangement.

People are going to take over that island, they have visited us

now, and I think that we have informed the Navy, they have a substantial number of entities that wish to start leasing portions of

that base, as it is going to be turned over to them, but some of the

issues are perplexing out of your people.

One of them is that the Navy wishes to approve every visitor

that comes to Adak, and second, that the Navy does not want to

have families relocated to the portion of the former base that the

Aleut people will take over under a temporary arrangement. Can

you give us any idea of what the situation is going to be?

I was personally visited by some of the Russian people who intend to lease a portion of that for their water fleet, which does not

fish in our waters, but is closer to their fishing grounds than their

own home ports.

I think it is essential for us to move forward and see if we can

utilize those facilities, if they are not occupied by families, they are

going to have to be heated anyway, and it is a critical situation.

Can you give us just a minute or two, Mr. Secretary, what is the

situation at Adak?

Secretary DALTON. Yes, sir; we have a proposed interim lease for

the Navy facilities on Adak that we have been negotiating, I think,

since the middle of February. This lease extends through the end

of the year, December 31, 1998. After that, the military purpose

ceases. Because the Navy will substantially conclude its environmental remediation by the end of this year, after the first of next

year, the Interior Department assumes responsibility for the property, and would lease it to the Aleuts.

We support Senator Murkowski’s proposed legislation, which will

be the subject of a hearing, I think, before this committee this

month. I think that legislation will transfer the property to the

Aleut nations, and it would be done by the Interior Department.

Admiral JOHNSON. Sir, I really have nothing to add, except to say

that we are going to be as supportive as we can possibly be to work

this out, because I think it is in everyone’s best interest to do so

here in the short term.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir; well, we appreciate what you can do,

I think it is a marvelous opportunity for these people, who have

had really no basic commercial base before, to be able to utilize all

those facilities. Senator Cochran.

NAVY THEATERWIDE MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I know that Admiral Johnson

has already answered a couple of questions about the Navy

theaterwide missile defense program. Some recent reports, though,

indicate that in the Pentagon there may be some who think that

fielding both theater high altitude defense [THAAD] and the Navy

theaterwide program will be unaffordable through 2005.

Is it not correct that these two systems complement each other,

and that from an operational military perspective, the question of

THAAD and Navy theaterwide is not an either/or proposition?

Admiral JOHNSON. My answer to that, Senator Cochran, is yes,

I believe them to be complementary systems, and you know my enU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
204

thusiasm for Navy theaterwide. I am not as conversant on THAAD,

but I am very encouraged, I will tell you, by the cooperation.

In fact, I just spent 11⁄2 hours with Admiral West, the Deputy at

BMDO last week, talking about these issues, so I am encouraged

by the way we are working together on this thing, and I am very

anxious to get our system integrated.

Senator COCHRAN. Last year we added in this committee $10

million to enhance the cooperative engagement capability [CEC]

program by putting communications equipment on satellites.

Do you agree that by giving this additional capability to CEC

that we will improve the military benefits of our sea-based missile

defense capability?

Admiral JOHNSON. My specific answer would probably be best

coming for the record, sir. My anecdotal answer would be yes, but

let me get it for the record.

Senator COCHRAN. If you could, and identify the benefits of CEC

for cruise and ballistic missile defense.

[The information follows:]

The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is a sensor netting system that

can provide air defense systems with fire-control quality track information that can

greatly enhance the sea-based missile defense capability. Navy priorities are to ensure the successful integration of CEC with surface ships and air-based sensors followed by the fielding of CEC on surface combatants, aircraft carriers, and amphibious ships. Funding is focused on achieving these goals.

Although the Navy has no current requirement for satellite range extension of

CEC, the Navy has used past Congressional funding to evaluate existing and

planned space-based sensors for potential integration with CEC. We’ve found that

integration of CEC with SBIRS-Low provides the highest potential for military utility and have consequently invested $3.7 million of the $10 million of fiscal year 1998

Congressional funding to develop the engineering requirements for the integration

of CEC with SBIRS-Low. Our studies also recommend Milstar MDR and Advanced

EHF be explored as CEC relays. Although we are interested in pursuing this, the

integration of CEC with ships and aircraft is the first step and has much higher

priority. We need to spend the remainder of the Congressional funds to ensure that

these near-term priorities of the CEC program are met.

Admiral JOHNSON. CEC is fundamental; it is fundamental to our

theater and area systems. That is part of why we are embedding

CEC into the entire aegis fleet, forward fit and back fit, so that we

will be able to capitalize, if you will, and take advantage when the

theater and area systems come to us. It is fundamental to that.

Senator COCHRAN. My final question on the subject of sea-based

missile defense has to do with the fact that some of our Spruance, well, all of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are equipped with

vertical launch systems, some other ships are as well, including

cruisers, are provided adequate support from sensors, and a fast interceptor missile.

Is there any technical reason that we could not make use of

these existing assets to provide national ballistic missile defense?

Admiral JOHNSON. You just tripped past this fighter pilot’s base

of knowledge on that, and I would be happy to provide that for the

record.

Senator COCHRAN. That would be good. And we would also ask

if you could point out for the record any technical or operational

advantages for such an approach to national missile defense.

Admiral JOHNSON. Aye, aye, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. I have another question or two that I would

like to submit to the Secretary as well, Mr. Chairman.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
205

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir, Senator. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

The Navy does not currently have a National Missile Defense (NMD) mission and

consequently has no NMD program. The Navy’s ballistic missile defense developments focus on the Navy Area TBMD and Navy Theater-wide TBMD (NTW) programs and are consistent with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’s objectives. Both programs have been recently determined to be ABM Treaty compliant.

As you know, the current ABM Treaty permits limited capability for defense of

a single U.S. missile field but prohibits the use of mobile land-based, air-based, seabased and space-based systems in an NMD role. For discussion purposes, what follows assumes that use of sea-based systems would be permitted at some future

time.

You asked, given sensor support and a fast interceptor missile, whether there is

any technical reason that we could not make use of existing Spruance and Arleigh

Burke-class ships for NMD. We believe that the ships you mention, indeed all our

ships equipped with the Vertical Launching System, could feasibly be upgraded as

you suggest. We have not examined this in depth or conducted an engineering analysis, however, and would have to do so to give you a firm answer and provide any

estimates of cost. However, if given an NMD mission, our initial approach would

be to modify our existing Aegis Cruisers to provide such a capability. The 22 VLS

equipped cruisers would provide a sufficient force structure to deploy our initial capability.

As to the broader question of whether there are technical or operational advantages to equipping some of our ships to provide NMD, I believe there are enough

indications that advantages exist to warrant a thorough examination.

As you know, BMDO is tasked by the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization Conference Committee to report its assessment of: the potential to upgrade the Navy’s

upper-tier program into a limited NMD capability; the technical feasibility of upgrades and integration on sea-based systems into land-based NMD; the additional

benefits and costs of doing so; and the status of ABM Treaty compliance of a seabased capability.

In view of BMDO’s effort and as the Navy staff has not yet conducted an in-depth

engineering analysis, I defer my response on technical and operational advantages

of a Navy NMD role until after Lt Gen Lyles delivers his report to Congress on

April 15, 1998. After that, I would be pleased to provide a briefing to the Committee

to go over this issue in more detail.

RETENTION—EXIT SURVEYS

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the Defense Department, including the three gentlemen before us, are capable of giving us an analysis of why people are leaving the military, and I am not sure that they are capable of telling us why people do not leave the military.

So I would just like to ask, is it correct that there are some surveys done by the Navy and the Marines when people leave the

service as to why they are leaving, and is that totally confidential,

and are those who give the answers, are they totally protected

against what they say?

Secretary DALTON. We certainly protect the privacy of the individual, Senator. However, as a matter of procedure, we have out

calls with people when they leave the service. There they speak

with their executive officer, or commanding officer, or leading division officer, in terms of assessing the person’s plans for the future.

The individual is asked about time aboard that ship or aboard that

command, and in terms of assessing the reasons for the change in

professional career plans.

But we also have that information that we can provide to you for

the record with respect to what the statistics are, and what we find

are some of the reasons.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
206

[The information follows:]

We collect information on Sailors’ attitudes through our Retention/Separation

Questionnaire, given to enlisted Sailors when they reenlist, extend or separate. Officers are asked to complete the questionnaire when they leave active duty or execute

a permanent change of station move. Response to the questionnaire is voluntary.

Sailors are asked to rate their satisfaction with 45 aspects of Navy life and to identify the most important reason for leaving or thinking of leaving the Navy. Officer

and Enlisted ‘‘Reasons for Leaving the Navy’’ data for the fourth quarter of fiscal

year 1997 are attached.

ALL OFFICERS REASONS FOR LEAVING THE NAVY, FISCAL YEAR 1997/QTR4

Description FYTD

rank Item No.resp. PCT Qtr1rank

Qtr2

rank

Qtr3

rank

Qtr4

rank

AMT OF FAMILY SEPARAT .............................. 1 37 368 17.53 1 1 1 1

PROM AND ADVANCE OPPORTUN .................. 2 39 202 9.62 2 2 4 4

PAY (BASIC) .................................................. 3 24 165 7.86 4 3 2 2

QUAL OF LEADERSHIP/MGMT ........................ 4 5 145 6.91 3 4 10 3

FAIRNESS IN PERFRM EVAL .......................... 5 45 110 5.24 6 5 5 7

ENJOYMENT FROM JOB .................................. 6 3 93 4.43 5 9 3 6

CONTROL OVER JOB ASGNMN ....................... 7 44 84 4.00 7 7 7 8

JOB FULFILLMENT/CHALLEN .......................... 8 2 78 3.72 9 11 6 5

NUM OF PCS RELOCATIONS .......................... 9 20 74 3.53 12 6 16 10

QUAL OF NAVY LIFE ...................................... 10 18 66 3.14 11 10 11 9

AMOUNT OF JOB SECURITY ........................... 11 31 64 3.05 8 12 9 11

RETIREMENT BENEFITS ................................. 12 26 53 2.53 14 8 17 15

LENGTH OF WORKING HOURS ....................... 13 8 50 2.38 16 17 15 12

AMOUNT OF SEA DUTY .................................. 14 16 49 2.33 19 16 8 13

COMPETENCE OF SUPERVIS .......................... 15 12 48 2.29 10 15 14 14

GEOGRAPHIC LOC OF JOBS ........................... 16 9 37 1.76 17 18 23 16

RECOG FOR ACCOMPLISH ............................. 17 7 36 1.72 13 14 22 24

AMT PERS AVL TO DO JOB ............................ 18 11 36 1.72 18 13 25 19

SPECIAL PAYS (BONUS) ................................ 19 25 34 1.62 26 20 12 18

USE OF SKL/TRNG ON JOB ............................ 20 42 29 1.38 22 27 13 20

SPOUSE CAREER OPPORTUN ......................... 21 19 27 1.29 28 22 24 17

AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK .............................. 22 10 26 1.24 31 19 20 21

RESPECT FROM SUPERIORS .......................... 23 1 25 1.19 15 25 18 29

QUAL AND AMOUNT EQUIP ............................ 24 14 22 1.05 24 21 27 25

QUAL OF FAM MED CARE .............................. 25 21 20 .95 25 26 29 26

AVL OF DEP MED/DEN CARE ......................... 26 38 20 .95 21 29 43 22

ASGN TO JOB W/TECH,PROF .......................... 27 41 20 .95 29 24 33 28

NUM OF QUICK RESP TASKS ......................... 28 6 18 .86 23 31 19 23

REGULATIONS AND DESCIPLIN ...................... 29 4 17 .81 20 28 21 31

COMPENS FOR PCS MOVES .......................... 30 30 15 .71 36 23 30 33

ASGNMNT TO LDRSHIP JOBS ......................... 31 43 13 .62 30 30 34 34

ACCESS TO EDUC/TRNG ................................ 32 40 12 .57 37 35 32 27

LIVING COND SEA AND OSEA ........................ 33 15 11 .52 27 33 35 30

QUAL OF GOVT HOUSING ............................... 34 17 7 .33 32 34 28 37

DEPENDENT FACIL/SCHOOLS ......................... 35 22 5 .24 34 41 36 32

MARRIED VS SINGLE PAY .............................. 36 28 5 .24 33 37 39 38

QUAL OF MED/DEN CARE .............................. 37 29 5 .24 35 32 40 41

COMPETENCE OF COWORKERS ..................... 38 13 4 .19 38 36 26 36

AVAIL OF HOUSING ........................................ 39 35 4 .19 43 40 31 35

EDUCATION BENEFITS ................................... 40 27 1 .05 40 38 38 40

QUAL OF COMMISSARY/EXCH ........................ 41 32 1 .05 41 39 41 42

QUAL OF FAMILY SVC CEN ............................ 42 23 ............ ............ 39 42 37 39

SUPPORT AND RECREAT SVCS ...................... 43 33 ............ ............ 42 43 42 43

TOTAL ............................................... ............ ............ 2,099 100.00 ............ ............ ............ ............

General KRULAK. Sir, we do run exit surveys, we do not keep the

answers confidential, because we use them to improve and attack

the very issues that cause that male or female marine to decide to

go someplace else or take another job, so we look at that very closely.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
207

The actual, whether or not we say who it came from, obviously,

that is not what is important, what is important is what did they

say, why are they leaving, and once we get that, we take steps to

correct, if at all possible, the things that drove them out. Some of

them cannot be corrected, others we believe can.

Senator DOMENICI. Admiral, what do you say about that?

Admiral JOHNSON. Very much the same as the Commandant, sir.

We study and try to take action on separating priority criteria. It

gets back to many things, there is no simple answer to it, as you

well know, sir. It is a complex issue, with lots of moving parts, but

some of it can be tied to family separation, some of it can be tied

to compensation, some of it can be tied to Optempo, and so it goes.

What we are trying to do inside the Navy is to square with ourselves, on the leadership side, on the empowerment side, within the

chain of command, on the execution side, on the funding streams,

to allow them to train and be ready, and be proud, and these are

pretty fundamental to ensuring that we do not get into the real retention traps, so it is a very complex thing, but the specific answer

to your question is, yes, we know why they leave, we know what

the surveys say, and we take them very seriously.

Senator DOMENICI. Are these surveys literally available?

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Are yours available?

General KRULAK. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Are they only of people as they exit? Do you

do any surveys of the people who stay in uniform?

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. You do.

Admiral JOHNSON. We do that as well, but——

Senator DOMENICI. Are those anonymous?

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Could we have samples of those questionnaires, for the record, of what you do in that regard, surveys, or

whatever they are?

Admiral JOHNSON. Absolutely. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Could you tell us how they are analyzed, and

who analyzes them?

General KRULAK. You bet.

Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

The Marine Corps has recently developed a survey to measure the opinions of

both groups—those leaving the Corps as well as those who choose to stay. ‘‘The Marine Corps Climate Battery Surveys’’ include a variety of questions concerning retention and separation. Questions include both traditional personnel issues (such as

pay, benefits, quality of life, harassment, and discrimination) and elements key to

the business of the Marine Corps (leadership, training, and readiness). We will be

able to use the information from this survey—the design of which was completed

by the Center for Naval Analyses in November 1997—to help answer the following

questions:

Do Marines’ opinions square with their behavior? Is there a relationship between

the stay/leave decision and the reasons cited for each type of decision?

Are leavers more dissatisfied than stayers are? If so, on what aspect of Marine

Corps life do leavers and stayers have significantly different opinions?

These surveys will be analyzed for trends (both good and bad) that provide an opportunity for the Corps to take corrective (or reinforcing) action. The analysis will

be done by our Manpower Analysis, Evaluation, and Coordination Branch at Headquarters, Marine Corps.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
208

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
209

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
210

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
211

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
212

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
213

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
214

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
215

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
216

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
217

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
218

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
219

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
220

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
221

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
222

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
223

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
224

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
225

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
226

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
227

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
228

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
229

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
230

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
231

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
232

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
233

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
234

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
235

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
236

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
237

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
238

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
239

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
240

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
241

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
242

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
243

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
244

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
245

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
246

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
247

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
248

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
249

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
250

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
251

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
252

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
253

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
254

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
255

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
256

Senator DOMENICI. Now, I want you to know, and none of this

is directed at any of you, or anybody in the hierarchy, in terms of

any accusations, it is just that we still read a lot of things, and

sometimes what is written is not very authentic, or it is very small,

but we read in various military papers, other newspapers that

cover the military, that there are a lot of complaints that have to

do with leadership within the military by those who fly airplanes,

by those who are leaving. That is hard stuff for those who are leaders to hear, and it is certainly hard to do anything about it.

I trust you implicitly that you would be interested in them,

knowing what they think about you, you and those under you, and

that you would try to do something about it. I know in the military

somebody gives orders and somebody takes orders, and I understand that. You cannot have a military without that.

So I would like you to give us for the record everything you do

in an effort to find out what those people leaving think has gone

wrong, and whatever you do to those that are not exiting, find out

what is wrong that you might have to fix. If you can give us that

for the record, that would be very appreciated by this Senator.

Admiral JOHNSON. I will be glad to.

[The information follows:]

The annual Navy-wide Personnel Survey and Quality of Life Survey were designed to collect opinion data on a systematic basis and to provide timely informaU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
257

tion on issues of importance to policy makers. The samplings, representative of the

entire Navy population, allow the identification and analysis of trends in opinions

and attitudes toward plans, programs, and policies that materially affect the performance and morale of Navy Personnel. Both surveys are administered and analyzed by the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center in San Diego, California. Copies of the 1997 Navy-wide Personnel Survey and 1997 Quality of Life

Survey are provided for the record.

We also collect information on Sailors’ attitudes through our Retention/Separation

Questionnaire, given to enlisted Sailors when they reenlist, extend or separate. Officers are asked to complete the questionnaire when they leave active duty or execute

a permanent change of station move. Response to the questionnaire is voluntary.

Sailors are asked to rate their satisfaction with 45 aspects of Navy life and to identify the most important reason for leaving or thinking of leaving the Navy. A copy

of the Navy Retention/Separation Questionnaire and OPNAV Instruction are provided for the record. Officer and Enlisted ‘‘Reasons for Leaving the Navy’’ data for

the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1997 are also attached.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
258

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
259

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
260

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
261

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
262

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
263

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
264

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
265

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
266

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
267

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
268

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
269

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
270

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
271

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
272

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
273

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
274

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
275

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
276

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
277

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
278

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
279

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
280

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
281

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
282

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
283

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
284

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
285

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
286

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
287

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
288

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
289

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
290

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
291

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
292

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
293

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
294

ALL OFFICERS REASONS FOR LEAVING THE NAVY, FISCAL YEAR 1997/QTR4

Description FYTD

rank Item No.resp. PCT Qtr1rank

Qtr2

rank

Qtr3

rank Qtr4 rank

AMT OF FAMILY SEPARAT ............................ 1 37 368 17.53 1 1 1 1

PROM AND ADVANCE OPPORTUN ................ 2 39 202 9.62 2 2 4 4

PAY (BASIC) ................................................ 3 24 165 7.86 4 3 2 2

QUAL OF LEADERSHIP/MGMT ...................... 4 5 145 6.91 3 4 10 3

FAIRNESS IN PERFRM EVAL ........................ 5 45 110 5.24 6 5 5 7

ENJOYMENT FROM JOB ................................ 6 3 93 4.43 5 9 3 6

CONTROL OVER JOB ASGNMN ..................... 7 44 84 4.00 7 7 7 8

JOB FULFILLMENT/CHALLEN ........................ 8 2 78 3.72 9 11 6 5

NUM OF PCS RELOCATIONS ........................ 9 20 74 3.53 12 6 16 10

QUAL OF NAVY LIFE .................................... 10 18 66 3.14 11 10 11 9

AMOUNT OF JOB SECURITY ......................... 11 31 64 3.05 8 12 9 11

RETIREMENT BENEFITS ............................... 12 26 53 2.53 14 8 17 15

LENGTH OF WORKING HOURS ..................... 13 8 50 2.38 16 17 15 12

AMOUNT OF SEA DUTY ................................ 14 16 49 2.33 19 16 8 13

COMPETENCE OF SUPERVIS ........................ 15 12 48 2.29 10 15 14 14

GEOGRAPHIC LOC OF JOBS ......................... 16 9 37 1.76 17 18 23 16

RECOG FOR ACCOMPLISH ........................... 17 7 36 1.72 13 14 22 24

AMT PERS AVL TO DO JOB .......................... 18 11 36 1.72 18 13 25 19

SPECIAL PAYS (BONUS) .............................. 19 25 34 1.62 26 20 12 18

USE OF SKL/TRNG ON JOB .......................... 20 42 29 1.38 22 27 13 20

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
295

ALL OFFICERS REASONS FOR LEAVING THE NAVY, FISCAL YEAR 1997/QTR4—Continued

Description FYTD

rank Item No.resp. PCT Qtr1rank

Qtr2

rank

Qtr3

rank

Qtr4

rank

SPOUSE CAREER OPPORTUN ......................... 21 19 27 1.29 28 22 24 17

AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK .............................. 22 10 26 1.24 31 19 20 21

RESPECT FROM SUPERIORS .......................... 23 1 25 1.19 15 25 18 29

QUAL AND AMOUNT EQUIP ............................ 24 14 22 1.05 24 21 27 25

QUAL OF FAM MED CARE .............................. 25 21 20 .95 25 26 29 26

AVL OF DEP MED/DEN CARE ......................... 26 38 20 .95 21 29 43 22

ASGN TO JOB W/TECH,PROF .......................... 27 41 20 .95 29 24 33 28

NUM OF QUICK RESP TASKS ......................... 28 6 18 .86 23 31 19 23

REGULATIONS AND DESCIPLIN ...................... 29 4 17 .81 20 28 21 31

COMPENS FOR PCS MOVES .......................... 30 30 15 .71 36 23 30 33

ASGNMNT TO LDRSHIP JOBS ......................... 31 43 13 .62 30 30 34 34

ACCESS TO EDUC/TRNG ................................ 32 40 12 .57 37 35 32 27

LIVING COND SEA AND OSEA ........................ 33 15 11 .52 27 33 35 30

QUAL OF GOVT HOUSING ............................... 34 17 7 .33 32 34 28 37

DEPENDENT FACIL/SCHOOLS ......................... 35 22 5 .24 34 41 36 32

MARRIED VS SINGLE PAY .............................. 36 28 5 .24 33 37 39 38

QUAL OF MED/DEN CARE .............................. 37 29 5 .24 35 32 40 41

COMPETENCE OF COWORKERS ..................... 38 13 4 .19 38 36 26 36

AVAIL OF HOUSING ........................................ 39 35 4 .19 43 40 31 35

EDUCATION BENEFITS ................................... 40 27 1 .05 40 38 38 40

QUAL OF COMMISSARY/EXCH ........................ 41 32 1 .05 41 39 41 42

QUAL OF FAMILY SVC CEN ............................ 42 23 ............ ............ 39 42 37 39

SUPPORT AND RECREAT SVCS ...................... 43 33 ............ ............ 42 43 42 43

TOTAL ............................................... ............ ............ 2,099 100.00 ............ ............ ............ ............

ALL ENLISTED REASONS FOR LEAVING THE NAVY, FISCAL YEAR 1997/QTR4

Description FYTD

rank Item No.resp. PCT Qtr1rank

Qtr2

rank

Qtr3

rank

Qtr4

rank

PROM AND ADVANCE OPPORTUN .................. 1 39 1,547 11.11 1 2 3 1

AMT OF FAMILY SEPARAT .............................. 2 37 1,525 10.95 2 1 2 2

PAY (BASIC) .................................................. 3 24 1,474 10.58 3 3 1 3

QUAL OF LEADERSHIP/MGMT ........................ 4 5 1,113 7.99 4 4 5 4

QUAL OF NAVY LIFE ...................................... 5 18 927 6.66 5 5 4 5

FAIRNESS IN PERFRM EVAL .......................... 6 45 688 4.94 8 6 8 6

ENJOYMENT FROM JOB .................................. 7 3 643 4.62 7 7 7 7

RESPECT FROM SUPERIORS .......................... 8 1 591 4.24 10 8 6 8

AMOUNT OF SEA DUTY .................................. 9 16 585 4.20 6 9 9 9

RECOG FOR ACCOMPLISH ............................. 10 7 501 3.60 9 11 10 11

COMPETENCE OF SUPERVIS .......................... 11 12 477 3.43 11 10 11 12

RETIREMENT BENEFITS ................................. 12 26 451 3.24 12 13 12 10

JOB FULFILLMENT/CHALLEN .......................... 13 2 366 2.63 13 12 14 13

LIVING COND SEA AND OSEA ........................ 14 15 270 1.94 17 16 13 14

GEOGRAPHIC LOC OF JOBS ........................... 15 9 259 1.86 14 14 17 16

REGULATIONS AND DESCIPLIN ...................... 16 4 251 1.80 15 15 15 15

AMT PERS AVL TO DO JOB ............................ 17 11 190 1.36 16 18 18 17

LENGTH OF WORKING HOURS ....................... 18 8 174 1.25 20 20 16 19

MARRIED VS SINGLE PAY .............................. 19 28 169 1.21 19 17 22 21

CONTROL OVER JOB ASGNMN ....................... 20 44 150 1.08 22 24 19 18

ACCESS TO EDUC/TRNG ................................ 21 40 141 1.01 21 19 28 22

USE OF SKL/TRNG ON JOB ............................ 22 42 134 .96 18 21 21 24

COMPETENCE OF COWORKERS ..................... 23 13 125 .90 26 27 20 20

ASGN TO JOB W/TECH,PROF .......................... 24 41 119 .85 27 22 23 23

NUM OF PCS RELOCATIONS .......................... 25 20 106 .76 23 23 24 25

QUAL OF MED/DEN CARE .............................. 26 29 91 .65 24 26 31 28

AMOUNT OF JOB SECURITY ........................... 27 31 82 .59 31 28 25 30

SPECIAL PAYS (BONUS) ................................ 28 25 81 .58 30 25 30 32

QUAL OF FAM MED CARE .............................. 29 21 80 .57 28 30 29 27

QUAL AND AMOUNT EQUIP ............................ 30 14 75 .54 32 29 27 29

AVL OF DEP MED/DEN CARE ......................... 31 38 74 .53 25 33 32 31

EDUCATION BENEFITS ................................... 32 27 71 .51 41 32 26 26

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
296

ALL ENLISTED REASONS FOR LEAVING THE NAVY, FISCAL YEAR 1997/QTR4—Continued

Description FYTD

rank Item No.resp. PCT Qtr1rank

Qtr2

rank

Qtr3

rank

Qtr4

rank

AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK .............................. 33 10 53 .38 29 35 33 36

DEPENDENT FACIL/SCHOOLS ......................... 34 22 49 .35 36 31 39 35

SPOUSE CAREER OPPORTUN ......................... 35 19 47 .34 35 34 35 34

QUAL OF FAMILY SVC CEN ............................ 36 23 43 .31 39 37 36 33

AVAIL OF HOUSING ........................................ 37 35 39 .28 42 36 37 37

NUM OF QUICK RESP TASKS ......................... 38 6 37 .27 34 38 34 39

QUAL OF GOVT HOUSING ............................... 39 17 33 .24 33 39 38 40

SUPPORT AND RECREAT SVCS ...................... 40 33 34 .24 38 40 41 38

ASGNMNT TO LDRSHIP JOBS ......................... 41 43 27 .19 40 41 40 41

QUAL OF COMMISSARY/EXCH ........................ 42 32 18 .13 37 43 42 43

COMPENS FOR PCS MOVES .......................... 43 30 17 .12 43 42 43 42

TOTAL ............................................... ............ ............ 13,927 100.00 ............ ............ ............ ............

The perception of Marine Corps leadership is an important aspect of the Climate

Battery Surveys. The very first question asks ‘‘What is the main reason you have

decided to stay on (or separate from) active duty Marine Corps service? Rather than

just choose from among distractors, Marines have the opportunity to provide their

own words in this answer.

Further along in the survey are questions such as ‘‘How satisfied are you with

the quality of leadership in the Marine Corps?;’’ questions about chain of command

responsiveness; the character of leaders; and even the dreaded ‘‘zero-defect mentality.’’ The reason for these straight-forward questions about Marine Corps leadership

is to identify shortcomings, both real and perceived, that separating Marines see in

those of us privileged to lead the Corps.

INCREASED OPERATIONAL TEMPO

Senator STEVENS. Secretary Dalton, Admiral Johnson, and General Krulak, we appreciate your visit with us here today, and we

are committed to do our best to help you.

With regard to Senator Domenici’s questions, I do not think it

takes a rocket scientist, Senator, to understand the difference in

deployment today, as compared to even 10 years ago. It is just

overwhelming.

And the tasks that we have assigned to military and peacekeeping are probably the most boring, mundane tasks that a military

person in uniform has ever been asked to take on, and they just

seem to go on, and on, and on, and on.

I think those deployments are having an impact on the morale

and really the retention of our armed services, and some of us

would like to have some way to change that. But in the current situation of the world, it does not seem possible.

But I do agree with Senator Domenici: We ought to do our best

to try to analyze that and see if there is anything that Congress

might do to help meet some of the forces of these people who have

been highly trained at a great expense for the taxpayers, some of

the things that cause them not to reenlist.

It is the reenlistment rate that really has raised a lot of questions from both sides of the aisle here, and I have had many questions from other Senators just this last week, since we got that

amazing statistic from the Air Force, and yours, Admiral, is not

much better. Do you have a——

General KRULAK. Sir, we have a pilot retention problem, but I

think that Senator Bond hit the nail on the head, it has nothing

to do, well, minimal to do with money.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
297

There are so many things that are involved here, we almost insult them when we say, ‘‘Hey, here, have some more money.’’

It has to do with the issue of leadership, it has to do with the

issue of challenge, it has to do with the issue of coming back home,

and when they do, that they get flight hours, and that the flight

hours they get are meaningful, and they are sweating under their

arms when they come back off the training op, that is what they

come in for.

If you do not give them that, and somebody else offers them a

big check in 15 days of work a month, and the rest they can be

with their families, they are going to take that. So it is more than

just what is going on out in the far reaches, it is what we are doing

back here that counts.

Senator DOMENICI. But, Mr. Chairman, in general, we really

know we cannot keep robbing from the Defense Department to pay

for emergencies. One-half the things you mentioned are because of

that.

Senator STEVENS. Absolutely, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. You come home and the equipment is not

what it ought to be, because you have not been maintaining the

equipment, because the budget did not provide it, and you are taking care of it over there in an emergency situation.

Senator STEVENS. You would not find a service chief that would

not stand on this table and beat on it and say amen to what you

just said.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, we are going to try to do something

about it, if we have to put more money in, we are going to put it

in, I mean I am——

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator STEVENS. Well, we have to find some more money, we

will take that trip and see if we can get some help on this current

deployment. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JOHN H. DALTON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

CVX

Question. Why does the Navy need a new class of aircraft carriers? Do you intend

to evolve the current (Nimitz) design or will it be a totally new design?

Answer. The Navy’s vision for CVX is to develop a new class of aircraft carriers

to significantly reduce total ownership cost and incorporate an architecture for

change and flexibility, while maintaining the core capabilities of Naval aviation

(high-volume firepower, survivability, sustainability and mobility) for the 21st Century and beyond. Achieving this vision will require significant design changes to incorporate advances in technology and to focus the design on enhanced affordability

since little carrier research and development has been undertaken since the 1960’s.

The Navy is currently analyzing several alternative designs for CVX. These alternative designs run the gamut from an evolution of the current Nimitz design to a

totally new design which includes a new hull, new propulsion plant, new communications suite, new distributive systems, new functional arrangements and significant improvements in ship survivability and signature management.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
298

STATUS OF A–12 LAWSUIT

Question. What can you tell us about the status of the A–12 lawsuit and the Navy

plans to proceed in its defense? If the verdict is upheld on appeal, would the Navy

be liable for the $1.8 billion cost or would the cost be apportioned DOD-wide? What

would be the effect on the Navy modernization accounts?

Answer. On February 23, 1998, the Court of Federal Claims entered a judgment

against the United States for over $3.8 billion plus interest. The amount is erroneous because it fails to reflect $2.6 billion in progress payments already paid to

the contractors. The Government’s initial appeal, filed contemporaneously with the

judgment, was dismissed on March 19, 1998. The dismissal provides an opportunity

to correct the judgment in the trial court. A new appeal will be filed after the correction of the judgment, which we believe will occur very soon.

No payment of any amount will be paid until all appeals have been exhausted.

If and when a judgment in some amount becomes final, payment will be made by

the Treasury from the Judgment Fund. How and when the Department of Defense

may reimburse the Judgment Fund would be determined at that time.

At this time it is impossible to predict any effect on Navy modernization accounts.

F/A–18E/F

Question. How much of a delay has the Navy experienced at this point in the F/

A–18E/F production program?

Answer. None. The F/A–18E/F is on production schedule. The first twelve Low

Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft are on schedule for delivery starting in January 1999. They will be delivered with the porous wing fold fairing, the correction

for wing drop, incorporated.

PER USER FEE CONTRACT STRATEGY

Question. The Department of the Navy/Fleet and Industrial Supply Center procured personal computer software using a new ‘‘Per User Fee’’ contracting and saved

$48 million. In addition to saving money, the new strategy eased software installation and reduced security risks associated with the installation. Does the Department intend to use this innovative approach on other contracts? Can it be expanded

to other Departments?

Answer. The Department of the Navy is enthusiastic about innovative licensing

of software in various forms and intends to pursue alternatives vigorously as guided

by pioneering experiences such as that undertaken by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Philadelphia/Defense Logistics Agency team. These approaches hold

great promise throughout the Federal Government.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

APL BARRACKS BARGE

Question. It is my understanding that the Navy is currently in the process of soliciting bids for the acquisition of two APL barracks barges; $33 million has been appropriated for this acquisition.

Based on the bids which have been received, is this funding sufficient to acquire

both barges? If not, how does the Navy plan to fund this requirement?

Answer. The Navy is soliciting bids for the acquisition of two APL barracks

barges. Bids are due March 17, 1998. Bid packages will be reviewed after the bid

date to determine adequacy of funds. If funding is insufficient, appropriate action

will be taken based upon degree and probable cause of the higher than expected bid

amounts.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

PRIVATIZATION

Question. How did the Navy and the Marine Corps arrive at the number of civilian and military jobs to be eliminated and/or contracted out?

Were specific, individual studies performed to analyze the savings and appropriateness of activities to compete? Or, was a goal imposed ‘‘from the top?’’

How did the Navy/Marine Corps determine that contracting out saves 20 percent?

Why does the Air Force assume different savings? Please provide copies of the analysis you performed to come to the conclusion that 20 percent was the right number.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
299

Answer. The savings reflected in the Navy’s FYDP are derived from our expectation that ‘‘competition’’ not ‘‘contracting out’’ will result in significant savings. This

expectation is based on research and analysis performed by the Center for Naval

Analysis (CNA). CNA reviewed our experience implementing OMB Circular A–76 in

the 1980’s and found that ‘‘competition’’, not ‘‘contracting out’’, resulted in cost savings of approximately 30 percent, regardless of the outcome of the cost comparison.

As a matter of interest, approximately half of the functions studied remained inhouse after the competition, albeit in a more streamlined, efficient organization.

CNA also reviewed the Navy’s inventory of commercial activities and determined

that conducting cost comparisons of activities involving approximately 80,000 fulltime equivalents would yield the kind of savings we have incorporated into the

Navy’s FYDP. The CNA analysis formed the basis for Navy’s competition savings

projections. I cannot address the Air Force’s savings assumptions, but I will be

happy to provide you with a copy of CNA’s analysis under separate cover that forms

the basis of our estimate that competition yields average savings of 30 percent.

Question. With fewer military personnel and DOD civilians after all this contracting out, what will be the impact on overseas rotation and ‘‘perstempo’’ problems?

Answer. I need to reiterate that we are interested in increasing ‘‘competition’’ not

‘‘contracting out.’’ Our policy provides a structured check and balance system between military manpower requirements and proposed shore infrastructure reductions for regionalization, outsourcing or privatization initiatives to ensure that our

military readiness is not adversely affected. The need to maintain a sea-to-shore rotational base, along with the need to maintain certain critical skills, has indeed limited our ability to compete certain military-intensive functions. For this reason, the

Navy’s plan to achieve the savings reflected in this budget focuses on competing civilian-intensive functions.

Question. How will the Navy and the Marine Corps monitor and document the

progress in achieving your outsourcing programs and achieving the planned savings? How will these data be confirmed by an outside party?

Answer. The Navy is conducting a ‘‘competition’’ program, not an ‘‘outsourcing’’

program. The Navy generally relies upon the cost comparison process established

by OMB Circular A–76 to ensure that our competitions result in the most cost effective outcome. Circular A–76 not only provides rigorous guidelines for identifying the

costs of both in-house and private sector performance but it also incorporates an

independent review process and provides all affected parties with an independent

appeal process. The independent reviews will be conducted by both independent contractors familiar with the commercial activity studies and by in-house Navy auditors. Actual savings of the competition will include both personnel and other operating costs. To monitor and document our progress in achieving the planned ‘‘competition’’ savings, the Navy has established an annual reporting system. This system

will track actual costs for five years subsequent to the implementation of the cost

comparison decision. Savings conformance will be determined by an analysis of actual total operating costs against planned total operating costs. Based on our past

experience, we expect actual costs to track well with the cost comparison estimates.

In addition to review by the independent reviewing official, the appeals officer, and

all other interested parties during the cost comparison phase, cost comparison data

will be available for public scrutiny and external review by the Naval Inspector

General, the Naval Audit Service, the DOD Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and other interested parties.

Question. What actions do you plan if the savings do not materialize as planned?

More outsourcing? Cuts in procurement? Force structure? Readiness?

Answer. Failure to achieve the projected savings would have a serious impact on

the Navy’s ability to fund the modernization program without taking vertical cuts

that would jeopardize other existing requirements. For the Marine Corps, the effect

of less than anticipated savings would be a decrease in procurement and an increase

in Operation and Maintenance. To limit the risk of jeopardizing other requirements

and to ensure we meet the savings projected in the FYDP, we are also aggressively

pursuing related cost savings initiatives such as regionalization, privatization, community use and public-private ventures.

READINESS

Question. What do your latest, 1998, data show about pilot retention? Is it getting

better or worse? Is it better or worse for married pilots? With families? What are

the socio-economic profiles of the pilots leaving? Staying?

Answer. The Navy’s two primary predictors of pilot retention, resignations and

Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) take rates, demonstrate that pilot retention continues to be on the decline. Pilot resignations increased from 414 in fiscal year 1997

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
300

to 540 in fiscal year 1998, while fiscal year 1998 ACP take rates, as shown in Table

1, were much lower than required.

TABLE 1.—FISCAL YEAR 1998 ACP PROGRAM

Aviation subcommunity Aircraft

type

Bonus

amount

Number

required

Number

eligible

Eligible

applied

Percent

of goal

VFA Pilot ................................................... F/A–18 $17,000 23 81 11 48

VF Pilot ..................................................... F–14 17,000 13 62 4 31

VAQ Pilot ................................................... EA–6B 19,000 14 28 3 21

VS Pilot ..................................................... S–3 19,000 15 32 2 13

VAW/VRC Pilot .......................................... E–2/C–2 10,000 17 58 7 41

Carrier Pilot Take Rate ............... .............. .............. 82 261 27 33

VP Pilot ..................................................... P–3 10,000 46 200 44 96

Prop Pilot Take Rate ................... .............. .............. 46 200 44 96

Pilot Take Rate ........................... .............. .............. 128 461 71 55

Thus far this year only 27 eligible carrier pilots (33 percent of the needed 82) applied for ACP agreements that obligated them through 14 years of commissioned

service. This take rate, lowest in program history, is a sound predictor that critical

department head billets will not be filled since those that have not signed an agreement are free to leave the Navy. These two indicators of resignations and take rates

together highlight a continued trend of low pilot retention. The Navy does not track

retention by socio-economic profiles such as retention for those married or with families.

For the Marine Corps, as of March 16, there have been 70 fixed wing pilot resignations in fiscal year 1998. These figures and the trend for the year are well below

the fiscal year 1997 rate (92) and slightly higher than the fiscal year 1996 rate (69)

as of March of each year.

The Marine Corps does not track pilot resignations by single/married/divorced categories. Current percentages of overall USMC Officers (O–3 and O–4) include the

following: 80 percent Married, 4 percent Divorced and 16 percent Single. There is

no common thread to the socioeconomic profiles of the pilots leaving or staying. All

pilots are now eligible for the Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) program, making

them the highest paid company/field grade (O–3 and O–4) officers in the Marine

Corps.

Question. What are the specific complaints of pilots leaving the Navy?

Answer. Table 1 lists ‘‘reasons for leaving’’ as cited by Naval Aviators on fiscal

year 1997 exit surveys. It is noteworthy that no requirement exists to complete an

exit survey.

TABLE 1.—Reasons for Leaving the Navy Cited by Pilots in Fiscal Year 1997 Exit

Surveys

Percent

Reason for Leaving Citing

Family Separation ................................................................................................. 20

Promotion Opportunity .......................................................................................... 14

Quality of Leadership ............................................................................................ 12

Amount of Sea Duty .............................................................................................. 8

NOTE.—These results were compiled from 126 completed exit surveys: the number represents

only 30 percent of the aviators who resigned in fiscal year 1997. Additionally, the CNO’s Aviation Retention Team compiled the below list of reasons for resigning.

These anecdotal reasons were heard from direct discussions with the fleet during visits by the

team to various aviation commands: Increased amount of family separation; Frustration with

Navy leadership; High operational tempo; Inadequate funding to support operations; Erosion of

compensation/benefits; Reduced promotion opportunity; and Inadequate infrastructure.

In September 1997, a USMC Aviation sponsored briefing team, composed of junior

field grade officers traveled to both coasts to visit ready rooms and talk to aviators

about the facts and myths of a career as a Marine aviator. Aviators provided the

team with frank discussion and openly voiced their concerns. There was no single

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
301

reason that influenced an aviator’s decision to resign. The major reasons cited to

the briefing team for leaving the Corps included: Increased airline hiring; Increased

amount of family separation; Desire to fly more hours (AV–8B and CH–53); Excessive time in Joint/Inter-/Intra-service exercises which limit training for individual

pilot skills; and Uncertainty about future military downsizing.

Question. Which of your ‘‘quality of life’’ programs are working? Which are not?

Which generate the best pay-off in terms of retention? Please provide the data and

analysis to substantiate your answer, or are you using judgement or anecdotal evidence to assess the degrees of success or failure? Does the Navy have any studies

on these issues? By independent organizations? Please provide copies.

Answer. I’ve just received the results of the 1997 Navy Bureau of Naval Personnel

(BUPERS) QOL survey that asked a representative sample of Sailors about their

perceptions and use of 29 of our QOL programs. Their answers tell us that most

of our QOL programs are working, in terms of both readiness and retention.

When we asked members to rank those programs that they feel contribute the

most to their readiness, officers cite as their top three: (1) Tuition Assistance (TA)—

47 percent; (2) Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Sports and Fitness Ashore—

46 percent; and (3) MWR Recreational Activities Ashore—33 percent.

The top three programs for maintaining readiness among enlisted are: (1) TA—

60 percent; (2) Montgomery GI BILL (MGIB)—51 percent; and (3) MWR Recreational Activities Ashore—32 percent.

Regardless of pay grade, MWR and Voluntary Education (VOLED) programs have

the greatest impact on readiness.

The most frequently used QOL programs were cited as MWR Recreation Activities

Ashore (Officer—85 percent, Enlisted—85 percent), MWR Sports and Fitness Ashore

(Officer—84 percent; Enlisted—85 percent), and Navy Campus Education Centers

(Officer—37 percent; Enlisted—61 percent). QOL programs with the highest quality

ratings were: TA (78 percent); MGIB (77 percent); and Navy Campus Education

Centers (70 percent). 25 of 29 QOL programs were rated ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘very good’’ by

a majority of our Sailors.

Out of 29 QOL programs that were rated, four did not receive a ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘very

good’’ assessment: (1) Spouse Employment Assistance (39 percent); (2) Single Sailor

Program Ashore (42 percent); (3) Good Relationships, Strong Marriages, and

Healthy Families (49 percent); and (4) Outreach and Command Representative Program (50 percent).

These programs are relatively new, and many of our Sailors may not be as familiar with them as some of our more established efforts.

Some programs haven’t been well publicized. The least recognized programs

among officers included the Chaplains Religious Enhancement Development Operation (CREDO) (15 percent), Relationships, Families, and Marriages (13 percent),

and the Volunteer Program (12 percent), while enlisted reported less recognition for

Academic Skills (26 percent), CREDO (25 percent), Outreach/Command Representative Program (22 percent), and Single Sailor Ashore (20 percent).

Sailors report that MWR and VOLED programs most significantly affect their retention decision. When asked, ‘‘Would you reconsider your decision to remain in the

Navy if programs were reduced or eliminated,’’ officers listed TA, MGIB and MWR

Sports/Fitness Ashore as the top 3 programs affecting their retention decision. Enlisted members listed TA, MGIB and Navy Campus Education.

A recently completed study by the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) on the ‘‘Effectiveness of the Navy’s Voluntary Education Program’’ has told us that participation

in off-duty education programs has a clear relationship to both promotability and

retention. Sailors who accumulate college credits have a significantly higher probability of making E–5 in five years. College participants have a significantly higher

reenlistment rate. As credits accumulate, the probability of first reenlistment increases. The CNA study also examined the program’s cost effectiveness. Investment

in Academic Skills improvement provides a dramatic return of between $9 to $22

for every Navy dollar invested in the program in reduced recruiting and training

costs. The final report for this study is expected in mid April.

Our most recent data on QOL programs is presented here, though the report on

the findings of the 1997 QOL Survey (prepared by Navy Personnel Research and

Development Center (NPRDC)) is pending. NPRDC is a Navy personnel research

laboratory that is staffed primarily by civilian research psychologists. Although

NPRDC research psychologists work with some guidance from Navy/BUPERS sponsors, they maintain their scientific integrity.

Marine Corps quality of life (QOL) programs contribute to military mission outcomes. This was demonstrated in the 1994 ‘‘Quality of Life in the Marine Corps’’

study conducted by the Navy Personnel and Research Development Center

(NPRDC). This study statistically linked the QOL program investments to readiness

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
302

and retention. This study is scheduled to be readministered in 1998 to reassess Marines’ QOL across 11 areas and their relation to mission outcomes.

There is a myriad of QOL program-specific research, such as the MWR Patron

Needs Assessment, also conducted by NPRDC and completed in 1997. According to

data, the top 10 programs/services rated as most important to Marines were: (1) Exchange; (2) Information, Tickets and Tours (ITT); (3) Fitness Centers; (4) ATM Machine; (5) Military Clothing Store; (6) Gas Station; (7) Movie Theater; (8) Barber

Shop; (9) Auto Hobby Shop; and (10) Swimming Pools. Two other recent QOL program-specific studies conducted were: the Effectiveness of the Voluntary Education

Program, performed by the Center for Naval Analysis, and the Spouse Employment

Survey and Analysis, performed by Human Technology, Inc. and CODA Inc.

The Marine Corps has a robust QOL research program, with many ongoing initiatives to determine both Marine and mission needs. In 1998, an ‘‘Assessment of Program Contributions to Military Outcomes,’’ will obtain effective program measures

for 22 MWR and Human Resources programs, and assess each program’s contribution to military outcomes.

Another study, the ‘‘Marine Corps MWR Leadership Assessment,’’ will gather

commander’s and senior NCO leadership recommendations for MWR mission support. Both studies will be conducted by NPRDC.

Research results are used as the basis for policy and resource decisions. Combined

with commanders’ leadership experience and judgment, the Marine Corps QOL programs provide a demonstrate return on investment to mission outcomes. All of our

Quality of Life programs are producing positive results.

One of the programs which is working very well is the Voluntary Education Program (VOLED). VOLED participants have significantly better promotion prospects.

Academic skill participants are more likely to cross-rate. VOLED participants have

significantly lower demotion rates and higher reenlistment rates.

Family Programs improve Quality of Life for Marines and their families and enhance retention and readiness by providing the tools needed to meet the challenges

of the military lifestyle. Family Service Centers provided 289,000 units of service

in their first year of operation in 1988. In 1997, 1.7 million units of service were

provided. A recent study by Caliber Associates looked at selected family service center programs (all services) and determined that there was a nexus between family

service center programs and readiness.

The Marine Corps child care programs are also providing essential services which

affect readiness. The demand for child care exceeds the current capacity but we are

reviewing our delivery systems to make certain that we are providing the services

that families most require. For example, we are focusing on ways to expand care

for children three years and under as this represents the greatest percentage of our

unmet need.

Question. What changes have been occurring in spouse, child, and substance

abuse for the past two years? Please differentiate between officers and enlisted,

length of service, and among major military specialties and PERSTEMPO rates.

What is the role of the current high PERSTEMPO in any changes in family or substance abuse? Please provide copies of any analysis you have of the relationship.

Answer.

Navy.—There have been no significant changes in spouse and child abuse for the

past two years. We have no evidence or indication that rank, rate, length of service

or military specialty have had any direct impact on incidence rates of child or

spouse abuse. Data from the Navy Central Registry shows the following:

Number of incidents reported for the last five years:

Fiscal year—

1997 1996 1995 1994 1993

Spouse Abuse:

Incidents reported ........................................................ 3,357 3,424 5,228 6,057 6,344

Substantiated ............................................................... 2,493 2,558 3,586 4,053 4,277

Rates of spouse abuse incidents reported per 1,000

spouses ............................................................................. 16.3 13.9 22.4 24.5 25.5

Child Abuse:

Incidents reported ........................................................ 2,606 2,435 3,822 4,122 5,368

Rates of child abuse incidents reported per 1,000

children .................................................................... 7.8 7.1 10.5 13.8 13.5

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
303

Navy abuse incident reports leveled off and decreased in fiscal year 1993, fiscal

year 1994, fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. We believe this is due not only to

downsizing, but also to improved screening of cases with our Risk Assessment

Model. It may well be that fear of career consequences has decreased reporting, as

indicated by the Abuse Victim Study which was required by the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484).

In general, substance abuse in the Navy has declined in the past 18 years. We

credit our aggressive prevention and deterrence efforts, to include education, providing healthy alternatives and a vigorous drug-testing program. In contrast to the

post-Vietnam era, our culture, with respect to drug abuse, is one of ‘‘Zero Tolerance.’’ The goals of our urinalysis program have always been to deter and detect

drug abuse, as well as provide data on the prevalence of drug abuse. We’ve been

quite successful—the proportion of sampled servicemembers testing positive for

drugs has fallen from approximately 7 percent in 1983 to less than 1 percent in recent years, with no changes in drug abuse trends over the past two years. Alcohol

abuse has shown a similar decline. In 1982, 41 percent of Navy personnel reported

‘‘loss of productivity’’ (late for work, missing work, etc.) because of alcohol abuse.

That number, while still too high, declined to 20 percent in 1995. We anticipate that

DOD’s Worldwide Survey on Substance Abuse, currently in progress, will show additional reductions in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.

In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, our urinalysis positivity rate remained

below 1 percent. In those years, officers accounted for less than .05 percent of all

positive samples and enlisted personnel ages 25 and under accounted for approximately 70 percent of all positive samples. Historically, first term personnel account

for the majority of all positive urinalysis samples. PERSTEMPO does not appear to

influence our rates of substance abuse.

In the last two years, we’ve implemented testing of all Navy applicants at Military Enlistment Processing Stations (MEPS) upon entry into the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). The result has been approximately 4 percent of all applicants tested

positive for drug abuse. Our Navy Drug Screening Labs (NDSL’s) also began using

a better THC chemical reagent that is more sensitive to a broader range of THC

metabolites. The result has been an increase of approximately 700 additional urine

samples testing positive for THC in fiscal year 1997 over fiscal year 1996. We’ve

also revised our Self-Referral for Drug Abuse Policy so that it protects Navy’s investment in training and experience by preventing fraudulent use of the self-referral

program, while it continues to help those who have been diagnosed as drug dependent. Also, we’ve implemented an Inhalant Abuse Policy to establish guidelines for

processing personnel who abuse inhalants for administrative separation.

Other important initiatives include implementation of Urinalysis Program Coordinator Training to standardize our urine specimen collection and submission procedures. We have distributed software that helps commands better manage their urinalysis programs and track substance abuse trends. We’ve also upgraded our Navy

Drug Resource Website (NAVDWEB) with improved graphics, easier instructions,

and more information.

In alcohol abuse prevention efforts, we introduced our ‘‘Right Spirit’’ Alcohol

Abuse Prevention and Deglamorization campaign in March of 1996. This campaign

tightens policy, eliminates waivers for underage drinking in certain locales, increases education and training, and establishes prevention education detachments

in San Diego and Norfolk.

The chart below shows alcohol and drug abuse trends by age and pay grade.

Heavy drinking is defined as five or more drinks in one setting at least once a week.

[Past 12 months]

Characteristic Percent Illicit

Drug Abuse

Percent Heavy

Drinkers

Age:

20 and under ................................................................................................. 16.6 29.8

21–25 ............................................................................................................ 10.3 26.6

26–34 ............................................................................................................ 4.8 15.4

35 and older .................................................................................................. 3.0 9.3

Pay Grade:

E1–E3 ............................................................................................................ 15.9 32.4

E4–E6 ............................................................................................................ 6.1 18.2

E7–E9 ............................................................................................................ 2.0 11.4

W1–W5 ........................................................................................................... 2.8 9.5

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
304

[Past 12 months]

Characteristic Percent Illicit

Drug Abuse

Percent Heavy

Drinkers

O1–O3 ............................................................................................................ 2.7 6.1

O4–O10 .......................................................................................................... 1.2 2.0

Source: Department of Defense Worldwide Survey of Health Behaviors for Military Personnel.

There is no direct evidence that ‘‘downsizing’’ and an increased PERSTEMPO

have contributed to increased spouse, child, or substance abuse. We have noted that

personal childhood experiences, learned behavior patterns, and individual psychological factors appear to influence more directly the incidence of child or spouse

abuse. Situational family stress, such as work stress, is not a strong predictor of

child or spouse abuse, although it could increase risk when occurring in context with

the known risk factors I mentioned.

While we have not noted a relationship between increased PERSTEMPO and increased substance abuse, we do recognize that there are warning signs that we must

closely monitor.

Alcohol and drug abuse patterns differ among certain socio-demographic groups

and environmental conditions. We know that alcohol and drug abuse is often more

common and heavier among younger persons, males, and the less educated. Navy,

like the other military Services, is largely made up of this high risk (male, 17 to

25) population. In addition to age, sex and education, marital status and pay grade

are risk factors. Single Sailors or those who are married without their spouse

present are more likely to abuse alcohol. Those in pay grades E1–E3 and O1–O3

are five times more likely to abuse alcohol or drugs than senior enlisted and officers.

Isolated duty and long deployments are also high risk factors.

The above data was taken from the 1995 survey. Current Navy data shows a

trend of decreasing incidents, particularly in drinking and driving incidents and injuries. Discharges because of alcohol or drugs have not changed. In short, we have

not seen evidence of an upturn of substance abuse because of PERSTEMPO.

USMC.—There has been no significant change in substance abuse in the past two

years. Preliminary figures for the number of substantiated incidents follow:

Domestic

Violence Child Abuse

Fiscal year 1997 ..................................................................................................... 1,597 844

Fiscal year 1996 ..................................................................................................... 1,979 969

The USMC family violence reports do not regularly differentiate between officer

and enlisted. Also, we have not to date maintained data on length of service or

major military specialty.

We commissioned a special study by the University of Maryland School of Social

Work in fiscal year 1996 to determine if the high OPTEMPO in fiscal year 1996 was

a causal factor in domestic violence. The findings were that OPTEMPO was not a

causal factor. However, deployments may precipitate incidents of family violence by

someone already disposed to use violence.

F–18E/F

Question. In 1998 dollars, what is the current total program unit cost for a F–

18E, and F–18F? For the C/D (Lot 19) models? (Please include all RDT&E, MilCon,

and Procurement costs.)

Answer. Unit procurement cost for the ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘F’’ (APN 1 and 6) for 548 A/C

procured as per the fiscal year 1999 President’s Budget are:

‘‘E’’ equals $63.875 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘F’’ equals $65.692 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

E&MD (fiscal year 1998 dollars) equals $5,870.1 million as of the fiscal year 1999

President’s Budget. Amortize this over 548 units:

‘‘E’’ equals $10.712 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘F’’ equals $10.712 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

Total unit procurement cost including APN 1, 6 and E&MD for the ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘F’’

are:

‘‘E’’ equals $74.587 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘F’’ equals $76.404 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
305

This assumes that items such as support, spares, non-recurring and E&MD costs

are amortized equally across all units and the variants.

The C/D Lot 19 A/C were procured in fiscal year 1995. As of the fiscal year 1999

President’s Budget, the unit costs for the ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ (APN1 and 6) are:

‘‘C’’ equals $45.372 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘D’’ equals $46.946 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

E&MD (fiscal year 1998 dollars) equals $5,341.5 million as projected from the fiscal year 1996 C/D SAR approved program (APB) information. Amortized over 1,027

USN units:

‘‘C’’ equals $5.201 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘D’’ equals $5.201 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

Total unit procurement cost with APN 1, 6 and E&MD for the ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ are:

‘‘C’’ equals $50.573 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘D’’ equals $52.147 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

Question. What total program unit cost, in 1998 dollars, did the Navy project in

1993 for the E/F?

Answer. Using the 92 DAB estimate and the escalation at that time, the unit procurement cost for 1,000 E/F aircraft including both APN 1 and 6 was: Unit procurement cost equals $61.198 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

E&MD (fiscal year 1998 dollars—escalation at that time) as estimated at the 92

DAB amortized over the projected 1,000 A/C was: Unit E&MD cost equals $6.001

million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

Total Unit Procurement Cost including APN procurement (1 and 6) and E&MD

was: Total unit procurement cost equals $67.199 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

Question. Please cite all performance goals stated in 1993 and what changes, up

or down, have occurred up to the present time on all issues, including range, acceleration, maneuverability, and radar cross section. Is any consideration being given

at this time to changing or dropping any of these or other performance criteria?

Answer. There is no consideration being given at this time to change or drop any

Key Performance Parameter (KPP). Attached are the KPP parameters for the F/A–

18 E/F. The objective and threshold values represent our ORD requirements. Since

1993 the only change to the ORD was to incorporate performance requirements for

the F version. Originally F–18F performance was to be a fallout since it was only

to be used as a trainer. With the decision to replace the F–14 with the F–18F, performance requirements were established. (See the Key Performance parameter enclosure.)

In those KPP’s with multiple entries (e.g., Interdiction Mission Radius, Recovery,

Payload, Specific Excess Power, etc.) the first entry is the ‘‘E’’ value and the second

is the ‘‘F’’ value.) The launch wind over deck definition was also changed and based

on larger Max Takeoff Gross Weight rather than the lower Typical Combat Gross

Weight. This added 4,000 pounds to the calculation used to determine launch wind

over the deck requirements for the airplane. This, in effect, increased the KPP requirement. Even within this more stringent requirement we have margin. The status numbers presented reflect flight test results collected to date. This performance

data was collected, reviewed and validated during OT–IIA. Radar Cross Section is

classified; however flight testing has been done and the aircraft meets specified requirements.

Question. Please cite the flight test results for each of these criteria.

Answer. On the enclosure (Key Performance Parameters), the status numbers reflect flight test results collected to date. This performance data was collected, reviewed and validated during OT–IIA.

Question. A recent draft GAO report lists 420 technical deficiencies in the F–18E/

F. What is your cost and time estimate to resolve all these with no sacrifice in any

performance criterion?

Answer. Current funding and schedule provide sufficient resources to correct all

deficiencies requiring correction to support a successful Operational Evaluation

(OPEVAL). All of the corrective actions are being tracked individually and cumulatively for impact to performance, and all Key Performance Parameters are being

met with margin to spare.

Question. In 1993, Naval Air Systems Command compared the performance of the

A and C models of the F–18 to the goals of the E model. See table below. Please

provide data from flight test results to compare actual F–18E performance to the

original goals and to the specified earlier F–18’s.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
306

Initial

F–18A

Specification

F–18A

(Lot 1

FSD)

F–18C

(Lot 14)

F–18C

(Lot 15)

F–18C

(Lot 19)

F–18E

goal in

1993

F–18E

flight

test results

Escort Range (NM) ........................................................ 420 319 302 ............ ............ 356 ............

Interdiction Range (NM) ................................................ 618 437 398 ............ ............ 501 ............

Accel (sec.) 0.8 to 1.6 mach ........................................ 98 144 180 ............ ............ 153 ............

Specific Excess Power(Ps) (Ft./Sec.) at 1, 3, and 6

Gs .............................................................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Approach speed (kts.) ................................................... 128 140 142 ............ ............ 144 ............

Answer. Provided here within the chart below:

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
307

F/A–18E

ORD

F/A–18A

Lot 1 FSD

F/A–18C F/A–18E

Lot 12 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 19

DAB

March

1992

PDR June

1993

Flight

test results

Fighter Escort Radius (NM) ........................................................................................... 410 362 343 341 331 330 420 423 434Interdiction Radius (NM) ............................................................................................... 430 415 376 374 370 369 520 504 512Accel’tion (sec) 0.8M to 1.2M, 35K ............................................................................... 70 55 58 58 57 57 60 67 67Specific Excess Power, Ps (fps) 1g @ 0.9M, 10K ........................................................ 600 617 599 599 699 695 637 639 661Approach Speed (kts) .................................................................................................... 150 140 146 146 146 146 144 145 142

Note.—The ground rules for defining performance specifications have changed over time. The rules for the F/A–18A and the F/A–18E are different. For example, the flight profile for measuring Interdiction

Radius was different for the F/A–18A than it is for the F/A–18E. The table above uses the F/A–18E rules, which have been applied to the other variants for consistency. This is why column one was changedto F/A–18E ORD vice F/A–18A specification.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
308

F/A–18E/F WING DROP

Question. Please state your view on the media coverage about the F/A–18E/F

‘‘wing drop’’ problem and about comparisons of E/F performance to earlier models

of the F–18. Do you believe it useful or important for the public to be informed of

these issues?

Answer. Yes, the Department of the Navy fully complies with the Principles of

Information as established by the Department of Defense (see attached).

Question. Please provide copies of Navy testimony or printed reports to Congress

or the public identifying the ‘‘wing drop’’ problem before the first instance of its

being reported in the media.

Answer. Neither printed reports nor Navy testimony were requested by Congress

or the public prior to initial reporting in the media. However, wing drop was included in a list of technical issues to be solved in flight test during a briefing to

Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) in a visit to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, in

May 1997. For informational purposes, provided are an F/A–18E/F Wing Drop

Awareness Chronology dated February 16, 1998 and responses to questions submitted by Mr. Creighton Greene, Professional Staff Member, Senate Armed Services

Committee, in December 1997.

F–18E/F

Question. Why does the Navy compare the E/F to the lower performance (i.e. Lot

12 version of the C/D model rather than the current (i.e. Lot 19) version? Please

present a comparison of the C/D Lot 12 to Lot 19 on all significant performance criteria.

Answer. The attached chart provides the comparison of Lot 12 to Lot 19. As the

Navy developed the ORD in 1991, to support the Defense Acquisition Board in 1992,

the current version of the F/A–18C/D was the Lot 12. Therefore, the Lot 12 F/A–

18C/D was used to develop the performance baseline for the F/A–18E/F. Newer Lots

were planned at the time but their performance parameters had not been defined.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
309

F/A–18E

ORD

F/A–18A

Lot 1 FSD

F/A–18C F/A–18E

Lot 12 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 19

DAB

March

1992

PDR June

1993

Flight

test results

Fighter Escort Radius (NM) ........................................................................................... 410 362 343 341 331 330 420 423 434Interdiction Radius (NM) ............................................................................................... 430 415 376 374 370 369 520 504 512Accel’tion (sec) 0.8M to 1.2M, 35K ............................................................................... 70 55 58 58 57 57 60 67 67Specific Excess Power, Ps (fps) 1g @ 0.9M, 10K ........................................................ 600 617 599 599 699 695 637 639 661Approach Speed (kts) .................................................................................................... 150 140 146 146 146 146 144 145 142

Note.—The ground rules for defining performance specifications have changed over time. The rules for the F/A–18A and the F/A–18E are different. For example, the flight profile for measuring Interdiction

Radius was different for the F/A–18A than it is for the F/A–18E. The table above uses the F/A–18E rules, which have been applied to the other variants for consistency. This is why column one was changedto F/A–18E ORD vice F/A–18A specification.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
310

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

NAVAL RESERVE CH–60 AIRCRAFT

Question. Secretary Dalton, I am told that the Navy Reserve has stated that one

of their highest unfunded priorities is the CH–60. Are any of the aircraft requested

in the fiscal year 1999 budget for the Naval Reserve? How many additional aircraft

do the Navy Reserves require in fiscal year 1999?

Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget does not include the procurement of CH–60

aircraft for the Naval Reserve. The Navy’s Master Helicopter Plan was developed

to expand warfighting capability, mobilize the force, neck down type/model/series

and consolidate the force structure. To achieve that aim Navy is moving toward an

all H–60 force consisting of two series helicopters; the CH–60 and the SH–60R. A

key component of the plan is to eventually mirror the Naval Air Reserve Force’s helicopter community to that of the Active force. Currently the Naval Air Reserve

Force operates five different series helicopters; HH–60H, UH–3H, SH–3H, SH–2G

and the MH–53E. To align the Reserve helicopter force with Active forces will require the replacement of all existing aircraft with either the CH–60 or the SH–60R.

The Naval Reserve Force has requirements for 28 airframes through fiscal year

2008. Two reserve aircraft were appropriated in fiscal year 1998. The reserves have

included procurement of 2 CH–60’s as high unfunded priorities in fiscal year 1999.

HELLFIRE II MISSILES

Question. Secretary Dalton, is there an unfunded requirement for Hellfire II missiles? If so, please tell me how many of these missiles are required by the Department of the Navy and what your procurement plans are.

Answer. The Hellfire missiles in the inventory and on contract are fully funded.

The projected inventory is 4,000 missiles below the inventory objective. Based on

overall funding priorities, the DON has no plans to procure additional Hellfire missiles.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG

OPERATIONAL READINESS

Question. I understand that (1) operational demands are threatening to diminish

readiness; and (2) past the FYDP period, i.e. 2003 and beyond, the Navy is concerned that the average rate of funded production will not permit you to maintain

both the required ship and aircraft inventory.

Both of these are serious issues, would you expand on them please?

What is the approximate magnitude of your ship building/repair/modernization

shortfall beyond fiscal year 2003?

Answer. The Navy is striving to support operational demands, such as maintaining two Carrier Battle Groups in the Persian Gulf, with regularly scheduled forward-deploying forces. This level of support comes at a cost, in reduced presence in

other theaters, and poses significant challenges for the Fleet Commanders.

—Short term impacts are slight due to the forward deployed posture and inherent

mobility of naval forces which make them an ideal choice for crises response

and easy to shift between theaters when contingencies arise.

—Longer term support comes at a greater cost due to compressed Interdeployment Training Cycles (IDTC) and perturbation to long range deployment schedules, which could result in increased OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO.

—Higher transit speeds, increased flight/steaming hours, and the requirement to

compress or defer maintenance have potential impact on force readiness and

quality of life for sailors.

Our current ship and aircraft procurement plans meet our present recapitalization requirements. But, for the long term, Navy will have to balance funding and

procurement options carefully in order to meet our inventory goals.

—We need to reduce our front end investment costs with initiatives such as multiyear procurement.

—New Attack Submarine (NSSN) teaming arrangement between Newport News

Shipbuilding and Electric Boat enable us to take advantage of one production

line rather than two.

—We are reducing support requirements with programs like ‘‘Smart Ship.’’

—We are modernizing and remanufacturing existing aircraft such as the SH–60,

AV–8B, and AH–1/UH–1.

—We will extend the nominal service lives of aircraft and ships when it makes

good business sense.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
311

Beyond fiscal year 2003 we will need to increase our average shipbuilding from

6–7 to 8–10 ships per year.

Question. The Navy is down to four government Shipyards.

What do you see as the role of government shipyards, and Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in particular, in future Navy plans?

What is the Navy strategy to maintain government shipyards as modern facilities

with well trained workforces, including apprentices?

Answer. The public sector’s Naval Shipyards are vital assets for depot level overhaul and maintenance, including battle damage repairs in wartime and voyage repairs in peacetime, of nuclear-powered ships and large-deck conventionally-powered

surface ships. Naval Shipyards provide a responsive, geographically dispersed, labor

strike-free industrial capability in support of fleet readiness. Naval Shipyards provide a vital link to fleet operations by maintaining the capability and capacity to

effectively overhaul and modernize ships. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an integral

part of the public sector’s ship repair base through the Future Years Defense Program (fiscal year 1999–2003). The workload planned for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

is relatively stable across the FYDP. The Navy’s strategy is to balance workload in

the public and private sectors to sustain needed maintenance capabilities and support the ship construction program.

The Navy’s strategy provides incentives and/or funding to revitalize processes and

business practices; to plan, prioritize and recapitalize facilities as required; and to

continue to provide training to shipyard employees to sharpen their skills, increase

their knowledge levels, and improve upward mobility.

EXCESS INFRASTRUCTURE AND BASE CLOSURES

Question. I see that you fully support base closures in the years ahead. What type/

category of excess infrastructure exists in the Navy? What bases are excess to your

needs and, therefore, possible candidates for closure or realignment?

Answer. The Navy is currently working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense

to develop a report for Congress required by section 2824 of the Fiscal Year 1998

Defense Authorization Act on the closure and realignment of military installations.

Excess infrastructure in the Department of the Navy will be addressed in this report.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

FISCAL YEAR 1999 RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY [RPN] FUNDING

Question. In the past five years many have argued, wisely I believe, that the Department did not adequately fund our Naval and Marine Reserves. Does the fiscal

year 1999 Budget adequately fund these citizen sailors or did you leave it to Congress to do?

Answer. The fiscal year 1999 President’s Budget funds Naval Reserve Annual

Training (AT) statutory requirements under U.S. Code, Title 10, at a budgeted participation rate of 99 percent for officers and 81 percent for enlisted personnel. The

Inactive Duty Training (IDT) drill requirements are budgeted at a participation rate

of 99 percent officer and 92 percent enlisted. These figures are based on historical

execution. Our goal is to execute at a level which ensures that all reserve personnel

perform the required AT and IDT periods.

NAVY JROTC

Question. I am receiving letters from students, educators and parents from all

across South Carolina telling me that this year’s funding for Navy JROTC programs

has been severely cut. Specifically they cite that travel funds have been halved, uniform funding has been cut so severely that cadets are no longer issued the white

coat, that replacements for instructors who depart cannot be hired and that funds

the Congress appropriated are being withheld for other Navy programs. If true, this

clearly defies the will of Congress. Please answer these charges.

Answer. The Navy currently supports 435 NJROTC units at host high schools

throughout the United States, with nearly 63,000 cadets and 960 instructors.

NJROTC is a superb youth development program making important contributions

to the future of our country. The Navy has made no severe cuts to its NJROTC program, but available funding in fiscal year 1998 is about 2 percent below that of fiscal year 1997, principally due to general Congressional cuts to the O&M, Navy account, of which this program took a small share.

Since fiscal year 1992, Navy spending on this program has more than doubled,

even after inflation. This has occurred over the same time period in which total

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
312

Navy resources have declined by 20 percent. While this continued level of funding

for NJROTC clearly shows our commitment to the program, it is a very real fiscal

challenge. Adding to that challenge is the link between active duty pay and allowances and NJROTC instructor salaries. Back in fiscal year 1992, salaries made up

54 percent of the program’s cost while today they make up 85 percent. Since the

salary levels are prescribed by law, any unplanned reductions to the budget must

come out of other areas of the budget such as travel, cadet uniforms, etc.

Regarding uniforms, cadets have never been issued white coats. Budget reductions

over the past few years, however, have necessitated restructuring of the Cadet Sea

Bag, without reducing the quality of the program. Certain uniform items such as

service dress blue jackets with white combination hats, which were issued to all cadets, are now only authorized for cadet officers and chief petty officers (about 25

percent of unit).

To operate within the available funding, it has also been necessary to place controls on the authorization and replacement of additional instructors at our larger

units. We are keenly aware of the difficulty this has caused to some NJROTC units

and the limits it imposes on enrolling additional interested students. One Naval

Science Instructor and one Associate Naval Science Instructor are the normal minimum at a unit. We are limiting further growth of instructors above the minimum

required to ensure funding remains within that allocated.

The Navy will continue to support the NJROTC program to the fullest extent possible in this time of austere funding.

GYMNASIUM IN SUPPORT OF NUCLEAR POWER SCHOOL RELOCATION

Question. The Navy has made significant progress in preparing to move the nuclear propulsion school from Orlando to the Naval Weapons Station at Goose Creek,

South Carolina. However, in reviewing this effort, I am concerned that BRAC requirements to build the needed facilities have been ignored. Specifically, a gymnasium was not included in the plan. Because of the large number of students

added to the post population by this move, the small metal building now being used

as a gymnasium appears clearly unable to support the expanded post population.

Therefore, BRAC funds to build a gymnasium should have been included in this

project. Please review Navy plans and advise me of your findings with respect to

the gymnasium. If you find that a gymnasium is not needed, please explain why.

Answer. A fiscal year 1996 BRAC project, P–016U, is constructing six barracks

and a core building for the Nuclear Power School in Charleston. The core building

will contain a fitness center which supports the student population and includes a

nautilus center, weight room, and outside volleyball and basketball courts. This

project is scheduled for completion May 1998.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DALE BUMPERS

NTACMS

Question. In fiscal year 1998 the Congress added to the Navy’s budget $10 million

for pre-EMD engineering to marinize the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

It was Congress’ intent that this seed money was to be followed by a Navy program

to integrate the marinized Navy Tactical Missile System (NTACMS) into the fleet

for the Navy’s mission to provide fire support in land attack warfare.

What is the status of the Navy TACMS program? Has the Navy requested any

funds for the program in the fiscal year 1999 budget?

Answer. NTACMS, which marinizes the ATACMS missile for submarine and surface ship launch, will provide the capability for precision strike and interdiction at

extended range (160NM). In addition to an Anti-Personnel/Anti-Machinery (APAM)

warhead, plans include development of an improved hard target penetrator. This capability can be fielded at significantly reduced cost by leveraging Army ATACMS

development and fixed production costs.

The fiscal year 1999 President’s Budget provides $145 million of NTACMS

RDT&E funds over the FYDP, which will support an fiscal year 2001 EMD start

and an fiscal year 2006 IOC.

The fiscal year 1998 funding was used to develop and refine required modifications to the Army ATACMS missile and definition of the capsule for submerged

launch and the canister for surface launch. These will include mechanical, electrical,

and data transfer interfaces between the missile, the capsule/canister, and the ship.

Funds were also allocated for the engineering analysis required for ATACMS integration to Navy mission planning, weapons and fire control systems; for preparation

of documentation to support a Milestone II decision, Operational Requirements DocU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
313

ument, and Concept of Operation documentation, and for initial planning for underwater ejection testing.

The majority of the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funding is provided to

conduct a submerged launch demonstration to validate the underwater launch design, which would provide cost and technological risk reduction for EMD.

Fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2003 funding supports execution of EMD and will

refine the hardware and software approaches developed during prior risk reduction

efforts through critical design reviews.

Structuring of a complete NTACMS program through procurement in the ongoing

POM00 build is at risk due to extreme budgetary pressures.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

LOCKHEED AND NORTHROP MERGER

Question. There has been substantial publicity of late concerning the proposed

merger of Lockheed and Northrop and opposition to that plan by the Department

of Justice. Northrop is one of the builders of the F/A–18E/F, and Lockheed is one

of the two contractors chosen to compete for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) design.

The merger, if concluded, would leave only three major defense contractors. Do you

have any concerns about this loss of competition in the aerospace industry?

Answer. Each of the military services provided the Department of Defense with

their individual assessments of this proposed merger. In this process the Navy did

express concern in several areas. The Department of Defense’s overall position

across the full spectrum of defense business is in opposition to the merger.

CVN–77

Question. The Navy is asking for accelerated procurement of CVN–77, the next

A/C carrier. Although this is a Nimitz-class carrier, it is billed as a ‘‘transition carrier’’ to the CVX, the next class of carriers.

Why is CVN–77 billed as a ‘‘transition carrier?’’

Answer. CVN–77, the tenth Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, has been designated as

the ‘‘transition ship’’ to the next generation of aircraft carrier, the CVX. The CVN–

77 will incorporate process changes and advanced technologies which will reduce the

total ownership cost of CVN–77, as well as provide opportunities for backfit into the

previous nine ships of the Nimitz class. Under the ‘‘transition ship’’ concept, CVN–

77 will also provide opportunities to mitigate technology risk for CVX.

Question. What are the features which will differentiate CNV–77 from other Nimitz class carriers?

Answer. The CVN–77 RDT&E program, which commenced in fiscal year 1998, has

been structured to identify, evaluate, and select candidate transition technologies for

incorporation into the CVN–77 design. Such incorporation would differentiate the

CVN–77 from other Nimitz-class carriers, although the degree of differentiation

would be reduced once the applicable transition technologies are backfit into the

previous nine Nimitz-class carriers. Currently, the CVN–77 RDT&E program is focusing on the following major investment areas:

Manpower and Material Support.—Manpower Utilization; Ship Maintenance and

Operational Support; Preservation and Corrosion Control Training; and Information

Management.

Design Tools and Processes.—Modeling and Design Tools; and Producibility.

Hull, Mechanical, Electrical, and Auxiliary.—Auxiliary Systems; Quality of Life;

Human Support Systems; Information Systems; and Hull and Structural Systems.

Combat and Intelligence Systems.—Sensors; Communications; Information Management; and Structures and Arrangements.

Aircraft Launch, Recovery, and Support.—Servicing and Maintenance; Weapons

Handling; Information Management; Structures and Arrangements; and Launch

and Recovery.

Battle Damage Prevention and Recovery.—Damage Control; Hull Protection; and

Shock Mitigation Signatures.

Propulsion and Electric Power Generation.—Propulsion Systems; Electric Power

Generation and Distribution; and Electrical Auxiliary Applications.

Question. What is the total cost increase for the transition features as compared

to the standard Nimitz-class carrier?

Answer. The estimate for CVN–77 transition technologies is currently being refined in Navy’s POM–00 deliberations.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
314

TRIDENT SUBMARINES

Question. The Navy is reportedly investigating the possibility of converting Trident Submarines to conventional cruise or conventional ballistic missile platforms.

What is the status of this proposal? Isn’t this an extraordinarily expensive way to

deliver a conventional payload?

Answer. Congressional language prohibits removal of any of the 18 Trident

SSBN’s from strategic service prior to START II ratification. Pending START II ratification, the four oldest Trident SSBN’s are planned for removal from strategic service, two each in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

Right now, the Trident conversion (SSGN) concept is just a concept and not yet

a program. No funds have been applied to it in the fiscal year 1999 budget, but the

Navy continues to evaluate the concept.

Conversion costs are currently estimated to be approximately $400 million per

ship (includes the refueling overhaul required for 20 additional years of service life),

with a one time initial design cost of approximately $170 million.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ADM. JAY L. JOHNSON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Question. Recognizing the planned capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter, why

not move to a larger number of smaller carriers capable of responding to multiple

crisis rather than build $5 plus billion nuclear aircraft carriers?

Answer. CVX will enter fleet service in 2013. The Navy’s carrier based version

of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is intended to enter fleet service in 2012. JSF will

be a complement to the F/A–18E/F. The Navy carrier version of JSF will not have

a vertical takeoff and landing capability; rather, it will employ catapulting for takeoff, and arresting gear for landing, as does the Navy’s current inventory of carrier

based airplanes. Previous carrier studies have determined that the landing area

needed for arrested landings needs to be at least 820 feet long. If we add in a simultaneous launch and recovery requirement, then an angled deck of 820 feet and an

overall flight deck length of over 920 feet is needed. In summary, the flight deck

size of any proposed CVX is in great part determined by the need to conduct safe

and effective flight operations.

CVX R&D

Question. What is the urgency of spending so much R&D money now ($190 million

in 1999) on a new aircraft carrier design—why can’t we go at a slower pace?

Answer. The Navy’s vision for CVX is to develop a new class of aircraft carrier

that significantly reduces total ownership cost and incorporates an architecture for

change, while maintaining the core capabilities of naval aviation (high-volume firepower, survivability, sustainability, and mobility). Achieving this vision will require

significant design changes to incorporate advances in technology and to focus the

design on affordability drivers, since a new carrier has not been designed in over

30 years.

CVX will be commissioned in 2013 to replace U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN 65), which

will reach the end of its service life at 52 years. Construction must begin in 2006

to meet this commissioning date. The timeline for design and development of a new,

more affordable carrier to support required construction start in 2006 necessitates

that specific development and design efforts start by fiscal year 1999.

Funding the fiscal year 1999 budget request is critical to initiate key technology

development programs having major ship configuration and design impacts. Among

these programs are:

Advanced Technology Launcher.—Electromagnetic catapult development will require development of power conversion and control systems. Following component

development, land-based testing will be required to ensure safety of flight.

Propulsion Plant Development.—A new, modern propulsion plant requires continued funding in fiscal year 1999 to meet an fiscal year 2006 construction start date.

It has been over 30 years since the last carrier propulsion plant design. Funding

is needed to incorporate lessons learned over this period of time into a new design.

Advanced Protection Systems.—Survivability of the carrier is achieved through

passive features that protect vital ship spaces and are major ship configuration drivers. To keep pace with modern threats, and to limit the weight and space impact

of upgraded protection systems, requires development of advanced armor and proU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
315

tection systems. These systems will require small and full-scale, land-based testing

to ensure adequacy against the threat.

Information Integration.—Advanced computing plant architectures will enable significant reductions in manpower and will ensure survivability of the ship’s computer-based systems. The information architecture and development of the substantial network control systems are key to fielding this capability. All of the ship control and monitoring systems that will reside on CVX in the future will need to be

integrated into this architecture.

Automation for Reduced Manning.—Manpower is the leading driver in ship life

cycle cost. Automated systems are key to reducing the shipboard manpower requirement for CVX. Development of automated systems must be undertaken early to enable the ship design to incorporate them. Unless these systems are definable early

in the design process, the ship will be designed to accommodate large numbers of

personnel and will not be properly arranged to enable backfitting automation into

the ship.

Computer Aided Design Tools.—A clean-sheet aircraft carrier design has not been

undertaken for over 30 years. Modern, computer based tools must be applied to efficiently engineer, design, test and simulate construction of an aircraft carrier design

in the virtual environment to significantly reduce overall product cost.

Question. Based on the AOA performed on the JASSM program, is the Navy committed to procuring the JASSM missile?

Answer. No. The Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) performed for the JASSM program verified all of the Navy’s current and forecast air launched Standoff Outside

of Area Defenses (SOAD) requirements are met by SLAM-ER∂. It is the Navy’s intention to continue JASSM development as a joint venture with the USAF to ensure

that when the JASSM weapon is fielded it retains the potential ability to be employed by Navy aircraft operating from an aircraft carrier. If at some point in the

future, Navy/Joint warfare requirements can be better met through procurement of

JASSM, the SLAM-ER∂/JASSM procurement mix will be re-evaluated.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

PRIVATIZATION

Question. How did the Navy and the Marine Corps arrive at the number of civilian and military jobs to be eliminated and/or contracted out? Were specific, individual studies performed to analyze the savings and appropriateness of activities to

compete? or, was a goal imposed ‘‘from the top?’’ How did the Navy/Marine Corps

determine that contracting out saves 20 percent? Why does the Air Force assume

different savings? Please provide copies of the analysis you performed to come to

the conclusion that 20 percent was the right number.

Answer. The savings reflected in the Navy’s FYDP are derived from our expectation that ‘‘competition’’ not ‘‘contracting out’’ will result in significant savings. This

expectation is based on research and analysis performed by the Center for Naval

Analysis (CNA). CNA reviewed our experience implementing OMB Circular A–76 in

the 1980’s and found that ‘‘competition’’, not ‘‘contracting out’’, resulted in cost savings of approximately 30 percent, regardless of the outcome of the cost comparison.

As a matter of interest, approximately half of the functions studied remained inhouse after the competition, albeit in a more streamlined, efficient organization.

CNA also reviewed the Navy’s inventory of commercial activities and determined

that conducting cost comparisons of activities involving approximately 80,000 fulltime equivalents would yield the kind of savings we have incorporated into the

Navy’s FYDP. The CNA analysis formed the basis for Navy’s competition savings

projections. I cannot address the Air Force’s savings assumptions, but I will be

happy to provide you with a copy of CNA’s analysis that forms the basis of our estimate that competition yields average savings of 30 percent.

Question. With fewer military personnel and DOD civilians after all this contracting out, what will be the impact on overseas rotation and ‘‘perstempo’’ problems?

Answer. I need to reiterate that we are interested in increasing ‘‘competition’’ not

‘‘contracting out.’’ Our policy provides a structured check and balance system between military manpower requirements and proposed shore infrastructure reductions for regionalization, outsourcing or privatization initiatives to ensure that our

military readiness is not adversely affected. The need to maintain a sea-to-shore rotational base, along with the need to maintain certain critical skills, has indeed limited our ability to compete certain military-intensive functions. For this reason, the

Navy’s plan to achieve the savings reflected in this budget focuses on competing civilian-intensive functions.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
316

Question. How will the Navy and the Marine Corps monitor and document the

progress in achieving your outsourcing programs and achieving the planned savings? How will these data be confirmed by an outside party?

Answer. Again, I need to reiterate that we are conducting a ‘‘competition’’ program, not an ‘‘outsourcing’’ program. Navy generally relies upon the cost comparison

process established by OMB Circular A–76 to ensure that our competitions result

in the most cost effective outcome. Circular A–76 not only provides rigorous guidelines for identifying the costs of both in-house and private sector performance but

it also incorporates an independent review process and provides all affected parties

with an independent appeal process. The independent reviews will be conducted by

both independent contractors familiar with the commercial activity studies and by

in-house Navy auditors. Actual savings of the competition will include both personnel and other operating costs. To monitor and document our progress in achieving

the planned ‘‘competition’’ savings, Navy has established an annual reporting system. This system will track actual costs for five years subsequent to the implementation of the cost comparison decision. Savings conformance will be determined by

an analysis of actual total operating costs against planned total operating costs.

Based on our past experience, we expect actual costs to track well with the cost comparison estimates. In addition to review by the independent reviewing official, the

appeals officer, and all other interested parties during the cost comparison phase,

cost comparison data will be available for public scrutiny and external review by the

Naval Inspector General, the Naval Audit Service, the DOD Inspector General, the

General Accounting Office, and other interested parties.

Question. What actions do you plan if the savings do not materialize as planned?

More outsourcing? Cuts in procurement? Force structure? Readiness?

Answer. Failure to achieve the projected savings would have a serious impact on

our ability to fund our modernization program without taking vertical cuts that

would jeopardize other existing requirements. To limit the risk of jeopardizing other

requirements and to ensure we meet the savings projected in the FYDP, we are also

aggressively pursuing related cost savings initiatives such as regionalization, privatization, community use and public-private ventures.

READINESS

Question. What do your latest, 1998, data show about pilot retention? Is it getting

better or worse? Is it better or worse for married pilots? With families? What are

the socio-economic profiles of the pilots leaving? Staying?

Answer. The Navy’s two primary predictors of pilot retention, resignations and

Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) take rates, demonstrate that pilot retention continues to be on the decline. Pilot resignations increased from 414 in fiscal year 1997

to 540 in fiscal year 1998, while fiscal year 1998 ACP take rates, as shown in Table

1, were much lower than required.

TABLE 1.—FISCAL YEAR 1998 ACP PROGRAM

Aviation subcommunity Aircraft

type

Bonus

amount

Number

required

Number

eligible

Eligible

applied

Percent

eligible

applied

Percent of

goal

VFA Pilot .......................................................... F/A–18 $17,000 23 81 11 14 48

VF Pilot ............................................................ F–14 17,000 13 62 4 6 31

VAQ Pilot .......................................................... EA–6B 19,000 14 28 3 11 21

VS Pilot ............................................................ S–3 19,000 15 32 2 6 13

VAW/VRC Pilot ................................................. E–2/C–2 10,000 17 58 7 12 41

Carrier Pilot Take Rate ...................... .............. .............. 82 261 27 10 33

VP Pilot ............................................................ P–3 10,000 46 200 44 22 96

Prop Pilot Take Rate .......................... .............. .............. 46 200 44 22 96

Pilot Take Rate .................................. .............. .............. 128 461 71 20 55

This year only 10 percent of eligible carrier pilots—33 percent of required—applied for ACP agreements that obligated them through 14 years of commissioned

service. This take rate, lowest in program history, is a sound predictor that critical

department head billets will not be filled since those that have not signed an agreement are free to leave the Navy. These two indicators of resignations and take rates

together highlight a continued trend of low pilot retention. The Navy does not track

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
317

retention by socio-economic profiles such as retention for those married or with families.

Question. What are the specific complaints of pilots leaving the Navy?

Answer. Table 2 list ‘‘reasons for leaving’’ as cited by Naval Aviators on fiscal year

1997 exit surveys. It is noteworthy that no requirement exists to complete an exit

survey, and if a survey is completed, it is typically one of the final items an aviator

completes prior to leaving the service. Hence, it is not always afforded the proper

effort.

TABLE 1.—Reasons for Leaving the Navy Cited by Pilots in Fiscal Year 1997 Exit

Surveys

Percent

Reason for Leaving Citing

Family Separation ................................................................................................. 20

Promotion Opportunity .......................................................................................... 14

Quality of Leadership ............................................................................................ 12

Amount of Sea Duty .............................................................................................. 8

NOTE.—These results were compiled from 126 completed exit surveys: the number represents

only 30 percent of the aviators who resigned in fiscal year 1997. Additionally, the CNO’s Aviation Retention Team compiled the below list of reasons for resigning.

These anecdotal reasons were heard from direct discussions with the fleet during visits by the

team to various aviation commands: Increased amount of family separation; Frustration with

Navy leadership; High operational tempo; Inadequate funding to support operations; Erosion of

compensation/benefits; Reduced promotion opportunity; and Inadequate infrastructure.

Question. Which of your ‘‘quality of life’’ programs are working? Which are not?

Which generate the best pay-off in terms of retention? Please provide the data and

analysis to substantiate your answer, or are you using judgment or anecdotal evidence to assess the degrees of success or failure? Does the Navy have any studies

on these issues? By independent organizations? Please provide copies.

Answer. I’ve just received the results of the 1997 BUPERS QOL survey that

asked a representative sample of Sailors about their perceptions and use of 29 of

our QOL programs. Their answers tell us that most of our QOL programs are working, in terms of both readiness and retention.

When we asked Sailors to rank those programs that they feel contribute the most

to their readiness, officers cite as their top three: (1) Tuition Assistance (TA)—47

percent; (2) Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Sports and Fitness Ashore—

46 percent; and (3) MWR Recreational Activities Ashore—33 percent.

The top three programs for maintaining readiness among enlisted are: (1) TA—

60 percent; (2) Montgomery GI BILL (MGIB)—51 percent; and (3) MWR Recreational Activities Ashore—32 percent.

Regardless of pay grade, MWR and Voluntary Education (VOLED) programs have

the greatest impact on readiness.

When we examine QOL program use and quality, we see that MWR Recreation

Activities Ashore (Officer—85 percent, Enlisted—85 percent), MWR Sports and Fitness Ashore (Officer—84 percent; Enlisted—85 percent), and Navy Campus Education Centers (Officer—37 percent; Enlisted—61 percent) are most frequently used.

QOL programs with the highest quality ratings are: TA (78 percent); MGIB (77 percent); and Navy Campus Education Centers (70 percent). We’re especially pleased

that 25 of 29 QOL programs were rated ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘very good’’ by a majority of our

Sailors.

Out of 29 QOL programs that were rated, four did not receive a ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘very

good’’ assessment: (1) Spouse Employment Assistance (39 percent); (2) Single Sailor

Program Ashore (42 percent); (3) Good Relationships, Strong Marriages, and

Healthy Families (49 percent); and (4) Outreach and Command Representative Program (50 percent).

These programs are relatively new, and many of our Sailors may not be as familiar with them as some of our more established efforts. As an example, our Single

Sailor Program Ashore had been implemented for only a short time when we mailed

out the survey. Additional public relations efforts and time for these programs to

mature may improve their viability over the long term.

When we asked respondents about a particular program’s quality, we also asked

why they might not have used the program. The majority of respondents (Officer—

88 percent, Enlisted—79 percent) told us that they didn’t feel a need for the program. Only 3 percent of officers and enlisted indicated that they preferred off-base

programs to our QOL programs.

Some programs haven’t been well publicized. The least recognized programs

among officers included the Chaplains Religious Enhancement Development OperU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
318

ation (CREDO) (15 percent), Relationships, Families, and Marriages (13 percent),

and the Volunteer Program (12 percent), while enlisted reported less recognition for

Academic Skills (26 percent), CREDO (25 percent), Outreach/Command Representative Program (22 percent), and Single Sailor Ashore (20 percent).

Sailors report that MWR and VOLED programs most significantly affect their retention decision. When asked, ‘‘Would you reconsider your decision to remain in the

Navy if programs were reduced or eliminated,’’ officers rated TA (14 percent), MGIB

(11 percent), and MWR Sports and Fitness Ashore (10 percent) while enlisted rated

TA (27 percent), MGIB (20 percent), and Navy Campus Education Centers (12 percent) as the top three programs affecting their retention decision. Both our officers

and enlisted are telling us that educational opportunities and fitness programs

strongly contribute to our retention successes.

A recently completed study by the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) on the ‘‘Effectiveness of the Navy’s Voluntary Education Program’’ has told us that participation

in off-duty education programs has a clear relationship to both promotability and

retention. Sailors who accumulate college credits have a significantly higher probability of making E–5 in five years. For example, if a Sailor takes even 15 credit

hours of college work, he or she has a 43 percent probability of making E–5 in five

years; with 30 credit hours, the probability increases to 51 percent. College participants have a significantly higher reenlistment rate. As credits accumulate, the probability of first reenlistment increases. The CNA study also examined the program’s

cost effectiveness. Investment in Academic Skills improvement provides a dramatic

return of between $9 to $22 for every Navy dollar invested in the program in reduced recruiting and training costs. Overall, the VOLED program is clearly very

cost effective.

I also spend a fair amount of time visiting the Fleet, looking at our programs and

talking to Sailors who let me know how important they are to them. The data from

these surveys supports what I’ve seen and heard—we need these programs, not only

to maintain personal readiness, but also to retain our quality Sailors.

Our most recent data on QOL programs is presented here, though the report on

the findings of the 1997 QOL Survey is pending. NPRDC is a Navy personnel research laboratory that is staffed primarily by civilian research psychologists. Although NPRDC research psychologists work with some guidance from Navy/

BUPERS sponsors, they maintain their scientific integrity. I have provided you with

copies of both the 1997 QOL Survey briefing as well as the CNA VOLED briefing.

Question. What changes have been occurring in spouse, child, and substance

abuse for the past two years? Please differentiate between officers and enlisted,

length of service, and among major military specialties and PERSTEMPO rates.

What is the role of the current high PERSTEMPO in any changes in family or substance abuse? Please provide copies of any analysis you have of the relationship.

Answer. There have been no significant changes in spouse and child abuse for the

past two years. We have no evidence or indication that rank, rate, length of service

or military specialty have had any direct impact on incidence rates of child or

spouse abuse. Data from the Navy Central Registry shows the following:

Number of incidents reported for the last five years:

Fiscal year—

1997 1996 1995 1994 1993

Spouse Abuse:

Incidents reported ........................................................ 3,357 3,424 5,228 6,057 6,344

Substantiated ............................................................... 2,493 2,558 3,586 4,053 4,277

Rates of spouse abuse incidents reported per 1,000

spouses ............................................................................. 16.3 13.9 22.4 24.5 25.5

Child Abuse:

Incidents reported ........................................................ 2,606 2,435 3,822 4,122 5,368

Substantiated ............................................................... 1,567 1,356 1,747 1,967 2,179

Rates of child abuse incidents reported per 1,000

children .................................................................... 7.8 7.1 10.5 13.8 13.5

Navy abuse incident reports leveled off and decreased in fiscal year 1993, fiscal

year 1994, fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. We believe this is due not only to

downsizing, but also to improved screening of cases with our Risk Assessment

Model. It may well be that fear of career consequences has decreased reporting, as

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
319

indicated by the Abuse Victim Study which was required by the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484).

In general, substance abuse in the Navy has declined in the past 18 years. We

credit our aggressive prevention and deterrence efforts, to include education, providing healthy alternatives and a vigorous drug-testing program. In contrast to the

post-Vietnam era, our culture, with respect to drug abuse, is one of ‘‘Zero Tolerance.’’ The goals of our urinalysis program have always been to deter and detect

drug abuse, as well as provide data on the prevalence of drug abuse. We’ve been

quite successful—the proportion of sampled servicemembers testing positive for

drugs has fallen from approximately 7 percent in 1983 to less than 1 percent in recent years, with no changes in drug abuse trends over the past two years. Alcohol

abuse has shown a similar decline. In 1982, 41 percent of Navy personnel reported

‘‘loss of productivity’’ (late for work, missing work, etc.) because of alcohol abuse.

That number, while still too high, declined to 20 percent in 1995. We anticipate that

DOD’s Worldwide Survey on Substance Abuse, currently in progress, will show additional reductions in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.

In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, our urinalysis positivity rate remained

below 1 percent. In those years, officers accounted for less than .05 percent of all

positive samples and enlisted personnel ages 25 and under accounted for approximately 70 percent of all positive samples. Historically, first term personnel account

for the majority of all positive urinalysis samples. PERSTEMPO does not appear to

influence our rates of substance abuse.

In the last two years, we’ve implemented testing of all Navy applicants at Military Enlistment Processing Stations (MEPS) upon entry into the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). The result has been approximately 4 percent of all applicants tested

positive for drug abuse. Our Navy Drug Screening Labs (NDSL’s) also began using

a better THC chemical reagent that is more sensitive to a broader range of THC

metabolites. The result has been an increase of approximately 700 additional urine

samples testing positive for THC in fiscal year 1997 over fiscal year 1996. We’ve

also revised our Self-Referral for Drug Abuse Policy so that it protects Navy’s investment in training and experience by preventing fraudulent use of the self-referral

program, while it continues to help those who have been diagnosed as drug dependent. Also, we’ve implemented an Inhalant Abuse Policy to establish guidelines for

processing personnel who abuse inhalants for administrative separation.

Other important initiatives include implementation of Urinalysis Program Coordinator Training to standardize our urine specimen collection and submission procedures. We have distributed software that helps commands better manage their urinalysis programs and track substance abuse trends. We’ve also upgraded our Navy

Drug Resource Website (NAVDWEB) with improved graphics, easier instructions,

and more information.

In alcohol abuse prevention efforts, we introduced our ‘‘Right Spirit’’ Alcohol

Abuse Prevention and Deglamorization campaign in March of 1996. This campaign

tightens policy, eliminates waivers for underage drinking in certain locales, increases education and training, and establishes prevention education detachments

in San Diego and Norfolk.

Chart 1 shows alcohol and drug abuse trends by age and pay grade. Heavy drinking is defined as five or more drinks in one setting at least once a week.

[Past 12 months]

Characteristic Percent Illicit

Drug Abuse

Percent Heavy

Drinkers

Age:

20 and under ................................................................................................. 16.6 29.8

21–25 ............................................................................................................ 10.3 26.6

26–34 ............................................................................................................ 4.8 15.4

35 and older .................................................................................................. 3.0 9.3

Pay Grade:

E1–E3 ............................................................................................................ 15.9 32.4

E4–E6 ............................................................................................................ 6.1 18.2

E7–E9 ............................................................................................................ 2.0 11.4

W1–W5 ........................................................................................................... 2.8 9.5

O1–O3 ............................................................................................................ 2.7 6.1

O4–O10 .......................................................................................................... 1.2 2.0

Source: Department of Defense Worldwide Survey of Health Behaviors for Military Personnel.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
320

There is no direct evidence that ‘‘downsizing’’ and an increased PERSTEMPO

have contributed to increased spouse, child, or substance abuse. We have noted that

personal childhood experiences, learned behavior patterns, and individual psychological factors appear to influence more directly the incidence of child or spouse

abuse. Situational family stress, such as work stress, is not a strong predictor of

child or spouse abuse, although it could increase risk when occurring in context with

the known risk factors I mentioned.

While we have not noted a relationship between increased PERSTEMPO and increased substance abuse, we do recognize that there are warning signs that we must

closely monitor.

Alcohol and drug abuse patterns differ among certain socio-demographic groups

and environmental conditions. We know that alcohol and drug abuse is often more

common and heavier among younger persons, males, and the less educated. Navy,

like the other military Services, is largely made up of this high risk (male, 17 to

25) population. In addition to age, sex and education, marital status and pay grade

are risk factors. Single Sailors or those who are married without their spouse

present are more likely to abuse alcohol. Those in pay grades E1–E3 and O1–O3

are five times more likely to abuse alcohol or drugs than senior enlisted and officers.

Isolated duty and long deployments are also high risk factors.

The above data was taken from the 1995 survey. Current Navy data shows a

trend of decreasing incidents, particularly in drinking and driving incidents and injuries. Discharges because of alcohol or drugs have not changed. In short, we have

not seen evidence of an upturn of substance abuse because of PERSTEMPO.

F–18E/F

Question. (a) In 1998 dollars, what is the current total program unit cost for a

F–18E, and F–18F? For the C/D (Lot 19) models? (Please include all RDT&E,

MilCon, and Procurement costs.)

(b) What total program unit cost, in 1998 dollars, did the Navy project in 1993

for the E/F?

(c) Please cite all performance goals stated in 1993 and what changes, up or down,

have occurred up to the present time on all issues, including range, acceleration,

maneuverability, and radar cross section. Is any consideration being given at this

time to changing or dropping any of these or other performance criteria?

(d) Please cite the flight test results for each of these criteria.

Answer. (a) Unit procurement cost for the ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘F’’ (APN 1 and 6) for 548 A/

C procured as per the fiscal year 1999 President’s Budget are:

‘‘E’’ equals $63.875 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘F’’ equals $65.692 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

E&MD (fiscal year 1998 dollars) equals $5,870.1 million as of the fiscal year 1999

President’s Budget. Amortize this over 548 units:

‘‘E’’ equals $10.712 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘F’’ equals $10.712 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

Total unit procurement cost including APN 1, 6 and E&MD for the ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘F’’

are:

‘‘E’’ equals $74.587 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘F’’ equals $76.404 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

This assumes that items such as support, spares, non-recurring and E&MD costs

are amortized equally across all units and the variants.

The C/D Lot 19 A/C were procured in fiscal year 1995. As of the fiscal year 1999

President’s Budget, the unit costs for the ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ (APN1 and 6) are:

‘‘C’’ equals $45.372 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘D’’ equals $46.946 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

E&MD (fiscal year 1998 dollars) equals $5,341.5 million as projected from the fiscal year 1996 C/D SAR approved program (APB) information. Amortized over 1,027

USN units:

‘‘C’’ equals $5.201 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘D’’ equals $5.201 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

Total unit procurement cost with APN 1, 6 and E&MD for the ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ are:

‘‘C’’ equals $50.573 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

‘‘D’’ equals $52.147 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

(b) Using the 92 DAB estimate and the escalation at that time, the unit procurement cost for 1,000 E/F aircraft including both APN 1 and 6 was: Unit procurement

cost equals $61.198 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

E&MD (fiscal year 1998 dollars—escalation at that time) as estimated at the 92

DAB amortized over the projected 1,000 A/C was: Unit E&MD cost equals $6.001

million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
321

Total Unit Procurement Cost including APN procurement (1 and 6) and E&MD

was: Total unit procurement cost equals $67.199 million/Unit in fiscal year 1998 dollars.

(c) There is no consideration being given at this time to change or drop any Key

Performance Parameter (KPP). Attached are the KPP parameters for the F/A–18 E/

F. The objective and threshold values represent our ORD requirements. Since 1993

the only change to the ORD was to incorporate performance requirements for the

F version. Originally F–18F performance was to be a fallout since it was only to

be used as a trainer. With the decision to replace the F–14 with the F–18F, performance requirements were established. (See the Key Performance parameter enclosure.

In those KPP’s with multiple entries (e.g., Interdiction Mission Radius, Recovery,

Payload, Specific Excess Power, etc.) the first entry is the ‘‘E’’ value and the second

is the ‘‘F’’ value.) The launch wind over deck definition was also changed and based

on larger Max Takeoff Gross Weight rather than the lower Typical Combat Gross

Weight. This added 4,000 pounds to the calculation used to determine launch wind

over the deck requirements for the airplane. This, in effect, increased the KPP requirement. Even within this more stringent requirement we have margin. The status numbers presented reflect flight test results collected to date. This performance

data was collected, reviewed and validated during OT–IIA. Radar Cross Section is

classified; however flight testing has been done and the aircraft meets specified requirements.

(d) On the enclosure (Key Performance Parameters), the status numbers reflect

flight test results collected to date. This performance data was collected, reviewed

and validated during OT–IIA.

Question. A recent draft GAO report lists 420 technical deficiencies in the F–18E/

F. What is your cost and time estimate to resolve all these with no sacrifice in any

performance criterion?

Answer. Current funding and schedule provide sufficient resources to correct all

deficiencies requiring correction to support a successful OPEVAL. All of the corrective actions are being tracked individually and cumulatively for impact to performance, and all Key Performance Parameters are being met with margin to spare.

Question. In 1993, Naval Air Systems Command compared the performance of the

A and C models of the F–18 to the goals of the E model. See table below. Please

provide data from flight test results to compare actual F–18E performance to the

original goals and to the specified earlier F–18’s.

Initial

F–18A

Specification

F–18A

(Lot 1

FSD)

F–18C

(Lot 14)

F–18C

(Lot 15)

F–18C

(Lot 19)

F–18E

goal in

1993

F–18E

flight

test results

Escort Range (NM) ........................................................ 420 319 302 ............ ............ 356 ............

Interdiction Range (NM) ................................................ 618 437 398 ............ ............ 501 ............

Accel (sec.) 0.8 to 1.6 mach ........................................ 98 144 180 ............ ............ 153 ............

Specific Excess Power(Ps) (Ft./Sec.) at 1, 3, and 6

Gs .............................................................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Approach speed (kts.) ................................................... 128 140 142 ............ ............ 144 ............

Answer. Provided here within the chart below:

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
322

F/A–18E

ORD

F/A–18A

Lot 1 FSD

F/A–18C F/A–18E

Lot 12 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 19

DAB

March

1992

PDR June

1993

Flight

test results

Fighter Escort Radius (NM) ........................................................................................... 410 362 343 341 331 330 420 423 434Interdiction Radius (NM) ............................................................................................... 430 415 376 374 370 369 520 504 512Accel’tion (sec) 0.8M to 1.2M, 35K ............................................................................... 70 55 58 58 57 57 60 67 67Specific Excess Power, Ps (fps) 1g @ 0.9M, 10K ........................................................ 600 617 599 599 699 695 637 639 661Approach Speed (kts) .................................................................................................... 150 140 146 146 146 146 144 145 142

Note.—The ground rules for defining performance specifications have changed over time. The rules for the F/A–18A and the F/A–18E are different. For example, the flight profile for measuring Interdiction

Radius was different for the F/A–18A than it is for the F/A–18E. The table above uses the F/A–18E rules, which have been applied to the other variants for consistency. This is why column one was changedto F/A–18E ORD vice F/A–18A specification.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
323

Question. Please state your view on the media coverage about the F/A–18E/F

‘‘wing drop’’ problem and about comparisons of E/F performance to earlier models

of the F–18.

Do you believe it useful or important for the public to be informed of these issues?

Answer. Yes, the Department of the Navy fully complies with the Principles of

Information as established by the Department of Defense (see attached).

Question. Please provide copies of Navy testimony or printed reports to Congress

or the public identifying the ‘‘wing drop’’ problem before the first instance of its

being reported in the media.

Answer. Neither printed reports nor Navy testimony were requested by Congress

or the public prior to initial reporting in the media. However, wing drop was included in a list of technical issues to be solved in flight test during a briefing to

Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) in a visit to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, in

May 1997. For informational purposes, provided are an F/A–18E/F Wing Drop

Awareness Chronology dated February 16, 1998 and responses to questions submitted by Mr. Creighton Greene, Professional Staff Member, Senate Armed Services

Committee, in December 1997.

Question. Why does the Navy compare the E/F to the lower performance (i.e. Lot

12 version of the C/D model rather than the current (i.e. Lot 19) version? Please

present a comparison of the C/D Lot 12 to Lot 19 on all significant performance criteria.

Answer. The attached chart provides the comparison of Lot 12 to Lot 19. As the

Navy developed the ORD in 1991, to support the Defense Acquisition Board in 1992,

the current version of the F/A–18C/D was the Lot 12. Therefore, the Lot 12 F/A–

18C/D was used to develop the performance baseline for the F/A–18E/F. Newer Lots

were planned at the time but their performance parameters had not been defined.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
324

F/A–18E

ORD

F/A–18A

Lot 1 FSD

F/A–18C F/A–18E

Lot 12 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 19

DAB

March

1992

PDR June

1993

Flight

test results

Fighter Escort Radius (NM) ........................................................................................... 410 362 343 341 331 330 420 423 434Interdiction Radius (NM) ............................................................................................... 430 415 376 374 370 369 520 504 512Accel’tion (sec) 0.8M to 1.2M, 35K ............................................................................... 70 55 58 58 57 57 60 67 67Specific Excess Power, Ps (fps) 1g @ 0.9M, 10K ........................................................ 600 617 599 599 699 695 637 639 661Approach Speed (kts) .................................................................................................... 150 140 146 146 146 146 144 145 142

Note.—The ground rules for defining performance specifications have changed over time. The rules for the F/A–18A and the F/A–18E are different. For example, the flight profile for measuring Interdiction

Radius was different for the F/A–18A than it is for the F/A–18E. The table above uses the F/A–18E rules, which have been applied to the other variants for consistency. This is why column one was changedto F/A–18E ORD vice F/A–18A specification.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
325

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

TACTICAL TOMAHAWK

Question. Admiral Johnson, my understanding is that if funding for the Tactical

Tomahawk program were approved, the Navy would forgo the procurement of approximately 100 missiles. In 1996, Admiral Murphy indicated that surface ships

were being deployed with only 75 percent of their VLS tubes filled. If the Navy proceeds to develop the Tactical Tomahawk program without procuring additional

cruise missiles, how would you assure operational requirements be met?

Answer. The Navy will rely on an existing inventory of approximately 2,800 Block

II/III missiles to meet operational requirements. There will only be a 25 month period between when the last Block III missile is contracted for delivery (September

1999) and when the Tactical Tomahawk production line starts (October 2001).

VERTICAL REPLENISHMENT HELICOPTER

Question. It is my understanding that the Navy concluded the Vertical Replenishment Helicopter demonstration this past January. Do both the CH–60 and commercial alternatives provide the same mission capabilities?

Answer. The CH–60 Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP) demonstration went

very well. The prototype aircraft successfully demonstrated several phases of the

combat logistics mission to include: VERTREP, Vertical On Board Delivery (VOD),

and amphibious Search and Rescue (SAR).

The CH–60 provides significantly more mission capability than any of the commercial helicopters the Navy has demonstrated. It has a very robust lift capability,

the ability to carry 13 passengers, internal cargo, and possesses an extremely good

coupled hover capability for SAR.

The comparative capabilities of the CH–60 and the commercial alternatives tested

by the Navy are as follows:

CH–46 CH–60 K–MAX BELL 212 BELL 214 SX

VERTREP (Day/Night) (D/N) .................................... YES/YES

4,000 LBS

YES/YES

9,000 LBS

YES/NO

6,000

YES/YES

3,000 LBS

YES/YES

6,000 LBS

INTERNAL CARGO .................................................... 4,000 LBS 9,000 LBS 500 LBS 3,000 LBS 3,000 LBS

PASSENGER CAPACITY ............................................ 16 13 NONE 8 8

SAR (D/N) ............................................................... YES/YES YES/YES YES 1/NO YES/NO YES/NO

MEDICAL EVACUATION (D/N) .................................. YES/YES YES/YES NO/NO YES/YES YES/YES

1 K–MAX SAR capability is limited to Day-Visual Flight conditions only.

CH–60 HELICOPTER PROGRAM

Question. In the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget, the Navy requested $12.7

million in RDT&E and $139.9 million in aircraft procurement for 4 CH–60 helicopters. Is that sufficient or are additional funds required to accelerate the program?

Answer. The funding is sufficient to procure four helicopters.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG

SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE FUNDING

Question. Active ship depot maintenance was funded at 96 percent of the requirement in fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999 this funding drops to 91 percent

of the requirement.

What is the effect on readiness of this unfunded requirement? What type of equipment or ships will not be maintained?

Answer. With current funding levels, all maintenance required to support ship

mission capabilities is accomplished. While mission essential maintenance and repairs to correct safety deficiencies are always completed, deferred or non-accomplished maintenance includes quality-of-life improvements, investments in new technology, and some maintenance tasks that simply improve system performance or restore design operating parameters. Considering ship maintenance in the overall

Navy budget, current funding levels ensure ship material readiness to successfully

complete the mission, with a requirement to manage a level of risk for deferred

work.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
326

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

F/A–18E/F AND JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER [JSF]

Question. The current projected cost for the F/A–18E/F is $47 million per copy,

and the projected cost for the JSF is just under $40 million in today’s dollars ($32

to $36 million projected in 1994 dollars).

Does the Navy believe that the JSF will materialize as a carrier-suitable aircraft?

Answer. Yes. The current JSF development process shows great promise in delivering new technologies and manufacturing processes that will lead to a more affordable product.

Question. Does the Navy believe that the JSF will come in at the projected cost?

Answer. The centerpiece of the JSF Program is affordability. This demands a new

way of doing business, and JSF is accomplishing that. The program has used, from

its inception, principles such as Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV) to balance

weapon system capability against its life cycle cost. The JSF is effectively achieving

such a balance through the use of Cost and Operational Performance Trades

(COPT); investing in key technologies; emphasizing design, manufacturing and support initiatives; and leveraging the benefits of commonality to reduce the total ownership cost to the warfighter.

Question. Long-term, will the F/A–18E/F be cheaper and a better aircraft for the

Navy than the JSF?

Answer. The current program estimates of recurring flyaway costs for the F/A–

18E/F and the JSF (fiscal year 1997 dollars) are $47 million and $33 to $40 million

respectively. The goal of the JSF program is to provide additional capability that

will complement the capabilities of the F/A–18E/F at an affordable price.

Question. Does the Navy want the JSF if it comes in at over $40 million per copy,

or would it prefer more F/A–18E/F’s?

Answer. The current estimate of the JSF carrier variant is well below $40 million

and within the range of the $31 to $38 million (fiscal year 1994 dollars) total cost

goal. The goal of JSF is to provide additional capability that will complement the

capabilities of the F/A–18E/F at an affordable price. There are no indications at this

time that JSF will not meet its cost target.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GEN. CHARLES C. KRULAK

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

LHA SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION

Question. What is your thinking about the service life of LHA ships?

Answer. My view is that it is wiser to procure new LHD’s vice refurbishing our

LHA’s. The LHD is larger, has more carrying capability, and can better accommodate our new technology systems that have been fielded in recent years or will soon

be added to our force. In short, it will carry more tanks, aircraft, assault vehicles,

and LCAC’s than its LHA predecessor.

As currently planned, the LHA service life extension, if initiated, would start in

fiscal year 2005. Current estimates for the service life extension program (SLEP)

range from $800 million to $1.2 billion. The estimated cost of a new LHD (modified)

in fiscal year 2005 is $2.3 to $2.5 billion. (This estimate includes approximately

$750 million to restart the production line.) The cost of a new LHD in fiscal year

1999 would be approximately 20 to 40 percent more than the cost of the LHA service life extension, and would provide the Nation with a much more capable LHD

that would complement our forward presence forces for 40 years, as opposed to the

15 to 20 years gained with a service life extension. We need to engage this issue

actively so a solution can be implemented before the end of the LHA’s planned service life. I am working with the Chief of Naval Operations on this important requirement.

Big deck amphibious ships are at the heart of the Navy-Marine Corps team.

Building a new LHD, more capable of accommodating leaps in technology and expansion of equipment, would be a most welcome initiative.

Question. Using ‘‘ball-park’’ figures, about how much does an LHA service life extension cost? How does this compare to the cost of construction of a new LHD ship,

in similar year constant dollars?

Answer. As currently planned, the LHA service life extension, if initiated, would

start in fiscal year 2005. Current cost estimates range from $800 million to $1.2 billion. Estimated cost of a new LHD (modified) in fiscal year 2005 is $2.3 to $2.5 bilU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
327

lion. This estimate includes approximately $750 million to restart the production

line.

Question. Would you be in favor of Congress adding some or all of the $1.3 billion

required to construct a new LHD ship in fiscal year 1999 rather than to perform

an LHA service life extension in 2003?

Answer. I believe procurement of a new LHD is a wiser investment for our Nation

than refurbishing our oldest LHA. The LHD is larger, has more carrying capability,

and can better accommodate our new technology systems that have been fielded in

recent years or will soon be added to our force. In short, it will carry more cargo,

more aircraft, and more LCAC’s than its LHA predecessor.

Big deck amphibious ships are at the heart of the Navy-Marine Corps team.

Building a new LHD, more capable of accommodating leaps in technology and expansion of equipment, would be a most welcome initiative when topline constraints

permit such an inclusion. I would ask however, that financing this requirement not

come at the expense of other programs financed in the Department’s fiscal year

1999 request. I am working with the Chief of Naval Operations on this important

requirement and will continue to do so as we develop future budgets.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

PRIVATIZATION

Question. How did the Navy and Marine Corps arrive at the number of civilian

and military jobs to be eliminated and/or contracted out?

Answer. The Marine Corps has committed to a number of Full Time Equivalents

for competitive review (5,000). We have not determined the number of jobs, either

military or civilian, which will be eliminated and/or contracted out. This will be determined by the results of the competition.

Question. Were specific, individual studies performed to analyze the savings and

appropriateness of activities to compete? Or, was a goal imposed ‘‘from the top?’’

Answer. Reviewing historical information, the Defense Science Board found that

savings could be gained through the competitive process of all base commercial activities (those functions which could be performed by a commercial provider). The

commercial activities which will be competed by the Marine Corps will be chosen

by both headquarters and installation commands after analysis of requirements

(operational and manpower) to determine which functions are inherently governmental and therefore remain in-house. The A–76 process, as set forth by OMB,

tracks initial savings from the competition. The Marine Corps will utilize Activity

Based Costing to track costs over time for both in-house and contract accomplishment.

Question. How did the Navy/Marine Corps determine that contracting out saves

20 percent? Why does the Air Force assume different savings? Please provide copies

of the analysis you performed to come to the conclusion that 20 percent was the

right number.

Answer. The Marine Corps is assuming 30 percent savings if a commercial contractor successfully wins an A–76 competition. If the in-house Most Efficient Organization wins, savings are assumed to be 20 percent. These figures are based on the

Defense Science Board analysis of historical information which is on file with the

Secretary of Defense. The Marine Corps cannot comment on the Air Force’s assumed

savings rate.

Question. With fewer military personnel and DOD civilians after all this contracting out, what will be the impact on overseas rotations and ‘‘perstempo’’ problems?

Answer. The Marine Corps is looking into the effects of competitive sourcing on

rotational assignments. However, these effects should be minimal given our clear

distinction between garrison and Fleet Marine Force units. The Marine Corps will

not execute a program which negatively impacts our warfighting capability.

Question. How will the Navy and Marine Corps monitor and document the

progress in achieving your outsourcing programs and achieving the planned savings? How will these data be confirmed by an outside party?

Answer. The Marine Corps is implementing activity based costing within facilities

maintenance and logistics aboard its U.S. bases. This will establish a baseline cost

for those related base commercial activities within two areas which produce approximately 70 percent of installation operating costs. These baseline costs can then be

compared to either the A–76 cost comparison process generated most efficient organization costs and/or commercial sector contract offers.

We expect agencies outside the Marine Corps, such as the Naval Audit Service,

DOD IG, and GAO will analyze our processes, assumptions and competition results.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
328

Question. What actions do you plan if the savings do not materialize as planned?

More outsourcing? Cuts in procurement? Force structure? Readiness?

Answer. If actual savings returns differ from planned assumptions, budgets will

be adjusted based on the shortfalls. Since savings are produced by increasing efficiencies in the supporting establishment and those savings are to be applied to procurement modernization; the effects, for the Marine Corps, of less than anticipated

savings, would be a decrease in procurement and an increase in Operation and

Maintenance.

READINESS

Question. What do your latest, 1998, data show about pilot retention? Is it getting

better or worse?

Is it better or worse for married pilots? With families? What are the socioeconomic

profiles of the pilots leaving? Staying?

Answer. As of March 16, there have been 70 fixed wing pilot resignations in fiscal

year 1998. These figures and the trend for the year are well below the fiscal year

1997 rate (92) and slightly higher than the fiscal year 1996 rate (69) as of March

of each year.

We do not track pilot ressignations by single/married/divorced categories. Current

percentages of overall USMC Officers (O–3 and O–4) include the following: 80 percent Married, 4 percent Divorced, and 16 percent Single. There is no common thread

to the socioeconomic profiles of the pilots leaving or staying.

All pilots are now eligible for the Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) program making them the highest paid company/field grade (O–3 and O–4) officers in the Marine

Corps.

Question. What are the specific complaints of pilots leaving the Marine Corps?

Answer. In September 1997, an Aviation sponsored briefing team, composed of

junior field grade officers traveled to both coasts to visit ready rooms and talk to

aviators about the facts and myths of a career as a Marine aviator. Aviators provided the team with frank discussion and openly voiced their concerns. There was

no single reason that influences an aviator’s decision to resign. The major reasons

cited to the briefing team for leaving the Corps include the following: (a) Increased

airline hiring rates—easily gain employment—greater family stability; (b) deployed

time away from the family; (c) desire to fly more hours (AV–8B and CH–53 concerns); (d) excessive time participating in Joint/Interservice/Intraservice Exercises

which provide limited training value for individual pilot skills; and (e) uncertainty

about future military downsizing.

Question. Which of your quality of life programs are working? Which are not?

Which generate the best payoff in terms of retention? Please provide the data and

analysis to substantiate your answer, or are you using judgment or anecdotal evidence to assess the degrees of success or failure? Does the Navy have any studies

on these issues? By independent organizations? Please provide copies.

Answer. Marine Corps quality of life (QOL) programs contribute to military mission outcomes. This was demonstrated in the 1994 ‘‘Quality of Life in the Marine

Corps’’ study conducted by the Navy Personnel and Research Development Center

(NPRDC). This study statistically linked the QOL program investments to readiness

and retention. This study is scheduled to be readministered in 1998 to reassess Marines’ QOL across 11 life areas and their relation to mission outcomes.

There is a myriad of QOL program-specific research, such as the MWR Patron

Needs Assessment, also conducted by NPRDC and completed in 1997. According to

data, the top 10 programs/services rated as most important to Marines were: (1) Exchange; (2) Information, Tickets and Tours (ITT); (3) Fitness Centers; (4) ATM Machine; (5) Military Clothing Store; (6) Gas Station; (7) Movie Theater; (8) Barber

Shop; (9) Auto Hobby Shop; and (10) Swimming Pools. Two other recent QOL program-specific studies conducted were: the Effectiveness of the Voluntary Education

Program, performed by the Center for Naval Analysis, and the Spouse Employment

Survey and Analysis, performed by Human Technology, Inc. and CODA Inc.

The Marine Corps has a robust QOL research program, with many ongoing initiatives to determine both Marine and mission needs. In 1998, an ‘‘Assessment of Program Contributions to Military Outcomes,’’ will obtain effective program measures

for 22 MWR and Human Resources programs, and assess each program’s contribution to military outcomes. Another study, the ‘‘Marine Corps MWR Leadership Assessment,’’ will gather commander’s and senior NCO leadership recommendations

for MWR mission support. Both studies will be conducted by NPRDC.

Research results are used as the basis for policy and resource decisions. Combined

with commanders’ leadership experience and judgment, the Marine Corps QOL proU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
329

grams provide a demonstrated return on investment to mission outcomes. All of our

Quality of Life programs are producing positive results.

One of the programs which is working is the Voluntary Education Program. Recently a study was completed by Center of Navy Analysis on the effectiveness of the

VolEd Program. Although the focus of the study was the Navy program, we believe

similar results would be obtained for all services. VolEd participants have significantly better promotion prospects. Academic skill participants are more likely to

crossrate. VolEd participants have significantly lower demotion rates and higher reenlistment rates. A copy of the Navy’s Report ‘‘Effectiveness of the Voluntary Education Program’’ (43 pages) is available upon request.

Family Programs improve Quality of Life for Marines and their families and enhance retention and readiness by providing the tools needed to meet the challenges

of the military lifestyle. Family Service Centers provided 289,000 units of service

in their first year of operation in 1988. In 1997, 1.7 million units of service were

provided. A recent study by Caliber Associates looked at selected family service center programs (all services) and determined that there was a nexus between family

service center programs and readiness.

The USMC child care programs are also providing essential services which affect

readiness. The demand for child care exceeds the current capacity but we are reviewing our delivery systems to make certain that we are providing the services

that families most require. For example, we are focusing on ways to expand care

for children three years and under as this represents the greatest percentage of our

unmet need. We do not have the data to support an argument in terms of child

care’s payoff for retention.

Question. What changes have been occurring in spouse, child, and substance

abuse for the past two years? Please differentiate between officers and enlisted,

length of service, and among major military specialties and perstempo rates.

What is the role of the current high perstempo in any changes in family or substance abuse? Please provide copies of any analysis you have of the relationship.

Answer. In the past two years, there have been no significant changes in substance abuse. Preliminary figures for the number of substantiated incidents of domestic violence in fiscal year 1997 are 1,597 and for child abuse 844. The figures

for fiscal year 1996 are 1,979 for domestic violence and 969 for child abuse. The

USMC family violence reports do not regularly differentiate between officer and enlisted. Also, we have not to date maintained data on length of service or major military specialty.

We have commissioned a special study by the University of Maryland School of

Social Work in fiscal year 1996 to determine if the high OPTEMPO in fiscal year

1996 was a causal factor in domestic violence. The findings were that OPTEMPO

is not a causal factor in family violence. However, deployments may precipitate incidents of family violence by someone already disposed to use violence.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

HELLFIRE MISSILES

Question. General Krulak, has the Marine Corps obligated the fiscal year 1998

funding that was provided for the procurement of Hellfire missiles? If not, why not,

and when does the Marine Corps intend to procure these missiles?

Answer. The funding for the fiscal year 1998 Hellfire plus-up was received at

NAVAIR on January 14, 1998. PMA–242, the NAVAIR Hellfire Program Office, initiated contract action through the Air to Ground Missile Systems (AGMS) Project

Office, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL. The Army is the executive agent for

Hellfire and has already exercised all options on the previous Hellfire Contract, so

a new contract must be initiated. Contract award is expected NLT June 30, 1998.

Deliveries are estimated to be approximately 24 months after contract award.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG

CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL INCIDENT RESPONSE FORCE [CBIRF]

Question. The Marine Corps has formed a Chemical/Biological Incident Response

Force (CBIRF) to respond to chemical or biological terrorist incidents. I understand

that the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense budget request provides approximately $49 million for National Guard units to bring in NBC equipment to augment

early responders in a crisis.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
330

Please update me on the Marine’s Chemical/Biological Response Force activities

since you appeared here last April?

Answer. The CBIRF Program has continued on the path of providing consequence

management support and capability to those who need this type of assistance today

and who will need it in the future. Fiscal year 1998 funding will complete the procurement of mission critical and state-of-the-art CBIRF equipment. We have procured both state-of-the-art protection for Marines, and special items that will detect

and track weapons of mass destruction. The Marine Corps has also procured a block

of modern medical equipment and treatment items to decontaminate both equipment and personnel. Some of the most recent efforts include portable and mobile

mass spectrometers and a standoff chemical detector that can identify component

agent signatures from a standoff location.

The Marine Corps is taking another step toward providing a consequence management capability around the world. Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU’s) will have

a CBIRF capability added to their current mission capability. We have trained one

MEU with CBIRF capability and it deployed with a small package of equipment on

loan from CBIRF. We have trained and loaned more extensive equipment to a second MEU, and we are preparing the third MEU to be even more capable than the

first two. The third MEU will be used as a baseline to train and equip all MEU’s

in the future.

Question. How will the Marine’s Response Force coordinate with and work with

these National Guard Units which are coming on line?

Answer. The Marine Corps has participated in several coordination meetings with

National Guard NBC representatives. The joint approach is for the National Guard

to use the CBIRF’s list of equipment as a baseline to rapidly construct an operational domestic preparedness organization. Using CBIRF equipment will enhance

the National Guard’s ability to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. It will also meet both the Secretary’s Quadrennial Defense Review recommendations and the intent of the Congress. This will enable the National Guard

to become a ready asset to both state and local authorities in future NBC consequence management. The Marine Corps has negotiated National Guard options on

all recent CBIRF procurements.

AH–1W

Question. The Marine Corps has an ongoing program to equip the AH–1W Super

Cobra helicopter fleet with a Night Targeting System which provides the gunner the

capability to locate and identify targets at night, lock the cross hairs on the target,

and fire the missile with lethal accuracy, all from a safe distance from the target.

What is the status of the fiscal year 1998 $10.9 million authorized and appropriated for the AH–1W Night Targeting System?

Answer. The fiscal year 1998 funding has been released with contract award NLT

June 1, 1998.

Question. Is there an unfunded requirement for AH–1W Night Targeting Systems

beyond those programmed in the fiscal year 1999 budget request?

Answer. Yes, due to topline constraints, we decided to truncate procurement of

the AH–1W Night Targeting System (NTS). Our fiscal year 1999 Budget Enhancement List includes an unfunded requirement of $11 million in fiscal year 1999 to

fund an additional 10 Night Targeting Systems.

The Marine Corps’ Night Targeting System (NTS) program is structured in two

parts, the aircraft installation and the actual targeting system itself. As currently

programmed, the Marine Corps will procure NTS installation kits for all of its 203

AH–1W’s and enough NTS systems to outfit 178 aircraft. The current acquisition

objective for NTS is 188. We were only able to finance 178 within topline constraints, leaving 10 systems unfinanced. The Primary Aircraft Authorization for the

AH–1W is 168 and sufficient NTS’s are planned to modify these aircraft; however,

there are insufficient NTS systems to outfit the pipeline and attrition aircraft.

Procuring an additional 10 Night Targeting systems in fiscal year 1999 would

allow the Marine Corps to obtain its force objective of 188 aircraft. Procurement of

these additional systems is required for modification of the AH–1W Total Operating

Aircraft Inventory (TAOI) to maintain this critical warfighting capability until introduction of the 4BW. I would be concerned, however, if funding for these 10 systems

came at the expense of other programs currently financed in the fiscal year 1999

request or at the expense of funding requested in the fiscal year 1998 Supplemental.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
331

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DALE BUMPERS

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPPING

Question. In fiscal year 1998 the Congress added to the Navy’s budget $10 million

for pre-EMD engineering to marinize the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

It was Congress’ intent that this seed money was to be followed by a Navy program

to integrate the marinized Navy Tactical Missile System (NTACMS) into the fleet

for the Navy’s mission to provide fire support in land attack warfare.

Is deep fire support a necessary requirement for planning and successful execution of USMC scheme of maneuver employing MV–22?

Answer. The MV–22 is a key component of the Marine Corps’ concept for the projection of naval power into the littorals-Operational Maneuver From The Sea

(OMFTS). Along with the LCAC and AAAV, the MV–22 will nearly triple the

battlespace within which today’s commanders can operate. The expanded

battlespace envisioned with OMFTS and MV–22 capabilities has changed the Marine Corps’ approach to fire support. OMFTS requires rapid movement not just

ashore but rather from ship to an objective which may be 200 nautical miles from

offshore vessels, well out of range of current WWII vintage naval gunfire assets.

NTACMS will provide a fire support asset with the increased range, accuracy and

lethality necessary to support the operational needs of the OMFTS concept. However, due to the cost per missile and the dispersion patterns of the NTACMS, the

Marine Corps will require improved shore-based fire support systems as well. Shorebased systems will provide a responsive, streamlined and cost effective fire support

means to engage low end tactical targets. It is the combined effects of fires, seabased (NTACMS), shore-based and aviation which are exploited to allow forces the

freedom of maneuver. Deep fire support provided by NTACM’s is complimentary to

aviation and shore-based fire support, all three means providing the layered allweather capability to sustain OMFTS.

Question. Does the USMC have a requirement for sea-based deep fires land attack

missile? If so, how has the USMC requirement for deep fires land attack missile

been addressed?

Answer. Yes. The Marine Corps requirement for a Land Attack Missile is that it

must have the range to support Operational Maneuver from the Sea (OMFTS) and

Ship-to-Objective Maneuver to 200 nautical miles inland. It must also have sufficient lethality to prevent enemy equipment and/or troops from continuing their mission.

The Marine Corps’ requirement for deep fires Land Attack Missile is being adequately addressed by the Navy. The Navy is currently working to acquire additional

funding to apply towards mid- and far-term Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) programs, which include a Land Attack Missile. The Navy is examining two systems:

the Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM) and a Naval version of the Army Tactical

Missile System (ATACMS). The Navy abbreviation is (NTACMS). The Marine Corps

does not favor one system over another. It simply desires that whatever system the

Navy selects meet the requirements articulated above. Both would currently meet

the lethality requirement and both are eventually expected to meet the 200 nautical

miles range requirement.

Question. Does the USMC concur with the Navy’s assessments of land attack missiles being considered for the deep fires mission?

Answer. Yes. The weapons systems currently under consideration by the Navy

will eventually meet the Marine Corps’ deep fires requirements. The two systems

are the Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM), and a Naval version of the Army

Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). The Navy abbreviation is (NTACMS). Both

would currently meet the lethality requirement, and both are expected to meet the

200 nautical miles range requirement.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER [JSF]

Question. The Marine Corps is requesting to purchase the Short Take Off Vertical

Landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). What is the projected

cost of this version of the JSF, in 1997 dollars, when it is delivered to the Marine

Corps?

Answer. The Services’ Joint Interim Requirements Document (JIRD) includes a

unit recurring flyaway cost goal of $30 to $35 million in fiscal year 1994 dollars for

the JSF STOVL variant. This equates to $32 to $37 million in fiscal year 1997 dollars.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
332

Question. Will the development of the STOVL version of the JSF on the schedule

required by the Marine Corps replacement needs necessitate additional costs?

Answer. No, the program was planned to meet USMC needs.

Question. What portion of the $930 million 1999 budget request for development

of the JSF will be allocated to development of the STOVL version?

Answer. The JSF variants are being developed as an affordable, highly common

family of aircraft to meet service requirements developed from a joint perspective.

Development costs are not severable by variant.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. Our next hearing will be on the National

Guard issues on March 18. We appreciate your courtesy in visiting

with us.

General KRULAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Wednesday, March 11, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,

March 18.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA11.001
(333)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1998

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Bond, Leahy, Bumpers, and

Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

STATEMENTS OF:

LT. GEN. EDWARD D. BACA, CHIEF

MAJ. GEN. PAUL A. WEAVER, JR., DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL

GUARD

MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM A. NAVAS, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Good morning, Generals. I am sorry to be late.

I had 25 children from Alaska. It was a long way for them to come,

so I put them first this morning.

We are going to hear from two panels today, first the leaders of

the National Guard will testify on the 1999 priorities, and they are

going to be followed by officials and participants from the National

Guard Youth Challenge program.

I want to start with the National Guard Bureau. Lieutenant

General Baca, it is nice to see you here. He is accompanied by the

Director of the Army Guard, Maj. Gen. Bill Navas, and the Director

of the Air National Guard, Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver.

We have taken the lead, I think, in addressing the question of

readiness and the maintenance and acquisition of equipment for

the Guard. In recent years, we have witnessed the results of these

investments, the tremendous performance of the National Guard in

every recent overseas contingency mission, as well as the support

for natural disasters which are occurring daily now around the

country.

Despite this success story, there are still proposed cuts now in

the force structure, and in the OPTEMPO and training and infrastructure support funding. We are going to assess these funding requirements this morning at the request of Senator Cochran and

Senator Lott. The subcommittee also wants to review the National

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
334

Guard Youth Challenge Program. I visited that program in our

State, as you know, and we have our Adjutant General here, I understand.

This program has been very widely recognized for achievement

and currently is being carried out in 15 States. Another 23 States

would like to start programs. They are on the waiting list, and we

need approval of funding for that purpose.

We have supported the Youth Challenge Program from the very

beginning. There were a great many skeptics about that program.

My colleague from Hawaii has just returned from a trip and will

not be with us this morning, but he and I both feel that the programs in our States have been very successful, and I look forward

to having General Lestenkof—Jake is here to testify and describe

the Alaska program.

I know there are others here who have some comments about the

program, but I want you to know that in partnership, there is a

bipartisan partnership here on this committee, we will do everything we can to address your needs this year and to assure you

that you have the funds to continue the marvelous success you

have had in past years.

So let me first, under the early bird rule, recognize the Senator

from Vermont. You have an opening statement of any kind?

Senator LEAHY. I do not, Mr. Chairman. I know you want to get

into this. I have already discussed with Generals Navas and Baca

some issues regarding some Blackhawks in Vermont, and I appreciate the very good news we have in that regard, and so at the risk

of talking them out of it. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our

panel of witnesses. It is always a pleasure to have this hearing and

review the activity of the National Guard—Army and Air Force.

We appreciate very much the outstanding work that is done by

the National Guard in our State. We are aware of the fact that we

have Air Guard units who typically get invited to participate in

these foreign operations, particularly in the Bosnia area.

We have seen a lot of missions flown by Guard units there. With

this operational tempo continuing to increase, with the deployments to other areas of the country as well I am concerned that

we are not seeing enough funding allocated to the National Guard.

And I am not accusing anybody of being too frugal with the

scarce dollars, because we are seeing a declining defense budget in

real terms, even when we are increasing the activities, having

emergency deployments and supplemental appropriations that we

marked up in this committee yesterday. I am worried that we are

not going to be able to continue to recruit the quality of people to

serve in the National Guard and to fly the planes and do the challenging work that has to be done, supposedly on a part-time basis,

and still do it with a proficiency and skill that the No. 1 power in

the world expects from its military forces.

So these are issues that I think we should address this morning,

and I look forward to your testimony in connection with those concerns.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
335

BALANCE OF ALLOCATION

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Generals, I think you should know that we are

marking up the budget this morning. Many of our members are

also members of the Budget Committee, and we have two other

meetings of our own committee this morning. A number of people

here on the committee want to submit questions to you and have

asked me to convey their regards to you.

I think that we are all very much aware of what the situation

is, and I was going over the briefing my staff gave me to look at

last night before this hearing and was struck by the percentage

that they pointed out. In terms of military construction alone, the

Guard is going to receive 7 percent of Milcon requests, and the

Army Guard alone represents 42 percent of the combined Active

Army and Guard personnel strength.

The balance of the allocation that are before us in the proposed

budget submitted by the administration are just out of whack.

They are going to be very difficult to deal with, but we need your

help in testimony given and questions that you are going to answer

this morning.

We will print all of your statements in the record as though read,

and urge you to summarize them and give us the best advice you

can as to how we might deal with these problems.

General.

A VITAL FORCE ADDING VALUE TO AMERICA

General BACA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be brief.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. You know, Senator Stevens, it is always a pleasure to be here before you and your

committee.

On a personal note, as this is my last appearance here as the

Chief of the National Guard Bureau, I would like to thank you and

the committee for your support during my tenure. I have enjoyed

a productive relationship with you, which I am proud to say will

make our National Guard a strong organization.

Your strong and positive encouragement has enabled us to poise

this institution for the next century, ready and prepared to ensure

the security and safety of America.

I have just returned from a trip to Europe, where I had the privilege of witnessing some of the guardsmen on the frontiers of freedom. I saw our people maintaining the peace in Bosnia, exercising

with our Norwegian counterparts and moving air cargo in Germany. They are building a bridge to America through the National

Guard-sponsored State partnership programs which link emerging

democracies with our States back home.

Our guardsmen are building a stronger peace overseas, strengthening America’s defense, and adding value to our communities.

I understand that the next panel is addressing our challenged

youth program, Senator, and that is just one of the ways that we

enrich our communities.

The National Guard is indeed a vital force, with depth and

breadth across the full range of capabilities. These men and

women, engaged in actions all over the world, reinforced to me the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
336

idea that our Guard is truly the face of America. It is our best connection to the American people. They willingly sacrifice for their

families, their careers, and their loved ones to go out there and do

the tough job that we ask them to do. I think you will agree that

this takes a special kind of dedication. Truly, they bring new meaning to the word ‘‘dedication.’’

As you read our posture statement, which we have distributed,

you will find missions and roles statistics and figures, but above all

you will find the story of talented people who care deeply about

this country and readily step forward to play an important role in

its defense. They are among our best and brightest, as well as our

most caring and devoted citizens.

The vital force we describe is a combat-oriented balanced force,

with capabilities across the full spectrum of defense. It is relevant

to America’s national security and national defense needs, and it

is ready to play its historic role as a primary first line ready Reserve Force of America’s security.

As we demobilize from the cold war, the National Guard once

again is emerging as the inexpensive insurance policy for America.

As you know, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder every day with our Active component counterparts. We are also poised to expand our traditional role of homeland defense to meet the new threats posed to

us by the weapons of mass destruction.

The Guard has a big job. It is consequently a big organization.

It is the largest single Reserve component within the Department

of Defense and, in terms of comparisons with the Active and Reserve component numbers, second behind only the Active Army.

We represent almost 500,000 citizen soldiers and airmen from

every community in America. Our Guard members meet the same

high standards of performance as their counterparts that do the

same jobs in the Active.

On behalf of the dedicated men and women of the National

Guard, I hope you will honor their commitment with the generous

support and encouragement that you have always given us. Our

partnership has been very successful for over 222 years, giving the

citizens of this country unparalleled security and freedom. The

Guard remains ready to continue that commitment to our country,

our States and our communities, but not without challenges.

PREPARED STATEMENT

On behalf of the men and women of the National Guard, I thank

you. I also thank you personally for sharing your time with us

today and for the opportunity of productively working with you

during my tenure as Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. EDWARD D. BACA

DEFINING ‘‘AMERICA’S VITAL FORCE’’

For the past four years as Chief of the National Guard Bureau I have been honored to represent the nearly half a million dedicated men and women who constitute

America’s organized militia-citizen warriors whose traditions and heritage stretch

back to the days of the first European settlers. A number of reviews have had significant impact on our activities over this period: Secretary Aspin’s Bottom-Up ReU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
337

view, the Commission on Roles and Missions study, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Secretary Cohen’s Defense Reform Initiative (DRI), and, most recently,

the National Defense Panel (NDP) assessment. A single consistent vector has

emerged from them all: the need to rely more heavily on the National Guard in

planning America’s defense for tomorrow. In presenting this, my valedictory posture

statement to Congress, I address you with a profound conviction—clear and

unshakable—that today the National Guard is once again emerging as America’s

‘‘Vital Force.’’

The Imperative of Change

With our country’s defense budgets at the lowest relative levels since the beginning of World War II, our military establishment moving away from the military

constructs of the Cold War, and the emerging world order of the 21st century yet

to take solid form, there are new military requirements to satisfy and new economic

imperatives to honor. Technologically, this requires us to seek new standards of performance and cost-effectiveness. Culturally, however, the process is a familiar one.

The essential requirement is that we reshape the institutions of national defense

to meet changed realities. The talent to do this—adapt in the face of new threats

and new opportunities—has been an element of national character from the earliest

colonial days. Americans have been in this situation before and made the right

choice: trust in and rely on the militia heritage that has sustained us for over 360

years.

The post-Cold War era demands a national defense force that is Versatile, Ready,

and Affordable. A Total Force approach that relies on a strong National Guard satisfies these requirements. As the National Defense Panel noted, it is time to resume

making full use of one of our most valuable national resources—the American citizen soldier. It is time to anticipate a growing National Guard role in the defense

missions of the 21st century, and to resource and mission accordingly. And it is time

to recognize that the requirements of tomorrow call for National Guard forces that

are balanced, stabilized, modernized, and integrated wholly into the Total Force

structure.

The Guard and National Military Strategy

Our current National Military Strategy provides a sound blueprint for meeting

the national security demands of today and building the force of tomorrow. In Shaping the international environment to reduce risk and enhance global security, our

citizen soldiers and airmen bring American values, social diversity, and unique technical skills to the task of promoting the establishment of democratic institutions

abroad. In Responding across the full spectrum of conflict when deterrence and diplomacy fail, they prove daily that the National Guard is a Global Guard which can

be as combat-ready as it is resourced to be. And in Preparing Now for an uncertain

future, they craft innovative approaches to training and readiness, developing lowcost solutions to equipment upgrade requirements and willingly undertaking new

missions as committed members of the Total Force team. Their performance is magnificent; their potential, unlimited.

The National Guard leverages minimal investment to sustain enormous capability. For less than five percent of the entire DOD budget, we provide a reliable, highquality, commercial-off-the-shelf resource that comes ruggedized, missionized, and

ready for service. As members of a dual-role force with three missions, our men and

women have a positive impact that can be felt on a global scale, on a national scale,

and in the neighborhoods and communities across America. Whether serving in a

Federal capacity to defend national interests in the Persian Gulf, in a State capacity

to protect lives and property threatened by natural disaster, or promoting youth opportunity and drug demand reduction programs in their hometowns, your Guard

members are helping defend and strengthen America in a way no other American

military organization can.

The National Guard Vision

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili left a

strong legacy in Joint Vision 2010, calling for America’s military to achieve and

maintain full-spectrum dominance by leveraging information superiority and technological innovation. We in the National Guard have crafted a vision of our own that

supports this fully and are pursuing it steadily as we become, once again, America’s

Force for the Future.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
338

OUR VISION

The National Guard—the most ready reserve component in the world—led,

trained, equipped, and resourced to accomplish national security and military

objectives while providing the States a balanced force of units with organic

chains of command capable of performing the military support mission.

SUSTAINING A COMBAT-ORIENTED FORCE

The National Guard is—and must remain—a combat-oriented force. In a Federal

role, our primary mission is to provide forces for global service in support of the unified commanders in chief (CINC). When America’s military force structure stabilizes, the Army National Guard will furnish 58 percent of the Army’s combat

forces, 36 percent of its combat support, and 31 percent of its combat service support. The Army Guard’s 15 enhanced Separate Brigades are included in CINC war

plans for both Korea and Southwest Asia. The Air National Guard, already wellintegrated into a Total Force team with the Air Force and Air Force Reserve Command, currently provides 100 percent of our nation’s homeland air defense, almost

80 percent of the Air Force’s combat communications, nearly half of its theater airlift and aerial refueling aircraft, and almost one-third of its fighter/bomber assets.

Dedicated air defense will be eliminated in the future, but the units now performing

this task will re-role as general purpose fighter forces and continue pulling their

weight on the combat team.

Balance remains a critical issue to be monitored closely. Balance is the key to

flexibility, and flexibility is vital if we are to be ready to meet the uncertain threats

of the future: major theater war involving regional strongmen; asymmetric attacks

that skirt our strengths and attempt to strike only at our perceived vulnerabilities;

transnational challenges posed by radical ideologies and criminal factions; and the

unanticipated—and unanticipatable—wild-card threats yet to emerge. The Army

National Guard must continue to field a proportional mix of combat, support, and

service support forces. The Air National Guard must continue to operate a combination of fighter, bomber, airlift, and support aircraft, and maintain appropriate other

ground, space, and related support skills. And both services must expand into the

new mission areas of national defense and the new technologies of warfare as these

evolve. Regrettably, some would like to see the Guard restricted to a combat support

role, or restructured with limited warfighting capabilities that were consolidated in

a few regions of the country where, hypothetically, they would be ‘‘more accessible’’

for contingency use.

A Warfighting, War-Winning Organization

As we continue promoting integration among the components for more effective

warfighting, it is time to end such ‘‘policy debates’’ once and for all. The National

Guard must continue sharing risk on the battlefield and in the skies over it. The

lesson of Vietnam is that nations, not armies, fight wars. As JCS Chairman, General John W. Vessey, Jr., observed ‘‘If you do not have public support, your security

policies are invalid.’’ The National Guard has a presence in more than 2,700 communities across all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and

Puerto Rico. When the National Guard goes to war, families and townships throughout America go to war. This fosters broad domestic support for just action and discourages questionable ventures. If an international contingency is not considered appropriate for the National Guard, its validity as an act of national security merits

serious reconsideration. As to willingness to serve, the majority of Guard members

performing Federal missions abroad today are volunteers. Volunteerism is in keeping with our traditions and beliefs, and carries the additional benefit of providing

unified commanders early access to National Guard resources.

Approaching the issue from another angle, some have suggested that war today

may be ‘‘too technical’’ for America’s citizen soldiers and airmen. Let that be put

to rest, also. Among other examples of the skill of our soldiers and airmen, members

of the Army Guard serve with the National Training Center’s elite Opposition Force

(OPFOR), and the Air National Guard has won or shared approximately half of the

Air Force’s prestigious William Tell air-to-air competitions since 1970. Guard members not only develop and maintain high levels of basic proficiency in their military

specialties, they do so while running commercial businesses, managing warehouses,

teaching school, repairing computers, serving as community leaders, and supporting

and raising families that may not even live in the community where the member

trains and serves. They sacrifice to serve, and serve with skill. Our deployment

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
339

record shows that the Global Guard always performs with distinction when properly

tasked and resourced.

The Global Guard

Since Desert Storm the National Guard has consistently demonstrated its commitment to the Total Force, participating in over 40 major contingency, peacekeeping,

and humanitarian operations. Several have involved extended participation—Haiti

and Bosnia, for example—and many have been both extended and joint—such as

participation on the Sinai Multinational Force of Observers and in operations enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones over Iraq. Our men and women have

taken on every new task assigned and mission offered with their customary zeal.

During my tenure, that has included such missions as command of national air defense, transitioning into bomber aircraft, entering the field of space operations, providing infantry units for peacekeeping in Bosnia (the first activation of an Army

Guard infantry unit since the Vietnam War), and even taking over the responsibility

for supporting National Science Foundation operations in Antarctica. Support for

theater CINC’s has more than doubled over the past four years, rising from 454,000

mandays in fiscal year 1993 to over a million mandays in fiscal year 1997 even as

our budget fell slightly. The continued high Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO) and

Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO) of the Active forces makes this increase in Guard

activity essential, and our people are clearly up to the task.

Last year America’s Guard men and women conducted operations in more than

70 countries in support of all five theater CINC’s. Overseas activity involved training in countries like Brazil, Australia, Egypt, and Singapore, deploying to Qatar,

Bosnia, and Korea for peacekeeping, and performing counternarcotics missions in

Central and South America. The broad scope of our capabilities was exemplified by

Wyoming Air Guard operations in Indonesia suppressing forest fires that had enshrouded the island nation and Malay peninsula in smoke for months, and by the

Missouri Army Guard training Fijian soldiers in bridge construction. Whatever additional overseas demands the future may hold in store, count on your citizen soldiers

and airmen to carry them out with the Guard’s hallmark skill.

PROMOTING DEMOCRACY ABROAD THROUGH ENGAGEMENT

A major additional task in the National Guard’s Federal role is that of Preventive

Defense. We are uniquely postured to promote democratic practices abroad and find

ourselves in frequent demand for nation-building programs, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Partnership for Peace program, European Command’s

Joint Contact Team Program, Southern Command’s Traditional CINC Activities

Program, and other similar activities sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and various State Department agencies. Many are undertaken

under the aegis of the State Partnership Program.

There is good reason to call on the National Guard when America wants to

present its best face to the world. Our professional militia provides an influential

example of how a military force can be effective while deferring to civil authority

and the rule of law. This is the ultimate embodiment of democratic values, particularly to the states of eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union struggling to

break with repressive pasts. National Guard personnel and the militia system under

which they operate are models for the world. They illustrate how a military force

of the people remains committed to the people. The wealth of civilian skills our

Guard members take overseas—and the diversity of non-military professions they

represent—are also important, giving our men and women a versatility and credibility as goodwill ambassadors that no other American military arm can match.

The State Partnership Program

Much of the Guard’s success in promoting democracy abroad is the result of the

State Partnership Program. To date, 30 States and Puerto Rico have joined as Partners or Associate Partners in extending the hand of friendship from grassroots

America to 31 countries that would emulate our ways and institutions. Foreign military personnel and political leaders visit our country to observe how the National

Guard operates within the State and Federal framework, and National Guard members reciprocate with visits back to the partner country in which they provide detailed information on civil-military topics like search and rescue, medical support,

disaster response, military law, and family programs. Importantly, these are more

than just military-to-military contacts. By involving governors and mayors, their

staffs, State legislatures, and the families and friends of our Guard men and women

in building these bridges of friendship, we promote political ‘‘buy-in’’ on national security strategy at the local level and foster cooperation between the Federal and

State governments in other productive ways.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
340

Tasking in this area is growing rapidly. During 1997, Guard members repaired

hospitals and orphanages in the Republic of Georgia, conducted joint training in Estonia, provided civil engineering support for nation-building projects in Cambodia,

and hosted counterpart visits by military representatives from Hungary, Bulgaria,

and Brazil, to name just a few of the activities conducted under this valuable bilateral linkage. In New Horizons, the largest combined training-humanitarian support

exercise conducted in the western hemisphere, more than 3,400 Guard personnel

from several states conducted engineering projects in Belize and Panama over a 6-

month period, sharpening the military skills of our militia men and women while

demonstrating their ability and willingness to enhance the quality of life for hemispheric neighbors. We are firmly committed to sustaining this effort, which has our

Guard men and women ‘‘transforming the world one orphanage at a time.’’

MAINTAINING A BALANCED FORCE OF CAPABILITIES

In our Constitutionally mandated State role, the National Guard mission is to

provide emergency support to the governors of the States and Territories. This includes disaster response, support to law enforcement officials in cases of civil disturbance, and assistance with such activities as wilderness rescue. While not a

record year, 1997 still saw Guard members respond to over 300 emergency callups

when their fellow Americans required help, providing 280,000 mandays in support

of State and regional neighbors.

Flooding in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada,

North and South Dakota, and Ohio, much of it record level, led to callups, as did

tornadoes in Arkansas and Michigan. When Hurricane Danny lashed the Alabama

coast, National Guard members were standing by to provide life-saving assistance

and remained on scene to help stricken communities get started down the long path

to recovery. In Alaska, the Army and Air Guard were credited with saving 113 lives

in rescues of people lost, injured, or marooned across the State. On Guam, militia

men and women provided search, rescue, and security support to federal and local

agencies following the tragic crash of Korean Airlines Flight 801. And in an effort

that is certain to presage further inter-State cooperation, crews from the Air National Guards of Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming joined those of embattled New

Mexico last December to airdrop feed to cattle stranded by blizzards.

Readiness and Redundancy

The unpredictability and devastating impact of such emergencies underscores how

important it is for the National Guard to field a balanced mix of forces and capabilities in each State and geographic region. Command, control, and communications;

transport; engineering; military police; search and rescue—all of these capabilities,

as well as several others, must be immediately available to State authorities when

required.

We in the National Guard, in full cooperation with the States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other governmental authorities, are actively searching for new efficiencies in disaster response operations. The conclusion

of Emergency Management Assistance Compacts between neighboring States is one

example. These establish conditions and procedures under which Guard members

from one State can provide assistance to another State with the agreement of both

governors, and reflect the Guard’s concern with cost-effectiveness and resource conservation. A number of States already have signed compacts with their neighbors,

paving the way for sharing personnel and equipment during times of crisis. The

growing involvement of America’s citizen soldiers and airmen in domestic

counterterrorism and post-attack response operations is sure to lead to other forms

of inter-State cooperation.

At heart, however, it can never be forgotten that our responsibility to the States

is mandated by the Constitution. This cannot be suspended by the apparent efficiencies of wholesale consolidation that well-intentioned cost-cutting staffs may postulate.

PRESENTING THE FACE OF AMERICA

The National Guard is the face of America. Our people and our values are the

people and the values of the nation, at all times and in every corner of the country.

The militia tradition of service to nation and neighbor springs from this. Half of the

signers of the Declaration of Independence were militiamen, as have been 18 of the

41 Presidents and numerous members of Congress. In the 105th Congress alone,

more than 70 members have served or are currently affiliated with the Guard or

Reserve.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
341

Diversity and Opportunity

One of our greatest strengths is the diversity of those who comprise our ranks.

They and their families strengthen our mettle, infusing the organization with new

blood, new perceptions, and new ideas. They volunteer from all of America’s varied

social, educational, and economic backgrounds, and represent a true melting pot of

race, creed, color, and gender. Their sole common denominator is commitment to

this great country and the finest qualities it engenders in the human spirit. Our

sole common demand of them is that they embrace the core values we nurture as

an institution—integrity, loyalty, dedication, service, selflessness, compassion, family, and patriotism—and endeavor to live up to them in every undertaking.

Within the National Guard there are only two measures of merit for promotion:

performance, and adherence to the values for which we stand. This even-handed approach pays large dividends in attracting talent and fostering loyalty. While we neither targeted specific ethnic groups for recruitment nor established race- or genderbased promotion quotas, minority representation in all ranks increased steadily

throughout the 1990’s. The percentage of minorities in the Air Guard grew almost

4 percent during the past 5 years and now stands at 19.4 percent. In the Army

Guard, the increase was 1.5 percent and the current minority total stands at 26 percent. Percentage point increases for the officer corps alone are roughly identical,

making it clear that the Guard is an equal opportunity force from top to bottom.

The percentage of women in the National Guard likewise continues to increase,

as do the number of women attaining positions of authority. For example, in 1997

the New York Guard appointed its first female battalion commander, the Florida

Guard promoted its first women to flag rank, and Vermont selected the first woman

Adjutant General in the Guard’s history. These skilled professionals were among notable record-setters last year but were by no means the only ones. They are sure

to be followed by others in the years ahead as the role of America’s militia continues

to grow.

People Programs

The men and women of the National Guard remain our greatest resource. As

Guard OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO accelerate to ease the burden on a heavily

committed Active force, it becomes increasingly important to ensure our members’

families are cared for during absences. Living in communities with family and

friends is an advantage some stay-behind spouses enjoy, but others lack such safety

nets. Fortunately, our Family Partnership Program, one of the most extensively

networked in the Department of Defense (DOD), is the strongest it has ever been.

Our people know that if they are called up to serve halfway across the country or

halfway around the world, they can leave home confident that their families will be

cared for.

Another major concern for National Guard members eager to serve is the potential impact of a callup on their civilian jobs. Will service for State or nation adversely affect their job security, skill development, or promotion opportunities? The

answer is no for three reasons. The first is the patriotism and support of the American business community. Most employers understand that there is a moral bottom

line that outweighs the one in account ledgers. For those few who fail to appreciate

that, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act passed by

an insightful Congress in 1994 updates the legal ‘‘livelihood safeguards’’ for our citizen soldiers and airmen. For that, we remain grateful. The third element is a

strong, highly dedicated staff in the Office of the National Committee for Employer

Support of the Guard and Reserve. They are working aggressively to protect the reemployment rights of those who have to leave their jobs for six to nine months to

enable the Global Guard to perform its worldwide missions.

Recruiting and retention are always concerns for the military during periods of

institutional turbulence, heavy operational demand, and a strong domestic economy.

All three conditions are occurring today and yet the National Guard continues to

attract and keep high-quality personnel. Last year we met or exceeded all of our

goals. In part, this was due to the innate patriotism and selflessness of many young

men and women in our society, the abiding appeal of the militia tradition, and the

National Guard’s sincere commitment to superior leadership, quality training, and

equal treatment. Pragmatically, however, we also recognize the value of such inducements as the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the education assistance programs some

States provide. The importance of academic incentives was proven beyond any doubt

when New York’s offer of tuition-free education in the State’s 70 public colleges and

universities rocketed the Empire State Guard ‘‘from worst to first’’ in recruiting and

retention nation-wide over a two-year period.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
342

Adding Value To America

A community-based organization like the National Guard cannot claim to ‘‘present

the face of America’’ without giving something back to the society from which it

springs. That is why we have a third mission exemplified in the phrase The National Guard ‘‘Adds Value to America.’’ This is the mission your National Guard

members perform within their communities, serving as role models for disadvantaged youth, providing health care for the indigent, assisting adult Americans to develop better job skills, and supporting organizations and agencies whose activities

at the local level make hometown America a better place to live and work. Currently, 21 States and Territories conduct youth programs that are considered among

the most successful in the nation at a per capita cost that is lower than juvenile

and adult correctional institution costs, the Job Corps, and National Service.

Our most effective intervention program for at-risk youth is ChalleNGe which provides academic instruction and training in job skills and life-coping behaviors to unemployed high school dropouts. Sponsored in 21 States, the program consists of a

five-month residential phase followed by a year of close mentoring and leads to a

General Educational Development (GED) diploma for most participants. The number of young men and women graduating from ChalleNGe over the past five years

is rapidly approaching 13,000, with almost 80 percent receiving their GED. The fiscal year 1998 Defense Bill removed the provisional status of ChalleNGe and made

it a permanent program under Title 32.

STARBASE (Science and Technology Academics Reinforcing Basic Aviation and

Space Exploration), another of our major youth programs, exposes students from

inner city schools to ‘‘hands-on’’ experiments where they apply math and science to

real-world problems in aviation and space-related disciplines. STARBASE is conducted in 14 States and Territories and reaches over 10,000 students each year.

The Youth Conservation Corps (YCC), our third principal program, is directed toward the same population as ChalleNGe. It is a six-to-ten week residential program

that uses military-based training to develop pride, self-discipline, and an understanding of cooperation and citizenship in at-risk youth. Over 600 young men and

women have completed YCC training since its inception five years ago.

Drug Demand Reduction

Illegal narcotics trafficking poses one of the most pervasive and deadly threats our

nation faces, and we in the Guard take the campaign against it seriously. In our

Federal and State roles, we actively support a wide range of foreign and domestic

counternarcotics and drug interdiction operations. As an organization grounded in

hometown America, though, we know that our schools and neighborhoods are also

battlefields where the struggle is waged one precious life at a time. Our Guard men

and women fight it on those terms by supporting drug demand reduction efforts as

part of the Guard’s community support mission.

Our members and their families participate in many of the over 8,000 separate

drug demand reduction programs underway nationwide that focus on community coalition building, circulating anti-drug messages, developing leadership within vulnerable groups, and promoting high standards of citizenship. While our personnel

normally allow local community groups to take the lead, National Guard members

are in high demand to conduct substance abuse education programs, to mentor atrisk individuals, and to perform other tasks where they can be showcased within

their own communities as positive role models. Since all of our own youth programs

have embedded drug-prevention themes, many Guard men and women are proficient in demand reduction instruction and techniques. For the past two years, we

have also been a partner in the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, enabling us to contribute to—and draw on—an enormous base of counterdrug resources

distributed across the face of America.

REMAINING THE FIRST LINE OF HOMELAND DEFENSE

One common thread running through all recent DOD studies has been a reaffirmation of the National Guard’s responsibility to remain the first line of homeland

defense. It is a task we accept willingly.

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Emergency Response

‘‘I must say, there is probably no more important mission facing the Department

of Defense right now than being prepared to defend this country at its home in the

event of a chemical or biological attack. And the Guard has to be at the forefront.’’

Deputy Secretary of Defense John J. Hamre

The Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Authorization Act tasked DOD to implement programs to prevent and respond to terrorist incidents involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and to support State and local emergency response agencies inU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
343

volved in these activities with training and equipment. Studies mandated by that

act have since made it clear that the National Guard, by virtue of our grassroots

community presence throughout the nation, extensive training experience, and inherent State disaster response duties should play a vital role in this critical aspect

of homeland defense.

This is a natural mission for America’s militia. Our first charter in the New World

three-and-one-half centuries ago was community defense. We have never failed our

fellow citizens in living up to that trust. We were providing organized on-scene support within minutes of the tragedy in Oklahoma City two years ago, and will be

there again whenever and wherever our neighbors need help. Our State Area Commands are important hubs in the nationwide emergency response network, and our

Adjutants General serve as the Emergency Manager in almost half of the States.

The Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS), which we are extending into

Guard and Reserve facilities across the nation, upon completion will provide electronic access into communities large and small for emergency information flow. In

conjunction with the National Guard Defense Learning Initiative, RCAS also offers

a mechanism for training local personnel in counterterrorism and WMD disaster response.

As the first step, Guard professionals are participating in training local emergency responders in a program that initially will cover 120 cities. Other tasks will

certainly follow. If our enemies try to strike at the American people in their homes,

schools, churches, and shops, they will find the National Guard vigilant, determined, and ready.

Counternarcotics and Drug Interdiction

Counterdrug operations make up an important part of all three National Guard

mission areas. In addition to the demand reduction programs we promote within our

communities, we have both Title 10 and Title 32 responsibilities in our nation’s

counterdrug fight. Under Title 10, the Army and Air National Guard help theater

CINC’s detect and monitor attempts to smuggle narcotics into the United States and

its Territories from their regions. We do this by deploying individuals and units to

locations abroad where they perform ground-based and airborne surveillance, provide linguistic support, augment intelligence staffs, and assist in other ways. Our

recurring deployments to Panama for Operations Coronet Nighthawk and Constant

Vigil are familiar examples of this.

Under Title 32, the National Guard supports various Federal, State, and local law

enforcement agencies in counternarcotics and drug interdiction operations within

the country and Territories. We furnish equipment, manpower, and special expertise

that other agencies have come to rely on heavily over the past few years in campaigns against drug smuggling, distribution, and domestic cultivation. From assisting in cargo inspection at U.S. ports of entry to providing aerial reconnaissance and

photointerpretation for interception operations and the location of illicit domestic

drug crops, Guard members are recognized as key players on the U.S. counterdrug

team.

During 1997, Guard men and women—all volunteers—participated in 9,260

counterdrug missions and helped seize considerable amounts of processed narcotics

and amphetamines, vehicles, and weapons, as well as almost 30 million marijuana

plants. More than 96,000 arrests were made and almost $200 million in currency

confiscated in these operations. Guard members’ status as agents of their State exempts them from the posse comitatus restrictions that prevent other U.S. military

forces from being used in a similar way. Counterdrug support is performed in addition to regular wartime mission training and enhances basic military skills.

Homeland Defense Missions

Other related homeland defense missions are likewise natural tasks for our citizen soldiers and airmen. When a National Missile Defense system is fielded, we

should have a strong—if not commanding—presence in the system’s control centers

and maintenance facilities. This will be a wholly logical extension of the national

air defense mission the Guard now performs, and our capability was demonstrated

in the days of Nike-Hercules missiles.

Related directly to that is the Guard’s potential future role in all forms of U.S.

Space Operations. Missile launch, satellite control, and space system management

are missions in which scientists, technologists, and other highly skilled National

Guard professionals could couple civilian work specialties with their military training and discipline to serve national defense.

Information Warfare is another important new military function in which the

Guard has a major role to play. As America continues its transformation to an information-based society, we find ourselves newly vulnerable to electronic attack on the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
344

cyber-systems that have become essential for financial transactions, commerce, communications, transportation, and the other arteries sustaining our social structure.

The ability to detect assaults and counter-attack swiftly and effectively is essential.

There is an excellent fit here between many Guard members’ civilian professions

and national defense service, and we expect to become steadily more involved as this

‘‘combat specialty’’ evolves.

The operation of Remote Weapon Systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles

(UAV) and other systems yet to emerge, is still another area in which your National

Guard can play a productive, cost-effective role. While training at home to deploy

these systems overseas for conventional combat purposes, we would be able to increase the scope and potency of our participation in State missions such as drug

interdiction surveillance, search and rescue, and disaster response.

FUELING THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS

Today’s Revolution in Military Affairs is the product of two factors: exciting technological advance and mundane fiscal constraint. The men and women of the Army

and Air Guard are strangers to neither. They understand fully the need to develop

alternate ways of doing business to ensure that we remain effective in a newly lethal environment under prevailing tight budgets. Long accustomed to doing more

with less, we have made a virtue of necessity by developing a culture that embraces

‘‘smart innovation,’’ or, as it has been put, ‘‘thinking outside the box without destroying the box.’’ Several of our past initiatives continue to pay large dividends,

and the dynamism of our people is producing more daily.

Technology and Innovation

The National Guard is an aggressive proponent of leveraging technology for greater effectiveness and readiness. In the complementary RCAS, Warrior Net, and Distance Learning Network, we are doing with electrons what President Eisenhower

did with the interstate highway system. These PC-based networks eventually will

link every Guard armory and air facility in the nation with appropriate headquarters and specialty training units for the distribution and exchange of automated

information management data, decision-making support mechanisms, distance

learning, and disaster response communications and coordination. Over the past

four years we have dramatically intensified our focus on computer linkage—originally established primarily to reduce training and administrative expense—to good

effect, and now the demand on these networks to support other activities is growing

steadily. With linkage to other Federal and State directorates and agencies—such

as the Army’s Directorate of Military Support, FEMA, and the counterdrug community—these systems become a national telecommunication resource of major consequence.

The Army and Air Guard both have enjoyed substantial success in employing simulation technology to meet the persistent challenge of providing realistic training at

reasonable cost. The Army National Guard’s Project SIMITAR (Simulation in Training for Advanced Readiness), encompassing more than 30 training simulation initiatives, has produced several effective systems for bringing the battlefield into the armory and continues to offer new opportunities for developing and maintaining solid

basic skills in battle management and gunnery. Similarly, the Air National Guard

has forged ahead in orchestrating the development of low-cost, high-fidelity Unit

Training Devices (UTD) for fighter aircraft. Based on commercial-off-the-shelf

(COTS) components, these UTD’s provide valid procedural and tactical training for

fighters without incurring actual flying hour costs and have been particularly beneficial for unit conversions. In ongoing initiatives, the Air Guard is pursuing the development of a next-generation simulator for the B–1 bomber and working closely

with the Active component on linking simulators around the country for distributed

interactive mission training.

Our citizen soldiers and airmen have come up with a number of other ideas for

lowering the price tag of military strength. The Air National Guard and Air Force

Reserve Command are teaming on a COTS-based aircraft upgrade program, Combat

Quadrangle, that will give their aircraft around-the-clock combat capability, survivability in high-threat environments, data link systems, and precision attack at an

eminently affordable price. The Army Guard has employed a slightly different but

equally innovative and cost-effective approach to modernization in its RETROEUR

(Retrograde of Equipment from Europe) program, in which Army equipment made

excess by overseas force drawdowns is redeployed from Europe, repaired at Army

Guard centers in the U.S., and redistributed among Active, Guard, and Reserve

units.

Innovation, however, is not limited to acquiring better hardware at lower cost.

Guard ingenuity is evident also in the development of better, more efficient procU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
345

esses to save time and money. As one example, the Army Guard’s Home Station Mobilization initiative will reduce the cost of processing personnel mobilized for deployment and speed them to ports of embarkation more rapidly. Another, the Army

Guard’s Fort State initiative, is a proposal of truly blockbuster dimensions for

leveraging existing Guard infrastructure and experience to provide services such as

maintenance, supply, and transportation to the Active and Reserve components

within States. The DRI called for outsourcing 150,000 commercially oriented military and civilian support positions; the NDP, 600,000. Under Fort State, many of

these tasks would be ‘‘outsourced’’ to Guard installations where they could be consolidated for greater efficiency.

THE PATH AHEAD—TOTAL FORCE INTEGRATION

We in the National Guard are proud of our roles, both as the Federally tasked

Global Guard and as ‘‘America’s Team’’ for State and community missions. We are

firmly dedicated to remaining key players in the Total Force of tomorrow and are

working hard to foster still closer cooperation and integration between the Active

and Reserve components.

Collaboration between the Active and Reserve components of the Air Force continues to set the standard for Total Force integration and interoperability. The Air

Force elected to absorb almost 27,000 QDR manpower cuts—and the loss of one

fighter wing equivalent—from the Active component while reducing the Reserve

component by only 700 positions, plussing-up Guard fighter squadrons to 15 aircraft

each, and transferring modern assets to Guard and Reserve units from Active ones.

An Active Air Force officer last year became the first leader of an Air Guard unit

when he assumed command of Connecticut’s 103d Fighter Wing. And the Guard, Reserve, and Active Air Force consult regularly on mission distribution.

In its efforts to foster closer Active-Reserve ties, the Army National Guard completed its force-balancing exchange of 12,000 positions with the Army Reserve last

year and is now implementing the Division Redesign program to convert 12 combat

maneuver brigades into combat support and combat service support units. While

complex—the process involves some 50,000 Guard members in more than 30

States—this is a high priority program to enhance the Army’s deployability by providing augmentation in vital war mobilization and sustainment fields. The assignment of Active Army officers as commanders of selected Guard units continues. And

in a bold move to break down communication barriers, the Army Chief of Staff has

begun meeting with the Guard’s State Adjutants General on a quarterly basis.

A number of other positive steps have been taken toward integration over the

past year. At the recommendation of the DRI, up to half of the staff of the Directorate of Military Support, DOD’s 911 service for disaster response, will be drawn

from the National Guard, and the Deputy Director will be an Army Guard general

officer.

In another initiative, the Secretary of the Army approved a plan to establish two

fully integrated Active-Guard divisions, each composed of an Active component division headquarters and three Army Guard enhanced Separate Brigades. The first

will be headquartered at Fort Riley, Kansas, and include mechanized infantry brigades from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The second will be

headquartered at Fort Carson, Colorado, and include infantry brigades from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Indiana.

We are moving ahead on all fronts. Much remains to be done, but I am optimistic

about the future in view of our accomplishments and progress over the past few

years. America’s National Guard has always answered the call of its communities,

States, and nation. The men and women of the National Guard can be counted on

to remain true to that heritage as we forge ahead into the landscape of tomorrow.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

First, let me on behalf of the committee thank you for all you

have done to work with us to try and improve the conditions of the

Guard. Your watch has really been a significant one, I think, in

terms of the changing relationship between the Congress and the

National Guard, and you have helped us in the so-called National

Guard Caucus here to really call attention to all Members of the

Congress the plight of the National Guard and Reserves, and I personally thank you.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
346

I also personally thank you for coming with me to Alaska. I am

sorry that you brought home so much fish. We will just have to

leave that go. [Laughter.]

But I do thank you for your courtesy in coming to Alaska so often

and really trying to find ways to improve the situation of the

Guard up there.

Let me turn to General Navas.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM A. NAVAS

General NAVAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity again to talk to you today,

as well as for your past support on the part of America’s Army that

is your National Guard. I have submitted a statement for the

record, but would like to spend just a few minutes giving you some

background on how we arrived at the present budget.

As you know, 1997 and 1998 were tough years for all of the

Army, including the National Guard. The 1999 budget is in many

ways a step forward. As submitted, it represents two things. First

of all, it represents an unprecedented level of cooperative effort between the Department of the Army and OSD. For the first time in

history, the National Guard funding issue was made a major budget issue within the Office of the Secretary of Defense level. We started with a shortfall of $113 million and at the Chief of

Staff of the Army’s request we worked with the Army staff and we

were able to reduce that shortfall by $197 million. That is the first

time in my 10 years working in the Pentagon that I have ever seen

a plus-up of the Guard accomplished inside the Army. That kind

of progress is good news.

However, the second thing that this budget represents, as General Reimer told the other Chamber last week, is a shortfall of

$634 million to meet minimum readiness sustainment requirements of the Army National Guard.

General Reimer has said that he recognizes the severity of this

problem and that is one of his highest priorities.

This shortfall means that our requirement will be met at only 71

percent. By comparison, the Active Army requirements are met at

80 percent, and the Army Reserve’s requirements at 81 percent.

When you consider that the Guard’s requirements themselves have

been tiered in accordance with defense planning guidance, meeting

them at 71 percent amounts basically to a tax over a tax.

First, they are tiered to reflect the readiness levels required for

our units that deploy later and then they are again funded at a

lower level, and that is precisely where most of the shortfall will

impact, disproportionately on the soldiers of those later-deploying

units. It is on those units that training has already been drastically

curtailed. It is in those units that hundreds of our finest NCO’s

must choose between going to training to lead their soldiers or

going to schools to complete the courses of instruction that the

Army has prescribed in order for them to remain eligible for participation in the Guard.

It is in those units that the special training assemblies are so

necessary for the preparation of good training, and it is funded only

at 11 percent, and it is at those units that full-time manning is at

barebones subsistence levels.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
347

PREPARED STATEMENT

In sum, we are making progress but we still have a ways to go,

and I look forward to answering your questions, and thank you

again for the support that this committee has given us.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM A. NAVAS

Mister Chairman, members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

to appear today and to provide an overview of current Army National Guard programs. I would like to begin by saying that 1998 finds the Army National Guard

more active, with a higher operational tempo, than at any time in recent history.

During the past year our personnel contributed nearly 7,500,000 man-days in support of DOD mission requirements, including deployments to over 70 nations worldwide. Even as overseas commitments reached new levels in 1998, Guard soldiers

provided more than 280,000 man-days in support of domestic emergency missions

here at home. Domestic Army National Guard missions encompass a wide variety

of support, including disaster relief, medical support and humanitarian assistance

operations. Additionally, this large domestic portfolio is expanding to encompass the

emerging use of the Army Guard in dealing with the consequences of Weapons of

Mass Destruction (WMD). In short, the Guard in 1998 finds itself working closely

with the Active Army to meet increasing international and domestic mission requirements.

The maintenance of this high level of operational tempo has not come without

cost. While I support the President’s budget and the efforts of the leadership of the

Army and DOD, the 1 percent Army-wide budget shortfall forecast by the Army affects the Army National Guard to a similar degree. This funding constraint will affect nearly every area of Army National Guard operations, including operations,

training, education and maintenance activities. These resource constraints will continue to challenge the Army Guard even as we reach new levels of domestic and

international support.

As Congress has repeatedly recognized in the past, modernization of Guard equipment is essential to the effective integration of Active Component and Guard forces.

Initiatives like the Active Component/Reserve Component aviation modernization

plan illustrate the effective cooperation in this area. In addition to aviation modernization, the ground force is seeing significant advances, with fielding of the

M109A6 Paladin howitzer and additional Multiple Launch Rocket Systems currently

underway. Initial fielding of the Avenger Air Defense platform is also taking place.

These initiatives will enable the Guard to more effectively support DOD and Total

Army requirements around the world.

Recruiting and retaining quality soldiers represents another continuing success

story for the Guard. Last year the Army National Guard was the only Army component that exceeded its strength goal. In 1997 we established a strength target of

367,000 personnel, and we finished the year at 370,046 personnel—101 percent of

our goal. I would add that although we did not make all of our acquisition quality

goals, each soldier met the quality requirements for his or her Military Occupation

Specialty (MOS) upon enlistment. Our overall quality is excellent. Sixty-two percent

of our soldiers fall in Category I–IIIa, and 98.8 percent of our soldiers are high

school graduates or the equivalent.

The Army National Guard continues to explore ways to deal with on-going resource constraints. Our efforts center upon the innovative use of current and emerging simulations technologies to reduce costs for military training and education.

These efforts include a significant investment in distance learning and the use of

low cost, high quality simulation technologies for training. Along with the Active

Component, we foresee a simulation driven revolution in the way that our soldiers

are educated and trained. In a world of increasing resource constraints, it is a revolution that must come sooner rather than later.

Despite resource constraints, the Army National Guard continues to work effectively in concert with the Active Component Army to meet the needs of the Department of Defense and the Nation. 1998 finds the Army National Guard an increasingly relevant force committed to serving in any required capacity.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
348

FISCAL YEAR 1999 POSTURE STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fiscal year 1997 witnessed an unprecedented level of activity and change for the

Army National Guard (ARNG). Activities during this period included the continuing

evolution of Guard force structure, on-going modernization initiatives aimed at ensuring continued mission relevance for Guard units, and increased efforts to support

a work environment that engenders Total Army values and effective human relations among all Guard members.

The high Guard operations tempo (OPTEMPO) witnessed in fiscal year 1996 continued into fiscal year 1997 as the Army National Guard maintained its support for

missions in Bosnia and other points worldwide. During fiscal year 1997, over 27,000

Army Guard soldiers deployed to more than 70 nations and provided over one million man-days in support of DOD mission requirements. Additionally, Guard soldiers and airmen provided over 280,000 man-days in support of 308 state missions,

including disaster relief, medical support, humanitarian assistance, counter-drug,

and counter-terrorism operations.

Even as the Army Guard experienced its highest OPTEMPO in recent years during fiscal year 1997, efforts continued to reorient Guard force structure and physical

plant to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War world. The continuing reorganization of the Guard force structure necessitated large scale training in new occupation

specialties and the extensive fielding of new and complex military equipment. The

successful execution of this wide array of missions was due in large part to an amazing degree of dedication on the part of Army Guard soldiers and their families

around the country and overseas throughout the world. With their help, the Army

Guard successfully met all major challenges in fiscal year 1997.

In the years ahead, the Army National Guard leadership will continue to ensure

that the Guard remains a multi-mission capable force that is both relevant and increasingly modern. As a first responder in both domestic and international missions,

the Guard and its citizen soldiers will continue to justify the special trust placed

in them by the nation they support.

THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: PAST AND PRESENT

The National Guard predates the founding of the nation and a standing national

military by almost a century and a half. America’s first permanent militia regiments, among the oldest continuing units in history, were organized by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. Since that time, the Guard has participated in every

U.S. conflict from the Pequot War of 1637 to Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

The Army National Guard is a centuries-old institution, with roots deeper than

the colonial ‘‘Minutemen.’’ The Guard plays a vital role in our national defense and

emergency preparedness systems. Today, the Guard has emerged as the foremost

reserve of the Army, capable of providing organized and trained units to engage in

missions shoulder to shoulder with the active Army.

A subject of extensive debate and compromise during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the National Guard finds its origins in explicit provisions of the United

States Constitution. Throughout the nation’s history, the Guard has been an integral component of the defense and domestic emergency-response networks of the

States and the United States. Federal law clearly sets forth the Army National

Guard’s Federal role: ‘‘to provide trained units and qualified persons available for

active duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency and at such

other times as the national security requires, to fill the needs of the armed forces

whenever, during, and after the period needed to procure and train additional units

and qualified persons to achieve the planned mobilization, more units and persons

are needed than are in the regular components.’’

Detailed Federal guidelines, both statutory and regulatory, govern the organization and operation of the National Guard. Regulations issued by the National Guard

Bureau spell out the policies, procedures, and responsibility of the Guard, and provide guidance for the employment of Army Guard units, personnel and equipment

in support of State and local government authorities. The Federal government determines the number of authorized National Guard personnel and the unit mix

available across the country. However, the States reserve the authority to locate

units and their headquarters and Federal officials may not change any branch, organization, or allotment located entirely within a State without the approval of the

governor.

Just as the Federal government’s relationship to the wide range of State activities

and responsibilities has evolved over the years, so too have the Federal and State

roles of the National Guard changed in order to meet the national interest as well

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
349

as the particular needs and circumstances of each State and Territory. The Guard’s

unique status is exemplified by the fact that Guard members, unlike their counterparts in the active Army or Army Reserve, take an oath to their State constitutions

secondary to their oath to the United States Constitution.

Today, the National Guard fulfills a vital national defense role. Strategic planning

integrates Army National Guard units into crucial combat, combat support, and

combat service support elements of our nation’s military forces to provide a trained,

capable, and cost effective military force, able to provide rapid augmentation, reinforcement, and expansion in time of call-up or mobilization. From its origins as a

self-equipped, community militia in colonial times, the National Guard has emerged

as a well-armed fighting force and a valuable component in the nation’s emergency

preparedness network, the only force with this dual responsibility.

CURRENT INITIATIVES

National Guard support at both State and Federal levels has long been a mainstay of our government’s ability to meet the needs of its people. The Guard’s primary federal mission is to provide trained and ready forces in support of the National Military Strategy (NMS). At the State level, the Guard provides forces that

are effective, trained and ready, but here its purpose is to accomplish a wide variety

of state requirements, including disaster relief, medical support, civil disturbance

support to local authorities, counter-drug support and a variety of other missions.

Among current Federal missions is Guard support to Bosnia. Management of the

consequences of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) use will soon be added to

Guard mission requirements.

Guard Support Trends—Bosnia

Participation in Operation Joint Endeavor and Operation Joint Guard represents

the largest overseas Guard deployment since the Gulf War. The Army Guard mobilized 3,482 soldiers from 97 different units and 42 States under Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up (PSRC) authority in support of Operation Joint Endeavor/

Guard in Europe. The Bosnia mission provides a look at the future of the Guard.

Requirements arising from the Bosnia mission have had an impact on almost all

major Guard formations. For example, all eight National Guard Divisions have contributed to Bosnian mission support. Additionally, October 1997 saw the first overseas operational deployment of an ARNG combat unit in recent times as members

of the 29th Infantry Division (Light), Virginia ARNG and Maryland ARNG, departed for duty in Bosnia.

As the upward trend in support for non-traditional missions like Bosnia continues, Army Guard Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support formations

will be increasingly challenged.

An Emerging Mission—Weapons of Mass Destruction

In an event of far reaching consequences for the Guard and the Nation, the Congressionally mandated ‘‘Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996’’

charged the Department of Defense with the domestic anti-terrorism mission.

In early 1995, Congress directed that a program be established ‘‘to improve the

capabilities of State and local emergency response agencies [to deal with the WMD

threat], and the National Guard provides the States with a ready asset to augment

first responders.’’ In keeping with this sentiment, the Emergency Response Assistance Program (ERAP) was signed into law as a part of the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense

Authorization Act. This law mandated that DOD assist State and local emergency

responders in training and the loan of appropriate equipment. This legislation further designated the National Guard as a means of support for these state and local

organizations. Because of its experience in working with state and local organizations, the National Guard is uniquely positioned to assist these agencies.

Acting on the recommendations in the ERAP, Congress appropriated $10 million

in fiscal year 1998 for detailed planning and concept studies designed to facilitate

ARNG participation in addressing the terrorist WMD threat. Included in these studies will be a work plan that focuses on a four pillared approach to the mission: information and architecture; infrastructure; doctrine and training; and force structure.

Pillar I: Information and Architecture

Information management and an effective communications architecture will be

critical parts of the Guard WMD consequence management effort. As a result, the

first pillar of the Guard WMD study involves use of Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) Emergency Information system (EIS) software. The

EIS provides a variety of standardized emergency management functions, including

near real-time mapping, communications and integrated information flow at the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
350

state and local levels. The Guard will use the Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS) to interface with EIS as it integrates ARNG capabilities with those of

FEMA. With the full integration of FEMA and ARNG information architectures, it

is expected that the Guard communications infrastructure will function as a national communications highway for the flow of domestic emergency information.

This information management system can also assist other government agencies, as

well as supporting development of the Global Disaster Information system (GDIS).

Pillar II: Infrastructure

A central reason for the emerging Guard WMD mission lies in the unique Guard

domestic support capability. With a wide variety of communications and logistics assets in all 54 States and Territories, the Guard continually responds to a variety

of natural and man-made disasters.

At the implementation level, the Guard can provide planning and exercise coordination for disaster response training, as well as assisting in the procurement of urgently needed equipment. Additionally, in 45 percent of the states, the Adjutant

General is also the State Emergency Management Officer, thus providing a direct

link between the Guard and the State agencies it supports. Finally, when the Guard

completes the EIS communications integration outlined in Pillar I, every armory can

serve as a Operations Center or Disaster Field Office if necessary. The combination

of Guard infrastructure and State level integration will greatly improve the nation’s

ability to deal with the use of WMD and all other disasters as well.

Pillar III: Doctrine and Training

No effort as broad and far reaching as the anti-terrorism/WMD program can be

effective without proper doctrine and training for those involved in the program.

During fiscal year 1998, $466,000 will be used for training to be conducted by the

National Interagency Counterdrug Institute (NICI). NICI, which provides training

and military support operations to DOD agencies, is working with NGB to develop

new courses that will train Guardsmen in their responsibilities as first responders.

Additional courses on the specific nature of WMD are also planned. Use of the National Guard Distance Learning Network (See Training Technologies—Distance

Learning) to support the teaching of these classes is also being considered. The

Guard Distance Learning Network is also available to other agencies for WMD and

related instruction on a space available basis.

Pillar IV: Force Structure

The final component of the Guard WMD study plan involves development of the

force structure necessary to implement DOD WMD directives. In September 1997

the Secretary of Defense directed the development of ‘‘a complete model for the integration of the RC into Consequence Management Planning for WMD domestic terrorist incidents.’’ To that end, a Joint Service Tiger Team was established in November 1997 and charged with several missions:

—Develop a response model and identify requirements.

—Identify missions, areas of operations and units.

—Determine manpower, equipment and training shortfalls.

—Determine funding requirements for start-up and Operations and Maintenance

(O&M).

The completed plan was briefed to the Deputy Secretary of Defense

(DEPSECDEF) in mid-December 1997.

Current Status

The Deputy Secretary of Defense recently provided the ARNG $23 million and 220

Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) personnel authorizations to support WMD related

activities in fiscal year 1999. This support includes funding for the upgrades to current chemical decontamination and reconnaissance capabilities. When formed and

trained, Guard units with WMD capabilities will retain day-to-day mission requirements while maintaining a stand-by national consequence management capability.

Additionally, these units will conduct first responder training at the local level and

be prepared to provide consequence management augmentation for the Commanders

in Chief (CINC). The Study Work plan will examine the best way to attain the most

appropriate force structure.

Support for the development of a robust Guard WMD consequence management

capability comes from the highest levels of government. Secretary of Defense William Cohen noted, ‘‘The Guard and Reserve are going to play a major role in dealing

with detection of chemical and biological weapons. These responsibilities will include

how to intervene and how to deal with the victims of terrorism when it occurs.’’

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
351

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD VISION 2010

Army National Guard Vision 2010 is the conceptual link between America’s community based land force to Army Vision 2010, ‘‘Army After Next’’ and Joint Vision

2010. ARNG Vision 2010 outlines a full commitment to implementing the joint operational concepts of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and

full-dimension protection—a seamless force.

With 34 percent of the Army’s strength, more than half the combat power, nearly

70 percent of field artillery, and more than a third of Total Army combat support

and combat service support capabilities, the Army National Guard is a full partner

in rapid strategic mobility, and tailor-to-task organizational flexibility.

Ultimately, the Army National Guard will increase its key role in a seamless force

that can be committed cross-dimensionally along the entire spectrum of contingencies. Through the alignment of warfighting missions and capabilities, and the integration of Active, Guard, and Reserve units, America’s Army will continue to provide a force of trained leaders and soldiers.

In doing so, we will achieve our common goal of shaping a joint force to accomplish our primary task: to deter conflict—but, should deterrence fail, to fight and

win our nation’s wars.

Effective State Support

Our equally vital role of providing assistance and support to our states and territories will not change. States’ Adjutants General and their respective Governors,

who serve as peacetime Commanders in Chief, rely heavily on the embedded capabilities and training of Army Guard units. The assessable, flexible, and effective response of the Guard during domestic and community support missions will continue

to play a central role in state level support planning and mission execution.

With 3,222 armories in 2,700 communities across America, the Army Guard provides community visibility and presence that is increasingly critical in an age when

general military experience and familiarity have steadily declined. This community

based force will continue to provide a host of other capabilities that guarantee

ARNG vitality at the State and Federal level through 2010 and beyond.

SHAPING THE 21ST CENTURY

Reaching the goals outlined in Vision 2010 presents the Guard with significant

challenges in the years ahead. Efforts are, however, already underway to move the

ARNG along the road to ensure a successful ‘‘vision implementation’’. These initiatives include the on-going Army National Guard Division Redesign Study (ADRS)

and placement of Active Component Officers in selected ARNG leadership positions.

In the logistical arena, the new Fort State initiative promises to significantly

streamline the ARNG/Active Component infrastructure requirements. These and

other initiatives will serve to reshape the ARNG as it enters the 21st Century.

Division Redesign

Efforts to mold a force capable of addressing the likely threats of the next century

are not confined to the National Guard. In May 1995, the Commission on Roles and

Missions recommended that the Army reorganize lower priority Reserve Component

forces to fill force shortfalls in higher priority areas. In keeping with this recommendation, the Army conducted Total Army Analysis 003 (TA003) in late 1995

to determine potential shortfalls in personnel required to implement the National

Military Strategy (NMS). As a result of TA003, the Army determined that nearly

124,800 additional Combat Support and Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) personnel would be required to fully implement the NMS. Following this conclusion, the

ARNG commissioned the Army National Guard Division Redesign Study (ADRS) to

examine ways it could address this shortfall in CS and CSS personnel.

As a result of the study, the Guard will convert a number of units from Combat

to Combat Support and Combat Service Support formations in the coming years.

Among other suggestions, the ADRS recommends the conversion of up to 12 ARNG

combat brigades and their associated divisional slice elements to CS/CSS units during fiscal year 1999–2012.

Implementation of the ADRS will occur in four phases. Three combat brigades will

be converted in each of phases one and two. Phases three and four will see conversion of remaining units in the two ARNG divisions affected by the redesign. The

end state will find the two affected divisions fully converted to CS/CSS or composite

divisions. The first Brigades designated for conversion were tentatively identified at

the Division Project Action Committee (DIVPAC) in December 1997.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
352

Current Status

Recent events have resulted in a decision by the Army to accelerate the ADRS

conversion process. Following guidance from the Secretary of the Army, funding will

be included in upcoming Program Decision Memorandums (POM) to procure necessary conversion equipment by fiscal year 2007 and to complete the conversion

process by fiscal year 2009.

Active Component/National Guard Divisional Integration

An additional proposal contained in ADRS established two AC/NG Integrated Divisions, each consisting of an active Army headquarters company (staffed by some

of the 5,000 AC support personnel) and three eSB’s. A Division Commander would

become responsible for the combat readiness of the three brigades and the other elements necessary to create a full division capable of deploying in wartime.

This concept was approved by the Secretary of the Army and Forces Command

is now in the process of implementing it. The 30th Mechanized Infantry Brigade

(North Carolina), the 218th Mechanized Infantry Brigade (South Carolina), and the

48th Mechanized Infantry Brigade (Georgia) will make up a division headquartered

at Fort Riley, Kansas with a forward element at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. The

other Integrated Division, to be headquartered at Fort Carson, Colorado, will be

composed of the 39th Infantry Brigade (Arkansas), the 45th Infantry Brigade (Oklahoma), and the 76th Infantry Brigade (Indiana) and will have a forward element

at Fort Polk, Louisiana. The activation date for the two divisions is planned for 1

October 1999.

AC Officers Serving in Key Positions in the ARNG

Demonstrating their commitment to more effective integration, Active Component

and Guard leaders implemented a test program placing limited numbers of Active

Duty Officers in ARNG command positions when requested by an Adjutant General.

The intent of the program is to foster a greater degree of understanding between

members of the active and reserve forces. While available commands and categories

for this initiative are currently under review, placing AC officers in command of

ARNG troops demonstrates a tremendous degree of resolve on the part of AC and

Guard leaders.

Fort State

The ARNG’s Fort State initiative seeks to leverage existing infrastructure and experience within states and territories to perform services such as maintenance, calibration, controlled humidity preservation, supply, and transportation within DOD at

reduced cost. Under the Fort State concept, entire states are considered to be ‘‘installations’’ as defined in Army Regulation 5–9. This allows the use of ARNG maintenance and logistics assets anywhere in the state to support DOD requirements,

rather than restricting these activities to the confines of military bases.

A Fort State feasibility analysis, undertaken at the request of the Active Army

leadership, will examine Total Army requirements as set against ARNG state level

capabilities. The economy achieved through more efficient use of various support

functions at the state level will both save money and further strengthen Active

Component—ARNG integration and cooperation. The final Fort State study, due in

fiscal year 1998, will be an implementation plan to provide quality, low cost services

to customers throughout the Department of Defense.

READINESS

Army National Guard readiness goals include sustaining a highly trained and

ready force that meets all wartime operational, logistic, and personnel standards.

The ARNG is a leader in programs designed to enhance the readiness of high priority units. Chief among its programs are efforts to maintain open lines of communication. Each month, the Director of the ARNG presents issues/and or problems to the

Army’s leadership during the Chief of Staff of the Army’s (CSA) Monthly Readiness

Review. The Director of the ARNG also provides quarterly reports to the Commanding General, Forces Command. The Army National Guard staff conducts on-site visits and video teleconferences (VTC) with major combat units and high priority units

to achieve and improve unit readiness. All of these activities serve to ensure Guard

readiness at the highest possible levels.

Fiscal year 1998 unit training readiness highlights will include unit rotations at

the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, Louisiana as well as the

National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California for Oregon’s 41st Infantry

Brigade (JRTC) and Idaho’s 116th Cavalry Brigade (NTC) respectively. Preparatory

leader development training, as well as the exercises themselves, will demonstrate

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
353

the ability of the Army National Guard to fully meet its assigned readiness goals

in a crisis or wartime scenario.

Forward Support Package Readiness

Guard Forward Support Package (FSP) units are CS and CSS units designated

to support Active Component divisional, Corps and Theater level units. Slated to respond to the NMS’s two nearly simultaneous Major Theater War (MTW) scenario,

the 209 ARNG FSP units are the highest priority Guard units. These units support

51⁄3 AC divisions, two Corps headquarters, and two theater slices. Between the October 1996 and October 1997 Unit Status Reports (USR), there was a 3 percent decline in FSP readiness due to a 2 percent decrease in duty military occupational specialty qualified (DMOSQ) soldiers and a 3 percent decline in equipment on hand.

Currently, there are 4 FSP units deployed in support of Operation Joint Guard in

Bosnia.

eSB Readiness

The fifteen enhanced Separate Brigades (eSB) of the ARNG are the principal Reserve Component ground combat maneuver force of the Army. A new structure within the Guard, eSB Brigades, are expected to achieve readiness goals of personnel,

equipment on hand, equipment serviceability, and training by its scheduled 30 September 1999 deadline.

The ARNG is working hard to assist in meeting eSB readiness goals. In order to

ensure that Guard eSB successfully achieve targeted readiness levels, the ARNG is

using video-teleconferences to track management by objectives and resolve issues regarding eSB modernization and readiness.

In fiscal year 1997 the Army National Guard divisional units supported Forces

Command (FORSCOM) lane training for enhanced Separate Brigades during the

1997 Annual Training Period. This approach to training provided a dual readiness

benefit—as the eSB’s trained attack and defend mission profiles, opposing forces

from divisional formations provided these units opportunities to train on the opposite task. This provided an excellent force-on-force training environment in a very

cost effective manner. The eSB’s were provided with a ‘‘tailor made’’ OPFOR, designed to meet their requirements, while the ARNG divisions received training opportunities that would not otherwise have been available.

Divisional Readiness

Recent trends in readiness funding continued to provide challenges for the eight

ARNG Divisions in fiscal year 1997. As was the case in fiscal year 1997, the level

of funding in fiscal year 1998 will continue to generate resources for minimal divisional readiness and deployability. This resourcing is sufficient to provide 28 miles

out of a required 288 miles for each M1 Abrams tank in the armored and mechanized divisions. Maintenance personnel in these units conduct repairs on their M1’s

using initial issue repair parts that are still available. Additionally, current resource

levels support required professional education in lieu of Annual Training (AT) for

many Guardsmen assigned to the divisions. Finally, current divisional resource levels typically support separate eight hour daily drill sessions rather than continuous

Saturday through Sunday weekend drill periods.

Home Station Mobilization

Home Station Mobilization (HSM) is an initiative proposed by the ARNG during

the Power Projection Functional Area Assessment (FAA) conducted by Forces Command (FORSCOM). HSM empowers the State Area Commands (STARC) to assume

responsibility for all mobilization inprocessing activities now conducted by mobilization stations. Following STARC processing, a unit selected for HSM would by-pass

the traditional mobilization station and move directly to their ports of embarkation.

The STARC’s would also validate HSM units for deployment. As a direct result of

this program, early deploying units would be available much more rapidly by eliminating time required for movement through a separate Active Component installation prior to embarkation.

The Army National Guard has successfully demonstrated its capability to conduct

HSM’s over the past two years. To date, sixteen units have Home Station Mobilized

and deployed in support of Operation Joint Guard. United States Army, Europe

(USAEUR) Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (DCSOPS) made the following comment: ‘‘HSM has demonstrated that it can effectively augment the traditional mobilization process. This can be invaluable during a large scale mobilization and could

reduce the surge on the traditional mobilization stations.’’

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
354

Budget

The Army National Guard is funded by three separate budget appropriations: Personnel (NGPA), Operations and Maintenance (OMNG), and Military Construction

(MCNG). The ARNG fiscal year 1999 Budget Estimate Submission (BES) for these

three accounts totals nearly $5.9 billion. This represents approximately 9.3 percent

of the Army’s $63.4 billion budget for this period. In addition, the Army has identified in its investments accounts, equipment that may be distributed to the ARNG

for implementation of the Division Redesign, which converts up to 12 ARNG Brigades to Combat Service/Combat Service Support to meet the demands of the Army.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD APPROPRIATIONS BY FISCAL YEAR

[Dollars in millions]

1996 1997 1998

Change from

1997 (percent)

Personnel ............................................................... $3,349 $3,397 $3,334 ¥1.85

Operations and maintenance ................................ 2,444 2,298 2,419 ∂5.27

Military construction .............................................. 137 78 118 ∂51.28

RECRUITING

The Army National Guard continued its aggressive recruiting efforts in fiscal year

1997. Recruiting goals for the year included maintaining a 367,000 end strength

consisting of 41,659 commissioned and warrant officers and 325,341 enlisted soldiers. In pursuit of these ambitious goals, gains of 59,262 enlisted and 4,163 officers

were planned for the year. Recruiting managers also assumed that enlisted losses

during this period would not exceed 62,528 personnel.

The Guard was extremely successful in its fiscal year 1997 recruiting efforts, attaining an end strength of 370,046—101 percent of the fiscal year 1997 objective.

At the end of fiscal year 1997, ARNG end strength included 40,756 officers and

329,290 enlisted personnel. Non-prior service accessions quality is good. The Guard

met the Army quality goal of no more than 2 percent Test Category (TC) IV. The

Guard fell short of the DA goal of 90 percent High School Diploma Graduates

(HSDG) and 67 percent TC I–IIIa. We assessed 82.8 percent HSDG and 17.2 percent

General Education Diplomas (GED), and did not enlist any non-high school graduates in fiscal year 1997. The Guard recruited 55.4 percent TC I–IIIa.

The ARNG recruiting strategy ties recruiting and retention into attrition management. The foci of attrition management are to recruit quality soldiers, to retain

MOS qualified soldiers and to reduce the loss of first term soldiers to the lowest

rate possible. Guard attrition management efforts were very successful in 1997, with

107.1 percent of recruiting goals met with just 18.1 percent attrition during the

same period.

Retention Incentives

The Army Guard continues to offer education incentives through the Montgomery

G.I. Bill. Enlistment in the Guard for six years provides financial assistance of

$208.93 a month for full-time post-secondary education or up to $7,521.48 over a

10 year period. Enlistment bonuses for enhanced units, reenlistment bonuses for everyone, and affiliation bonuses have been reauthorized to those who qualify.

FORCE COMPOSITION

Category Total Strength

Minority Officers ..................................................................... 5,297 13.0 percent of assigned.

Minority Enlisted ..................................................................... 89,906 27.3 percent of assigned.

Total Minority Membership ....................................... 95,203 25.7 percent of assigned.

Black Officers ......................................................................... 2,632 6.5 percent of assigned.

Black Enlisted ........................................................................ 55,032 15.6 percent of assigned.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
355

FORCE COMPOSITION—Continued

Category Total Strength

Total Black Membership ........................................... 57,664 15.6 percent of assigned.

Hispanic Officers .................................................................... 1,646 4.0 percent of assigned.

Hispanic Enlisted ................................................................... 23,863 7.2 percent of assigned.

Total Hispanic Membership ...................................... 25,509 6.9 percent of assigned.

Women Officers ...................................................................... 3,409 8.4 percent of assigned.

Women Enlisted ...................................................................... 30,846 9.4 percent of assigned.

Total Women Membership ......................................... 34,255 9.3 percent of assigned.

The ARNG exceeded the fiscal year 1997 goal of 59,267 accessions by actually accessing 63,495 personnel, which was 107 percent of the goal. Non-prior service accessions totaled 28,378, or 47.8 percent of program. Prior service accessions constituted 35,117 personnel, or 59.2 percent of program. Of non-prior service accessions, 100 percent possessed high school or equivalent degrees with 55.4 percent

scoring in the highest test categories. Only 1.8 percent scored in the lowest test categories.

FULL-TIME SUPPORT

The Army National Guard’s (ARNG) Full-Time Support (FTS) Program was established by Congress to organize, administer, recruit, train, and maintain Army National Guard units. The FTS program provides two distinct types of personnel—Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) soldiers and Military Technicians (MT). AGR soldiers

perform a variety of day-to-day military duties, while Military Technicians provide

numerous maintenance and logistical support related functions. FTS manpower requirements are established by workload-based staffing standards (the number and

type of required personnel) in training support, recruiting, maintenance, and readiness management workcenters. Requirements are determined through a detailed

analysis of workload in each case. Grades are determined through classification

studies.

The Army National Guard receives FTS authorization levels from Congress via

the National Defense Authorization Act and allocates full-time resources to the

States and Territories on a ‘‘first-to-fight, first-to-resource’’ methodology. This

resourcing methodology results in a greater percentage of FTS personnel being assigned to, and in support of, early deploying Force Support Package units and enhanced Separate Brigades.

The Army National Guard provides justification to the Department of the Army,

Department of Defense, Congress and other interested parties to ensure directed

missions are supported with adequate levels of FTS personnel.

In fiscal year 1998, Congress authorized the ARNG 22,310 AGR soldiers. The projected Congressional AGR authorization for fiscal year 1999 is 21,763. Congress also

authorized Military Technician strength for fiscal year 1998 at 24,974 (this figure

includes 2,400 non-dual status technicians). Fiscal year 1999 projected Military

Technician strength is expected to decrease to 23,815. Both the AGR and Military

Technician programs are expected to continue experiencing significant reductions in

the future. The 1998 National Defense Authorization Act reduces the non-dual status Military Technician positions 50 percent by fiscal year 2002 and totally eliminates them by fiscal year 2007.

Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW)

More than 1,340 Guard soldiers participated in the Active Duty for Special Work

(ADSW) program during fiscal year 1997. Used to support special projects, ADSW

tours are temporary, lasting 179 days or less. Projects included events such as command and staff visits, annual medical/dental screenings, operation of training activities, unit conversions to new weapons systems, study groups, support at training

sites and exercises, and short term mission and administrative support.

Active Guard Reserve (AGR)

AGR soldiers perform numerous daily organizational management functions that

are essential to the operational capability of Guard units nationwide. Funding for

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
356

these essential personnel for fiscal year 1999 is projected at 58 percent of requirements. The Guard is actively pursuing initiatives designed to stabilize and ultimately restore support for required AGR manning.

In addition to financial issues, the development of an effective AGR officer progression program also poses challenges for the ARNG. An increase in the number

of controlled grades is needed to allow better management of AGR officer and enlisted progression. This increase would also provide increased promotion opportunities for junior enlisted AGR personnel.

Reductions in overall AGR strength are programmed. The Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) program is used as a force-shaping tool to assist in

achieving these reductions. A total of $13.2 million was appropriated for fiscal year

1998 to facilitate the reduction of 488 AGR officers.

Resourcing for the AGR program continues to decrease even as the need for these

personnel increases. A reduction of 450 AGR authorizations is scheduled in fiscal

year 1999 with an additional 1,000 AGR soldiers programmed to leave the force between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2002 as a result of Quadrennial Defense Review impacts. Continued funding of transition benefits is an important element in

the AGR strength management plan.

AGR RAMP

Required Authorized Percent (req/

auth)

1993 ............................................................................................... 40,475 24,686 61

1994 ............................................................................................... 40,376 24,180 60

1995 ............................................................................................... 40,330 26,350 59

1996 ............................................................................................... 39,689 23,390 59

1997 ............................................................................................... 37,594 22,655 62

1998 ............................................................................................... 38,547 22,310 58

1999 ............................................................................................... 38,458 21,763 56

2000 ............................................................................................... 38,403 21,313 55

2001 ............................................................................................... 38,403 21,053 55

2002 ............................................................................................... 38,403 20,763 54

Military Technicians

Military Technicians are civilian employees of the Guard who perform a myriad

of maintenance and associated logistical support functions. These functions, which

include essential equipment maintenance and logistical support activities, are critical to the deployability of Guard units throughout the country.

The ARNG Military Technician strength for fiscal year 1998 will be 24,974, a decrease of 512 from fiscal year 1997. Projected authorized positions for fiscal year

1999 total 23,815 which represents 56 percent of the Guard’s validated 42,473 Military Technician requirement. Despite force structure reductions, equipment modernization initiatives continued to generate increased requirements for Military

Technicians. Modern equipment such as the Apache helicopter, Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Patriot Missile and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS)

require more maintenance manpower than the equipment replaced by these systems. Guard units can operate and maintain these systems at a cost saving to the

Total Force, but doing so requires more Full Time Support.

The combination of Military Technicians and AGR’s remains the most efficient

means of manning the ARNG’s FTS program. The FTS program objective remains

unchanged—to enhance unit readiness and deployability through improved training,

personnel administration, maintenance and supply for soldiers and their equipment.

MILITARY TECHNICIAN RAMP

Required Authorized

Percent (required/authorized)

1993 ............................................................................................... 37,495 27,084 72

1994 ............................................................................................... 37,317 27,259 73

1995 ............................................................................................... 39,340 25,489 65

1996 ............................................................................................... 38,617 25,500 66

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
357

MILITARY TECHNICIAN RAMP—Continued

Required Authorized

Percent (required/authorized)

1997 ............................................................................................... 44,115 25,500 58

1998 ............................................................................................... 42,521 24,974 59

1999 ............................................................................................... 43,867 23,815 56

2000 ............................................................................................... 43,721 23,161 55

2001 ............................................................................................... 43,721 22,671 55

2002 ............................................................................................... 43,721 22,237 55

EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION

Intensive efforts to modernize Guard Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support systems continued throughout fiscal year 1997. These efforts affected

virtually every major Guard organization and most major ARNG aviation and

ground combat systems.

Aviation Modernization

UH–60, C–23, and C–12 series aircraft were the focus of aviation modernization

efforts during fiscal year 1997. The Army National Guard continues to intensively

monitor the modernization of aviation units equipped with the UH–60A/L utility

helicopters. A total of 298 UH–60A and 76 UH–60L helicopters have been distributed to Army National Guard units. This quantity represents about 40 percent of

the Army National Guard total requirement of 939 modern utility helicopters.

Planned UH–60L procurement for Active Army units will release additional UH–

60A helicopters for redistribution to Army National Guard units. After redistribution, the Army National Guard will still be short 444 of the total UH–60 requirements, based on final retirement of all UH–1 helicopters by the year 2000.

Ground System Modernization

On the ground, Total Army field artillery modernization efforts provided

resourcing for 18 ARNG M109A6 PALADIN howitzer battalions. Nine PALADIN

battalions will be fielded to Echelons Above Division (EAD) units, eight will be fielded to the heavy enhanced Separate Brigades, and one is to be fielded to a strategic

reserve brigade. Fielding will begin in fiscal year 1998 and concludes in fiscal year

2001. A total of four additional Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) battalions

were resourced for the ARNG. Kansas and South Carolina completed fielding during

fiscal year 1997, while Arkansas and South Dakota are scheduled to begin fielding

in fiscal year 1998, with completion by fiscal year 1999. The ARNG fire support

force will include a total of 10 MLRS battalions at the end of fiscal year 1999.

The ARNG completed the fielding of the M1 Abrams Tank to all armor and cavalry units in fiscal year 1997.

Modern Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFV) (M2A2/M3A2) have been distributed to

four of the eight heavy enhanced Separate Brigades: the 48th Infantry Brigade

(Mechanized), the 116th Armored Brigade, the 155th Armored Brigade, and the

278th Armored Cavalry Regiment. Although they are authorized the M2A2/M3A2

model (483 M2A2’s and 52 M3A2’s), the remaining four heavy enhanced Separate

Brigades, 30th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized), 218th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized), 256th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized), and 81st Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) are equipped with the basic M2.

This second group of enhanced Separate Brigades was originally scheduled to receive M2A2/M3A2 series vehicles by fiscal year 2000. Unfortunately, this fielding

has been postponed to fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010. The Army National

Guard continues to work with the Department of the Army (DA) Staff to find modernized equipment to support Army National Guard requirements. The 49th Armored Division was fielded 303 M2A0’s/M3A0’s in fiscal year 1997.

The Army National Guard major missile materiel modernization effort in fiscal

year 1997 was the Avenger Fire Unit. Nine Avenger unit conversions are programmed to occur in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico and South Carolina between fiscal

year 1997 and fiscal year 1999. Air Defense Artillery Avenger/MANPADS (Man

Portable Air Defense System) battalions were approved for the Army Guard as replacements for current Hawk and Chaparral battalions. These battalions will provide for the entire Army Corps Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) mission. Two

additional battalions have been programmed for fiscal year 2000–03. By the end of

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
358

fiscal year 2003, all Army National Guard ADA Avenger/Stinger battalions will be

100 percent filled with Avenger Fire Units.

Requirements for the movement of heavy vehicles and equipment (such as M1-

series tanks) on the battlefield are met with the M1070/M1000 Heavy Equipment

Transportation System (HETS). The Army National Guard has a requirement for

927 of these modern 70-ton capacity systems; there are currently 385 on-hand. This

year, elements of the Tennessee Army National Guard received a partial issue of

77 new HETS’s. The Army National Guard will work with DA to prioritize the purchase of additional HETS’s to fill other high priority units with this highly capable

tractor/trailer combination (the only tractor/trailer combination that can move the

M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank).

National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation

In fiscal year 1998 National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation

(NGREA) funds were used to purchase night vision goggles, engineer construction

equipment, tactical wheeled vehicles, and training simulation equipment. This

equipment is critical to improving the readiness and deployment posture of many

Army National Guard units.

ARNG units must be properly equipped to perform assigned missions side-by-side

in America’s Army with Active Component (AC) units and coalition partners.

RETROEUR

The Army National Guard’s program to redeploy, repair, and redistribute excess

Army equipment from the draw down of forces in Europe continues to be a resounding success. Today, there are five operational Army National Guard RETROEUR

(Retrograde of Equipment from Europe) repair sites: Fort Riley, Kansas (wheeled

and track equipment); Camp Shelby, Mississippi (wheeled and track equipment);

Piketon, Ohio (engineer and wheeled equipment); Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania (M3A2 Bradley and wheeled vehicles); Camp Withycomb, Oregon (communications-electronics equipment); and Blue Grass Station, Kentucky (receive, classify,

and redistribute non-rolling stock equipment).

Federally reimbursed state employees comprise the workforce for these sites except for Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania and Camp Withycomb, Oregon where

temporary federal employees make up the work force. Of the 350 employees, 75 percent are Army National Guard soldiers and 25 percent are civilians.

As of November 30, 1997, RETROEUR repair sites have received 8,610 vehicles

and 17,400 pieces of communications-electronics equipment. Vehicles received thus

far include M1A1 tanks, M113 personnel carriers, M3A2 CFV’s, M88 tank recovery

vehicles, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), CUCV’s, and

five-ton trucks. Once an item has been repaired, the Army Material Command directs the shipments to organizations within all three components of the Army. A

total of 5,844 vehicles and 9,846 communications-electronics items have been repaired.

In addition to providing a valuable means to redistribute assets within America’s

Army, the RETROEUR initiative provides hands-on maintenance, supply accountability, and warehouse management training for many Army National Guard soldiers. The Army National Guard RETROEUR Program has enhanced the equipment

readiness of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. The

RETROEUR program is scheduled to complete all work by the end of fiscal year

1998.

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Army National Guard operates over 3,200 owned and 90 leased armories in

2,700 communities in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the

District of Columbia. In addition, the Army National Guard federally supports the

operation and maintenance of more than 18,000 training, aviation, and logistical facilities located throughout the nation.

Military Construction

Fiscal year 1997 saw a number of much needed military construction projects initiated throughout the nation. In all, 50 major construction projects worth over

$179.5 million were awarded in fiscal year 1997. An additional 39 projects are

scheduled to be awarded in fiscal year 1998. The fiscal year 1997 appropriation of

$78 million funded 16 projects, including $52 million for major construction, $20

million for planning and design and $5.5 million for unspecified minor construction.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
359

Facility Operations and Maintenance

In fiscal year 1997, $203.5 million, or $3.13 per square foot, was provided for real property operations and maintenance, about $26.3 million less than in fiscal year

1996. This program pays for salaries required to support facility operations and

maintenance as well as providing funds for utilities, minor construction, maintenance and repair projects, and supplies required to extend the useful life of National

Guard facilities. The Federally supported square footage increased from 62.6 million

square feet in fiscal year 1996 to 65 million square feet in fiscal year 1997, just as

equipment modernization and aging facilities have increased overall maintenance

requirements. In fiscal year 1988, $3.41 per square foot was available to operate and

maintain Army National Guard facilities. In fiscal year 1998, that amount is $2.95

per square foot, or $2.30 in constant fiscal year 1988 dollars; a decrease of over 30

percent.

Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC)

The BRAC Commission findings and recommendations in June of 1995 will result

in the transfer of four active component installations to the National Guard over

the next few years. Transfer of Fort Pickett, VA, and Fort Chaffee, AR, are scheduled for 1998. Fort Indiantown Gap, PA, is scheduled to transition in 1999 and Fort

McClellan, AL, in 2000.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

In the upcoming year, the Army Guard will press on with its effort to forge a military that is ‘‘second to none’’ when meeting its tough federal and domestic agenda.

In times of national emergency—military or budgetary—our free society has demanded much from its citizen-soldiers and, as the following pages will attest, no

other force has responded more effectively to that call than the Army National

Guard.

The Year in Review

In 1997, Army National Guard soldiers deployed to Europe for Operation Joint

Endeavor/Guard. More than 27,600 of our soldiers went overseas to support these

real-world missions and other training. Domestically, the Guard expended over

280,000 man days to respond to natural disasters and in the performance of other

state duties. All of these requirements were accomplished simultaneously with the

inactivation of 416 Army Guard units or elements of units, personnel reductions in

excess of 10,608 positions, changes to unit missions and ambitious annual training

and equipment modernization programs. Throughout this period, Guard soldiers and

their families remained the centerpiece of the ARNG strategy. Today, more than

ever, the all-volunteer force relies heavily on Guard families’ resolve and commitment as well as a strong community support base. The many personal and professional sacrifices ARNG soldiers and their supporters make in peace and war will

continue to be the benchmark upon which all other reserve forces in the world are

measured and tested.

The Army National Guard Overseas

During fiscal year 1997, Army National Guard soldiers deployed overseas for realworld missions, to support combatant commands and United Nations Peacekeeping

Forces, and to participate in routine training exercises. Army Guard units also supported overseas commanders-in-chief strategies for nation assistance. In all, 27,665

soldiers deployed overseas.

Task Force ABLE SENTRY (TFAS) Initiative

In August 1997, 65 Army National Guard soldiers from three states deployed to

TFAS in Macedonia as part of the 1st Armored Division’s TF 1–6. The TFAS mission is to ensure that the unrest in former Yugoslavia does not spill over the border

to the South, into Macedonia. The battalion task force assumed the TFAS mission

on 5 September as part of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force in Macedonia. The following units were tasked to provide the first Combat Support/Combat

Service Support slice to TFAS:

Presidential Selective Reserve Call-up (PSRC) Support to Task Force Able Sentry

Units/State Soldiers

220th Military Police Company/CO ...................................................................... 9

1–106th Aviation Assault Battalion/IL ................................................................ 22

203rd Engineer Battalion/MO ............................................................................... 34

Total ............................................................................................................. 65

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
360

These soldiers returned in early 1998 after a six-month rotation with TFAS. The

initiative has been an overwhelming success not only for the ARNG, but also for

America’s Army in our fulfillment of U.S. national objectives.

The Guard’s two Special Forces (SF) Groups supported Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)

exercises and Joint Combined Exercise Training (JCET). In the Pacific Theater,

these exercises included Foal Eagle, Frequent Storm, ULCHI Focus Lens and Cobra

Gold. Additionally, eight Special Forces medics deployed in support of efforts to

identify remains from Southeast Asia. In the U.S. Southern Command, JCET operations involved 400 soldiers who trained in Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, El

Salvador, Honduras, Panama and Suriname.

Approximately 650 Guard soldiers deployed to the Jungle Operations Training

Center in Panama, while another 200 medical personnel deployed to U.S. Southern

Command to provide medical/dental care and preventative medicine education for

local populations.

About 4,600 Guard soldiers deployed overseas in fiscal year 1997 to conduct humanitarian and civic assistance projects and host-nation mission support. These personnel participated in the construction or rehabilitation of 21 schools, seven clinics,

three community centers, four water wells, and 21.4 km of ‘‘farm-to-market’’ roads.

The Army Guard also deployed 2,321 Military Police worldwide for force protection,

installation security, and law enforcement missions. Other accomplishments include

the deployment of 3,090 soldiers for the USAREUR Equipment Maintenance programs and the Combat Equipment Group-Europe (CEG-E) as well as deployments

to all theaters for Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) directed exercises such as Nuevos

Horizontes 1997 (Belize) and Nuevos Horizontes 1997 (Panama), Fuerzas Defenzas,

Bright Star, Atlantic Resolve, Tradewinds, ULCHI Focus Lens, Keen Edge and

Northwind. Additionally, the ARNG provided over 1,000 soldiers to the Theater and

Equipment Maintenance Site (TEAMS) for organizational and direct support maintenance along with over 1,500 soldiers comprised of maintenance, logistics and medical personnel to augment USARSO in its support of the ARNG and JCS exercises

and RETRO Panama operations.

RC to AC Program

The Department of the Army (DA) continued support to the Reserve Component

to Active Component (RC to AC) program. The goal of this program is to relieve the

personnel and OPTEMPO of active Army units through integrated use of RC soldiers. The Guard provided 6,853 soldiers who provided 119,138 mandays in relief

of the Active Component troops.

Military Exchange Programs

Army Guard soldiers participated in three company-size reciprocal unit exchanges

with the United Kingdom and Germany. The exchanges provide soldiers and units

with valuable training while permitting each to become familiar with the other’s

military doctrine and tactics. The Minnesota Army National Guard established a

formal unit exchange with the Norwegian National Guard. This company-size exchange focuses on winter warfare operations. Thirteen Guard officers were exchanged with officers from the United Kingdom and Germany for two weeks of annual training.

Finally, the Puerto Rico Army National Guard participated in the Latin American

Co-op Exchange Program in the Caribbean basin. Each year, more than 500 soldiers

from Puerto Rico deploy to the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Barbados.

State Partnership Program

The Army Guard participated in the European Command’s Joint Contact Team

Program (JCTP) under the auspices of the National Guard’s State Partnership Program (SPP). Under the program, the Army National Guard serves as a model of a

military force subject to civil authority for Central European and former Soviet

Union countries.

The Guard is also providing instruction on military support to civil authorities in

planning and responding to civil emergencies and natural disasters. Other areas of

special interest for these countries are recruiting, retention, training of reserve

forces, and mobilization to support active Army forces.

In fiscal year 1997, the Army Guard provided traveling contact teams, seminar

participants, and state Adjutant General/Governor visits to Central European and

former Soviet Union countries, as well as hosting numerous familiarization tours to

the partner states in the continental United States. In fiscal year 1997, approximately 390 soldiers deployed to Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia,

Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland,

Republic of Georgia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and

Uzbekistan.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
361

For fiscal year 1998, the European Command’s Joint Contact Team Program

(JCTP) is being funded to support 10–12 Military Liaison Team positions and approximately 145 events in the European Theater.

Partnership for Peace

The National Guard Bureau also supports Partnership for Peace (PfP) events. In

fiscal year 1997, the Guard hosted familiarization and observation tours for the

Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Republic of Georgia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.

Foreign Military Sales Support

The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army has directed the Guard to provide training

in support of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to the Republic of Singapore. The Texas

Army National Guard provided CH–47D helicopter crewmember training and aircraft support to the Republic of Singapore Air Force.

Future Operations

In fiscal year 1998 the Army Guard plans to deploy nearly 22,000 soldiers to overseas theaters. These deployments will consist of JCS directed exercises, command

sponsored exercises, Humanitarian and Civic Assistance projects, Medical and Engineer Readiness and Training exercises, Special Operations Forces exercises, and

various types of mission augmentation support to overseas commands. Additionally,

Guard soldiers will participate in individual and small unit exchanges with the

Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway,

Dominican Republic, Barbados, and Jamaica.

Operational Support Airlift Command (OSACOM)

The Guard’s Operational Support Airlift Command (OSACOM) underwent significant changes in 1997. The Command was reorganized into two organizations: the

Operational Support Airlift Agency (OSAA) and OSACOM.

The Operational Support Airlift Agency provides command and control over the

Operational Support Airlift Command; manages the resourcing for CONUS and

OCONUS based Operational Support Airlift airplanes; maintains an airlift data collection and analysis system for the purposes of airlift asset management; and provides accountability for all fixed wing OSA missions and ensures compliance with

DOD, Army and ARNG directives, policies and regulations.

The Operational Support Airlift Command provides command and control the

Operational Support Airlift Regional Flight Centers and the Untied States Army

Priority Air Transport Detachment. It also provides priority air transportation for

the senior leadership of the Army, secure transport of classified materials and responsive OSA support to all Army components.

In fiscal year 1997, OSAA/OSACOM executed 9,520 missions, transporting 77,685

passengers, airlifting 1,103,668 pounds of cargo and flying more than 50,600 hours.

OSAA/OSACOM has also provided pilots and aircraft in support of a CENTCOM

mission in Saudi Arabia and pilots to support Operation Joint Guard. In fiscal year

1998, OSAA/OSACOM is projected to fly over 64,000 hours. OSAA continues to provide quality assurance of all Army mission requests submitted to Joint Operational

Scheduling Airlift Center (JOSAC) and oversight on performance of JOSAC missions

by Army OSA providers to increase the efficiency of OSA support for all Army users.

OSAA plans to inspect all ARNG Fixed Wing (FW) OSA assets in fiscal year 1998

and fiscal year 1999 through a Command Inspection Program (CIP). OSAA continues to improve automation capabilities through equipment and software upgrades

that will allow rapid resource adjustments based on operational demands.

The Army National Guard at Home

In fiscal year 1997, men and women of the Army and Air National Guard in 54

states and territories served their communities during 308 emergency response missions, expending over 280,000 mandays. Of these 308 call-ups, 146 were natural disasters, 35 were civil emergencies, 39 were in support of law enforcement agencies,

and 88 were other miscellaneous types of missions. The ability to call upon the

Guard on an ‘‘as-needed’’ basis for State support missions demonstrates the value

of a part-time, trained, and ready community based force. These domestic support

missions reinforce the Guard’s preeminent role as the military’s first responder

when emergencies strike.

The National Guard’s most significant domestic activities during fiscal year 1997

involved operations supporting recovery from natural disasters. Army Guardsmen

provided assistance during Hurricanes Fran (North Carolina), and Hortense (Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands), and numerous emergency support functions in connection with flooding in the Midwest and the Ohio River valley. Internationally, the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
362

Wyoming Guard deployed three C–130 aircraft (two equipped with the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) to Indonesia in October 1997 to assist in

fighting fires affecting that nation’s rain forest.

El Nin ̃ o Consequence Management

Experts studying this weather trend predicted the worst El Nin ̃ o in recent years.

The Guard is consistently prepared to assist in recovery from natural disasters associated with these weather effects. As an integral part of these efforts, the ARNG

assisted state and local agencies in managing consequences of the El Nin ̃ o phenomenon.

A conference on El Nin ̃ o took place in January 1998 at the National Interagency

Counterdrug Institute (NICI) in San Luis Obispo, CA, with a primary purpose of

promoting cooperation and mutual support between the states. Key issues discussed

included the status of compacts between States/Territories, the development of El

Nin ̃ o threat awareness, assessment, and the study of potential impacts on certain

geographic areas of the country.

The ARNG continues to monitor the status of engineer equipment, water purification units, and sandbag inventories within states likely to be affected by El Nin ̃ o,

and other flood-prone states and is continuing to plan for a variety of assistance and

support.

Depot Maintenance

The Army National Guard depot maintenance program is based on a ‘‘repair and

return to user’’ premise. This means Army National Guard equipment is repaired

to deployable standards and returned to the owning units. The Army National

Guard does not have an equipment maintenance float.

Backlogs and carryover from year to year increase the unserviceable equipment

that must be supported. A depot maintenance backlog decreases the Army National

Guard capability to meet assigned materiel readiness goals, decreases the quantities

of serviceable equipment available to support Army National Guard training programs, and impairs the Army National Guard capability to rapidly mobilize and deploy high priority units. Depot level maintenance of aging Army National Guard

equipment is the key to obtaining the highest possible level of Army National Guard

equipment readiness.

The Army National Guard Depot Maintenance Program is funded at 35 percent

of its total requirement for fiscal year 1999. Funding for this vital area is expected

to increase slightly in the out years but depot maintenance requirements for the enhanced Separate Brigades continue to remain a key concern. For fiscal year 1999,

funding levels for the enhanced Separate Brigades remain at 60 percent, while the

funded levels for divisions is eight percent of depot maintenance requirements.

TRAINING AND EDUCATION

The Guard continued to place great emphasis on the training and education of

ARNG personnel in 1997. Training and education initiatives included the Select,

Train, Promote and Assign Policy and the Distance Learning Initiative. Additional

support in this area was provided by the Visual Information Support Center in

Nashville, TN. Finally, operations at ARNG Aviation Training Sites (AATS) and the

Army’s Combat Training Centers round out Guard Training and education efforts.

Select, Train, Promote, and Assign Policy

The Select, Train, Promote, and Assign (STPA) Policy is a personnel management

system designed to increase readiness through more effective personnel management practices. This policy directs the expenditure of individual training funds to

those enlisted soldiers on a promotion list for current or projected vacancies. The

intent is to match individual and unit training requirements at the appropriate

grade level and occupational specialty. This procedure maximizes the use of scarce

training money and delivers trained soldiers to fill unit vacancies.

Distance Learning

In many ways, the Distance Learning Program represents the future of training

and education in the Army National Guard. The Distance Learning Program upgrades armory space to high tech classrooms, all of which are linked by fiber optic

cable to centralized teleconference facilities. The result is a fully interactive classroom where both military and non-military studies can be conducted.

The Distance Learning initiative continues to expand its scope in compliance with

congressional intent and funding. Nine prototype classrooms with their supporting

communications links are operational in Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia.

During fiscal year 1998, plans call for installation of over 150 additional distance

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
363

learning classrooms impacting all states and territories. The classroom network is

primarily intended to increase the mobilization readiness of the National Guard

force structure via advanced information technology classrooms and networks. Concurrently, the infrastructure will provide state-of-the-art technology assets to local

communities through shared use arrangements. Close collaboration has been maintained with DOD agencies, state and local governments, and other civil and military

organizations to ensure the implementation of appropriate technologies.

Critical to the success of the distance learning program is the establishment of

a robust and dynamic telecommunication infrastructure which combines voice,

video, and data traffic into one economical, highly efficient integrated network. The

ARNG is currently provisioning a comprehensive communications network utilizing

Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) technology which will extend from NGB to all

State Area Commands (STARC) and ultimately to every classroom connected to the

architecture. This network will consolidate and upgrade numerous telecommunications functions currently operating in solitary, stovepipe environments. When

fully operational, the system will provide significant opportunities for more efficient,

effective, and economical communications links throughout the ARNG. As of first

quarter fiscal year 1998, all States and Territories will be connected to the new digital network and classroom expansion is beginning.

Visual Information Support Center

The Visual Information Support Center (VISC) in Nashville, Tennessee, continued

to serve as the Army Guard production center for a variety of Visual Information

(VI) products including regional multimedia imaging, banners, posters and the duplication of videotapes and compact discs. During fiscal year 1997, the VISC developed visual information products for recruiting and retention and drug demand reduction for a variety of DOD and State organizations. In addition, the VISC produced several training and public service announcements and documented numerous Army Guard events for historical purposes. The VISC also provided audio-visual

support to Marketing NCO Class 1997–2002 and the 1997 Public Affairs workshop.

Finally, the VISC Rapid Response Documentation Team videotaped numerous

ARNG units engaged in disaster relief support missions.

ARNG Aviation Training Sites (AATS)

The ARNG missions three Aviation Training Sites designated as national training

assets for the Total Army. The Eastern ARNG Aviation Training Site (EAATS) is

located at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania and conducts Aviator Qualification

Courses, Enlisted Training Courses, NCOES and Foreign Military Sales training for

UH–1, UH–60 and CH–47D helicopters. The Western ARNG Aviation Training Site

(WAATS) is located at Silver Bell Army Heliport, Marana, Arizona and conducts

Aviator Qualification Courses, Enlisted Training Courses, NCOES, and Foreign

Military Sales training for AH–1F, OH–58 helicopters and RAID aircraft. AH–1F

training is only conducted at the WAATS for the Total Army and future plans are

to conduct AH–64A helicopter training at this location in fiscal year 1999. The High

Altitude Aviation Training Site (HATS) is located in Gypsum, Colorado and conducts high altitude power management courses in Utility and Observation aircraft

for Active Component, Reserve Component and Foreign Military Sales. The Aviation

and Safety Division, in coordination with Operational Support Airlift Command

(OSACOM) also operates the Fixed-Wing Aviation Training Site (FWATS) in Clarksburg, West Virginia. The FWATS conducts Aircraft qualification courses in C–12,

C–26, and C–23 fixed wing aircraft for the Total Army. Both the EAATS and

WAATS are regional simulation sites, offering simulation support to the Total Army

in AH–1F, UH–1H, UH–60, and AH–64 helicopters. Future plans will move a CH–

47D simulator to EAATS and an additional AH–64 Combat Mission Simulator

(CMS) to WAATS in fiscal year 1998.

Combat Training Centers (CTC)

The ARNG participates in all of the Army’s CTC’s; The National Training Center

(NTC), Fort Irwin, CA, the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, LA,

the Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC), Hohenfels, GE, and the Battle

Command Training Program (BCTP), Fort Leavenworth, KS. The Brigade Command

Battle Staff Training Program (BCBST) is a subset of BCTP. The Army CTC program is divided into live simulation (NTC, JRTC, and CMTC) and constructive simulation (BCTP and BCBST). The ARNG CTC program schedules units to attend the

CTC’s in the following capacities; rotational (BLUFOR) units, augmentation to other

ARNG and AC rotational (including BLUFOR) units, augmentation to CTC Opposing Forces (OPFOR), and other types of support based on the needs of the CTC’s.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
364

National Training Center (NTC)

The National Training Center, located at Fort Irwin, CA is the Army’s premier

heavy maneuver Combat Training Center (CTC). As large as the state of Rhode Island, the fully instrumented NTC allows live Brigade level force-on-force exercises

to be conducted numerous times each year. The ARNG receives one brigade rotation

at the NTC each year. Rotations are allocated to the eight mechanized infantry/armored enhanced Separate Brigades (eSB’s), making the rotation schedule once every

eight years for each brigade. Based on associated Active Component unit input and

using FORSCOM/ARNG Reg. 350–2, dated 1 March 95, (FORSCOM Commander’s

Assessment Matrix), the Adjutant General determines whether the unit has met the

training requirements and will attend its scheduled rotation. The 116th enhanced

Separate Armored Brigade (ID) will attend in fiscal year 1998, and the 155th enhanced Separate Armored Brigade (MS) is scheduled to attend in fiscal year 1999.

The ARNG receives and allocates five Leader Training Program (LTP) rotations

annually. The LTP’s are six days in length, and enhance staff coordination and combat decision making skills. Three LTP’s are allocated to heavy brigades that attend

NTC. Two LTP’s go to light brigades that will attend JRTC. LTP’s include a Tactical

Exercise Without Troops (TEWT) and a JANUS battle staff trainer simulated exercise tied to the CTC terrain and fought against the CTC OPFOR.

Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC)

The Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) is the light infantry equivalent of

the Army’s NTC. Located at Fort Polk, LA, JRTC hosts light infantry and special

operations forces from all components for rotations stretching throughout the year.

The ARNG receives one brigade rotation each year. The rotations are allocated to

the seven light infantry enhanced Separate Brigades (eSB’s). As with the other

eSB’s, the Adjutant General determines if the unit will attend. The 41st eSB (OR)

is scheduled to attend in fiscal year 1998 and the 29th eSB (HI) is scheduled to attend in fiscal year 1999.

The ARNG receives and allocates two LTP rotations annually. These rotations are

allocated to the eSB’s based on units’ relative calendar proximity to scheduled JRTC

rotations.

As with the NTC, training opportunities exist for Combat Arms, Combat Support

and Combat Service Support units to augment BLUFOR and OPFOR units and to

provide installation support.

Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC)

The Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC), Hohenfels, Germany, combines

aspects of the NTC and JRTC for U.S. Forces assigned to U.S. Army Europe. Attendance at the CMTC involves Overseas Deployment Training (ODT). The scheduling of units and training opportunities is managed by NGB. Elements of the 3d Battalion, 126th Infantry (Air Assault), Michigan Army National Guard, augmented the

1st Battalion 508th Airborne Battalion Combat Team’s AC BLUFOR rotation in August and September 1997. Opportunities exist for Combat Arms, Combat Support

and Combat Service units to augment the OPFOR and to provide installation support. ARNG support for the CMTC is considered vital to the Center’s continued viability as a CTC.

Training Opportunities

In addition to dedicated Guard rotations at NTC and JRTC, numerous opportunities exist for Guard units to augment Active Component maneuver forces at the

CTC’s. Units required by the CTC’s for the augmentation of Active Component rotations include Field Artillery MET sections and Tactical Operations Centers (TOC),

Main Support Battalions, ADA Batteries, MP Platoons, chemical companies, and MI

companies. In addition, each NTC and JRTC rotation requires engineer and infantry

elements to serve as Opposing Forces (OPFOR), and various CSS assets to provide

general rotation support.

LEVERAGING TRAINING TECHNOLOGY

The Army National Guard made extensive use of simulation in training again this

year. As in the past, these simulations have provided a stressful training environment for commanders, staffs, units, and individual soldiers to practice skills necessary for fighting and winning on today’s battlefield. Simulations provide equivalent difficulty and greatly enhanced repetitive training at a fraction of the cost of

‘‘full-up’’ live training experiences. The Army National Guard plans to aggressively

pursue the leveraging of simulation technologies in Guard training in the future.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
365

Simulation in Training for Advanced Readiness (Project SIMITAR)

The joint Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)/ARNG project

SIMITAR (Simulation in Training for Advanced Readiness) continued its development of training simulation technologies, methodologies and strategies for use by

ARNG heavy maneuver Brigades. The interjection of these initiatives into the 48th

Bde. (Georgia ARNG), and the 116th Cavalry Bde. (Oregon, Montana, and Idaho

National Guard) continued in fiscal year 1997 with an NTC rotation by the 48th

Bde. Concurrently, the 116th Bde. completed a SIMITAR assisted Annual Training

(AT) at Gowen Field Idaho in which the Bde. successfully qualified on Tank Table

VIII by day two of the AT period. 116th followed up this success by conducting

Table XII by day six. Both of these milestones were achieved through use of a variety of training simulations that allowed execution of most preliminary gunnery and

maneuver activities prior to the Annual Training (AT) period.

Simulation in training initiatives developed or modified by project SIMITAR include the A-FIST, the ARPA Reconfigurable Simulator Initiative (ARSI), the Digital

Systems Test and Training Simulator (DSTATS), and an updated version of the

JANUS battle-staff trainer developed in cooperation with DARPA. Fiscal year 1997

also witnessed the introduction of several completely new initiatives, including DFIRST and Bradley FIST. D-FIRST is a live force-on-force company-team level system that replaces MILES by using highly accurate Global Positioning System (GPS)

devices to track engagements. Bradley-FIST, an initiative that combines the Bradley

Conduct of Fire Trainer (COFT) with the Engagement Skills Trainer (EST), allows

Bradley Crewmembers to interact with dismounted elements simultaneously in simulation for the first time.

STEP (SIMITAR Training Exportable Package)

Following the success of the SIMITAR program, ARNG leaders explored ways to

apply the most successful aspects of this experimental effort to the Guard as a

whole. The result of this study is the SIMITAR Training Exportable Package

(STEP). Like SIMITAR, STEP is a training package designed to prepare brigades

for a Combat Training Center (CTC) rotation. The package contains a training strategy, methodologies and technologies that when applied give ARNG brigades the skill

set required to perform Brigade Combat Team (BCT) operations at a CTC.

STEP is a unit sustainment training program that is home station based and employs simulations to the greatest extent possible to conduct structured training. The

strategies, methodologies and technologies developed for SIMITAR are refined, packaged and presented to ARNG separate brigades during years 6, 7, and 8 of their

8 year training cycle.

STEP provides training in three key areas:

Battlestaff Training.—This component uses the JANUS constructive exercise system to train battalion and brigade battle staffs in a rigorous and structured way.

JANUS exercises are executed at home station.

Unit Collective Training.—This component employs both virtual maneuver and

virtual gunnery devices to conduct training at home station. The Compressed Gunnery Strategy is the center piece of the collective piece which allows a unit to conduct both gunnery and maneuver in the same year.

Combat Service Support (CSS) and individual training.—STEP uses computer

based training systems to the maximum extent possible. A CSS training strategy

that focuses on CTC support to maneuver battalions in all three combat missions

is emphasized.

STEP is the system required to prepare a BCT to meet the rigors of a CTC rotation. By implementing a sequential and progressive training strategy that is device

based coupled with demanding live training, an ARNG separate brigade can have

a successful CTC rotation.

Aviation Reconfigurable Manned Simulator

The Army National Guard is developing an Aviation Reconfigurable Manned Simulator (ARMS) as a cost-effective solution to enhance flying safety and readiness.

This system is being developed with the mutual cooperation and support of the U.S.

Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC) and the Army’s Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM). It can be quickly reconfigured to each of the

rotary and fixed wing airframes flown in the Army Guard. The device is a collective

training simulator which provides for a 360 degree virtual environment, a helmet

mounted display system, accurate cockpit housing, realistic controls and essential

panels, and tactile-interactive cockpit panels. Each ARMS provides training in individual and crew tasks, and focuses on collective, combined arms, and joint service

operations. Reconfigurable simulators such as ARMS complement existing older

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
366

technology simulators as well as future training technologies. ARNG Aviation’s requirement is for six company-size sets of 6 cockpits each for a total of 36 cockpits,

each set transportable to any ARNG unit as needed.

Training, Readiness and Operations Unit Planning, Execution and Resourcing System

The Training, Readiness and Operations Unit Planning, Execution and Resourcing System (TROUPERS), will provide ARNG leaders with the tools to maximize

training benefits and support the full execution of training funds. TROUPERS is a

reports generator that draws information from existing Standard Army Management Information System (STAMIS) databases and provides the state and national

leadership tools to plan, allocate resources and monitor the execution of annual

training, schools, special training and Inactive Duty Training. The system allows

senior leaders access to budget information relating to reservation, obligation, execution and forecasted year-end execution for Annual Training, Individual Duty Training, Schools and Special Training.

SAFETY PROGRAM

The Army National Guard safety program is based upon individual responsibility

and leader commitment to safe operations in all environments. Guard supervisors

and soldiers at all levels must work to ensure that all possible precautions are observed during deployments, training, or on domestic support operations. Central

tenants of the Guard safety program include risk management, leadership, discipline, and strict adherence to Total Army safety standards.

Aviation Safety

The ARNG takes an aggressive approach to safety, and this has resulted in the

lowest aviation accident rate in the history of the Army National Guard. The Army

National Guard leads the rest of DOD in aviation safety and has developed a safety

program that other military organizations emulate.

Despite dwindling resources, the ARNG safely executed an aggressive flying hour

program in fiscal year 1997 with a Class A–C accident rate of only 2.76 accidents

per 100,000 flying hours. Unfortunately, the year was marked by an increase in the

engine failure rate in the UH–1 Huey helicopter that resulted in two serious accidents. The reliability of this engine is being reviewed and flight restrictions have

been placed on affected aircraft pending further engineering studies.

The greatest challenge to Army National Guard aviation safety is the continued

reduction in aviation training funds. Units have reported a decrease in pilot proficiency in high demand aviation tasks such as night vision goggle operations and

multi-ship low level flight. Given current trends in aviator proficiency and increased

operational demands, an eventual increase in the aviation accident rate is anticipated.

Ground Safety

Army National Guard efforts in ground safety were highly successful in fiscal year

1997. The Army National Guard experienced a five percent decrease in ground accidents during the course of the year. Of the accidents that occurred in fiscal year

1997, sixty-five percent resulted in personal injury, nineteen percent involved Army

Motor Vehicles and eleven percent involved privately owned vehicles. However, vehicular accidents account for a disproportionately high number of fatal injuries. In

an effort to combat vehicular accidents the Army National Guard launched an aggressive campaign that included unit level training and a national awareness campaign.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

The Army National Guard experienced an eight percent decline in workers compensation claims in fiscal year 1997. The Army National Guard will continue to emphasize employee training and OSHA compliance to decrease accidents. In addition,

the Army National Guard will come into full compliance with DOD mandated

ergonomics programs.

Ergonomic related injuries are the leading cause of ARNG workman’s compensation claims. The Army National Guard has developed a new partnership with the

Department of Labor that includes early intervention and return to work of injured

employees.

ARNG Risk Management

The Army National Guard’s primary focus for fiscal year 1998 is to comply with

the Army’s mandate to integrate risk management into all processes and operations.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
367

The Guard will use risk management as its primary accident prevention and loss

avoidance tool.

The goals of the ARNG risk management integration program include educating

all Guard soldiers and civilians on the five steps of Army risk management and incorporating risk management into mission planning, policy and processes.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM

The Army National Guard Environmental Program emphasizes responsible stewardship of the land and facilities managed by the ARNG and ensures compliance

with environmental laws and regulations. This is accomplished by promoting the

Army’s environmental goals through the ARNG environmental compliance, conservation and restoration efforts in all 54 states and territories.

Compliance

Increased funding will help accelerate the ARNG’s transition to a more proactive

compliance posture. Prior to fiscal year 1998 the ARNG did not receive sufficient

funding to meet all of its environmental requirements. As a result, spending was

confined to critical environmental projects.

For fiscal year 1999, funding for ARNG environmental programs is sufficient to

allow for the completion of many deferred projects, thereby permitting a renewed

emphasis on pollution prevention and environmental stewardship. For example, expanded solvent substitution programs will simultaneously reduce hazardous waste

generation, disposal costs, and exposure risks to soldiers and civilians. Moreover,

improvements to Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans, secondary

containment systems for fuel tankers, and wastewater treatment systems will soon

occur.

The ARNG will consequently possess the resources necessary to support and enhance training and to provide power projection platforms from its more than 3,200

highly dispersed CONUS facilities.

Maintaining a high degree of environmental compliance will require timely and

accurate corporate information management. To this end, the Windows Compliance

Assessment and Sustainment Software (WINCASS) will fully integrate the ARNG’s

Environmental Compliance and Assessment System (ECAS) into a developing, comprehensive environmental reporting network. ECAS will be the first automated tool

to implement alternating internal and external assessments and will permit continuous evaluation of regulatory compliance conditions and management systems.

Conservation

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the ARNG consider

the significant environmental effects of its major actions or decisions. Pursuant to

the NEPA, programmatic environmental assessments will realize cost savings to the

ARNG for fiscal year 1999. Moreover, all installations will continue working to ensure Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans and Cultural Resource Management Plans are in place by fiscal year 2000. The Forestry Reinvention initiative

will streamline timber sales, ensuring greater return of funds to the installations

and local communities. The Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) implementation strategy to analyze and manage environmental impacts on training facilities and maneuver areas. This is being aggressively implemented at 54 separate locations with the goal of having all primary training sites under the same system

by fiscal year 1999.

Restoration

The ARNG’s most significant environmental challenge continues to be the cleanup of past-practice contamination. In fiscal year 1999 NGB and Massachusetts

ARNG will be in the final stages of actions associated with ground water investigation and pollution prevention activities at the Massachusetts Military Reservation

(MMR). However, additional challenges to resolution of existing EPA administrative

orders at MMR could require budgeting and expenditure beyond fiscal year 1999

dollars. This budget must also meet the costs of the continuing evaluation of other

sites and the cleaning of those where contamination is identified. Moreover, restoration of facilities recently acquired by the ARNG such as Fort McClellan, Fort

Indiantown Gap and others that are contaminated from past DOD practices will

also require funding.

The Army National Guard is conducting Preliminary Assessments and Site Inspections (PA/SI) with program management funds from the Environmental Restoration Army (ER, A) account. Unfortunately, dramatically increasing numbers of

requirements will likely overwhelm funding. Because of this, the ARNG will require

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
368

Operations and Maintenance (OM) funding to conduct required PA/SI activities projected for fiscal year 1999 and later years.

IN TOUCH WITH OUR PAST ... FOCUSED ON OUR FUTURE

A look back at fiscal year 1997 shows an Army National Guard that successfully

met its obligations to its people and to the Nation as a whole. As the information

in the preceding pages attests, the Guard did more in 1997 with proportionally

fewer resources than at any other time in its long history. Despite these successes,

current trends suggest that the Guard faces even greater challenges in the years

ahead. Aided by Army National Guard Vision 2010, and the leadership of Guardsmen throughout the country, the Guard will successfully meet every challenge as

it enters the 21st century.

APPENDIX A: NCO’S AND SOLDIERS OF THE YEAR

The Army National Guard consists of far more than equipment or funding. The

people that make up the Guard represent its greatest resources. Accomplishing

Guard missions would be impossible without the dedicated work by Guard members

throughout the nation. This page is dedicated to those Guard soldiers who distinguished themselves during fiscal year 1997. We salute them, and Guard members

like them everywhere.

SGT Richard S. Boggan, Co. A, 1st Bn, 20th Special Forces Group, Auburn, Alabama, First Army NCO of the Year.

SSG Pamela B. Paff, HHC, 1st Bn, 207th Aviation, Anchorage, Alaska, Pacific Region NCO of the Year.

SSG Todd D. Smith, 3650th Maintenance Co (-), Golden, Colorado, Fifth Army

NCO of the Year.

SPC Daniel K. Lankford, 1993d Personnel Detachment, Enterprise, Alabama,

First Army Soldier of the Year.

SPC James L. Redcorn, Jr., E Troop, 145th Cavalry, McAlester, Oklahoma, Fifth

Army Soldier of the Year.

SPC Le Kim Lee, Co. C (Medical), 29th Support Battalion, Honolulu, Hawaii, Pacific Region Soldier of the Year.

APPENDIX B: CONSTITUTIONAL ‘‘CHARTER’’ OF THE GUARD

OUR CHARTER IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Militia Clauses. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of

‘‘militia clauses,’’ vesting distinct authority in the Federal government and the State

governments.

Clause 14 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling

up the militia: ‘‘to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel

invasions.’’ All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the

United States.

Clause 15 gives Congress the power ‘‘to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in

the service of the United States.’’ That same clause specifically reserves to the

States the authority to establish a State-based militia, to appoint the officers, and

to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit Federal power over State militias during peacetime.

Armies Clause. The ‘‘armies clause’’ in Article I, Section 8 conferred on the Congress the power to provide for the common defense of the United States, declare

war, raise and support armies, and make rules for the ‘‘government and regulation

of the land and naval forces.’’ The Congress also was granted authority to make all

laws ‘‘necessary and proper’’ for carrying out such powers. Under this provision, congressional power over the National Guard appears to be far-reaching.

Other Relevant Provisions. Other sections add to the constitutional underpinnings

of our national defense structure. Article I, Section 10 provides that no State, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace,

or engage in war unless actually invaded. This section was qualified, however, by

the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which was intended to prevent the Federal government from disarming the militia. Part of the Bill of Rights that the AntiFederalists insisted on, states: ‘‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed.’’

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
369

In addition, Article IV, Section 4 provides that the Federal government ‘‘shall

guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,’’ and shall

protect each of the States against invasion. At State request, the Federal government was to protect the States ‘‘against domestic violence.’’ Through these provisions, the potential for both cooperative Federalism and for tension between the ‘‘militia’’ and ‘‘army’’ clauses was built into the Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 places all forces, including the militia when in Federal service, under the control of the executive branch by making the president commanderin-chief. Article I, Section 8 gave the ultimate control to the Congress, however, by

granting it the sole power to collect taxes to pay for the military, to declare war,

and to employ the militia for common purposes of internal security. Existing State

militias could be maintained, although troops could be called into national service.

But the founding fathers moderated that authority by leaving the individual States

with the explicit responsibility for appointing officers and for supervising peacetime

training of the citizen-soldiers.

Militia Act of 1792. Federal policy subsequently expanded and clarified the role

of the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 required all able bodied men aged 18–45 to

serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense, and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established an idea of organizing these militia forces

into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as directed

by the State legislatures.

For the 111 years that it remained in effect, this act defined the position of the

militia in relation to the Federal government. The War of 1812 tested this unique

American defense establishment. To fight that war, the new republic formed a small

regular military, and trained it to protect the frontiers and coastlines. Although it

performed poorly in the offensive against Canada, this small force of regulars, when

backed by a well-armed militia, accomplished its defensive mission in the War of

1812. Generals like Andrew Jackson proved, just as they had in the Revolution, that

regulars and militia could be effective when employed as a team.

With the coming of the Civil War, State militias played a pivotal role. Because

the Regular Army was so small throughout the nineteenth century and the Army

Reserve did not exist, the majority of Army units which carry Civil War battle honors are from the Army National Guard.

Posse Comitatus. In 1867, the Congress suspended the southern States’ right to

organize their militias until a State was firmly under the control of an acceptable

government. The U.S. Army was used to enforce martial law in the South during

Reconstruction. Expansion of the military’s role in domestic life, however, did not

occur without debate or response. Reaction to the use of the Army in suppressing

labor unrest in the North and guarding polls in the South during the 1876 election

led to congressional enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. Designed to

limit the president’s use of military forces in peacetime, this statute provided that:

it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United

States*** for the purpose of executing the laws, except on such cases

and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by any act of Congress***

Concern over this new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need

for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every State revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most called their State militias the National Guard following New York’s example.

The Dick Act. Beginning in 1903 through the 1920’s, legislation was enacted that

strengthened the National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The

Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as

the Army’s primary organized reserve.

The National Defense Act of 1916 further expanded the Guard’s role and guaranteed the State militias’ status as the Army’s primary reserve force. Furthermore, the

law mandated use of the term ‘‘National Guard’’ for that force. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48, and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

The National Defense Act Amendments of 1920 established that the chief of the

Militia Bureau (later National Guard Bureau) would be a National Guard officer,

that National Guard officers would be assigned to the general staff, and that the

divisions, as used by the Guard in World War I, would be reorganized. Subsequent

amendments to the act, the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933, created the

National Guard of the United States as a component of the Army at all times, which

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
370

could be ordered into active Federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.

Following the experience of fighting an unpopular war in Vietnam, the 1973 Total

Force Policy was designed to involve a large portion of the American public by mobilizing the National Guard from its thousands of locations throughout the United

States when needed. The Total Force Policy requires that all active and reserve

military organizations of the United States be treated as a single integrated force.

A related benefit of this approach is to permit elected officials to have a better sense

of public support or opposition to any major military operation. This policy echoes

the original intentions of the founding fathers for a small standing army complemented by citizen soldiers.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. PAUL A. WEAVER, JR.

Senator STEVENS. Let me welcome you, General Weaver, on your

first appearance before the committee. We are delighted to have

you here before us and look forward to the opportunity to work

with you, and we will be happy to have your statement.

General WEAVER. Mr. Chairman and members of this great committee and staff, I am glad to be here not only on behalf of the

109,000 men and women of the Air National Guard, but also as a

part of the total Air Force team, one team speaking with one voice

and with one vision of the future.

I have entered a statement for the record.

Today, more than ever, the Air Force relies on its total force, Active, Guard, and Reserve working together to meet today’s peacekeeping and wartime commitments. The Air National Guard continues to play a national role in every major deployment and contingency tasking, with an average 1997 participation of 5,000 volunteer Guard men and women deployed each month.

Most importantly, I know this committee fully understands that

this is with the full support of their families, their communities,

and their employers, and it is this full spectrum link of families,

communities, and employers that allows continued use of our military forces in support of our national security strategy while satisfying the values criteria of the American public.

But it is also worth noting that this Air National Guard participation is not just around the edges. It is in the thick of things

wherever and whenever the Air Force is involved.

Please let me point out that the first bombs dropped in Bosnia

were dropped from a Maryland Air National Guard A–10 unit that

was deployed to the theater. The second bombs dropped were by

Massachusetts A–10 unit, also deployed to the theater.

These are people that only days earlier were having breakfast

with their families and going to their civilian jobs, but were now

proudly serving this great Nation through the use of air power,

which reduced the overall level of violence and stopped the genocide. That link with the civilian population is critical as our military strategy runs the gamut from small-scale contingencies to

major theater wars.

Something else worth noting is that while the Air National

Guard and Reserve participated in only 11 contingencies and humanitarian missions between 1953 and 1990, we were a part of

more than 40 contingencies between 1991 and 1997. The frequency

and tempo is rising, and that calls for your continued congressional

support.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
371

As our Nation continues to transition from the cold war era to

meet the 21st century strategic challenges, we know the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve will be involved in even

more mission areas that are total Air Force endeavors to provide

the aerospace power resources which are so much of a part of our

American advantage.

We are working diligently to develop new concepts which emphasize the revolution in both business and military affairs, coupled

with new future total force unit ideas that will assure that we can

continue to provide the aerospace advantages in an era of constrained resources.

But we can only do so much internally. The American warrior of

the future, whether on land, sea, or air, must always be able to rely

on the aerospace advantage when he or she goes into harm’s way.

The obligation to assure that aerospace advantage is always available is a solemn trust both the Air Force and the Congress share

together.

PREPARED STATEMENT

We in the Air National Guard are proud of our expanding role

in the national defense, and look forward to the next phase of

transformation and our continued partnership with the total Air

Force and with this great Nation.

Sir, I look forward to your questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. PAUL A. WEAVER, JR.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to

appear before this committee, not only on behalf of the 109,000 men and women of

the Air National Guard, but also as part of the Total Air Force team.

It is an honor for me to represent this world class organization, which has a proud

heritage and an essential role in this nation’s defense. With the inception of the National Guard 361 years ago in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the ideal of the American soldier emerged—a civilian who would take up arms when the nation was endangered, and then return to civilian pursuits when the crisis had passed. This concept has remained unchanged throughout our nation’s history and guardsmen and

women have proudly served in every American conflict. Today we are deployed

around the world in support of peacekeeping missions, contingencies and exercises.

We also are hard at work in our communities, whenever and wherever we are needed.

AIR NATIONAL GUARD ROLE IN NATIONAL SECURITY

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to share with you an array of relevant Air National Guard issues. These issues are relevant for Congressional consideration in reviewing our role as an integral part of the national defense strategy. I am proud

to provide you our current Air National Guard posture.

The Quadrennial Defense Review

One very important aspect of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) was the reaffirmation of the importance of the Total Force Policy. The Air Force fully embraces

this concept and we proudly provide a significant portion of the wherewithal for our

service to effectively accomplish its entire range of military options. The Air National Guard budget for fiscal year 1999 reflects this support as we convert four F–

16 air defense units to F–16 general purpose fighter units. In addition, this budget

converts one F–16 squadron to C–130’s, and one F–16 training unit to F–15’s to better serve the needs of the entire nation.

The Air National Guard Long Range Plan

With our telescope on tomorrow, the Air National Guard has developed a LongRange Air National Guard Plan that provides a framework within which to impleU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
372

ment our strategic vision. It contains expectations of our commitment to maintain

a ready force capable of projecting American military power and providing community support. It further outlines our plans to modernize those capabilities to protect

our Nation’s security and community interests well into the next century.

Air National Guard Stability

Fiscal year 1999 is a year of relative stability within the Air National Guard.

While we have five unit conversions as a result of the QDR, our manpower, aircraft,

flying hours, and facilities are generally consistent with fiscal year 1998. We expect

this stability to continue. For the Guard, this means that after an extended period

of turmoil surrounding unit deactivations, personnel drawdowns and other necessary changes, our people see light at the end of this tumultuous tunnel. We see

the Air National Guard of the future. It is lean, well equipped, highly motivated,

and extremely well trained to accomplish any mission.

CONTEMPORARY AIR NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONS

As our Nation continues the transition to meet 21st century strategic challenges,

the Air National Guard will be involved in even more mission areas as our Total

Air Force continues to provide the aerospace resources which are so much a part

of our American advantage.

Readiness

We are ready to deliver appropriate and sufficient forces whenever and wherever

called, whether for an international crisis, peacekeeping mission, or a hometown

emergency. Personnel and training, well-maintained aircraft and equipment, and financial resources are critical to our success. A shortfall in any of these negatively

impacts our readiness levels. Unique to the reserve components, however, our readiness is also a function of family and employer support for our largely part-time

force. It is a testament to the Air Force’s commitment to Total Force Policy that the

percentage of Air National Guard units maintaining the highest two readiness levels is virtually identical to the active component.

Since 1986, the active Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent, while military operations other than war have greatly increased. This has necessitated a

greater reliance on the reserve components, the Guard and Reserve, to relieve the

stress of high OPSTEMPO/PERSTEMPO. While the Air National Guard and Air

Force Reserve participated in only 11 contingencies and humanitarian missions between 1953–1990, we were a part of more than 40 between 1991–1997. The frequency and tempo are rising and we need your continued support.

The Total Air Force

In 1997, the Air National Guard participated in every major deployment and contingency tasking, with an average of 5,000 volunteer guard men and woman deployed each month. It’s important to note that this Air National Guard participation

was not ‘‘just around the edges.’’ We were in the thick of things side by side with

the Air Force. For example, the first bombs dropped in Bosnia were dropped by a

Maryland Air National Guard A–10 unit deployed to the theater. Equally noteworthy, the second bombs dropped were by a Massachusetts Air National Guard

unit. These are people who only weeks earlier were performing their civilian jobs,

but were now proudly serving the Nation through the application of air power.

Our successful integration into the total force is derived from three key factors:

the recognition of our capabilities by Air Force commanders, a commitment to participate as a full partner in the Air Force budgeting process, and staff integration.

The National Defense Panel observed that the Guard would play an increasing

role in a variety of worldwide operations. Today, more than ever, the Air Force relies on the Total Force, Active Duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve

working together to meet all commitments. Combatant commanders long ago ceased

to ask whether Air Force units deployed to their theaters were active duty, Guard

or Reserve. Warfighting commanders rightfully expect any unit from our Total Force

to provide needed capabilities.

The Air National Guard is also a full partner in the Air Force corporate budget

process. We are involved in every stage of the planning, programming and budgeting cycle, and have membership with the active duty Air Force and Air Force Reserve on each programming panel, the Air Force Group, Air Force Board and Air

Force Council. The Air Force continues to fund our OPSTEMPO/PERSTEMPO,

training, infrastructure and personnel at levels comparable to the active duty force.

Likewise, they provide the source of our modernization, which is based on the needs

and requirements of our gaining Major Commands (MAJCOM’s). We greatly appreciate the support Congress has shown to the Air National Guard in the past, enaU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
373

bling us to enhance our capabilities beyond what would have been possible under

existing budget constraints.

Our current staff integration initiative will strengthen an already superb working

relationship with the active Air Force. By the end of fiscal year 1999 we will assign

additional Air Guard personnel to unified and operating commands. We already

have Guard members in place at Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command,

most other MAJCOM’s and in several directorates on the Air Staff. The results have

been tremendous. The Air Force is also committed to place active duty personnel

at the National Guard Bureau and field units. We now have people where the decisions on force structure, equipment, and force employment are made and they ensure Guard capabilities are recognized and used. Likewise, active duty members

serving with the Guard become proponents of the Total Force approach.

AIR NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONS

The Air National Guard’s budget of $4.5 billion represents real added value for

this country. While it totals just 7.1 percent of the Air Force budget and 1.6 percent

of DOD’s, as the chart below shows, it provides a significant portion of the Air

Force’s military capability of the total force.

Percent

Air Sovereignty ...................................................................................................... 100

Fighters ................................................................................................................... 34

Theater Airlift ........................................................................................................ 46

Tankers ................................................................................................................... 45

Bombers .................................................................................................................. 12

Combat Rescue ....................................................................................................... 30

Strategic Airlift ...................................................................................................... 16

In support of this capability, Air National Guard aircrews serve an average of 110

days per year. As I mentioned earlier, an average of 5,000 Guard members were

deployed each month during fiscal year 1997 to support exercises, contingencies, and

military operations around the world. Air National Guard members deploy on a rotational basis, helping to reduce active duty PERSTEMPO while accommodating

their civilian employment. We have been very successful in meeting our deployment

commitments with volunteerism by rotating members. An example is our fighter

community. The first group to deploy takes aircraft, then members, perhaps from

other units, replace the aircrews and maintenance personnel while aircraft remain

throughout the deployment. This process of replacing crews continues for the duration of the deployment, permitting full support to the Air Force mission, while keeping the individual TDY rate to an acceptable level.

In many cases, the Guard and Reserve work together to provide extended support

to the active force. An example of a joint Guard and Reserve mission was the 24

July to 25 October 1997 deployment to perform sustainment airlift from Ramstein

Air Base, Germany, to the forces in the Balkans. Other major operations in 1997

included: the deployment of security forces to Saudi Arabia; the deployment of civil

engineers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers to Taszar, Hungary, as part of Operation Joint Guard; the use of KC–135’s to refuel fighter aircraft enforcing the nofly zone over Bosnia; and the use of F–15’s and F–16’s to enforce the no-fly zone

over Northern Iraq, as well as the use of rescue crews to provide combat rescue support for those forces.

In 1997, the Air National Guard flew over 3,200 readiness support airlift missions, 700 airborne transport missions, 500 fighter deployment air refueling missions, and performed a variety of other challenging operations. For example, in October 1997, three 153rd Airlift Wing C–130 aircraft, crews, and support personnel

from the Wyoming Air National Guard deployed to Jakarta, Indonesia, to help fight

devastating forest fires. The crews flew hundreds of hours during their 60-day deployment using their specially equipped C–130’s to help suppress fires over 3.5 million acres. During their deployment, the 153rd extinguished more than 70 fires in

open forest areas in the face of incredible challenges posed by heavy smoke and extremely dry conditions. This support allowed the Government of Indonesia sufficient

time to develop an effective fire fighting plan of its own and organize follow-on indigenous and commercial support to battle remaining fires.

As part of the overall restructuring of the Air Force, the Air National Guard has

expanded its operational capability to include heavy bomber operations. The 184th

Bomb Wing at McConnell AFB, KS was the first Air National Guard unit to become

fully mission capable in the B–1 bomber and the 116th Bomb Wing at Robins AFB,

GA also soon will achieve mission capable status. These two Air National Guard

units represent approximately 30 percent of the total B–1 capability. The Air NaU:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
374

tional Guard has demonstrated its capability in all aspects of the B–1 mission, to

include long-range Global Power missions to various overseas locations. We are now

examining ways to include these units and assets into the Air Expeditionary Force.

Space Operations

Air National Guard involvement in the space operations mission began in January

of 1996, when we activated the Air National Guard’s first space operations unit, the

137th Space Warning Squadron, in Greeley, CO. Our participation in other space

mission areas has also continued to progress. The 236th Combat Communications

Squadron in Hammond, LA has continued its outstanding support of the Space Warfare Center and the Air Force Space Support Teams.

Our success within the space operations world has evolved quickly and continues

to expand. As a result, the National Guard Bureau has extended its reach to Space

Command by establishing a Space Transition Team at Buckley Air National Guard

Base, CO. Its purpose is to act as an agent of the National Guard Bureau for mission transitions and identification of potential Air National Guard roles in space operations. The Guard’s unique ability to recruit and retain quality personnel with

specific capabilities and skills has not gone unnoticed. This capability is a hallmark

for the future; where the Air National Guard will be a key supplier of skills and

capabilities not normally found within the active duty Air Force.

Homeland Defense

Our homeland defense is a vital mission for the Air National Guard. A nation’s

right to exercise absolute control and authority over its national airspace above its

territory, international waters, and territorial seas, better known as ‘‘Air Sovereignty,’’ is an enduring mission. In January 1994, 1st Air Force was placed under

the command of an Air National Guard General Officer, Major General Philip G.

Killey; a first. This transition of the Air Defense command and control organization

to the Air National Guard strengthens the Air Defense role. While the QDR reroles

four air defense units in fiscal year 1999 to general-purpose fighters, our commitment to this mission remains solid.

In the future, the Air National Guard is destined to play an even greater role in

our nation’s defense against threats within our national borders, such as domestic

terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and the counter-drug program. In many

cases, the most effective counter to domestic threats is a community-based network

of concerned citizens willing to become involved. This captures the very essence of

the Air National Guard and as we acquire and integrate evolving technologies, we

will exploit these technologies in support of the domestic mission. The Air National

Guard is uniquely postured to pursue this course of action and we will truly make

a difference.

AIR NATIONAL GUARD FAMILY

The concept of family within the Air National Guard is the essence of our ability

to achieve our goals and objectives. Our family includes our Air Guard members,

military and civilian, full-time and traditional, their families and dependents, and

our employers within the communities in which we live and work. Without strong,

deep-rooted commitment and support from all our families, our ability to execute the

Air National Guard mission is adversely impacted.

Recruiting and Retaining Quality People

Despite the tremendous increase in deployments and OPSTEMPO, and in some

cases because of it, the Air National Guard is having tremendous success in attracting and keeping high quality personnel. We finished fiscal year 1997 manned at

101.9 percent of our programmed strength, with a retention rate of 90 percent, the

highest of any reserve component. We cannot, however, rest on our laurels. We must

continue to offer attractive jobs, compensation and enlistment bonuses to ensure we

preserve our capabilities.

Diversity

Our Air Guard family membership must reflect the communities it serves. With

this in mind, no issue is of greater importance to the Air National Guard’s future

than diversity. We must take action now so that in the future our organization represents the diversity of the American people. We have made great strides and, as

we execute the guidance in our long-range Air National Guard plan, we will ensure

our family represents a mosaic of the nation and the communities, in which we live

and serve.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
375

The Enlisted Force

My vision for the next four years, as the new Director, is stability, along with

focus on the Enlisted Force, Families and Employer Support. Our enlisted force is

the force that sets us apart. We all know what they can do and have done over the

years. They are a group of unsung heroes who deserve acknowledgment of their

achievements. More importantly, they are an integral part of our future. These are

the men and women who ensure our equipment is maintained in classic Air National Guard condition. These are the men and women who will pick up the mantle

and learn tomorrow’s missions, like the space mission. These are the men and

women who will develop new techniques and methods of efficiency to save the Air

Force and our Nation’s resources. These are the men and women who will enhance

our communication link to communities across our Nation and ensure that we have

a vital link to a new generation of personnel to follow in their footsteps. They will

help us begin to solve our diversity challenge, because they will represent a cross

section of our communities. Most importantly, they will help us create new standards. Lastly, these are the men and women who will remain the backbone of our

organization.

Families

Consistent with our commitment to national mobility requirements is the necessity for family support programs that will provide nurturing and stability for our

Air Guard families. Our national, state, and unit plans provide reassurance to our

members that, in time of need, the Air National Guard family will support its own.

We have a network of family support volunteers in every Guard community across

the country. They provide a source of support and comfort to those who remain behind.

Employer Support

It is our Guard employers across America, who enable our citizen soldiers and airmen to leave their jobs during the times they serve the Nation. It is our employers

who keep those jobs secure until they return. It is the American employer who helps

us provide training for our people that make them even better when they undertake

their Guard jobs. It is our employers across America who are our link to our communities. And it is the employers of America, who provide us a broad recruiting base

from which we can attract diversity. Employers will play an increasingly important

role in making sure we succeed in the 21st Century.

Modernization

Whether responding to contingency operations world-wide, or helping communities recover from a natural disaster, the Air National Guard is using equipment

that has been procured and modernized with funds primarily from Air Force procurement accounts, including $300 million in fiscal year 1999, and the National

Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). We appreciate the Air Force and

congressional support of our modernization efforts and have put these funds to good

use. A near-term readiness enhancement is our modernization focus and we stretch

every dollar to get the most ‘‘bang for our buck’’. We specialize in finding timely,

low-cost, off-the-shelf solutions to our equipment needs—solutions that have the

greatest return on investment for our warfighters.

When we talk modernization, we are committed to making sure our equipment

is completely compatible with our active Air Force counterparts and based on a validated requirement. Keeping aircraft and equipment modernized is the lifeblood of

the Guard. Without it, we will never remain ‘‘relevant’’ and that is why it has such

a high priority.

Our modernization focus is the Combat Quadrangle—four initiatives that satisfy

warfighting CINC requirements. These are:

—The ability to conduct 24 hour combat operations—which we are satisfying with

our Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS).

—Survivability in high threat environments—which we satisfy with a host of electronic combat enhancements. These include the Countermeasure Management

System (CMS), the Pylon Integrated Dispenser System (PIDS), and improved

radar warning receivers. This also includes Airlift Defense System (ADS) as a

prerequisite for participation of HC–130 aircraft’s in many contingencies.

—Enhanced battlefield communications—which we fulfill with our Situational

Awareness Data Link System on the F–16 and A–10, and the Fighter Data Link

(FDL) on the F–15 aircraft.

—The ability to conduct precision attack—which we will satisfy with a full and

open competition for a low cost; non-developmental self-designated laser system.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
376

As a foundation to the Combat Quadrangle, training systems are required to hone

combat skill support in all our programs. Air National Guard members are trained

and motivated, but without the right equipment, we are hampered in our ability to

respond.

In that vein, we intend to procure low-cost targeting pods which will provide precision weapons capability to our fighter fleet and improve F–16 combat capability.

There are also many opportunities to take advantage of the electronic battlefield.

The A–10 and F–16 Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL) provides pilots with an

all-weather, low-cost data link using off-the-shelf Enhanced Position Location Reporting System radios. It is secure and jam resistant. It provides fighter-to-fighter,

fighter-to-ground and ground-to-fighter data link information transfer. Its purpose

is to save soldiers’ and airmens’ lives by preventing fratricide and enhancing situation awareness while providing increased combat ID capability. SADL capitalizes on

the Army and Marine Corps digitized battlefield and have growth capability to ensure compatibility with future upgrades.

The Tactical Airborne Reece System (TARS), will equip the Virginia, Michigan,

District of Columbia, Indiana, and Iowa Air National Guard with a capability for

commanders to view the battle scene and make accurate warfighting decisions. The

South Carolina Air National Guard, to be equipped with the HARM Targeting System, will suppress enemy air defenses with pinpoint accuracy. The Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) will allow us to take the fight to the enemy around the clock

and has just achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) at the 122FW, Fort

Wayne, IN.

The Quadrennial Defense Review has presented us with challenges to modernize

our F–16A model fleet, currently positioned at five bases. We are examining a variety of different options for these aircraft, including: a Structural Life Extension Program (SLEP), a Mid-Life Update (MLU), or the purchase of new aircraft.

Modernization of our mobility forces continues as well with major avionics upgrades to our 224 KC–135 aircraft. The PACER CRAG (Compass, Radar and Global

Positioning System) installations began in January at the 163rd Air Refueling Wing,

March ARB, CA. The installations are a total force program: three Air National

Guard Contract Field Teams (CFT’s), one Air Force Reserve Command CFT and the

Programmed Depot Maintenance line at Tinker will complete installations of the entire fleet over the next three years.

The C–130J is a welcome addition to the Air National Guard airlift fleet. We are

working closely with Air Mobility Command and Air Force Reserve Command to ensure adequate testing, support and training are in place as this new capability is

fielded.

Counterdrug forces in eleven states will be improved over the next year as new

high-reliability 3rd generation Forward Looking Infrared Radars (FLIR’s) are fielded. We will continue to improve our Counterdrug aircraft in response to the needs

of federal and state law enforcement agencies.

CONCLUSION

We are proud of our expanding role in the defense of our nation. We look forward

to the next phase and our continued partnership with the Total Force. Together the

Guard, the Reserve, and the Air Force will continue to provide America an unmatched capability to project military power anytime, anywhere in the world. This

nation will always be a militia nation—defenders of freedom. The challenge for us

will be to address the right mix of the right forces into the 21st century. The partnership of the reserve components and the Air Force will continue to grow stronger

because of our Total Force Policy.

Thank you again for your support.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, General Weaver. I note

that behind you is Gen. Russ Drew Davis. General Davis, the committee wants to thank you personally for your assistance in arranging our trip to Antarctica. We were pleased to fly with the National

Guardsmen going into and coming out of Antarctica, which demonstrates really what the Air Guard is all about.

I want to yield first to my colleagues, because they may have

problems with schedules. Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not

have a problem.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
377

Senator STEVENS. Sometimes people have to go to other committees.

OPERATIONAL TEMPO AND RETENTION

Senator COCHRAN. I understand. I am glad you are checking. The

question that I raised in my opening statement is really one that

concerns me, and that is whether or not you are seeing any difficulty developing, recruiting, and in promotion and retention of the

quality and the numbers of men and women you require to maintain the operational tempo and fulfill the requirements and missions that are assigned to the National Guard. What is the status

of that situation, General Baca?

General BACA. Mr. Chairman, just let me say that last year was

one of the busiest years we have had in both Army and Air, and

last year we met our recruiting objectives and we were the two top

components in meeting our recruiting and retention objectives, and

I would like to yield to General Navas, who can give you a little

bit more detail on that, but we have done I think exceptionally well

under the conditions we have had.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD RECRUITING AND RETENTION VERSUS

OPTEMPO

General NAVAS. Senator, last year was a banner year for the

Army National Guard. We finished our year 3,000 soldiers above

our program end strength of 367,000. We finished about 370,000.

Not only that, but our attrition, that is, the soldiers we lose, was

at an all-time low at 18 percent, coming down from 28 percent back

in 1995. We have constantly improved our quality of the Guard,

overall quality, not only of initial entry, and we are striving to even

improve that, especially in the category 3B, so we have had a great

year.

This year our end strength has been reduced by 5,000 as part of

the QDR cuts, and we are starting that ramp down from almost

370,000 at the beginning of the fiscal year to an end strength

362,000, and so we are establishing that ramp down and yet we are

maintaining our quality goals, and also our attrition rate has been

very good.

Actually, our retention rate is at 88 percent for new individuals,

and 119 percent of our careerists, so I would say the problem is the

other way, is basically trying to renew the force, if you will, so I

feel very comfortable with the recruiting and retention we have

had.

However, as you look to the future with the level of funding that

we have, and with the lack of adequate funding to send those individuals to school as I mentioned in my opening comments, we are

having NCO’s, noncommissioned officers, make a very, very tough

choice. Do they go out there and train or lead their soldiers during

the periods of collective training, or do they need to be away from

that training to attend their own personal training?

We are asking these very dedicated Americans to make a very

tough choice, be with their soldiers and do their leadership responsibilities, or go out there and do what could be seen as a selfish

thing, to go and go to school to be promoted, and the reason we do

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
378

that is because we do not have in our low-priority units enough dollars to do both.

STATUS OF AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Senator COCHRAN. What is the situation in the Air Guard, General Weaver?

General WEAVER. Sir, if I may brag for a moment, we are the

busiest Reserve component of all the Reserve components. Per capita we have the best retention rate, at 90 percent. We have never

been busier. We are deployed everywhere the Air Force is deployed.

The morale, the retention rate has never been higher. In fact, in

some of our busier units the retention rate is the highest. It is hard

to explain at times.

When General Fogelman, the previous Chief of Staff of the Air

Force, briefed that he did not want his people away from home

more than 120 days a year, our air crew members averaged between 80 and 110 days away from home a year with their deployments and other requirements in the Air National Guard, and if

you tack on their civilian jobs, some of our airline pilots are upwards of 240 to 270 days away from home a year.

I heard it expressed, and my concern for the future is from one

of our air crew members. He said, when I have got my wife mad

at me and I have got my employer mad at me, and when I have

got the Guard mad at me equally, then I know I have got it wellbalanced.

I am concerned for the future. We are asking our individuals to

do a lot. They are always standing up to the challenge, as evidenced by this latest buildup in Southwest Asia. My first phone

call was from General Cross on a Monday morning, during the intense buildup. When he was expecting about 25 percent from the

Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard to supply airlift and

tanker support, overwhelmed him with about 54 percent of the requirements he had both from the Air Force Reserve and the Air

National Guard, truly a testimony of our men and women in our

Reserve component.

We are over end strength right now by about 1,000. I really expect to maintain that. No one wants to leave the Air National

Guard, and we are happy for that, but I do have concerns about

our OPTEMPO for the future, as does the Air Force and the Air

Force Reserve.

PILOT RETENTION

Senator COCHRAN. When we had the Chiefs before us the other

day one of the concerns expressed was the shortage of pilots and

the fact that we are seeing a lot of pilots move out of the military

into civilian jobs because of the great demand and the growth in

that area. Is this reflected at all in the Air Guard?

General WEAVER. We are recruiting every available pilot off of

active duty. If you take a C–5 aircraft commander, you and I as

American taxpayers pay about $9 million to get him upgraded to

aircraft commander. If he leaves the Air Force to go to the airlines,

we want his next call either to be the Guard or Reserve.

The problem is, what we are seeing is that they are coming in

the Guard and Reserve, but then, all of a sudden, they are seeing

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
379

the same type of OPTEMPO that is reflective of some of the reasons why they got off, for quality of life issues off the active duty

Air Force. We have concerns along those areas as well.

We brought in as many pilots as we possibly could. We still have

a backlog of potential candidates to come in the Guard, but that

line is starting to shrink a little bit because as they are getting off

active duty they are also realizing that the total force, the Guard

and Reserve, is part of that OPTEMPO as well.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FUNDING

Senator COCHRAN. We heard your comments about negotiating in

the Office of Secretary of Defense over the $700 million shortfall,

more or less. In your minimum requirements you were able to restore over $100 million through those negotiations, and obviously

those needs were quite clear to everyone concerned, or you would

not have been able to do that.

But what happens to that other $600 million, and what impact

does that have in real practical terms about what you are going to

have to cut? Can you tell us some of the things that are going to

fall by the wayside without those funds?

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD SHORTFALL STATUS

General NAVAS. Yes, sir; our initial shortfall—and this, like I

said, was very positive. General Reimer asked me around November, said I want to help you. What is your shortfall? I submitted

a letter saying that we needed $813 million to be able to meet our

minimum training requirements to meet defense planning guidance. We worked this issue and we were able to get $179 million

added up, so there is still a shortfall of $634 million.

That shortfall is basically $156.2 million in schools and special

training. This is sending individuals to school to be able to meet

their professional qualifications.

In the case of the Army National Guard we established a policy

of select, train, and promote, so that we could make our promotions

in the enlisted grades based on the qualified individuals, so now

when we select an individual he needs to be trained before he can

be promoted. Sometimes we have to defer that training because we

do not have the dollars to send that individual.

SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL TRAINING

Senator STEVENS. General, can I interrupt you? As I understand,

you have only 50 percent of the amount you need to continue your

present school levels. That is not a shortfall. That is a catastrophe.

FUNDING SHORTFALL

General NAVAS. Sir, we are funded at 39 percent, and if you understand that within that 39 percent we have to give priority to

those units that are in a higher-priority rating. It is not spread

evenly across the force.

So that is what I meant in my opening statement that we are

sending individuals to school in lieu of obtaining or attending annual training with their units, so when we are doing the collective

training we do not have what we call enough boots in the ground

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
380

there to be able to do a meaningful collective training, and so we

have a major shortfall in that regard. Then there is basically a $10 million shortfall for our AGR’s, our

Active Guard and Reserve. That would mean that either we take

money from the already underfunded schools and special training

account to retain the AGR, or we will have to let go about 160 soldiers, full-time soldiers from our ranks, which are the ones that basically plan, organize, train, and coordinate our training, so that is

basically the bulk of the personnel account in the area of operations and maintenance. That is about a $450 million shortfall,

which is basically in the surface operational tempo.

Operational tempo, as you know, is the dollars we get to train

our units, and again, this is tiered. To meet our DPG, defense planning guidance requirements, not even title XI requirements at platoon level training, but to do an individual crew and squad, we

need about 200 OPTEMPO miles. Our lower priority units are

funded at about 12, 13, 14 percent of that requirement. We have

units that get about 22 miles to do that training, so, therefore,

there is very little collective training that these units can do.

REAL PROPERTY AND DEPOT MAINTENANCE

Also, we have about a $98 million shortfall in our real property

maintenance. Last year the congressional markup was very generous with us, and we got about an $87 million, $89 million to increase our real property maintenance, which is crucial to maintain

the condition of our facilities where we do our maintenance, where

we do our training. It is a quality of life issue also.

And then there is the ‘‘Depot maintenance’’ account that is un- derfunded about $94 million. Without that ‘‘Depot maintenance’’ account our equipment is getting to the point where it is not being

adequately sustained and maintained. Should we need to bring

those units rapidly up, then we are going to have a problem in

that.

DISTANCE LEARNING AND COMMUNICATIONS

Our distance learning and our communications accounts are un- derfunded by about $73 million. That means that we might not be

able to do our full support to the RCAS program to be able to continue funding it. Our distance learning initiative is going to be slipping.

You are aware that we established a goal that we are, hopefully,

on track with the support of the Congress of having a distance

learning classroom within 60 minutes of driving distance of every

Guardsman, and we are working toward that goal.

That was supposed to be completed by the end of 1999. We had

said by the end of the century. We are on our way with a shortfall

of $3 million. We might have a delay on that, and that is crucial

to be able to—that is an investment in the future, because if we

do not have money to send individuals to school, what we try to

do is take the school to the individuals, so we can save the travel

time, we can save the time away from home, we could help alleviate the PERSTEMPO, so this is an investment in the future that

we need to make, and we need to find a way to sustain this program.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
381

So that is basically where in a macro sense the $634 million, that

is where we are short, and I would be more than glad to submit

for the record a much more detailed version of those numbers.

Senator COCHRAN. That would be very helpful. We appreciate

that.

[The information follows:]

DETAILS OF THE $634 MILLION SHORTFALL IN ARNG PROGRAMS

Schools are currently funded to $81 million, which represents a 39 percent funding level of the Army validated requirements. Funds are aimed at preparing members of early deploying units with requisite skills to meet the rigorous deployment

timeline demanded by the increased reliance on the Army National Guard. Funding

for schools is tiered toward the ‘‘First to Fight’’ units. There are not sufficient funds

to maintain Military Occupational Specialty Qualification for the entire force. The

requested $90 million increase to the schools funding will allow Force Support Package, enhanced Separate Brigades, and Early Deploying units to send 100 percent

of required personnel to Professional Development and Military Occupational Specialty Qualification training. The remaining tiered units will be able to send 50 percent of required personnel to this training. This program is essential to the retention of quality personnel.

Special Training is currently funded to $28 million, which represents an 11 percent funding level of the Army validated requirements. The requested increase of

$66 million will fully fund enhanced Separate Brigades, Opposing Forces support for

Lanes Training, Combat Training Centers training, and Joint Chief of Staff exercises. It will fund 84 percent of operational readiness sustainment requirements

such as planning, support of training exercises, preparations for operational missions, and Readiness for Mobilization Exercises. This program is critical to providing

forces trained to perform their assigned wartime missions.

Bonuses are currently funded to $127 million, an 88 percent funding level of the

Army validated requirements. With an addition of $18 million, the program will be

funded to 100 percent of requirements. This program covers the Health Professional

Bonuses, the Montgomery GI Bill, the Enlisted Recruiting Bonus, the Student Loan

Repayment Program, and Separation Pay. The increased funding for this program

is essential to maintain End Strength and meeting the Chief of Staff, Army’s quality

goals.

REPRESENTING THE NEEDS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

General BACA. Senator, General Reimer in his testimony before

the National Security Committee did recognize that as an underfunding for the National Guard and did list it as one of his top priorities.

Senator STEVENS. General, what the two of you just said, particularly what General Navas has said—and are you finished?

Senator COCHRAN. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I apologize for interrupting you, but it demonstrates a different relationship between the Army Guard and the

Air Guard in terms of the total Pentagon structure, and it is something I have been trying to address. It is nice to know you were

able to submit a letter to try to address this imbalance, but General Weaver sits at the board when the allocations are made, and

this just cannot continue.

We are now operating under caps, gentlemen. We are in a situation where if we try to raise anything that is in the budget it is

automatically looked at as pork by one-half of our people and attacked in the press by people who do not understand the situation

that these budgets are underfunded to start with, and I do not

think we have had the leeway we have had in the past to correct

your situation and the fact that the Army Guard budget comes in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
382

so underfunded creates the largest problem for this committee in

the whole year, and somehow or another it has to change.

We have to find a way so General Navas and his successor is sitting there at that allocation board and that budget fairly represents the needs of the Guard Bureau as it assumes greater and

greater responsibilities, and those are falling now equally heavy on

the Army Guard as they have traditionally on the Air Guard, but

the Air Guard, because of its relationship, has a much different situation coming before us.

I will have some other questions to ask you later, but it just—

it really bothers me now, when we are operating under these caps

and we have limits in terms of this, and we are going into the

budget.

We are at $3.7 billion in outlays less because of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] analysis than the Office of Management

and Budget thought we had. You put that in terms of actual authorization fulfillment and appropriations for the authorization

base, and it is a substantial reduction, and that is across the board,

but basically it has fallen on you.

It has fallen on the Army Guard, which I think is very unfortunate, and it really represents an antagonism toward the Guard

that is not warranted under the current circumstances of our requirements worldwide.

General NAVAS. Sir, may I make a statement?

Senator STEVENS. I am going to call on my friend here. I will get

back to you later. Senator

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AVIATION MODERNIZATION

Senator LEAHY. I am glad to have General Baca and General

Navas and General Weaver here.

I would say to General Baca, you have led the Guard during a

period in our history where I think it has demonstrated very much

the importance of the Guard in our Nation’s defense. I think that

trend is going to continue. Obviously, the concerns I have, and Senator Stevens and Senator Cochran and the others have is just

whether the resources are there.

I understand the Active Army and the Army Guard acknowledged a shortfall of 90 Blackhawk helicopters in Guard warfighting

units. This committee has strongly supported the Blackhawk program, and I am pleased the administration and the Army no longer

plan to terminate the Blackhawk. What kinds of units are affected

by this shortfall? For example, would there be a cost savings associated with the procurement of 10 additional aircraft?

BLACKHAWK HELICOPTER SHORTFALL

General NAVAS. Sir, I think we have turned the corner on the

modernization of the Army National Guard aviation fleet. If you recall, we had a shortfall of, if we were going to replace the aging

UH–1 fleet in the Army National Guard, which is basically our

light utility helicopter, there was not light utility helicopter substitutes, so basically the plan would have been to substitute all of

those Hueys with Blackhawks. That would have created a tremendous shortfall on the order of 400 and some Blackhawks.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
383

What we have done, working with the Army in an Army aviation

modernization plan is to establish a requirement for 90

Blackhawks over the next years, of which 50 of them are in the

POM, and we still have 40 of them that we need to work and see

how we can get that as we build the programs. This would allow

us to modernize our priority units, mostly our air ambulance units,

with the required Blackhawks.

Also, we have, working with the Army, looked at ways to alleviate the light utility helicopter shortfall by cascading equipment, by

looking at perhaps some other alternatives, by transferring missions from the Active Army to the Guard, and this is a work in

progress that we have, but at least we see an initial plan to recognize and procure over about 90 Blackhawks over the next 5 years

which would basically go a big way into modernizing an otherwise

aging fleet.

F–16 UPGRADE

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

General Weaver, at the risk of sounding parochial, something

that never happens in the Appropriations Committee but I will

break with tradition, it was announced that Vermont’s F–16 unit,

the 158th Fighter Wing in Burlington, is going to change its mission from air defense to general support. Is the Guard going to upgrade these jets so they can deliver precision weapons? Are they

going to have to be upgraded?

General WEAVER. Yes, sir; again, thanks to this great committee

in the past, what we have been able to do through the Guard and

Reserve ‘‘Equipment’’ account is to take an entire missile design

system [MDS], or the F–16 fleet, and put the ability on those aircraft to do what the warfighting CINC’s actually need, precisionguided munitions and what-not.

We still have a way to go with all of our F–16 fleet, but we are

in the throes of putting a precision strike capability on our F–16’s,

the data linkup requirements from the F–15’s, the F–16’s, and the

A–10’s, night vision capability, so it is great to have the air machine, but unless it is the air machine that the CINC’s really need

to be able to fight with, it is going to be tough in the future to be

a participant in the total force.

But again, thanks to this committee, in the past we have been

able to modernize those F–16’s and look forward; to be able to do

that.

Senator LEAHY. If you could have your office keep me posted on

how it is going on that particular unit in Vermont, I would appreciate it.

General WEAVER. Yes, sir.

CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS

Senator LEAHY. My last question, General Navas, I saw the

Army Guard is reducing the number of civilian technicians in Vermont by something like 20 percent. I wonder, are these cut because

of the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review’’ [QDR], and are there similar

cuts in other States?

General NAVAS. Sir, as you know, the Congress established a

floor of 25,500 military technicians. We had some force cuts taken

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
384

in the Army back, not as part of the quadrennial review, but prior

to that, based on the 1993 off-site. Those cuts to the technicians

were appropriated because when you take the structure down you

take civilians.

There was an action by the Department of Defense that took

down—took civilian cuts and applied them to the technicians, so

that was kind of a double whammy, because not only you took the

cuts proportional to the force structure, but then it came down to

also another cut, so that left us with a shortfall of about 811 technicians from that ceiling.

Now we have in the way—and this is an accounting issue. The

way the civilian pay is accounted for, or programmed, there is a

time lag, and due to the fact that we have so many diverse zip

codes where you have the locality pay adjusted, and also because

of the nature of our civilian force, that we have a lot of wage

grades, there is a shortfall of $68 million that we do not have available to pay for our technicians. Since we manage technicians to the

budget, the number of technicians that we can field out there

would be reduced by that amount.

Senator LEAHY. I understand the reason for it. I just wanted to

make sure that we are not facing a disproportionate number of cuts

in our State and I am thinking of the percentage of our force reduction, but it appeared to me—without knowing the numbers from

the other States it appeared to me as though we were getting a disproportionate cut in Vermont.

MILITARY TECHNICIANS BUDGET

General NAVAS. Sir, we are trying to manage technicians to

budget, and also we are also giving priority to the high priority

units, and this is precisely—and again, I do not want to sound like

a broken record, but when you tiered your resources and then you

have to allow for States that have high priority units at the low

priority units, you barely are able to meet the minimum requirement of 50 percent. In some cases we are going to 34 and 32 percent fill, and I think that happens in some States where they do

not have the higher number of high priority units, so that is how

we allocate the technician cut.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go to a Judiciary Committee

hearing, but I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for coming.

Senator Dorgan.

HAPPY HOOLIGANS

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciated the testimony. Let me address a question to General Weaver, if I might. General Weaver is familiar with the Happy Hooligans in Fargo.

General WEAVER. Yes, sir, very well.

Senator DORGAN. It might be interesting to note for the committee and the chairman that the Happy Hooligans are farmers and

pharmacists and barbers and plumbers and teachers, and they

have won two occasions, including one recent occasion, the William

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
385

Tell Award, which is the award given to the best fighter pilots in

the world.

So it is, on at least one recent occasion, National Guard pilots,

flying the wrong airplane, because the William Tell competition

was expected to have been won by, I believe, the F–15, a bunch of

farmers and teachers and others from Fargo, ND, won the trophy

for the best fighter pilots in the world, and that is some distinction

for a National Guard unit.

General WEAVER. I could not say it better myself, sir.

Senator DORGAN. Well, I will say it again, then. [Laughter.]

General WEAVER. That picture of the Happy Hooligans is also in

our front office, sir.

F–16 UPGRADE

Senator DORGAN. We are enormously proud of them.

Let me ask you a question about the airplanes they fly, and this

is a good segue to do that. They fly F–16A’s at this point, and I

am wondering what the plans are to go to F–16C’s at some point.

General WEAVER. Sir, as we went through the QDR, and when

I say we, please understand that is total force, Air Force, Guard

and Reserve, the Air Force was intent on modernizing our A models and they saw an opportunity to be able to do that by reducing

force structure on the active side, taking C models off of active duty

and putting them directly into our Guard units where we have the

A models.

Because of a problem later that seemed to be too difficult to do

at the time without having further conversations concerning BRAC

and what-not, it was deemed too difficult to do at the time. The Air

Force, the Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserve are still

looking to possibly doing that in the future, but we do have concerns about the upgrades in the future of our A models, as I said

earlier, to make them available for the CINC’s, the warfighting

CINC’s with the precision-guided munitions and all the things we

need to go on our fighters for the war fight.

I would look at the future, the different options that we have got

to do that, either SLEP-ing the surface life extension program, the

cost-effective one, but it does not really give us a lot of capability,

mid-life one that we are looking at as far as putting a lot more

money, or possibly purchase of new ones in the future, or if we are

able to, as we look, as we still downsize the Air Force possibly in

future years, to take some of that force structure off of active duty

and as they have done in the past to modernize our force structure

in the Guard and Reserve.

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask you a question, and I am meeting

later with General Ryan later today, and I will not tell him what

you said, but I am curious, we are enormously proud. Why would

a National Guard team win the William Tell award under any circumstances? Wouldn’t you expect them never to win?

General WEAVER. Well, it was interesting, and it was also during—I tell a story. It was during BRAC at the time, the last BRAC

round, and I sat on the Base Closure Executive Group for the U.S.

Air Force, representing the Air National Guard, and during that

week, as the results were being given, they had the Happy Hooligans and our individuals from Vermont really at the low end, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
386

no one really took them seriously, and during the week it was reported every day what the results were, and during the week they

were slowly coming up through the ranks as the contest went on,

and as you know, that weekend all the results were known, and

the Happy Hooligans were No. 1 and right behind them were our

Green Mountain Boys from Vermont, but it was not announced

Monday at that staff meeting about who really won that contest

with those much older airplanes and the much older fighter pilots,

but it served us well during the Base Closure Executive Group.

Senator DORGAN. That is good to know, and it says a lot about

the quality of the people flying those planes and the crews that

maintain them.

DISASTER RELIEF

Let me, Mr. Chairman, just finally say to Generals Navas and

Baca that you know that North Dakota suffered this enormous disaster last year, the worst flood in 500 years and seven blizzards,

the worst in 50 years, 3 years’ worth of snow in 3 months.

It was a pretty significant disaster, and we received enormous

help from the men and women of the Guard, and we could not have

pulled through what we pulled through in North Dakota without

the help that the Guard provided, and the men and women of the

Guard risked their lives to save other lives and we are enormously

grateful for what your men and women did in North Dakota, and

most of them, of course, are our friends and neighbors.

General BACA. Thank you, Senator. I am sure you can be justifiably proud of your Guardsmen, and I tell you, I get the same reports literally from States all over the Nation from their Governors

and from their elected representatives, and the Guard traditionally

for 361 years has done that mission, and we are very proud of the

way we do it.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing, and I have a Commerce Committee hearing going on as well,

but I appreciate very much your calling this.

F–16 MODERNIZATION

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your

coming, Senator.

General Baca, let me just put it this way. As I look at this budg- et, based upon 1998 levels alone the Army Guard has $184 million

that it is short on personnel, $450 million short on O&M, $200 million short on procurement and $160 million short on Milcon, a total

of $994 million shortfall for the Army. And in the Air Guard we see $160 million shortfall in Milcon,

$260 million shortfall in procurement, particularly in the C–130J’s,

and $150 million short in other equipment, a total of $570 million.

Now, that is just off the 1998 level. That would not allow for any

increase, and all the problems you face in worldwide deployments.

We are at least $11⁄2 billion short out of a total of some $10 billion.

You have about $101⁄2 billion, and you are about $11⁄2 billion

short of the 1998 level alone. That, with the budget we have presents us with a tremendous difficulty to just keep up the pace we

established last year. So I want to ask you some basic questions

about that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
387

Let me ask General Weaver first, if I may, what is your highest

priority in replacing your equipment, the F–16A’s or the C–130J’s?

General WEAVER. It is the modernization of our F–16’s over all,

sir, to give them the precision guided munitions we really need to

do. If I am looking to get to the war fight I need our fighters to

be able to have all of the right things that the CINC’s need. That

is the night vision stuff, the precision-guided munitions, in order

to be able to be a part of the fight.

The C–130J’s have been really great as far as the modernization

of our C–130’s and our older ones, and I have to give the credit to

the Air Force for this year, under General Ryan’s guidance with

General Cross, in taking the C–130 community and putting a program together for the future with all of the C–130’s and what we

need to do, and it is a total force plan.

But the important part of the war fight, getting to the war fight,

is our precision-guided requirements for our F–16’s and F–15’s as

well, sir.

PACIFIC RIM OPERATIONS

Senator STEVENS. General Navas, General Lestenkof is going to

be here later, but we are working now in the Pacific rim to give

our Guard, the Alaska Guard a greater role in contingency requirements in the whole Pacific. The level of search and rescue is down,

the level of deployment is down, and there is a requirement now

for a greater role of the Alaskan Guard to fulfill some of those

gaps. Is there support in the Guard leadership for this expanded

role of the Alaska Guard in the Pacific?

ALASKA NATIONAL GUARD’S EXPANDED ROLE IN THE PACIFIC

General NAVAS. Yes, sir, definitely. We have been working very

hard over the last 11⁄2, 2 years, with General Lestenkof in looking

at like we are doing, in fact, with most of our Guard structure to

try to look for a mission for the units so that then once the unit

is missioned, then we can apply resources to that unit.

We have been looking at converting some of the structure in

Alaska to some more relevant structure like aviation. We have a

plan there to put more aviation structure in Alaska. We have started with Blackhawks.

Senator STEVENS. Let me ask you about that, if I may. We have

planned to try to get additional UH–60 Blackhawks into the Alaska

Guard, and we have also got a request for cold weather equipment

to upgrade the existing helicopters. Which has the highest priority,

in your opinion?

PRIORITIZATION OF UH–60 HELICOPTERS VERSUS COLD WEATHER

EQUIPMENT

General NAVAS. Sir, I think we need both. I think we need to

modernize the aircraft, and I think we need to make sure that that

aircraft that we put in those conditions can operate in those conditions, and so I think that we have—it is both. We need to do both,

and I think the goal is to wind up with 24 Blackhawks there. I

think—and I hope my memory does not betray me. I can provide

the information for the record, but I think we are well on our way.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
388

We have 21 out of the 24 needed, and basically we had $9.5 million in the 1997 budget to equip those aircraft with the cold weather gear, and so I think we are on track with what we have been

trying to accomplish in Alaska.

Senator STEVENS. You do not need any additional money to do

that?

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR HELICOPTERS FOR THE ALASKA NATIONAL

GUARD

General NAVAS. Sir, I would have to check with Alaska and see

if this $9.5 million in 1997 is what is required, or if there would

be anything more. I do not have that information right now, sir.

I can get it for you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

STATE OF READINESS

Now, General Baca, you are leaving us, and as I said, we are sad

to see that, but tell me now, as you prepare to wind down your

tour, what do you think about the state of readiness of the Guard?

General BACA. Senator, I will tell you, based on the resources we

have received, the readiness of the Guard is outstanding, but as

you know, readiness is a matter of resources, and as our resources

have been dwindling, as they have been going down, particularly

on the Army side you see the contrast between the Air and the

Army, where all the Air National Guard units are resourced to be

at C2 level or better.

And where you are lacking the resources in the Guard, it is

amazing to me as I go out and travel around the world, and travel

in the States, at the high level of readiness that the Army National

Guard has been able to maintain, in spite of its lack of resources.

But I am afraid and I am concerned, Senator, and that is why

I would see the $634 million as our top priority. I am concerned

that as our resources continue to dwindle, that we will not be able

to maintain that high state of readiness that we have been able to

maintain, and for all the reasons that General Navas articulated.

And also to point out to you, Senator, that as I go out to these

units, it is the lower priority units, the ones that are not being

funded, that are performing most of the missions out there, many

of the divisional units. I just came from Croatia, and I witnessed

Charlie 3 of the 116th, a unit out of the Virginia National Guard,

out of one of our divisions performing magnificently.

But I am concerned, Senator, that if we do not address that

shortfall, that we will not be able to maintain those high states of

readiness.

As I go around and I see the professional guardsmen out there,

and they are doing a tremendous job, if you do not have the money

to send them to schools, if you do not have the money to get them

qualified, if you do not have the money to be able to have them

participate in collective unit training, our guardsmen are going to

begin to vote with their feet. They are going to begin to walk, and

we are going to lose those high recruiting and retention rates that

we have today, sir.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
389

PILOT TURNOVER

Senator STEVENS. Well, that leads me to you, General Weaver.

I was disturbed with what you said. If you have people waiting on

the list that are coming out of the regular Air Force—and we have

more coming out. We were told the other day that over two-thirds

are not reenlisting in the Air Force, the pilots.

General WEAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. And many of them are going to want to continue to have some contact with high performance aircraft. That

means you. We have empty billets in the Air Force, but you do not

have enough billets for them in the Air National Guard.

General WEAVER. Right now I have got about a 400-pilot shortfall, but that is just a normal turnover out of our total 3,500 pilots

authorized.

Senator STEVENS. But General, respectfully now, it is not a normal turnover. The normal reenlistment rate would be in the seventies, and it is down to 29 percent last quarter. It is not a normal

turnover, and we would like to find some way to track those guys.

General WEAVER. I meant normal turnover for us, not for the Air

Force. I am sorry. I misspoke.

Senator STEVENS. What are we going to do to expand those spots

so that you can put these people back where they want to be and

keep them ready?

General WEAVER. We are exploring with the Air Force, in fact,

every possibility of obtaining every air crew member getting off of

active duty, for whatever reason, bringing him or her into the

Guard and Reserve to include—and we are looking at things, particularly in the Guard, of increasing the numbers of air crew members, increasing the air crew ratio, looking at some of our full-time

people who want to get off active duty but still do not want to go

to the airlines, looking at increasing our technicians’ starting pay,

looking at some type of bonus for them as well, looking at having

the ability to get through the ceiling.

If they are getting off of active duty at this time, they are getting

off as usually senior majors. Before, they were getting off as captains. We are looking at trying to get relief in the upper grades to

bring them on as well, so we are exploring every possibility to take

that young man or woman getting off active duty to bring them

into the Guard or Reserve.

The challenges that we have, though, is that our OPTEMPO is

starting to increase, and increase to the point where they are looking at Guard and Reserve maybe as not as good an option as they

thought, but we are also trying to address that as well by the study

we have going, the FTF, the future total force, and how to leverage

each other, leverage the Guard, leverage the Reserves and the

Actives together to help relieve this OPTEMPO, which is really

driving people out.

It is not the money. It is the quality of life that our active duty

members are having, and it is starting to have a little bit of an effect also on the Guard and Reserve, and I am concerned about that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
390

QUALITY OF LIFE

Senator STEVENS. We have talked to people. I have talked to

some from home. Our refueling wing and also the search and rescue group are both having deployments overseas, and at an increasing rate. The people we talk to, the pilots we talk to overseas

indicate some of them have been away from home more than onehalf the year.

General WEAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. That is not conducive to reenlistment, and it

is not conducive to staying with your outfit, either.

Now, somehow or another those slots have to be expanded, and

the one area that they are getting this extremely heavy duty in

terms of these containment missions in Bosnia and in Iraq and

Korea, it is the pilots that are flying night and day the circles and

squares, and that drives them nuts, and they quit. If you give them

the same job once they come out, they are not going to stay with

you, either.

General WEAVER. That is correct, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Have you got a study that is active?

General WEAVER. Sir, we are really aggressively pursuing this,

because there is a window of opportunity, and it is going to increase in a way that, with the airlines even hiring more, and there

is not going to be any slowdown in the airline hiring, and they prefer military pilots.

We need to capitalize on this draw, looking at increasing the

crew ratio of our aircraft, of both tankers, airlift, and fighters. That

will drive a bill. How much of a bill, and can we pay that bill? We

are looking at that corporately as well.

Senator STEVENS. Let me make a suggestion to you, that you

look at trying to bring some of these guys back on. They are majors

and above, most of them, I understand.

General WEAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Bring them back on in terms of a lower grade

as far as their participation in your structure, but maintain that

grade for purposes of their retirement. Have you done that?

General WEAVER. No, sir; we have not, but we can look at that.

Senator STEVENS. We would like to find some way to keep those

people proficient. They are the most proficient, and I would urge

you to let us know, and give us some kind of an idea, moneywise,

what we are talking about. We want to help with that.

That is probably—of all our hearings we have had so far, the decline in the reenlistment of pilots across the services, but particularly the Air Force, is the greatest. Have you had a decline in pilot

retention?

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD PILOT RETENTION

General NAVAS. Not really, sir. As a matter of fact the Army is

experiencing that there is a shortfall of AH–64 aviators in the

Army, and we are working very close with the Army Office of Personnel to put some Army Guard AH–64’s—this is the Apache helicopter pilots—on short tours of active duty to alleviate this condition in Korea, and we are working that very closely, so there is

that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
391

We have still not experienced that in the Army Guard yet.

Senator STEVENS. I have a series of other questions I would like

to submit. I am preoccupied by the pilot problem. We do want to

see if we can find some way to deal with it, and I would urge you

to give us your ideas.

Do you have any last questions, Senator Cochran?

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. Following the lead

of Senator Leahy, I do have a couple of parochial issues to raise

with the panel.

Senator STEVENS. They are not unknown here.

Senator COCHRAN. I did not think you would object.

The C–17’s at the airlift wing in Jackson, MS, are scheduled to

be deployed and fielded there. I think that is the first Air Guard

unit in the Nation that will actually have C–17’s. I wonder if that

program for deployment and fielding those is still in place, and

what is the timetable?

General WEAVER. Absolutely, and I can give you the exact timetable for the record, but we are looking at the beginning the airplanes at about 2003 or 2004 timeframe. We are looking at training

beginning that same time as well.

We are looking at exploring possibilities of a possible simulator,

as well, for Jackson, because the way of training for our big airplane drivers now is how the airlines have been doing successfully

for many years. That is by putting air crew members in simulators

to help cut down on the wear and tear of the airplanes, and really

it is a cost-effective way of doing business, and the program for

Jackson is on track, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. Is there any need for lead time, military construction or preparation for that event? I hope you would point that

out and what the expected dates for that would be, and the

amounts of funding necessary.

General WEAVER. We are working that very closely with General

Cross, who is a supporter of this, and we look good right now, sir.

[The information follows:]

C–17’S IN JACKSON, MS

The Air National Guard is the first Reserve Component Force to receive the Air

Force’s newest strategic airlifter, the C–17 Globemaster III. Preparations are well

under way to receive the C–17 at Thompson Field, Jackson, Mississippi. The following Military Construction projects are planned and included in the Future Years Defense Plan to support the C–17 beddown at Jackson, Mississippi:

[In millions of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year/Project Amount

2001—C–17 Corrosion Control Hangar/Shops ..................................................... 10.0

2002—C–17 Squadron Operations Facility .......................................................... 3.5

2002—C–17 Upgrade Hangar and Shops ............................................................ 8.0

2003—C–17 Upgrade Fuel Cell and Shops .......................................................... 4.9

2003—C–17 Upgrade Short Field Runway .......................................................... 2.7

Senator COCHRAN. Another program that is important in our

State is the expansion of the gunnery range at Camp Shelby. We

have a combat brigade, as you know, based in Mississippi, which

was activated during the Persian Gulf Desert Storm/Desert Shield

timeframe, and we are interested in doing what we need to do to

make sure that that schedule is met.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
392

I note the environmental impact statement was recently completed, and if you could provide us for the record the expected requirements for funding to meet those schedules, we would appreciate that very much. As far as you know, is that still on track?

FUNDING FOR CAMP SHELBY, MS, GUNNERY RANGE

General NAVAS. Sir, I do not have the exact information. I know

there was an environmental issue there, and also that that was in

the program, but I can give you the specific details of that, but that

is a high priority, highly critical range that we need in Shelby,

since that is basically the home of the 155th Separate Brigade.

RETROGRADE PROGRAM

Senator COCHRAN. I notice, General Baca, in your statement you

talk about your retrograde refitting and repairing equipment out of

the European theater, where it has been excessed there, and you

are able to, in a cost-efficient way, provide the Army National

Guard with equipment that is refurbished. The Kansas and Mississippi Army National Guards were awarded a bid for operation

of this rebuilding program.

Could you bring us up to date for the record, or if you have information on it now, what the status of that program is, and what the

requirements for any funding in connection with it would be?

General BACA. Sir, I can give you all of the details for the record.

[The information follows:]

Following the Desert Shield/Desert Storm conflict, the Army National Guard

(ARNG) opened nine sites to repair 5,571 pieces of equipment that were used in the

operation. This program was so successful the ARNG was approached by Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) in 1993 with a request to undertake the

repair of equipment left in Europe when the large draw down of personnel occurred.

The ARNG developed a business plan and projected a fully burdened labor rate of

$34 per hour. The plan was approved by HQDA and seven sites were opened which

subsequently received 8,876 pieces of equipment valued at $2.6 billion. The ARNG

partnered with the States to repair and distribute the equipment. The majority of

the individuals employed were members of the ARNG. This mission provided valuable training to 475 individuals and also acted as tremendous recruiting and retention tool. Based on experience gained in Desert Shield/Desert Storm and later the

Retrograde Europe (RETROEUR) programs, the ARNG decided to leverage its capability of producing a superior product at a reduced cost. The first program implemented is the remanufacturing of 21⁄2 ton tactical trucks in Kansas and Mississippi.

The level of maintenance required to remanufacture 21⁄2 ton trucks is lower than

that performed on equipment returning from Europe and it is well within the capabilities of the ARNG. The ARNG, in this program, will benefit from the training of

soldiers in their Military Occupation Specialties (MOS) with additional benefit to

the ARNG’s recruiting and retention effort. The ARNG has already purchased 20

kits (which includes all the parts required in remanufacturing a truck) to be used

in the validation of the remanufacturing process. When the sites go into production,

parts will be obtained through commercial sources and contracts. Two universities

have been contracted to conduct the validation process and when the process is complete the sites will be ISO 9000 qualified.

The ARNG is utilizing National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation

(NGREA) funding to support the remanufacturing program consistent with congressional guidance. The funding needed to support the program is a minimum of $30

million per year. This funding will allow over 550 trucks to be produced per year

and will substantially increase the readiness of our units.

General BACA. Let me mention, that was one of the real success

stories of our retrograde. All of our retrograde equipment from Europe, we had several sites in addition to Kansas and Mississippi.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
393

We had a total of five sites, I believe, throughout the United

States that repaired that equipment and put it back in service, not

only for the National Guard but for the total force, extremely economic way of doing it, probably about one-third the cost that it

could have been done any place else, very efficient and very effective, and I think Army Materiel Command [AMC], Gen. Johnny

Wilson would reinforce what I am saying now, that it was an effective program, and I see that that program can mature and it can

build, and it can go on to other type maintenance activities, other

than just retro units.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Senator COCHRAN. There is a piece in the Washington Post this

morning about Secretary Cohen’s announcement that he is going to

have some 20—well, 10 new emergency teams to help domestic

agencies respond to attacks with chemical and biological weapons,

and he says in the press release, which we have a copy of dated

March 17, that there will be 22 full-time National Guard personnel

in each unit.

I think they are called rapid assessment and initial detection elements, 10 rapid assessment and initial detection elements.

I assume there will have to be some training in regard to that, and some funding that would be available. Apparently, about $49

million being requested in this budget relating to terrorist response

programs for weapons of mass destruction reaction teams and the

like. Is this amount sufficient to deal with this new program, or do

we need to add funds to that account to make sure that you have

the resources to meet this new challenge?

General BACA. Senator, first let me state that, as you know, the

national defense panel identified that as one of our threats, the

asymmetrical threats going into the 21st century, one that is tailormade for the National Guard, because we already do that kind of

response in our normal mission, and as a constitutional role of the

National Guard.

The 10 teams that Secretary Cohen was talking about is the initial test, and they are setting up by the 10 FEMA regions, but

eventually we would want a team in every State in the Nation.

I believe the teams, the requirement for the teams themselves, the funding requirements that are in this budget are about $19.9

million of the $49.2 million that have been requested. That is what

is going to be required now to organize and to establish these first

teams.

COUNTERDRUG MISSION

Senator COCHRAN. We already have the Mississippi National

Guard involved in counterdrug training. There is an academy at

Meridian, MS, which I have toured and am confident that they are

doing a good job. They have graduated over 9,000 police officers

and personnel from a four-State area who have come there for

training.

And I point that out because I know there is a request in this

budget for continuation of that program, but I am advised that the

budget request may be underfunded by over $2 million. Could you

provide for the record what the needs are to continue the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
394

counterdrug training academy at Meridian, and whether or not this

new weapons of mass destruction assignment could be considered

for inclusion in that program, particularly if you are going to be integrated with FEMA personnel and local law enforcement officials.

It sounds to me like this may be a model for including a training

site for that purpose at that location.

General BACA. Senator, we are in the midst now of doing a study

to determine what the requirements are going to be, and I can assure you that training is going to be one of the top requirements.

We have got already your facility and the one in Florida and the

one in California that I am sure will play an increasing role in the

training in weapons of mass destruction [WMD], and so I will provide you that information for the record.

[The information follows:]

In fiscal year 1998, the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy (RCTA) received

$2.2 million of the Presidents Budget and $0.9 million in Congressional plus-ups for

a total budget of $3.1 million. The RCTA taught 150 courses reaching an audience

of 2,200 students. In fiscal year 1999 their funding is at $2.2 million, which will

result in a significant decrease in the amount of law enforcement officers they will

be able to train. In order to train the maximum amount of law enforcement officers

their facilities would allow (backlog of 3,863) the school would require an additional

$2.5 million for a total fiscal year 1999 budget of $4.7 million.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Generals, for what you are doing

for the country and leading the Guard units. We appreciate you

coming, and look forward to being with you, and General Baca. We

look forward to seeing you before you step down from your position.

General BACA. Senator, if I may just say a word here. I did not

mean to indicate that by any means I am a lame duck. I have got

4 more months to go, and I am going to give it all I have got for

the next 41⁄2 months, but Senator, let me just say, now that I have

this opportunity and this forum, we mentioned about the fact that

I traveled with you to Alaska, and I was glad that I did that early

on.

And I gained a tremendous amount of experience with you actually going to visit—you know, we jokingly talk about the salmon

fishing, but I will tell you I have never worked any harder than

I did on the trips that I went with you, Senator, and you accompanied me to every location, even the remotest places, and your

concern for your Guard units and your concern for your State, but

more than that, your concern for all of national defense has served

as an inspiration to me during the last 31⁄2 years.

And Senator, I will tell you that it has been an honor and a

privilege to work with you, and I just wanted to say that publicly.

Senator STEVENS. You are very kind. We appreciate that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
(395)

YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JAKE LESTENKOF, ADJUTANT GENERAL OF

ALASKA

ACCOMPANIED BY LT. COL. FRANCIS B. WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA YOUTH CHALLENGE ACADEMY

Senator STEVENS. Let me now turn, gentlemen, to this other

panel. We thank you very much. We would excuse you now. We are

going to hear from several witnesses who will discuss the Youth

Challenge Program.

General Baca, General Weaver, General Navas, we have with us

today Maj. Gen. Jake Lestenkof, who is the Adjutant General of

Alaska, and Lt. Col. Francis B. Williams, the Director of the Georgia Youth Challenge Academy.

They are accompanied by Tiffany Nicole Brown, a student from

the Georgia Youth Challenge Academy, Joshua Bryson Phagan, a

student at the Georgia Youth Challenge Academy, and Alex J.

Sparra, a sophomore at the Citadel, who is a graduate of the Georgia Youth Challenge Academy.

Let me ask you all to come up here and join General Lestenkof,

if you will. We want to welcome you here, and to give you an opportunity to make statements. There may be other Senators coming

later who are interested in your program.

General Lestenkof, I welcome you here as a fellow Alaskan, and

also remember so well the visit that you arranged for me to our

Youth Challenge Program in Alaska and the wonderful reports we

are having concerning that program. So let me ask you to proceed

with your statement, and if you have any opening statement with

regard to this program, Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. I am very happy to have an opportunity to hear the testimony of these witnesses. It is an interesting

program, and I think it is a very worthwhile program, and I am

confident their testimony will bear that out.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you for coming. I know it is a different

experience for you. It is nice to have you here.

General LESTENKOF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting me to appear representing the National

Guard and the States to talk about our Youth Challenge Program.

I have submitted written testimony for the record, but before beginning my remarks, I know you have introduced Colonel Williams,

who is the Director of the program down in Georgia. I will ask him

again to introduce the students and the cadets that are here today.

Probably my remarks will be certainly overshadowed by the comments that the youngsters will bring to the committee, but Colonel

Williams, would you introduce them once more?

Colonel WILLIAMS. Thank you, General. Sir, today I have with

me Joshua Phagan from the present class at Youth Challenge in

the Georgia program. I have Alex Sparra, who graduated 2 years

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
396

ago from the Georgia program class 6. He is currently enrolled at

the Citadel in South Carolina. I have Ms. Tiffany Brown, who is

also in the current class the Georgia program.

YOUTH PROGRAMS SUPPORT

General LESTENKOF. Thank you, Frank.

Let me begin with my prepared remarks. I am here to speak

today on behalf of the National Guard sponsored youth programs,

the Challenge and the Youth Conservation Corps for fiscal year

1999 funding. Hereafter, during the remainder of my testimony I

will refer to both programs as the Challenge Program.

The National Guard provides the oversight and support for Challenge. When you consider that the Guard is located in over 3,400

communities across America, you understand our wide reach. It fits

the civil support mission that most Americans are familiar with,

fulfilling the State mission of the Guard.

The National Guard has the required infrastructure in place to

support such a program. We also have the availability of trained

people in the areas of organization, planning, execution, self-discipline, training, and especially leadership.

The National Guard and the Challenge are the natural partnership between hometown America and the military. We are on Main

Street. The lights are on and someone is home to take a hand with

helping America’s youth at risk.

We provide a bridge between the military and our youth at risk

with the Challenge programs. Years ago, judges would adjudicate

at-risk youth to military service. Frankly, many young people simply needed the structure, the discipline, and a caring environment

to change failure into success. Those days, like the military draft,

are in the past. However, thanks to Challenge we are able to provide the same qualities of structure, discipline, and a caring military environment for a new generation.

At its core, the Challenge is a preventative rather than a remedial program. It is based on eight prime components that support

the development of the whole person in terms of mind, body, and

the personal values. They include leadership, fellowship, community service, job skills, academic excellence, responsible citizenship,

life-coping skills, health, education, and physical training.

Emphasis on self-discipline, self-esteem, and the development of

healthy lifestyles are the bedrock of the success of these young men

and women’s experience; 91 percent of our Challenge members

from our last recent class graduated. Now, that is higher than the

national high school average. This is very significant, because 100

percent of our graduates were already dropouts, or expellees from

traditional school systems.

Over one-fourth of our young people in America are dropping out

from our traditional secondary schools. These disenfranchised and

disillusioned youngsters are at a high risk of turning to a life of

drugs and crime. We must believe that these young people can be

saved. The Challenge Program is turning high-risk young Americans who are statistically headed for a dismal future into self-confident, contributing citizens of our country, our States, and our

communities.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
397

Let us be clear with one another on behalf of these children,

their families, and the future of America. The young people that

come to us are doing their part. We, the National Guard, are striving to do ours, and America needs your continued and ardent support for these programs and we appreciate the support of you and

the committee in the past.

Thank you very much.

Senator STEVENS. Well, General, let me tell you, it is very important that you come here today, because in the 1998 bill we are operating under now you have 15 programs in the Guard, and they

cost the taxpayers about $40 million. The 1999 budget request before us is for $25 million, which would require us to reduce the

number of programs underway.

We have requests now for additional programs of 38 in total so

far. I assume eventually we would have 50 plus the territories, but

it would cost $82 million to fund the pending request for the program.

I am really delighted you have taken the opportunity to come,

and I would like to give an opportunity to Colonel Williams and to

the students here to make statements, if you would like to do so.

Colonel Williams.

SUCCESS OF YOUTH PROGRAMS

Colonel WILLIAMS. Sir, I will tell you that I was sent to Challenge as an assignment. I did not believe in it. I did not think we

really needed to be going there. I did not know what at-risk youth

was. I told my General we did not have a dog in that fight, that

we needed to be training soldiers and needed to be training killers

and maintaining our equipment, and so I did it with reluctance.

I did not really know what the problem was in the United States.

I did not know what the Georgia problem was. I did not really

know anything about it. My background is in agriculture, and so

I am not a teacher, and I am not an educator, and I have been a

guardsmen.

But the first class, I found out real quickly what it was all about.

We do have a place. We do have a job there. It is turning young

folks around, and it is working. It is making a tremendous difference in their lives.

It is making guardsmen in their hometowns heroes by identifying

these youth all over the State and sending them down and getting

them back on track, and it is having results more than I ever expected of the program. I never expected the results we are getting.

I am a believer now.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I had similar comments when I was with

the General at the school I went to visit. The people really had become believers.

Let me tell you young people out there, there is hardly a family

in the country that has not had experience with problems of trying

to keep our young people in school, and this is a very interesting

program. You bring us some actual experience now, so we want you

to tell Senator Cochran and me what you have on your mind and

what you think we ought to do with this program.

Let us start with you, Mr. Phagan.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
398

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA BRYSON PHAGAN, STUDENT, GEORGIA

Mr. PHAGAN. I am kind of nervous right now.

Senator STEVENS. Don’t worry, we put on our pants one leg at

a time, just like everybody else. [Laughter.]

Mr. PHAGAN. Without this Challenge Program I know I would be

in a world of trouble, or I would not even be in this world right

now. Before I came in here I was on the streets. I was selling

drugs. I was doing a lot of drugs. I was involved with a lot of gang

activity. I knew I needed to change, and I had friends who have

come through the Challenge Program and it really helped them

out, and I wanted to be like that.

PREPARED STATEMENT

It is a good program. It is a real good program. I am getting my

general education diploma [GED]. I am getting my CDL license,

and I am getting my high school diploma, and I am now drug free

and tobacco free, and it is a real good program.

I mean, I do not want to know where I would be without it.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSHUA BRYSON PHAGAN

My name is Joshua Phagan. I was born in Macon, Georgia, on March 9, 1980.

I attended John H. Heard elementary school and was a decent student. After elementary school, I attended Ballard Hudson middle school, and that is when my life

started to go downhill. I started using drugs really heavily. I was smoking marijuana, snorting cocaine, using LSD, and taking pills. I moved to Forsyth, Georgia,

in 1993 and attended Monroe County Middle School where the drug use only got

worse and I became involved with gang activity and violent engagements using

deadly weapons. In 1994, I attended Mary Persons High School where the downhill

slope of my life became a 90-degree angle straight down. I knew that it was time

for a change, but I couldn’t do it by myself. That is when I found out about Youth

Challenge Academy and all its benefits. At first, my parents didn’t like the idea of

it and just told me to stay in school, but I couldn’t because I was constantly getting

suspended and skipping school so I could get high. After they found out more and

more about the program, they began to like it more and more. This program is what

I’ve been looking for to turn me completely around and get away from the wrong

crowd that I have been looking to get away from for so long. I’m a 100 percent drugfree Cadet with a GED and hopefully a high school diploma and commercial driver’s

license.

After I graduate, I plan to go to the military and go to college to get a degree

in business and start my own business. All this I know I can achieve, because of

Youth Challenge. Without Youth Challenge, I would most likely be dead or in prison. I now realize that five months is worth giving up to better the rest of my life.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. We are delighted you

are here today. How far are you from finishing the program?

Mr. PHAGAN. We are in the 7th week of a 22-week program.

Senator STEVENS. You have made marvelous progress.

Let me turn to the young lady first.

STATEMENT OF TIFFANY NICOLE BROWN, STUDENT, GEORGIA

Ms. BROWN. My background, I grew up in Savannah, and I went

to school and I dropped out of school, maybe just because of the environment, wanting to hang out, and I remember it was like, I was

not involved in any gang activity, or had any involvement on drugs

or anything, but the program is ultimately magnificent, and it just

helps us a lot, allows us to get ready to work to go in our jobs in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
399

the military, or college, or whatever it is that we need to do to help

us tremendously.

And I see a lot of people coming in who really need help, and it

has helped them. Basically, it is really great and it really helps the

community and all the children.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIFFANY NICOLE BROWN

I’m Tiffany Brown, from Savannah, Georgia. I’m a 17 year old cadet at Georgia

Youth Challenge Academy. Youth Challenge has been an inspiration to many adolescents. When I came to Youth Challenge I was totally amazed at what was offered.

Previous to engaging in this challenge, I had always self-directed and determined

to pave my own way to success. As an outgoing and versatile youth I was given all

opportunities to excel. I had the very best of a family who always encouraged me.

I feel blessed because to me my life so far has been a unique experience. Throughout

my life I have always worked diligently at whatever I wanted. Truly I am not merely half of the way there, but through Christ he will lead me to success.

While growing up in this ever agonizing but peaceful decade, I attended Sophrona

Tompkins Middle School and Alfred Ely Beach High School. I participated in numerous extra-curricular activities. I’ve always been very active. At the age of 12 I graduated from modeling school. In 1995 I represented Savannah in the Miss Georgia

Teen Pageant. In 1996–97 I also represented Savannah through the Professionals

Reach-Out Program as Miss Silhouette—while having my own component called

personal development and etiquette. On several occasions I’ve been the community’s

top teen. During my sophomore year of high school I attended cosmetology school

and graduated. I always think ahead, so at the earliest ages I pursued to prepare

for my future. I have been employed in numerous environments and job settings

such as running offices and programs, childcare, floristry, sales and retail, and cosmetology. I use everything that occurs in my life as an educational experience. My

goal is to be as omniscient as possible when it comes to my career limits. I have

also participated in various community projects. I feel that it is very important for

me to give back to my community. It has given me so much, and I feel the need

to be there for the upcoming students to help them understand the importance of

staying in school. I am very gracious of my opportunity at Youth Challenge Academy.

I have noticed that throughout my life I have had a different mentality and way

of thinking compared to my peers. I could never understand why others didn’t think

like me. I’ve never had any academic problems in school; I just seemed to get very

bored by my surroundings easily. I need an ever-changing environment to keep my

mind healthily stimulated. I always felt that I didn’t belong, I was odd or different,

especially in a high school setting where I was allowed only to express a limited

amount of my capabilities and creativity. I felt trapped and no one could ever understand me. I feel it is so important to be able to develop your own identity and personality. I wanted to loose whatever this feeling was, be myself, and go to all

extraordinares—the path which I am engraving now. I drifted away from high

school and found Y.C.A. Y.C.A. was not what I was looking for to fill my personal

needs, but it took my interest and gave a positive outlook toward my future. It

keeps my mind busy and I always look forward to new adventures. The experience

turns out to be phenomenal. This program offers all skills that adolescents need to

prepare for the future. From a High School Diploma, college courses, counseling,

counselor life and work skills—which physically aligns us for jobs, college, and military. They offer all types of workshops, extra-curricular activities, and a few trades,

which is more than you could ever get in a traditional high school. We’re involved

in an array of community service projects, not to mention the military structure

which gives us a disciplined and ordered atmosphere, as well as being able to learn

how to interrelate with people of diverse backgrounds that prepares for living in this

multi-cultural society. Being that this is a five-month program with minimal contact

with our family, friends, previous environment it makes us strong and ready for survival. Youth Challenge molds us mentally, physically, and spiritually. We have numerous opportunities to unleash the spiritual side of us. The Cadre, counselors,

teachers, and staff push us to endure and strive for the best. They are ever-caring

and never give up on us. Neither do our peers. We live and work together as a team.

It is exactly a ‘‘challenge’’ as said. Y.C.A is dynamic and greatly appreciated. Marvelous. No words could express how I feel about the program, the importance of it,

and how many people it has helped. Y.C.A. has graduated 1,399 cadets. What would

be done without Y.C.A.?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
400

Often we as young adults don’t make the correct choices, but I feel that my experience was God sent. I want to find a way to be able to reach out more to today’s

youth. Helping to deal with some of the cadets’ emotional issues and struggles while

here at Youth Challenge gives me experience towards a possible future profession.

Through the traits of different people I learn how to compromise methods of making

them feel better or finding ways to help solve their problems. I have a strong desire

to help others. Early while growing up I always wanted to pursue the career of a

psychologist, social worker, or counselor. However over the years it has changed and

now varies. After completing my challenge, I plan to join the Air Force Reserves.

From there I plan to attend various colleges because I have a broad amount of interests which includes ministry. I have a purpose that I will fulfill. I am thankful that

I have always been self-driven and motivated. We as young adults need the opportunity to spread our wings. Youth challenge does just that. It gives us hope and

faith that no one else would. So I thank God for Y.C.A., my life, experiences, and

accomplishments. Truly it is not me, but he who is within me. God Bless All.

Senator STEVENS. Are you going to be able to get your GED?

Ms. BROWN. Yes; I have already attained that, and I am about

to take some college classes, and I plan to go into the Air Force Reserve and then on to college.

Senator STEVENS. That is wonderful. How far had you gone before you dropped out of school?

Ms. BROWN. I was in the middle of my junior year.

Senator STEVENS. Well, you have got a great opportunity, and I

congratulate you for following up and wish you the best success.

Ms. BROWN. Yes; it has really helped me get back on track.

Senator STEVENS. Very good.

Mr. Sparra, you are at the Citadel now, right?

STATEMENT OF ALEX J. SPARRA, SOPHOMORE, THE CITADEL, GRADUATE, GEORGIA YOUTH CHALLENGE ACADEMY

Mr. SPARRA. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Tell us about your experience. How did you get

into the Challenge Program?

Mr. SPARRA. Well, sir, when I was 16 years old I was having a

lot of trouble in high school, skipping school all the time. I was cutting classes, getting bad grades. I was in my second sophomore

year in high school, and I was pretty much doing the same thing

I did during the first time I was a sophomore, just messing around

and basically wasting time, and wasting my life away.

My mother was going crazy. She saw her son just wasting away,

very concerned. I think it was tearing her apart, and somehow she

talked to somebody and thank goodness they told her about Youth

Challenge, and she came to me one day and she said, this is where

it ends. You are going to do one of a few things. You are either

going to drop out of high school and get a job and go to work, or

you are going to go to high school and start getting good grades

and graduate, and do whatever, but you are not just going to be

sitting around at home skipping school, and I heard about this

military program. I want you to go to boot camp for 5 months and

get a GED.

When I heard that, I was completely turned off and said, no way.

I knew that I wanted to go to college. I did not know where, I did

not know how. If I had dropped out of high school I could not have

joined the military. I could not have gone to college. I had no skills.

Basically I had no work ethic, no self-discipline. I was pretty much

useless.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
401

But my mom said, please, just come speak to this recruiter, listen to what he has to say, and find out about this military thing.

We had never heard of it, did not know what it was, and so I went

just for my mom, and when I heard about Youth Challenge I immediately fell in love with the program. I knew this was what I wanted to do.

I saw people running around in battle dress uniforms [BEU’s]

doing physical training [PT], going to GED classes. It looked like

it was a lot more involved than what a regular high school was.

I was already going to drop out of high school. I dropped out. I applied to the program. I got accepted. That is probably where my life

started to turn around right there.

I went down to Fort Stewart. I did the 5-month residential

phase. It was probably one of the longest 5 months of my life. I had

never been away from home before. I was scared. I was with a

bunch of people that I did not know. I was getting dropped for

pushups all the time, getting up at 5 o’clock in the morning doing

PT. It was like my whole life was turned upside down.

I worked on my GED, I got my GED, I had the opportunity to

take some college courses at Savannah Tech, and started to get

things moving and started to get kind of motivated. I liked the way

my life was starting to go.

I started to become productive. I was not sleeping all day. My

mom was proud of me. I was finally doing something. I knew I

wanted to go to college. Toward the end of the program I decided

that the military life had kind of worked out for me and got me

on track, and so when it came time to think about college I applied

to the Citadel, and luckily I was accepted, and here I am today, sir,

just to tell you about how great the program is.

Senator STEVENS. You have been through 1 year already at the

Citadel?

Mr. SPARRA. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. How did you work out? What kind of grades

did you get?

Mr. SPARRA. Academically it was very hard for me. My first year

I did not do too well. I think my main problem was study habits,

because I did not learn that. I did not learn how to sit down and

make myself study.

Surprisingly, though, all my classmates who had graduated from

high school, a great deal of them did not have good study habits,

either, and so when it came to grades I was not at the bottom of

the barrel, but I was not at the top of my class, either. I was right

in the middle.

This year I am doing pretty well, though. I am really pleased

with my grades. I know how to plan and when I need to study and

what I need to do, and I am loving it.

ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE EDUCATION

Senator STEVENS. Good. Very good. Well, you are a testimony,

the three of you, to the foresightedness of the people in the Guard.

You started this program, and we who have been familiar with it

from the beginning have wanted to expand it.

I have a personal reason to be interested in it, as Jake knows.

I wish there had been one available for one of my kin who got a

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
402

little bit out of kilter, as you have in the past, but I do think that

this is the kind of program that needs more advertising, and thank

you for coming.

I see one behind you. Ms. Powell, are you part of the program,

too?

Ms. POWELL. I am a staff member, sir. I am the one that wakes

them in the morning. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran, do you have any questions?

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The program I

think in our State has been one of great success as well. Mississippi is one of 20 States that has an active program, and there

are about that many that would like to have the program, but because of funding shortfalls are not able to. In Mississippi I am told

the legislature has provided additional funds to have extra classes,

and that they have an annual enrollment of about 400 students.

And they have just considered legislation that would increase

that to 800. So, the States are coming up with money and using

this model. It is based at Camp Shelby, with the National Guard

training facility in Hattiesburg as the site for this. So it has been

a great success, I am told, in our State as well.

I congratulate those of you who are involved as students, staff,

administrators of the program. You have really done a great job,

all of you have, and you can probably take a great deal of pride

in leading the way for the whole country.

Senator STEVENS. I am going to yield to Senator Bumpers in a

moment, but Colonel Williams, the thought strikes my mind that

maybe you ought to also be sort of indoctrinating some of the people from the high schools in each State, the people who are teachers, to come and participate to get some ideas about maybe having

classes, or having some alternative structure of education for people like this who get bored with the existing concepts of education

and who drop out.

We have known other dropouts. One of them started the largest

manufacturing company in the world, as you know, but they all do

not have that stimulus.

Is there any way you could integrate into your program some

kind of an adjunct teacher so that they could take some of these

high school teachers that could get some experience in how to deal

with young people like this who want a different opportunity?

Colonel WILLIAMS. Sir, I have been to a couple of the local

schools around there and worked some with their alternative school

people. I have also worked with Georgia Southern and had interns

come down and work, and so Georgia Southern University is sending students down to look and see from time to time.

Senator STEVENS. That is very good. I think that would be a good

cross-pollenization with the existing school structure.

Senator Bumpers.

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to say I got

in on the tail end of these youngsters’ testimony, and I came here

really to grill General Baca, who I understand probably heard I

was coming and left. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. No; he is right back there. He is waiting for

you. But he is going to leave now, now that he knows what you

want. [Laughter.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
403

Senator BUMPERS. But I also want to state that Arkansas has a

Youth Challenge Program and we are very proud of it. It has been

very successful.

But Colonel, let me ask you this question. Are you limited under

your present budget on how many youths you can take?

Colonel WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I am limited. The funding was for

180 students.

Senator BUMPERS. Nationwide?

Colonel WILLIAMS. For my program. For my program I was limited, and I am funded by the number of students that I carry.

Senator BUMPERS. How many students attend the Challenge Program now, do you know?

Colonel WILLIAMS. Nationwide I do not know, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. I am told by staff it is 3,566. Is that correct?

General LESTENKOF. I am told, Senator, that the number is 3,000

nationwide within the Challenge Program.

Senator BUMPERS. 2,000?

General LESTENKOF. 3,000.

CRITERIA ON ACCEPTING STUDENTS

Senator BUMPERS. This was the target enrollment, 3,566. What

is the criteria, if I have a wayward youngster and I would like to

get him in the program, and I brought him to you, and he has been

having problems with drugs, maybe, petty thefts, that sort of thing.

What is the criteria on whether you accept somebody or do not accept somebody?

Colonel WILLIAMS. The criteria, sir, is they have to be between

16 and 18 years old and have to have dropped out of high school.

They have to be drug free, and what that means is, on day one I

give them a drug test and it comes back negative.

Senator BUMPERS. Or you do not take him?

Colonel WILLIAMS. I do not take him if it comes back hot, no, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. Then how did you get in? You said you were

high most of the time.

Mr. PHAGAN. Well, I wanted to get into the program, and so I

stopped.

Senator BUMPERS. How long had you been drug free when you

applied?

Mr. PHAGAN. Two or three months.

Senator BUMPERS. Two or three months, and how long have you

been in the program?

Mr. PHAGAN. Eight weeks.

Senator BUMPERS. How long is the program?

Mr. PHAGAN. Twenty-two weeks, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. Twenty-two?

Mr. PHAGAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. And you are doing well in the program?

Mr. PHAGAN. Yes, sir; I have already got my GED.

Senator BUMPERS. What do you want to do when you finish?

Mr. PHAGAN. I want to go to college and into the military.

General LESTENKOF. Senator, just let me add that in watching

this program for a number of years, probably the bottom line on

any youngster coming into the program is that they must want to

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
404

attend the program. We are not going to be dragging them into the

program.

If they are personally interested in attending and participating,

they will make a success of this thing, because we have had people

who were somewhat unsure about attending the program that we

lose in the early stages of the program, so there has to be that personal motivation.

Senator BUMPERS. How many youngsters are eligible to get in

and cannot get in because the rolls are full?

General LESTENKOF. It is probably running about 12 to 15 percent in Alaska, in my State, and that is the State I am familiar

with.

We estimate that——

Senator BUMPERS. General, just a moment. What is it?

Senator STEVENS. Explain that statistic to him, Jake.

General LESTENKOF. The numbers, that would probably be about

30 to 40 that we would not take on a regular class.

Senator BUMPERS. That would be eligible, except you are full?

General LESTENKOF. That would be eligible that we are not able

to afford.

Senator STEVENS. How many do you take, Jake?

General LESTENKOF. We take 120 at the beginning of the class.

Senator BUMPERS. And that is the most you can take?

General LESTENKOF. Yes.

Senator BUMPERS. And you have 30 more that would be eligible?

General LESTENKOF. We have 30 to 40 that would be eligible.

Senator BUMPERS. Why on Earth is the administration asking for

a cut in the funds for this program, or are you the wrong person

to ask?

General LESTENKOF. I am the wrong person to ask. We estimate

in our State that this year we will have about 3,000 dropping out

of our regular high school programs, so we are looking at an audience of about 3,000 each year that could be prime candidates for

the program in Alaska alone.

Senator STEVENS. You only have one in Alaska, right?

General LESTENKOF. We just have one program in Alaska. Each

State has one program.

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Chairman, has anybody testified on why

they are cutting these funds, why they have asked for a cut?

Senator STEVENS. Well, the fellow is not here. He lives at 1600

Pennsylvania Avenue.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, I can handle him. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. That is why we are glad you are here, sir.

[Laughter.]

Colonel WILLIAMS. Sir, if I could, last year Georgia had 31,000

dropouts.

Senator BUMPERS. Pardon?

Colonel WILLIAMS. Last year Georgia had 31,000 drop out of high

school last year alone, and I quit advertising for students for my

program because I get two to three times the number of applicants

that I can take, and so I have a State selection committee made

up of citizens of Georgia that come in and pick my students out of

all the applications we go through, so there are many, many people

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
405

that are qualified there that do not get selected just because there

are too many.

Senator STEVENS. If you would yield for just one question there,

how many of these people as they graduate want to go out into the

military?

Colonel WILLIAMS. Sir, I am running about 16 percent now, 16

to 20 percent, depending on the class. The ones that go in do really

well.

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue this

any further, except to say just based on the limited knowledge I

have, and the fact that I know they love the program in my State,

but we are 1 of only 20 States, and I think there are more States

who want to join, and with a program with a track record like this

has it would be unforgivable not to increase the funds, instead of

cutting funds.

This committee has something to say about whether these funds

are going to be cut or not, or whether something is going to be

added or not, and unless there is a lot I do not know about the program, I think it would be the height of folly not to allow these

other States to enter the program and not to provide the funds for

them to do it, and to provide the funds for you to be able to take

everybody that applies that is eligible.

This is precisely what we talk about on the Senate floor, and

hold our hands over our hearts while we are doing it, and then

come in here and the thought of cutting this program is the height

of absurdity.

Senator STEVENS. Senator, we are expanding as rapidly as we

can. It is, as the Colonel indicates, an adjunct to the Guard functions, and their task right now is to be able to prepare people in

uniform to fill in for the reduction in the regular Army and Air

Force, and this—we cannot let this divert funds from the Guard’s

ongoing increasing burden in the military structure.

But we do want to increase them, and the difficulty is, these are

military funds going into education, I hope you realize, and what

we have to do is to pace it so we can increase it and expand it, and

do it without depriving the Guard of the people to do the function

that they must do to assist the regular services.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the next

observation ought to be how many of these youngsters go into the

military when they finish the program.

Senator STEVENS. That is why I just asked the question. He said

17 percent.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, that is not as high as it probably ought

to be, but that is high enough to maintain the program, and the

thing about it is, presumably you do not have any idea of how

many of these youngsters get in trouble after they leave the program, do you?

Colonel WILLIAMS. I lose about 6 percent of the ones that go

through.

Senator BUMPERS. During the time they are in school, though?

Colonel WILLIAMS. No, sir; when they finish there is about 6 percent recidivism, go get in some kind of trouble and go back and get

on drugs.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
406

Senator BUMPERS. Well, hell, the public education system cannot

boast of that.

Colonel WILLIAMS. No, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Jake, how many people enlist from your program in Alaska?

General LESTENKOF. We are running today I think about 10 percent, and this is for the Active service and for the Reserve components, the Air Guard, Army Guard, and Reserve.

Senator STEVENS. But that is not really a total figure, because

some of them might do what Mr. Sparra is doing and going on to

college with the hope of going later. Didn’t you say you wanted to

go into the military?

Mr. SPARRA. Yes, sir; but right now I am also in the South Carolina State Guard.

Senator STEVENS. You are in the Guard already?

Mr. SPARRA. Yes, sir; I am enlisted.

General LESTENKOF. In Alaska we are running—about 93 percent of our graduates are in the service, or in jobs, or back in

school, either college or back in their own high schools to finish,

and so that is a pretty high rate.

Senator STEVENS. We ought to be able to track them to see how

many after they go to high school or college end up in the military.

I do think it is an excellent way to give young people an opportunity to see what the military is all about.

Do you have any other questions, Senator?

Senator BUMPERS. I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Well, let me tell you again, we are really grateful to you for coming.

Were you serious about wanting General Baca to come back up?

Senator BUMPERS. Yes; I just had one question.

Senator STEVENS. General Baca is always a volunteer. If you

young people would stay, our photographer would like to get a photograph of you while you are here.

May I ask you, then, to go back to your seats and let General

Baca come back forward.

Senator BUMPERS. My question, General Baca, is, I am again dismayed, dumbfounded, and really upset about the fact we are building hardly any National Guard armories. Benton, AR, has been on

the list since before I was born. It is still not on the Pentagon’s list

for replacement, and as I understand it there are only four armories in the Guard budget, is that correct?

General BACA. Senator, I do not know the exact number, but I

think that is about right. I can give you the number for the record.

[The information follows:]

DETAILS OF ARMORIES IN THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD BUDGET

There are presently four armories and/or readiness centers scheduled for replacement or expansion in the fiscal year 1999 Budget. The locations are Gowen Field,

Idaho, Bismarck, North Dakota, Powhatan, Virginia, and Camp Dawson (Kingwood),

West Virginia. The armory at Benton, Arkansas, is in the Future Years Defense

Plan for fiscal year 2002.

Senator BUMPERS. I am not going to go through all the statistics

about how many armories we have and how many of them are in

a sad state of repair or ought to be replaced, but how in the name

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
407

of all that is good can we keep going, not doing any better by the

Guard armories than we are doing?

General BACA. Senator, I could not agree with you more. I think

it is an issue that we need to address. We need the—armory is a

misnomer, really. It is more now—it is a training facility for the

units. The units need the adequate facilities to train.

I can tell you also, Senator, that as you know in your communities as a citizen, Senator, it is a center for the activity of all the

citizenry, and we need to address the problem. I agree with what

you are saying.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, I do not know whether this committee

is going to undertake to add to the list or put any more money into

the program.

You know, like everything else, I suppose we are up against

budget caps just like everybody else is, but as I say, I just think

this is penny-wise and pound-foolish, not to keep our infrastructure

up for what I consider a very important element, and that is the

Guard.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Well, I had questions of the Air Force, the Guard Air Force too.

General BACA. Senator, we would be happy to provide you all

your answers for the record.

Senator BUMPERS. We will submit several questions for the

record, General Baca, and if you can get back to us at the earliest

possible time, if you would share your answers with the other

members of the committee.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Bureau for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO MAJ. GEN. PAUL A. WEAVER, JR.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

F–16

Question. There is a need to upgrade the aircraft being flown by the 119th Fighter

Wing, now flying the F–16A. Are there plans to upgrade the 119th Fighter Wing

to the F–16C?

Answer. There are various force structure options under discussion between the

Air Staff and the Air National Guard staff. Some of those options do include upgrading the 119th Fighter Wing from the F–16A to the F–16C.

Question. What would be the ultimate result of such an upgrade, as to mission,

number of aircraft, and cost?

Answer. The various options under consideration include leaving the unit in the

Air Defense mission or converting to the General Purpose mission. The number of

aircraft assigned to the unit and the cost, will be consistent with other units assigned to the same mission.

Question. Are there any F–16C’s available for the 119th Fighter Wing or other

Air National Guard Units in the foreseeable future?

Answer. The availability of F–16C aircraft is dependent upon the force structure

options exercised by the Total Force. As the Air Force is currently not buying new

F–16’s, any F–16C’s that flow to the 119th Fighter Wing and other units will come

out of the existing force structure.

Question. Without an upgrade, how many hours are left on the present F–16A’s

Answer. The age of the F–16A ranges from a low of approximately 2,500 hours

to a high of approximately 4,250 hours. The fleet average age is approximately 3,768

hours. Remaining service life of these aircraft is difficult to determine, since hours

alone is not a good measure. Current service life projections predict that the F–16A

will be able to safely operate for several more years.

Question. Has the possibility of a ‘‘mid-life update’’ of F–16A’s been explored?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
408

Answer. Yes, the mid-life update program for the F–16A has been explored.

Question. What would the cost of this update be as compared to the purchase of

new aircraft?

Answer. The cost of the mid-life update varies dependent upon the service life extension option selected. In general, the cost is approximately one-half the cost of a

new aircraft, although the amortized cost is the same (approximately $3.2 million/

year). The main difference is that, at best, the mid-life update is a 16 year aircraft,

while a new aircraft is a 32 year aircraft. These figures are based on using the aircraft at the rate of 250 hours per year.

Question. What capabilities would be lacking in such upgraded F–16A’s as compared to F–16C’s?

Answer. The mid-life update provides Block 50 compatible avionics. However, the

airframe is still an F–16A airframe, with all of the associated weight limitations.

Therefore, the limitations is not avionics, but airframe load bearing capacity.

Question. What are the drawbacks of this program as compared to the purchase

of new aircraft for the active Air Force and the cascade of used F–16C’s to the Air

Guard?

Answer. If the F–16A was to have the mid-life update accomplished, the only aircraft modified in this configuration would be those in the Air National Guard

(ANG). This provides some unique logistics issues that separate the ANG from the

rest of the Total Force. Additional operational concerns would also have to be addressed in order to fully integrate these platforms with the Total Force. There are

workaround solutions to both of these issues; however the optimum solution would

be to migrate F–16C models to the ANG.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is

all I wanted to pillory General Baca about.

Senator STEVENS. Is he entitled to another Purple Heart?

[Laughter.]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Senator BUMPERS. Unhappily, he agrees with me but cannot do

anything about it.

Senator STEVENS. I guess he is ready for retirement. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much. We are going to be in recess until March

19, this Thursday, that is tomorrow, to hear testimony on intelligence programs for this subcommittee.

Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, March 18, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the

Chair.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MA18.000
(409)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:09 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Shelby, and Inouye.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SURGEON GENERALS

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD R. BLANCK, SURGEON GENERAL,

U.S. ARMY

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen, we apologize. We had the markup

session on the tobacco legislation, and we told them we had other

medical problems over here to deal with so we could come over

here. So, my friend and I are here and we are happy to have a

chance to visit with you about the future of our health problems.

It is a pleasure once again to welcome you, General Blanck, as

the Surgeon General; Vice Admiral Koenig, the Surgeon General of

the Navy; and General Roadman as Surgeon General of the Air

Force.

We have some very significant challenges in the Department of

Defense and medical readiness is one of them. We do have to have

the ability to care for the Active Force and to keep the commitments we have made to those who have been in the force. I hope

that we will have the chance here to discuss a lot of the issues that

we have tried to deal with in the past.

I am going to ask my colleague if he has a statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. I would like to take this

opportunity to acknowledge Vice Admiral Koenig. I believe this is

the last time he will be appearing here. I wish to thank you for

your enduring support over the past 4 years and wish you much

success in future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I have had several opportunities to visit military

medical facilities over the past several months, and I found care

delivery to be excellent, which reinforces my belief that our miliU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
410

tary health care is far superior than that of other countries. We

provide high quality care because our service members and their

families deserve the best.

One of the most important aspects of the high quality of military

medicine is the access to care provided to our beneficiaries. Although the overall size of our military forces and number of treatment facilities has declined, the number of eligible beneficiaries

has increased. This increase is due to two important factors.

First, the average family size of our junior enlisted members has

increased. Statistics now show that approximately 65 percent of

our forces now have family members eligible for health care.

The second factor I believe is the excellent retention which has

increased the number of service members who remain on active

duty through retirement.

During visits to my home State, many current and former members of the military frequently ask about the future of military

health care and they express confusion and concern about the options available and why changes such as TRICARE were necessary.

They are particularly apprehensive about the changes to the availability of quality services to their family members. I can say with

confidence that the ready access to quality health care, wherever

military members are living, is always of paramount concern to

them.

Today, as we address many of the issues facing our military

health system, I would like to focus on military medical readiness,

provision of health care services to our beneficiaries, new technology initiatives, and the President’s fiscal year 1999 budgetary

request. So, I look forward to the testimony this morning.

I would like to join my chairman in welcoming General Blanck.

He has been a good friend for many, many years. And also General

Roadman. Welcome, sir.

I would like to also announce, in case you have not heard, the

State of Hawaii and Tripler Medical Center has had a new addition, the highest ranking nurse to be Commander in Chief of the

facility. So, congratulations to all of you. We finally crossed the border here. The next one is three stars. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen, I have recently had some information from one of you that in the Washington, DC, area, because of

the innovative way that we have handled consolidation of functions

at military hospitals, we have actually been able to hold inflation

in terms of the cost of the services you provide here down to approximately 1 percent, compared to the 7 to 12 percent of medical

systems generally. You are to be congratulated. I hope other people

are listening to what you are going to tell us because I think that

reports are very good in terms of the innovative way and the approach to the job you have to provide better care and holding down

the costs we have.

So, let me first start with you, General Blanck.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD R. BLANCK

General BLANCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members. I appreciate the opportunity to appear with my colleagues.

I will keep my remarks brief and ask that my testimony, of

course, in its entirety be part of the record.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
411

The Army Medical Department, along with our sister services, is

looking at how we can shape our total medical force as we prepare

for all of the eventualities and as we respond to the ever-increasing

need for health care, particularly of not only our active duty and

family members but also our retirees and their family members of

all ages.

We are shaping, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, by

such things as the consolidations that you referred to. Here in the

National Capital area there have been functional consolidations between National Naval Medical Center and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as well as Malcolm Grow Air Force Medical Center. We

have combined most of our graduate education programs and actually have centers that do one specific thing at just one, not all, of

those medical centers, so that we have avoided duplication.

The same thing is happening throughout this country, and I

would also mention similar consolidation efforts in San Antonio between Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center and Brooke Army

Medical Center. This is one example, at least, of how we are managing to continue to provide ever-increasing quality of care with

much more accessible care, making it more accessible and at the

same time holding costs down to a minimum. It is care of value

and I think of great value to this Nation.

We do have serious problems within the shaping, particularly in

our Reserve components where, for the Army at least, I have serious shortages in physicians, dental officers, and physicians’ assistants. Some of those problems are occurring in the Active Force, but

far less so. The Reserve force is of great concern to me, and we

have certain initiatives in place to improve recruitment and increase retention.

We have, as noted, moved to corps in material commands with

General Adams taking the command of Tripler Army Medical Center. This first 99 command board that considered all corps will be

announced shortly and I suspect there will be members of the

Nurse Corps and the Medical Service Corps as well as the Medical

Corps on that list.

Finally, we are also shaping with innovative technologies, a variety of kinds of information technologies. Telemedicine in particular

has played a key role and we are doing that through the AKAMAI

project with Hawaii and Alaska and using it many, many places including today in Bosnia and in Kuwait, Bahrain, the whole gulf

area.

We are preparing our force for all the eventualities in a variety

of ways. We are applying the protection of anthrax vaccine, and

those immunizations are going on as we speak, all captured in an

immunization tracking system so we know who got them.

We are preparing with such evacuation platforms as the UH–

60Q, and I appreciate the support that you individually and this

committee have provided to let us have our first eight of these

evacuation platforms.

Of course, we are into health promotion through not only all of

the education programs but such technologies as the electron beam

computerized tomography that you have been very supportive in

and that we now have at Walter Reed and some other places withU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
412

in the system. Of course, we are moving to develop the generation

after that—the volume angio-CT.

We have the chemical/biologic response teams standing up at our

medical centers, and we really are trying to look at all of the kinds

of scenarios to which we might be called upon to respond.

Response. We are doing that in Bosnia. We are doing it in the

gulf. We are doing it with partnering with such groups as the Center of Excellence in disaster management and humanitarian assistance, in Honolulu with the university there.

We are implementing TRICARE throughout, and as of the end

of this spring, May 1, we will actually have contracts in all of the

areas in TRICARE, the last being the Northeast, here in the National Capital area up through Maine.

Part of this responding is, of course, to try to provide better access to care to those retirees and family members 65 and over

through Medicare subvention, through other initiatives of partnering with Medicare health maintenance organizations. We are

working closely with not only you, but with our constituency organizations, our beneficiary organizations, to try to come up with innovative ways to provide that care.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I look forward to your questions, and again thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD R. BLANCK

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lieutenant General Ronald

R. Blanck, The Army Surgeon General. It is a privilege for me to address this committee. This morning I would like to provide you with a picture of the Army Medical

Department. Through this picture you will see an Army Medical Department fully

integrated not only on any future field of battle, but in garrison as well, taking care

of all our soldiers, retired and active—and their family members. I will provide this

picture in the context of the three Army Imperatives—Shaping the Force, Preparing

the Force, and Responding to the Needs of our Army and the Nation. In so doing,

I will highlight the issues and challenges that Army Medicine faces today and into

the future. Next, as I know this is an area of intense concern for the Committee,

I will focus some comments on current issues in telemedicine and TRICARE and

its ongoing implementation. Further, I will highlight areas where the Army Medical

Department is working in close cooperation with our sister service medical departments to gain efficiencies. Finally, I will take a few moments to complete the picture

by sharing with you some ‘‘Good News’’ stories from within the Command. At the

conclusion of my testimony, I believe you will agree, today’s Army Medical Department is more flexible and better prepared to meet all our diverse missions than ever

before. I thank you for your continued support of our efforts to provide the finest

quality of medical support to America’s Army.

CURRENT STATUS OF THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

The Army Medical Department continues to respond with creativity and energy

to the challenges of health care in a rapidly changing environment. Since the end

of the Cold War, the Army Medical Department has reduced by about 20 percent

in officers and about 40 percent in enlisted soldiers. In 1990, we had 168 field hospitals—active and reserve—that number has dropped to 52 and will continue to fall.

In the same timeframe, the Army Medical Department began with 10 Medical Centers and 28 Medical Department Activities—Community Hospitals—our inpatient

facilities, and has reduced to 8 Medical Centers, 18 Community Hospitals, and a

host of large outpatient Medical Clinics.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
413

Even as we reduce our numbers, we are deploying all over the world more than

we have in recent years. These deployments are not typically for combat, but rather

for humanitarian assistance and stability and support operations. Medical personnel

are finding that on these missions they are typically providing preventive medicine

expertise and disease and environmental surveillance. All the while, we must maintain day-to-day health care for soldiers, retired soldiers and their families.

Army leadership has articulated three imperatives as we approach the challenges

of the 21st Century. We in the medical department must align ourselves with the

rest of the Army to shape our forces to meet the needs of a changing world; we must

also prepare our forces by staffing, equipping and training them to successfully complete all missions they may be called upon to perform; and we must respond to the

needs of the Army and the Nation. Let’s look at the Army Medical Department’s

current priorities, as they relate to these imperatives:

Shape

Drawdown.—The Army Medical Department has been a full participant in the

drawdown of the total Army Force. Reductions of 37.6 percent in the active Army

Force have been mirrored by a drawdown of 34 percent in the Medical Department’s

military strength. We will continue to shape our force utilizing all of the Congressionally provided tools, striving to meet the allocated military endstrength in fiscal

year 1999. These tools (Expanded Selective Early Retirement Authority, the Variable Separation Incentive Programs and the Variable Early Release and Retirement

Program) have been applied selectively to the various competitive categories which

comprise the Army Medical Department. The overriding consideration during this

entire period has been to insure the correct specialty mix has been maintained to

sustain the readiness of the Army Medical Department to accomplish its multifaceted mission.

Leadership Development Opportunity.—Historically, senior leadership positions

and commands within the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) have been corps

specific. As an example, Medical Treatment Facilities have been commanded by officers of the Medical Corps (MC) and non-deployed TOE medical units have been commanded by Medical Service Corps (MS) officers. Dental and Veterinary units have

been commanded by Dental Corps and Veterinary Corps Officers respectively. As a

result there have been few corps immaterial senior leadership or command opportunities for AMEDD officers. This policy has limited the AMEDD’s ability to select the

best-qualified officer for senior leadership positions.

In January 1997 the Secretary of the Army approved the Surgeon General’s request to change Army regulations which had restricted command of Medical Treatment Facilities. In general veterinary, dental, aviation, garrison and logistics commands will remain corps specific. Virtually all other commands will be AMEDD

corps immaterial. The implementation of corps immaterial commands within the

AMEDD will be phased in over the next few years. The fiscal year 1998 DA Command Designated Position List (CDPL) selection boards held in November 1997 for

Lieutenant Colonel and January 1998 for Colonel was the first opportunity for

AMEDD officers to compete for commands designated corps immaterial. Results of

these boards are expected to be released in April/May 1998 for commands opening

in the Summer of 1999. In addition, the Army Medical Department has identified

and opened appropriate non-command senior leadership positions to the best-qualified officers of each AMEDD Corps.

Reserve Component Staffing.—The Army depends heavily on its Reserve Component for medical support. About 70 percent of the Army’s medical forces are in the

Army Reserve—representing approximately 273 medical units. Several efforts over

the past several years have improved some aspects of reserve readiness. For example, Medical Command and Reserve Command signed a Memorandum of Understanding that allowed closer interaction and support between reserve and active

duty assets. Medical Command has also established Regional Medical Commands

that are responsible for active/reserve integration in their respective geographical

areas.

Although these efforts have been successful in meeting their major objectives, we

continue to have serious problems in other areas, most notably acute shortages of

physicians and dentists in many reserve units. With a loss rate higher than our

gains every year since Desert Storm, the current recruiting incentives are obviously

not meeting the objectives of the force.

It is a very complex set of challenges but we have already begun working on the

following partial remedies: (1) increased emphasis with Recruiting Command on

manpower needs, and (2) individualized efforts to convince physicians and dentists

leaving active duty to join reserve units.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
414

Neither of these efforts alone will solve the problem, but if we do a good job in

both areas, along with on-going restructuring, we can make significant inroads in

eliminating the shortages.

Dental Officer Shortages.—We continue to have concern regarding the recruitment

and retention of dental officers in the Army Dental Corps. Our budgeted end

strength for dental officers is 1,169, and on the 31st of January 1998 this year, we

had 1,018 in the Dental Corps, indicating that we are 13 percent understrength. We

have not been able to meet our accession goals for the past 13 years. Additionally,

the Dental Corps is an aging force. As of February 23, 1998, 17 percent of Dental

Corps officers are retirement eligible and an additional 43 percent of current Dental

Corps officers will be retirement eligible within 5 years.

In response to this, Congress enacted a pay increase for both junior and senior

officers, and an accession bonus and loan repayment program to enhance the recruiting of new officers. The National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 also provides for a Multiyear Retention Bonus for all specialists.

We are working to maintain the number of Health Professions Scholarship Program scholarships in dentistry and to obtain funding for specialists under the

Multiyear Retention Bonus. We will continue to work in this area and monitor

progress.

Physician Assistant Shortages.—Since 1992, the number of Physician Assistants

leaving the Army has exceeded the number of accessions. This has resulted in insufficient numbers of Army Physician Assistants, hindering the provision of Army

healthcare. There are a number of reasons for this problem and we are looking at

several potential solutions. The solutions range from loan repayment for Physician

Assistant School and recruitment bonuses to expanding the Green to Gold program

and increasing the number of Physician Assistant Training seats. This problem is

receiving a great deal of attention and I am confident we will overcome this critical

shortage.

Consolidate Regions.—The Army Medical Department needs to align its organizations better in two ways. First, we will position ourselves around the deployable

corps—XVIII Airborne Corps, III Corps and I Corps—by really focusing on the needs

of each of the warfighting Commanders in Chief. Also, we need to align ourselves

and link ourselves better with TRICARE lead agents. They are increasingly important organizations for coordinating health care throughout the Army, Navy and Air

Force, and to a certain extent the Public Health Service, in order to oversee managed-care support contracts.

The Southwest Regional Medical Command consolidated with Great Plains Regional Medical Command last fall. The expanded Great Plains Regional Medical

Command supports III Corps, and will focus on Southern Command. The Pacific Regional Medical Command and the Western Regional Medical Command have signed

a Memorandum of Understanding defining their peacetime/wartime support of I

Corps and Pacific Command, particularly with regard to crossed lines of authority

in Alaska. The North Atlantic Regional Medical Command and the Southeast Regional Medical Command are developing a Memorandum of Understanding as to

how they will both support 18th Airborne Corps and share resources. Southeast Regional Medical Command will focus on Central Command and North Atlantic Regional Medical Command will align with the Europe Regional Medical Command to

focus on European Command. These alignments should clarify regional responsibility and facilitate and improve habitual training and support relationships.

Integration of Field Units into Fixed Facilities.—The Army needs a certain number of rapidly deployable field hospitals that are fully staffed—except for professional fillers—and able to deploy within 10 days. Other deployable hospitals, however, may be given ‘‘Caretaker’’ status, with most personnel working day-to-day at

fixed military hospitals. This helps maintain clinical skills and makes the best use

of personnel to meet the daily demand for health care. Each Caretaker Hospital,

with the staff working in the fixed facility, provides approximately $24 million

worth of health care per year and is able to deploy in 10 and 30 days. Reserve personnel will mobilize to staff the fixed hospital when its active personnel deploy with

their Caretaker Hospital. TRICARE support contracts also provide for increasing

the level of care/number of providers available during mobilization.

Army Medical Command/Office of the Surgeon General One Staff.—Last year we

reduced duplication between the U.S. Army Medical Command Headquarters staff

located mainly in San Antonio, Texas, and the Office of the Surgeon General staff

located in the National Capital Area. This was not a downsizing exercise but a

measure to improve performance by further flattening the organization and reducing duplication. It follows the dual-hatting of the Surgeon General as Commander

of the U.S. Army Medical Command. The Deputy Surgeon General became the U.S.

Army Medical Command’s Chief of Staff. Three brigadier generals serve as AssistU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
415

ant Surgeons General in addition to having functional areas of responsibility within

the Medical Command. Modern communication technology allows leaders in one location to communicate efficiently with their staff in another location.

Medical Reengineering Initiative.—The Medical Reengineering Initiative is the

outcome of a process that examined the ten functional areas of Combat Health Support to ensure their relevance to future operations. It provides for a single, modular

hospital and better command and control, with treatment teams and streamlined

support elements. Potential manpower reductions generated as a result of MRI will

be garnered as savings under the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the Total

Army Analysis Processes.

The Army Medical Department is an integral part of the Army, and as the Army

reduces, so must its medical support. As a result of the QDR decision to reduce the

Army from 495,000 to 480,000, the MEDCOM will be reducing by about 800 military spaces. Some of this directed reduction will impact on health care providers

and ancillary support. Although it is still assessing how best to execute its share

of the QDR decrement, MEDCOM intends to premise its reduction on changes in

workload and population served as much as possible. Critical to this analysis will

be the protection of MEDCOM’s core competency as a readiness focused health care

enterprise.

Army Medical Department Information Reengineering.—A special study group

called Task Force Mercury analyzed information management and information technology in the Army Medical Department, in order to best harness this critical resource. They delivered 27 recommendations for business-process changes pertaining

to doctrine, training, leader development, organization, materiel and soldiers. Outcomes and efficiencies realized through these efforts include consolidation of seven

organizations into one organization accountable for acquisition and support of information products, elimination of duplication across the organizations, and improved

delineation of roles and responsibilities. Additionally, we are leveraging existing

staff to address information requirements for both fixed and field operations. Customer support is now deployed far forward. Training of information management

skills is now incorporated throughout all Army Medical Department curricula. A

process for prioritization of business requirements has been established which will

ultimately improve mechanisms for prioritization of corporate investments in information technology. These and other business process changes are anticipated to significantly improve the Army Medical Department’s ability to exploit information and

information technology across the full spectrum of operations.

Reinvention.—As evidence of the Army Medical Department’s commitment to reshape and reinvent itself, the U.S. Army Medical Command requested and obtained

designation as a Reinvention Center. Reinvention Centers and Laboratories are designated to lead the way and set the pace of change by experimenting with new processes and new ways of doing business. Although the Army Medical Department has

been leading change for years, this designation affirms our commitment to innovation and making smart business decisions. In addition to the command’s designation

as a Reinvention Center, five subordinate units have been designated as reinvention

laboratories (the U.S. Army Health Care System Support Activity, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and

Prevention Medicine, the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity at Fort Knox,

Kentucky, and the U.S. Army Dental Command).

Prepare

Readiness Training.—Phased implementation of new standards to train all medical soldiers for combat support began October 1. These are not intended to revolutionize the substance of training, but rather to ensure wider understanding of requirements and greater consistency in implementation. The eight requirements are

survival skills, weapons training—for selected personnel—collective training, competency-based orientation, Deployable Medical Systems training, job-specific medical

training, job-specific readiness training and a briefing on Medical Force Doctrine.

A database in the Medical Occupational Data System will track these requirements.

Battlefield Evacuation.—Of critical importance to me is evacuating wounded soldiers from the battlefield to medical treatment facilities. Several initiatives, if successfully implemented, will upgrade our capabilities for this vital mission:

The Air Force has agreed to support evacuation from forward hospitals to the

rear, using C–130 transport aircraft as High Capacity Air Ambulances. Joint doctrine has been developed and will be included as a chapter in Field Manual 8–10–

6.

In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, Congress funded the modification of eight

UH–60’s to the UH–60Q air ambulance configuration. The cost of this modification

is $2 million per airframe and allows for sophisticated medical treatment during

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
416

evacuation. The UH–60Q provides advanced trauma management, enhanced navigation, communication and digitization on the battlefield. This enhancement gives the

pilot situational awareness of his location and the enemies, and the capability to

obtain and forward patient status information, beyond vital signs, to the receiving

medical unit.

The Army POM has program funding for procurement of 117 UH–60Q’s to begin

in fiscal year 2002 in support of our Force Package 1 requirements. The Army procurement plan continues well into the out years until all UH60Q’s have been procured through Force Package IV, giving the Army a total of 357 UH–60Q’s for battlefield evacuation.

Until funding is available to purchase the remaining UH–60Q’s, the Army is required to procure medical conversion kits necessary to convert the standard UH–

60A to a UH–60A aeromedical evacuation platform. Although the conversion kit

does not provide the sophisticated medical evacuation capabilities of the UH–60Q,

it does satisfy the interim requirement to provide for patient evacuation on the battlefield.

A prototype of the new Armored Medical Treatment Vehicle performed magnificently during the Advanced Warfighting Experiment at Fort Irwin, CA, last spring.

The Training and Doctrine Command has validated the Armored Medical Treatment

Vehicle requirement. We are working on a plan that would allow us to begin procurement of the Armored Medical Treatment Vehicle beginning in fiscal year 2000.

TDA Specialty Response Teams.—When Korean Air Flight 801 crashed in Guam

last August, Tripler Army Medical Center had a critical care team in the air within

hours to assist the Navy hospital in Guam. Shortly after, the Institute of Surgical

Research at Brooke Army Medical Center had two teams of burn specialists flying

to the site to provide care to casualties. We intend to form similar teams with special skills in trauma/critical care, chemical and biological casualties, stress management, telemedicine, and preventive medicine and disease surveillance. The teams

will give us the capability to get two to four highly skilled care providers to a remote

site rapidly, while larger support forces are mobilizing. These teams, primarily

based in the Continental United States, are designed to respond to regional needs,

often civilian, and are not designed to replace field units.

Technology.—We are enthusiastically incorporating advanced technology into the

way we provide world-class care to our patients. I will defer my comments on technology and telemedicine here so that I may focus more on it in a few moments.

Soldier Medical Readiness.—The Medical Protection System, a medical Occupational Data System application, has been identified as the system to record, report

and archive soldier and unit readiness. Implementation of the system is ongoing

with immunization tracking being the first module to be completed.

Respond

This last imperative is where the medical department differs somewhat from the

Army’s line units, for we must not only respond to the call to battle in far-off lands,

but we must also respond to the daily demand for high-quality, cost-efficient health

care for soldiers, families and retirees.

Operation Joint Guard.—Army medical personnel are doing a magnificent job in

Bosnia and Hungary supporting Operation Joint Guard. Their good work and aggressive health promotion have resulted in low rates of illness and injury. One particularly creative approach was the production of decks of playing cards that also

contain tips to help troops avoid cold injuries, rodent and tick-borne diseases, and

other preventable illnesses and injuries.

Also in place in Bosnia, the U.S. Army Center operates a highly successful disease

surveillance program for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. The ability to

collect and analyze, in theater, information on disease and injury occurrence will

permit early identification of threats to the health of the force and enable the timely

use of preventive measures.

We are learning how to use telemedicine more effectively. While visiting a Battalion Aid Station in Bosnia, I was impressed to see a physician assistant speak to

an emergency room physician in Landstuhl, Germany, using a satellite connection.

It was simple, relatively inexpensive, portable and effective.

TRICARE.—TRICARE is the Department of Defense response to the Congressional mandate to develop a health care delivery system using the concepts of managed care while maintaining readiness, containing costs, and improving access to

health care. TRICARE is an umbrella program bringing together the capabilities of

the individual military Services, CHAMPUS, and civilian contractor preferred provider networks. I will speak much more about TRICARE in a few minutes.

Health Promotion.—One of the tenets of Managed Care directs that care is provided by the most medically appropriate, qualified provider to each patient at the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
417

right time and at the right place. In an ideal, efficient managed-care program, the

appropriate level of care may well be lifestyle counseling and behavior modification

to keep the beneficiary healthy to begin with, rather than waiting to cure an illness

that could have been avoided. Again, I will focus more on this issue later.

Ambulatory Data System.—This new automation system captures diagnosis and

procedure information on outpatient visits. The capturing of this more detailed clinical information is critical for decision making and to support our new costing methodology.

Clinical Pathway Implementation.—Variation is the enemy of quality. Clinical

practice guidelines and clinical pathways are road maps used to reduce unwanted

variation and to maximize the quality of care rendered. The use of clinical practice

guidelines, the adaptation of locally specific clinical pathways, and the sharing of

information will enable us to achieve our overall goals of improving clinical outcomes, conserving resources, and improving patient satisfaction.

A database has been developed to track clinical pathways at Army Medical Treatment Facilities. Our Medical Treatment Facilities are now using 103 more clinical

pathways than they were a year ago.

More information about the issues discussed here can be reached through our new

Army Medicine Web Site: http://www.armymedicine.army.mil.

We have to learn to manage change to our greatest advantage. The best way we

can manage constant change is to be intellectually flexible while retaining an unchanging set of core values and functions.

The core values of the Army Medical Department are: Loyalty, Duty, Respect,

Selfless-service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage, Commitment, Competency,

Candor, and Compassion with absolute patient focus. Our three core functions are:

Project a Healthy and Protected Force; deploy the Medical Force; and manage the

Health Care of the Soldier, the Soldier’s Family, and the Military Alumni Family.

If we can keep these values and functions as nonnegotiable guidelines, we will be

able to adapt to the changes on the horizon. As long as we use our core values to

guide changes to our core functions, we will be a wiser and more efficient organization than we have ever been in our 222-year history.

TELEMEDICINE

This morning I would like to outline to you the overall vision and goals of telemedicine, the lessons we have learned from our experiences, the present status of

Army Telemedicine in the field and in our military training facilities, and the leading edge research in this area.

Telemedicine and the Goals of Telemedicine.—Telemedicine is the use of information management and technologies to provide healthcare across time and distance.

The technologies involve the use of telecommunications that pass the information

from one health care delivery site to another or between a clinician and a patient.

Telemedicine information can be transmitted by telephone, faxes, videoteleconferencing (VTC), or personal computers using various forms of telecommunications including the Internet.

The goals of telemedicine are to improve the efficiency of the delivery of health

care, improve access, improve the quality of care, and reduce costs. The recipients

of the benefits of these telemedicine efforts are the active duty forces, their dependents, and the retirees.

Lessons Learned in Telemedicine.—The military has accrued experience in telemedicine both in the field and in the military treatment facilities. Some of the early

uses of telemedicine included high-end videoteleconferencing (VTC) equipment with

the use of high bandwidth. Often the equipment was very bulky, difficult to use by

the average health care provider, very expensive, and difficult to implement in the

day to day routine of a provider. The past several years have shown significant improvements in telemedicine technologies, such that VTC equipment can run at the

desktop, is easier to use, is less expensive, and effective applications can be implemented without the necessity of the high bandwidth.

Although real time video teleconferencing is sometimes necessary to make diagnoses, a great deal of telemedicine in the Army today is being done by store-andforward technology. Store-and-forward is the capture of still images or video clips

as digital files and transmission of these files. Transmission can be via the internet,

telephone lines or by satellite. Relatively low transmission rates can be employed

effectively with the store-and-forward approach. The store-and-forward approach allows for the use of easy to use equipment (PC and video camera) which is readily

available at minimal cost. The use of this simple technology is illustrated in various

places in the Army in our deployed units, such as in Bosnia, and in the fixed military facilities. Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Tripler Army Medical Center

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
418

have used web based store-and-forward technology to perform teledermatology in a

wide area network with considerable success and have produced improvements in

health care delivery.

The United States Army continues to be a leader in the deployment of operational

telemedicine programs at fixed military treatment facilities. There are at least 54

operational telemedicine programs in our six regional Army medical commands. The

majority of the telemedicine applications are associated with teleradiology, telepathology, teledermatology, and telepsychiatry. Telemedicine applications that fit

well into the daily routine of a health care provider and produce an improvement

in the healthcare delivery process will have great potential to be accepted by the

provider. Teleradiology and telepathology are excellent examples. Teleradiology

leverages the technology to improve access, to improve the turnaround time to make

a diagnosis and thus improve quality and reduce cost. In Europe, the introduction

of teleradiology reduced the average read time from two weeks to several days with

an improvement in diagnosis. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has been

conducting telepathology for the past several years. Last year pathologists there

read 325 cases with average turnaround time of 24 hours from overseas and 4 hours

within the United States.

Home healthcare is being supported by telemedicine in the South East Regional

Medical Command. This service is being provided to patients who have severe heart

failure and lung disease. Telemedicine allows them to have easier and more effective

interactions with their health care providers without traveling to the hospital. In

our Great Plains Region, abnormal physiological monitor tracings of neonates in the

intensive care unit in the Army Hospital at Ft. Hood (Darnall) are transmitted electronically to Brooke Army Medical Center. This capability ensures timely care and

intervention for sick neonates.

The AMEDD is also a leader in telemedicine research. The Personal Information

Carrier (PIC) will enable medical data to be stored and transported with the patient. A soldier’s medical history and predeployment medical status will be recorded

on the PIC. Medical interventions in theater will be recorded on the PIC and will

be available to other health care personnel when the soldier receives care at other

locations. The information will be able to be read and written to by computer systems where the patient receives care and the data will be made available for medical surveillance and analysis. The AMEDD is working with the other services to develop the PIC and deploy it in the near future. The PIC will eventually be used to

capture any of the data in the computerized medical record, to include digital images, plus information on occupational exposure and the location of the soldier.

The AMEDD is also conducting research on the warfighter physiological status

monitor, a potential subsystem of the Force 21 Land Warrior. A lightweight, modular device (wrist mounted unit) with physiological sensors and processors will provide dynamic assessment of the soldier’s medical status. Real time data about the

soldier’s level of fatigue, stress, and sleep deprivation will be captured. Immediate

casualty notification upon detection of trauma, and incapacitation, will be transmitted to first responders. This capability will assist in the far-forward, first responder

medic’s triage of injured soldiers.

The military has continued to be the leader in telemedicine and is working closely

with the civilian health care organizations to share our knowledge and experience

with them. We will continue to invest in the development and deployment of cost

effective telemedicine capabilities.

TRICARE

This morning I would like to provide you with the Army Medical Department’s

assessment of the TRICARE program. My overview will address how the TRICARE

program supports the Army Medical Department’s strategic goal of managing the

health care given to our soldiers, their family members and our extended military

alumni family. Through this overview you will receive an assessment of the progress

occurring with the implementation of the TRICARE program, the challenges actively being worked, and the efforts ongoing to ensure the long-term success of the

TRICARE program.

As I present my comments please consider that the TRICARE program is a significant paradigm shift from how the Army Medical Department conducted business

just a few years ago. For the TRICARE program to fully succeed every beneficiary

must know how to access health care in this new managed care environment. Furthermore, every member of the Army Medical Department must understand their

specific role so that cost effective quality care is provided at all time.

As managed care continues to evolve in the private sector, we too are constantly

working toward improving the Department of Defense managed care program,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
419

known as TRICARE. I anticipate we shall not see the full benefit of this program,

both in terms of producing healthier military beneficiaries and generating further

cost savings to our taxpayers, until this program is allowed to mature over the next

several years.

In 1994, an ambitious schedule was embarked on to stand up, nation wide, seven

managed care support contracts in a span of four years. The Army Medical Department was given the honor of being the first Lead Agent to oversee the operation

of a regional civilian managed care support contract. The first contract became operational in the delivery of health care services by March 1995. This occurred in the

Northwestern United States. This first hand experience resulted in the development

of over a hundred lessons learned, several of which were incorporated into the managed care support contracts that followed.

Since the first contract, four separate managed care support contracts became

operational within a two-year time frame. Again, the Army Medical Department,

represented by three Lead Agents, is playing an integral role to the success of these

contracts. The last two remaining contracts are scheduled to become operational in

the Ohio Valley, the Northeast and the Mid Atlantic States in the near future, pending resolution of the ongoing protests. I anticipate that once these contracts are implemented across the nation, the understanding and acceptance of managed care

principles by our military beneficiaries will improve.

While the full impact of the TRICARE program is not yet realized, positive accomplishments are occurring in the Army Medical Department’s military treatment facilities.

Health Promotion

One such achievement is the emphasis the TRICARE program places on health

promotion.

The Army Medical Department is aggressively pushing real health promotion and

preventive measures such as education, behavior changes, and early disease detection. The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine has developed a plan to implement a structured and consistent health promotion program,

integrated with TRICARE, throughout the Medical Command.

While investment in health promotion efforts are difficult to measure, five or ten

years from now, there will be a payback in terms not only of resources saved, but

more importantly, in terms of healthier patients who are more productive.

Utilization Management

The TRICARE program also places added emphasis on Utilization Management.

This is another area of improvement for the Army Medical Department. Utilization

Management assists us in ensuring that the appropriate amount of required medical

interventions are provided without sacrificing the quality of that care. As resources

decline, we must strive to minimize the provision of unneeded or inappropriate medical services. Since 1994, we have accomplished decreases in both our admission and

bed day rates. While continued improvement in this area is needed, these changes

have allowed several of our facilities to redirect their freed up resources to other

needed health care services.

The focus on Utilization Management is becoming so wide spread that it has even

reached areas in the Northeast that have not yet implemented the TRICARE program. The North Atlantic Regional Medical Command, which represents thirteen

medical treatment facilities in the Mid Atlantic and Northeast, reported for fiscal

year 1997 decreases in Bed Day and Disposition rates of 20 percent and 21 percent

respectively. At the same time they moved out with numerous new initiatives in

such areas as, demand management, disease management, and outpatient levels of

care. Specific initiatives include new, Advice Nurse Services; Health Promotion and

Wellness Centers; formal discharge planning programs; disease-specific patient education programs, to name a few.

The efforts in Utilization Management allowed the military treatment facilities in

the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command to either consolidate or close twentyone unneeded patient care areas. This Regional Medical Command is now focusing

its attention on ensuring all memorandums of agreement between the new managed

care support contractor and the individual military treatment facilities compliment

the utilization management efforts already ongoing.

Performance Measurement

With the TRICARE Program came the need for a more structured approach to

measure the performance of our military treatment facilities. To meet this need, the

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs developed the Military Health System Performance report card. This report card strives to mirror the

Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set that is used by private sector emU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
420

ployers to measure the performance of their commercial health plans. The Military

Health System Performance report card is a standardized instrument, which examines five areas. These are access, quality, utilization, health behavior and health

status. The Military Health System Performance report card results are derived

from patient surveys and from automated data collection systems.

The Military Health System Performance report card is a valuable tool that allows the Army Medical Department leadership to see how well our military treatment facilities are performing in meeting the needs of our beneficiary population.

This standardized information is critical as it provides my commanders the ability

to identify weaknesses that require corrective action. The outcome from these corrective actions is improvement in the delivery of health care to our beneficiaries.

Recent surveys indicate that while there is gradual improvement across the Army

Medical Department’s military treatment facilities, continued work is still needed in

specific areas. Customer satisfaction, in particular, is and will continue to be one

of my priorities. It is important to provide quality care, which we do, but it is just

as important that our customers perceive that they are receiving high-quality and

compassionate care. While the TRICARE program has experienced some start-up

glitches available survey data show it is working. Beneficiary satisfaction surveys

show a large majority of customers are satisfied in those regions where the

TRICARE program is already implemented. Department of Defense surveys show

that almost 9 out of every 10 TRICARE enrollees will reenroll when the time comes.

Despite this good news, there is much more work to do. While customer satisfaction

with Army military treatment facilities improves, additional work must occur to

raise the satisfaction levels for every beneficiary served.

Hospitality Training

Another initiative under development is a plan to implement hospitality training

throughout the Army Medical Command. The intent of this initiative is to improve

the customer relation skills of all health care and administration staff throughout

the Army Medical Department. This skill is critical due to the financial incentives

inherent in enrollment based capitation funding that our military treatment facilities are operating under. Exceptional customer service will result in satisfied beneficiaries who will be more inclined to enroll in the TRICARE program at our military treatment facilities. Along with each enrollment come the funds to keep that

‘‘customer’’ healthy.

Access to Care

With the TRICARE Program came, for the first time, system wide access standards to military health care. While these standards specifically apply to TRICARE

Prime enrollees, all Army military treatment facilities are striving to meet these

standards for every beneficiary they see.

Access to military health care has historically been a problem area for the Army

Medical Department. Beneficiary satisfaction surveys show that over 70 percent of

those surveyed are satisfied with their access to appointments and appointment

waiting time in our military treatment facilities. Still this means a sizable number

of our beneficiaries are not satisfied with their level of access to care.

To improve these access problems several Army military treatment facilities have

completed or are pursuing restructuring initiatives. The goal of these initiatives is

to improve their capability to receive primary care patients by increasing their primary care access portals. Darnall Army Community Hospital at Fort Hood, Texas,

which historically receives low ratings in access, is one such example of a facility

that restructured its primary care delivery system. We are now beginning to see

positive results from these initiatives.

The Army is also aggressively working to improve access to tertiary health care

services.

TRICARE Provider Networks

The TRICARE program has improved beneficiary access in another important

way. With the downsizing of the direct care system our overall capabilities have diminished. Despite this fact, we are able to offer our TRICARE enrollees the full

spectrum of health care covered under the TRICARE benefit. The reason we can

provide this benefit is because of our managed care support contractors’ provider

networks. These provider networks augment the capabilities in our military treatment facilities and give our beneficiaries the access to care they need, when they

need it.

The leadership within our Lead Agents and military treatment facilities know the

health care needs of their beneficiaries and their capabilities to meet that need

within their direct care facilities. In cooperation with the respective managed care

support contractors the demand for services that cannot be met within our military

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
421

facilities is provided to them. They use this information to determine the size and

composition of their provider networks.

TRICARE Challenges

Despite the benefits the TRICARE program offers to our beneficiaries, there are

still challenges that must be met and conquered. As I mentioned in my introduction,

the TRICARE program is an evolving program that was implemented on a very aggressive timeline. Because of the speed with which the TRICARE program was implemented there are misunderstandings with the intent of the program and how it

operates.

Program Education

One of the most significant challenges the Army Medical Department faces is educating all our customers, both internal and external on the TRICARE program. Our

customers need to understand this program was developed to retain their choice of

benefit plan, whether it be TRICARE Prime, Extra, or Standard and to also minimize their out-of-pocket costs.

Some see the TRICARE program simply as the erosion of their military health

care benefits. Those who believe this fail to see the true goal of the program. These

skeptics fail to realize the larger out of pocket costs our beneficiaries would now be

experiencing if TRICARE never came into being.

Under such a scenario, many would find themselves with limited or no access to

our remaining military treatment facilities. Their only option would be for them to

use the traditional indemnity plan, known as CHAMPUS. While this option gives

them greater freedom of choice, that choice would come at a far greater out of pocket cost than offered under TRICARE Prime and would not allow for significant consumer advantages available under TRICARE PRIME such as enhanced access,

health and wellness benefits, and professional medical oversight by a personal Primary Care Manager.

Educating all customers of the benefits of the TRICARE program is paramount

to its success. The education effort must be three pronged to be effective. Our educational efforts must focus on all beneficiaries, the Army leadership, and everyone

working within the Army Medical Department.

Helping beneficiaries understand how TRICARE changes their health-care system

is one of our priorities. The Army Medical Department is actively marketing

TRICARE and working with Major Army Commands, as well as beneficiary organizations, to make sure that we are providing accurate information about TRICARE.

We are incorporating TRICARE information classes into training school curriculum

where appropriate. Videotapes, displays, pamphlets and briefings are also being presented.

Our beneficiaries must understand that we aren’t limiting their ability to access

care, but expanding the choices available to them. If continuity of care and cost is

paramount to them, then enrolling in TRICARE Prime in most cases is their best

option. Those beneficiaries who want greater freedom of choice than TRICARE

Prime, but still are somewhat concerned with costs, might be more satisfied with

the TRICARE Extra option. If freedom of choice is their major determinant, regardless of the cost, then TRICARE Standard is the option they should choose.

The Army leadership must continue to work with the Army Medical Department

in getting the message out about the TRICARE program to all the troops, their families, and our retirees. Waiting until a beneficiary takes ill and needs medical attention to learn about the program is too late. That is like asking a Battalion Commander to go into battle without an operations order. Both situations are probably

doomed to failure.

Last, each and every individual, civilian and military, working in our military

treatment facilities must fully understand the TRICARE program. These individuals

are our ambassadors for the program. These individuals are closest to our patients

and beneficiaries and can provide them with the needed advice to make an informed

choice about which TRICARE option can best meet their specific healthcare needs.

My staff is redoubling its efforts, in cooperation with the assistance of the Office

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, to ensure all our ‘‘customers’’ are well informed about the TRICARE program.

Command and Control of Managed Care Support Contractors

The TRICARE program brings with it unique challenges in command and control

of the managed care support contractors. Within the Army Medical Department,

command and control remains strong, while the process with the managed care support contractor is less direct. Designated contract officers are the direct link to our

managed care support contractors. To accomplish changes within the managed care

support contracts my staff must diligently work through their respective DepartU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
422

ment of Defense Lead Agent. This situation can reduce the responsiveness of needed

corrective actions.

To offset this situation my staff and regional medical commands are developing

closer ties with their respective lead agents to ensure issues requiring immediate

action are taken without delay.

Enrollment

Accounting for TRICARE Prime enrollments, to include active duty personnel,

takes on added financial importance in future years. In fiscal year 1999, the Prime

enrollment numbers reported in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System will be

used for the distribution of Direct Health Program funds to our medical treatment

facilities on a capitated basis. Efforts are underway to ensure our automated systems accurately capture Prime enrollment numbers.

Financial Accountability

With the TRICARE program came a more appropriate method of allocating funds

to maintain the health of our beneficiaries. This new system is called enrollmentbased capitation. The essence of this funding methodology mirrors the per member

per month funding methodology prevalent in the private commercial sector. Just as

the TRICARE program was a significant paradigm shift from our previous way of

doing business, so is enrollment based capitation.

Enrollment based capitation provides a set amount of funds based on the age and

gender for each beneficiary who enrolls in TRICARE Prime at a military treatment

facility. Regardless of the health care services the enrollee uses, with rare exceptions, no further reimbursement is provided to that military treatment facility. The

focus of the medical staff is to keep the enrollee healthy and prevent the occurrence

of long term and chronic conditions.

Prior to enrollment based capitation, defense health program funds were allocated

based on the workload generated at each military treatment facility. As more services were provided, more funds were allocated. Obviously, such a funding method

provides little incentive to improve the health status of our beneficiaries.

This year is the transition year for all military treatment facilities to convert over

to enrollment based capitation. The Corporate Executive Information System will

also provide key reports to our facilities so they can succeed in this environment.

Enrollment Based Capitation training has also been provided to our staff.

The new Ambulatory Data System also captures diagnosis and procedure information on outpatient visits. The capturing of this more detailed clinical information is

critical for decision making and will also support our new costing methodology.

While I am confident that this new funding methodology is necessary, I expect

some future adjustments and refinements to occur as this funding methodology is

fully implemented in fiscal year 1999.

The Future of TRICARE

The future of TRICARE is bright, but not without further changes. As you are

well aware, refinements to this program are occurring. The Medicare Subvention

Demonstration will be tested over the next three years. We are also in the process

of providing TRICARE Prime to those active duty service members who are assigned

to geographically remote areas. Efforts are also ongoing to craft the next generation

of performance based TRICARE managed care support contracts that focus heavily

on improving beneficiary satisfaction. All these changes are aimed at improving the

TRICARE program and making the TRICARE benefit universal to all eligible military beneficiaries.

Medicare Subvention

We have a moral obligation to allow all military retirees who wish to stay in the

military health system that option. The Medicare Subvention demonstration that

was approved by Congress last August gives the Department of Defense the opportunity to offer the TRICARE benefit option to our military retirees under TRICARE

Senior plan.

The Medicare Subvention Demonstration allows beneficiaries age 65 and older to

participate in TRICARE Prime at selected sites. With this demonstration we are attempting to provide the services required by the Health Care Financing Administration for an At-Risk Health Maintenance Organization that is more cost effective

than the private sector. If successful, the potential to expand the TRICARE Senior

program to all military retirees will improve.

Subject to the approval of our site applications from the Health Care Financing

Administration, the Medicare Subvention Demonstration is projected to begin this

summer. The Army Medical Department has four military treatment facilities participating in this demonstration. The four Army facilities are, Madigan Army MediU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
423

cal Center at Tacoma, Washington, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio,

Texas, Reynolds Army Community Hospital at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and Evans

Army Community Hospital at Colorado Spring, Colorado. Preparations are already

underway to provide this expanded TRICARE benefit option to those military retirees selected to participate.

TRICARE Prime Remote

The TRICARE program has not completely fulfilled its pledge of providing a uniform benefit to all eligible beneficiaries. Service members stationed in geographical

separated units are not always afforded the full benefits of the TRICARE Prime

benefit. The goal of the TRICARE Prime Remote initiative is to rectify this situation.

The TRICARE Prime Remote option provides active duty service members and

their families assigned to Geographic Separated Units access to TRICARE Prime

through the regional TRICARE Managed Care Support—MCS—contractor network.

The contractor assigns active duty service members, and their family members who

choose to enroll, to civilian network primary care managers. Active duty service

members and their family members are eligible for the TRICARE Prime Remote

Program if they live and work greater than 50 miles from a military treatment facility.

The difficulty in providing these service members the full TRICARE Prime benefit

dealt with the need to ensure medical oversight for any care rendered to them and

the funding stream to pay for their care. Adjustments have been made to realign

the supplemental care funds to care for these soldiers to our managed care support

contractors and the establishment of a medical management oversight operation is

being implemented.

Once fully operational, all service members and their family members will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the TRICARE Prime Remote option if they

choose.

TRICARE 3.0

As we speak, work is going on with the managed care support contracts for the

year 2000. I am optimistic that many of the challenges identified with the first generation of contracts will be eliminated.

First, this next generation of contracts will be performance based versus the prescriptive requirements that exist in our current contracts. By being performance

based, contractors will have more flexibility to propose civilian best practices in

their bids. This means our beneficiaries will be afforded in the next TRICARE contracts the most effective clinical and administrative processes known to date.

I am extremely pleased with the heavy focus the TRICARE 3.0 contract places

on improving beneficiary satisfaction. Built in financial incentives will ensure future

managed care support contractors strive at all times to improve the satisfaction of

their customers. This will be measured by Department of Defense approved beneficiary satisfaction surveys.

I am also optimistic that the new financial mechanisms planned for in the

TRICARE 3.0 contracts will be fully integrated with the enrollment based capitation

methodology that our military treatment facilities will be working under. I anticipate major improvements in the ability of our local commanders to accurately determine the impact of their healthcare resource decisions real time. Unfortunately with

the existing managed care contracts the lag time to identify the financial impact of

local health care decisions is problematic.

I am confident that many of the shortcomings identified in the first managed care

support contracts will be rectified. My staff will accomplish an extensive review of

the TRICARE 3.0 requirements to ensure existing shortcomings with our existing

contracts are eliminated.

The world is constantly changing, and so is health care in our nation. The

TRICARE program is part of the evolution of our military health system. As the

Army and the Army Medical Department changes with the incorporation of

TRICARE, we will continue to focus on our core value of managing the health of

every eligible military beneficiary so they receive the right level of care at the right

time and in the right place.

I ask for your continued support of the TRICARE program as it offers us the best

way to provide quality care to our beneficiaries. With TRICARE we can maintain

our position as a world class system capable of continuing Army Medicine’s proud

tradition of ‘‘Caring Beyond the Call of Duty.’’

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
424

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT COOPERATION WITH SISTER SERVICE MEDICAL

DEPARTMENTS

The Army Medical Department has, and continues to, cooperate with the Air

Force and Navy Medical Departments to leverage assets to conduct enhanced operations where possible. Sharing resources and delineating specific responsibilities

among the services to eliminate redundancies and bolster efficient application of resources has been a key tool in our strategy to cope with reduced program funding.

The Department of Defense has already initiation Service Executive Agents—EA—

for common functions which cross service lines. EA’s have a Tri-Service responsibility for very specific programs. Examples of EA’s where the Army has the lead include but are not limited to: Armed Force Institute of Pathology; Armed Forces Medical Library; Clinical Executive Information Systems; and Armed Forces Epidemiology Board.

Cooperation among the services has taken on many faces. Clinical, ancillary, and

administrative services, as well as, personnel, facilities, and educational programs

are among the areas where we are also reducing redundancies. This cooperation

reaches wide across all three Services. There are several examples where the Service’s synergistic efforts have produced a superior product:

—A prime example of inter-service cooperation exists in Colorado Springs.

Through a combined executive council, Evans Army Community Hospital, the

10th Medical Group (United States Air Force Academy Hospital), and the 21st

Medical Group (Peterson Air Force Base Outpatient Clinic) have developed a

seamless healthcare delivery system. They instituted a number of consolidations, shared services, and joint alliances covering key healthcare disciplines

among the three medical treatment facilities.

—A Tri-Service group representing Walson Air Force Medical Facility, Patterson

Army Health Clinic, and Navy Branch Medical Clinics at Lakehurst, Earl, and

Willow Grove developed a tentative plan which serves as a consistent, consensual structure for the Delaware Valley Primary Care System. This initiative is

a right step toward a consolidated, coordinated, and collaborative Tri-Service,

multidisciplinary Managed Health Care Delivery System.

At other locations, one service is the predominant provider of health care with sister Service assistance in very specific ways:

—The 62nd Medical Group (USAF), McChord Air Force Base, serves as a Primary

Care Clinic of Madigan Army Medical Center. Through this cooperative agreement, automated referral processes have been standardized, redundancies eliminated and efficiencies maximized.

—The staff at Darnall Army Community Hospital at Fort Hood, Texas, as in

many other facilities, is augmented with Air Force staff. At Darnall, Air Force

physicians assigned to the facility to perform plastic surgery and pulmonology.

Additional arrangements with Air Force physicians at Wilford Hall, Air Force

Medical Center, in San Antonio, Texas, allows vascular and perinatology cases

to be resolved more easily within the Military Health Service.

—Recognizing the Tri-Service nature of Tripler Army Medical Center, the Commander has assigned a Navy Captain as the Deputy Commander for Clinical

Services. Several Navy and Air Force physicians serve on Tripler’s staff, with

some serving in clinical leadership roles.

Another way the Army reduces redundancy is by eliminating the competition for

market share for a particular service.

—Walter Reed Army Medical Center has agreed not to provide obstetrics and gynecology service. These patients are seen at National Naval Medical Center.

Similarly, National Naval Medical Center does not offer adult inpatient psychiatric care. Walter Reed provides this service in the National Capital Region

for all three service.

Ancillary care, administrative services, and education are all areas that are currently being explored for more focused Tri-Service cooperation. Wherever you find

sister Service facilities operating in close proximity you will invariably see cooperation in ancillary services. This includes expanding current contracts to include TriService beneficiaries to leverage volume discounts.

—Madigan Army Medical Center has a commercial laboratory contract which

naval medical treatment facilities are now utilizing. Thus, lowering the per unit

cost per procedure.

—Administrative services run the gamut from sharing tumor board registry to

utilizing one central appointment office to make appointments for Tri-Service

medical facilities within a certain geographic region.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
425

—Within certain regions, Services share Graduate Medical Education offices,

while other regions simply offer other Services seats in their residency programs.

We have adopted an approach of cooperation as one that is fiscally sound and produces demonstrated efficiencies. Not addressed here is the myriad of ways that the

Department of Defense shares resources with the Veterans Administration and the

cooperation that exists with other state and local organizations.

GOOD NEWS STORIES

Finally, I would like to leave you with just a few of the many vignettes across

the Command that highlight the diversity and successes of Army Medical Department missions. Just last month an Ohio infant suffering from botulism recovered

rapidly after receiving an antitoxin developed by the U.S. Army Medical Research

Institute of Infectious Disease. According to officials at Children’s Hospital in Columbus, the 4 day old baby girl was admitted to the hospital and placed on a ventilator. Analysis of a stool sample confirmed the presence of botulinum toxin. On

Friday, January 9th, the U.S. Army Medical Materiel and Development Activity received a call from the California Department of Health Services, Infant Botulism

Research Prevention Program, inquiring about using an Army Investigational New

Drug product to treat a suspected case of infant botulism in Ohio. The U.S. Army

Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases medical monitor for the Army’s

emergency treatment protocol was contacted and quickly consulted with the attending physician at Children’s Hospital. After notifying the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases arranged an

overnight shipment of the Botulism Antitoxin. The first dose was administered at

1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Saturday. All regulatory procedures were followed. On Sunday, January 11th—about eight hours after the second dose—the infant showed the first clinical signs of improvement, beginning to move about and

trying to breathe on her own. A couple of weeks ago the child was discharged from

the hospital and on her way to recovery.

This past fall, the American College of Surgeons reviewed and verified that

Brooke Army Medical Center met its criteria as an Adult Level One Trauma Center.

Subsequently, Brooke Army Medical Center was designated as an Adult Level One

Trauma Center in the State of Texas trauma system. Brooke Army Medical Center

is now the first and only designated Trauma Center in the Army Medical Department.

Southeast Regional Medical Command’s TRICARE Region Three has established

a comprehensive, multi-level Breast Cancer Prevention, Detection, Education and

Training Program. By using telecommunication technologies beneficiaries and providers across the Region have access to the latest information on breast cancer

care—from their homes, their health care facility, the workplace and in the communities. A regional telecommunication network will be established, linking patients

and providers throughout the region with the Breast Cancer Awareness and Solutions Center. Patients and providers can access the educational programs through

interactive kiosks at the medical treatment facilities or through the World Wide

Web via personal computers at the work site or in their homes.

In June 1997, the Chief of Staff, U.S. European Command, LTG David L. Benton,

III presented the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center—Europe with the National

Partnership for Reinventing Government Hammer Award. The Hammer Award is

Vice President Al Gore’s special recognition to teams who have made significant contributions in support of the President’s National Performance Review principles.

Those principles are: putting customers first, cutting red tape, empowering employees and getting back to basics. The award recognizes new standards of excellence

achieved by teams helping to reinvent government. To win the award, U.S. Army

Medical Materiel Center—Europe, reengineered itself and the medical logistics system in the U.S. European Command area of operations. Medical materiel inventories were reduced throughout the theater while order-ship times improved from

weeks to days. The U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center—Europe was the first, and

here to date, only Department of Defense organization in Europe to be so recognized.

I would like to take a moment to describe a very innovative program called the

AIM HI—Animals in the Military Helping Individuals—Service Dog Training Center established at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The first of its kind, this unique program

teaches inmates of the Fort Knox Regional Corrections Facility to train select stray

and donated animals to assist physically disabled Exceptional Family Members and

Veterans. Through the combined efforts of the Army Medical Command, Veterinary

Command, and Fort Knox, this is the only Center that provides service dogs for the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
426

military community. This program has several goals and yields various benefits.

Service dogs provide greater independence for recipients by retrieving and carrying

items, turning on and off lights, pulling wheelchairs, alerting to certain sounds—

literally opening doors for our people in need of assistance. This program benefits

all involved, patients receive the assistance they so desperately need, inmates learn

a trade, stray animals are saved from euthanasia, and medical expenses are reduced. Currently, there are eight inmates and fifteen dogs in various stages of training development. The center plans to graduate ten service dogs every six months.

The world is constantly changing, as the Army and the Army Medical Department

changes too, we will continue to focus on our core values and functions. We will

maintain our position as a world class system capable of continuing Army Medicine’s proud tradition of ‘‘Caring Beyond the Call of Duty.’’

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee and

shall be happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. HAROLD KOENIG, MEDICAL CORPS, SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. NAVY

Senator STEVENS. Admiral.

Admiral KOENIG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for

the opportunity to meet and speak with you this morning. General

Roadman, General Blanck, and I work so closely together, that I

will try and not repeat anything he already said.

I would ask that my full testimony be made a part of the record.

Senator STEVENS. All of your statements have already been put

in the record.

Admiral KOENIG. I only want to cover four points very quickly.

READINESS

First of all, in Navy medicine we recognize that readiness is our

primary mission. That is what we are here for and that is what we

do. To be able to do this, we have to be able to recruit, train, and

retain capable, talented, and dedicated people.

We have learned, and we are progressing in the Navy, to totally

integrate our Reserve and active components and treat them essentially as one. A good example of that is in June and July of this

year the hospital ship U.S.N.S. Comfort will deploy to the Baltic region and at least 10 percent of that crew will be from the Reserve

component and a significant number of Reserve personnel will

backfill at the National Naval Medical Center [NNMC] Bethesda to

continue services at that institution during that deployment. This

I think will significantly increase the readiness of our people and

demonstrate that we can operate in this fashion.

TELEMEDICINE

The second point I want to talk about is telemedicine. Over the

last 3 years we have made tremendous strides in learning how to

use this technology. I am extremely proud of our accomplishments,

and at the urging of one of your staff members, we put together

a 15-minute video that has been distributed to them. I hope you

will have time to take a quick look at it. I think we have had some

tremendous accomplishments.

We have learned to bring this technology to our sailors and marines wherever they serve on board ships and in very remote locations. As you know, the U.S.S. George Washington is in the final

days of returning from a 6-month deployment to the Persian Gulf.

During that time we accomplished 60 electronic medical consultations. We processed nearly 900 digital radiologic procedures. The

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
427

combination of these technologies resulted in avoiding 20

medevacs. We estimate the savings just for transportation of these

20 medevacs to be approximately $90,000. In addition, we think we

have saved $50,000 in what would have been purchased medical

services by treating patients aboard the ship that otherwise would

have had to be evacuated, and we saved in excess of 300 man-days.

The bottom line is what we saved in taking care of these people

in place more than paid for all the hardware and all the communications costs.

We are learning to use telemedicine in our local and remote

shore-based facilities. I think one of the most unique uses of our

new technology is some of our hospitals are now taking pictures of

new babies and e-mailing them to the ships so their dads can see

mom and baby and see that everything is OK.

One of the most innovative uses I have seen is a couple of our

hospitals have actually enabled people to refill prescriptions over

the Internet. That is much easier than taking an empty pill bottle

to a pharmacy and even easier than doing it over the telephone.

It is really simple for them. We hope that in the near future some

of our facilities will start enabling patients to make appointments

over the Internet. That will really save a lot of time for them.

TRICARE

The third area I want to talk about briefly is TRICARE. One of

the things we have learned is that we have to be more than an expert, an advisor on TRICARE. We have to become ambassadors of

TRICARE. We have to take TRICARE to the people. We have to

listen to the people. The people will tell us what is wrong. They

will tell us what the issues are. Then we can work the issues and

reengineer TRICARE so it fits their needs.

The major issues with which we have dealt during the last year

have been issues of portability, how to take care of isolated sailors

and marines and airmen, soldiers, who are in isolated areas away

from military treatment facilities. I think we have made good

progress on that.

The issues of balanced billing have come under control.

The modification of the enrollment process so people can immediately enroll on a continuous basis and even what we call split enrollment, which means if one family member is in one region and

one is in another, they do not have to pay twice. We have worked

all those issues out.

We are now working to improve and simplify the educational materials.

But if I was asked if there was one thing that we could do that

would make TRICARE substantially better, I would say to you that

it would be to allow us to automatically enroll active duty family

members who live within the catchment area of a military treatment facility, rather than make them go through all the labor of

trying to understand all these details.

Senator STEVENS. Say that again, will you?

Admiral KOENIG. Automatically enroll active duty family members who live within the catchment area. By that I mean those who

live close to a military facility that can take care of them. Automatically enroll the active duty family members rather than make

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
428

them go through all the labor of trying to sort through all the differences between TRICARE prime, TRICARE standard, TRICARE

extra. The vast majority of our people want to come to us. We

ought to offer them that opportunity without putting them through

a long process.

But if they want to do something else, they have the option to

disenroll or allow them to stay. I would rather have TRICARE

standard and pick my own doctor and go to my own physician.

That would make it a lot simpler for a lot of our beneficiaries.

The vast majority of the folks we deal with are very young. They

have never had to seek health care on their own before. They have

always been taken to it. We need to bring them into the system

and then educate them as they grow into our system rather than

try and make them learn all of this stuff right up front because

sometimes they make horrible decisions. A horrible decision to me

is not to elect TRICARE prime. The 18-year-old Marine corporal

with a 17-year-old wife and a baby—the most viable economic option for that couple is TRICARE prime. If they elect TRICARE

standard, they are going to be in economic chaos as soon as that

baby gets sick the first time. That is why I think we need to work

on that, and I will be happy to give you a lot more information on

that. I know my colleagues all share this feeling.

The other area in TRICARE has to do with what I consider the

disenfranchisement of our over 65 beneficiary population. We have

simply got to address that issue. We very badly need those patients

in our system to train our people and those people count on us for

health care. They count on us for their entire lives. Medicare subvention but that only reaches a very small portion of that entire

population. In the Navy, we only have one site, San Diego. It is not

up and running yet. It probably will not be for several more

months. So, I see it as only a partial fix.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM

We need to do more. There are a lot of options that are being

talked about in this town. One of them is making people eligible

for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program [FEHBP]. I

think we need to study that and study it hard, but we need to do

it rather quickly. Putting it off for 3 or 4 years is not going to help

these World War II vets. A lot of them are not going to be around

3 or 4 years from now. We need to solve the senior problem now.

One of the ways I think we could do this and do it well and do

it quickly and for a lot less money would be to expand the pharmacy benefit, what we call our base realignment and closure

[BRAC] mail order pharmacy benefit, to all of our seniors. With

that, they will have Medicare A, Medicare B, and a reasonable

pharmacy benefit. If you do the math on this, if we charge them

$8 for a prescription, which is what we charge them today, and

they are on five medicines chronically, it costs them 44 cents a day.

That is four cigarettes. Most of our people can probably afford that.

I think we need to look hard at that because we have a huge beneficiary population aging quickly and they need our help and they

have been counting on it all their lives, and when they need it the

most, it looks like it is not going to be there. I think that is a lot

of the confusion that the Senator has identified during his visits.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
429

That anxiety is not just for those who are already over 65. It is for

those of us who are approaching it. We see that coming too.

WOMEN’S HEALTH STUDIES

The last area I want to talk about just briefly with you is the

area of women’s health. In the Navy, we have created a women’s

health strategic planning group. When you ask for it, you get it.

And, boy, have they come to me with issues. Right now I have 21

unfunded, badly needed studies that need to be done in the area

of women’s health. I am a pediatrician by training. One of the

things I learned in pediatrics is that children are not little adults.

They are different. Women are not little men. They are different.

We need to do these studies. We are trying to incorporate women

very rapidly in the Armed Forces of the United States. They represent nearly 15 percent of our total force right now, and we know

precious little about what we really need to know to be able to incorporate them into our service. We simply cannot translate medical practices for men to women. They are different. So, we need to

be able to do this research. As of today, there are no targeted funds

for research in women’s health in the Armed Forces. We need to

get on with that.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Finally, my retirement. Senator Inouye mentioned it. I will be retiring on June 30, 40 years to the day from when I came in.

Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. HAROLD KOENIG

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share Navy Medicine’s 1997 accomplishments and plans for the future.

This has been an exciting year in Navy Medicine. On August 6, 1997, Navy doctors announced a breakthrough in organ transplantation. CAPT Dave Harlan and

LCDR Allan Kirk, from the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, were the first to successfully demonstrate a new medical therapy that appears

to prevent the rejection of mismatched transplanted organs. That same day Navy

medical personnel in Guam responded to the tragic crash of Korean Air Lines flight

801 which hit a hillside on approach to Guam International Airport with 254 passengers and crew aboard. Medical personnel from Naval Hospital Guam, and personnel from Naval units throughout the island responded and played a key role in

saving lives. Of the 32 survivors of this tragedy, 19 were cared for in the Naval Hospital, many requiring intensive trauma care and emergency surgery.

This single day exemplifies the essence of Navy Medicine; the talented, professional healthcare providers ready to forge the future of medicine while responding

in a moment’s notice when our nation calls.

As I have said many times, Navy Medicine’s primary mission is readiness. We

meet our mission by ensuring our Sailors and Marines are fit and healthy. Navy

Medicine, like civilian medicine, is making the transition from curative to preventive health care. As such, readiness means keeping our Sailors and Marines where

they belong; healthy and on their jobs.

Navy Medicine’s reach extends to remote areas of the world, aboard ships and

submarines and in the air. Our Sailors and Marines depend heavily on Navy Medicine to meet their health and fitness needs wherever their missions require them

to serve. This past year medical personnel deployed to serve around the world, from

Haiti with the United Nations peacekeeping force to South America assisting with

drug interdiction operations. In addition, Navy medical personnel were in Guam,

Southeast Asia, Saudi Arabia, Africa, and Indonesia, providing medical assistance,

training, humanitarian relief, and health services in the furtherance of national inU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
430

terests. Our medical personnel also worked in unison with Air Force and Army medical personnel providing superb cross-service support. We continue to look for opportunities to increase Tri-Service programs.

Navy Medicine’s customer service focus is changing the culture of our system to

one in which our products are judged by how well we satisfy our customers. I have

made this a top priority in Navy Medicine. It’s an ongoing effort, one we will continue to refine in the coming years.

To help us better care for our customers, the men and women of Navy Medicine

are developing innovative ways to keep our Sailors and Marines healthy, fit and on

the job. We’ve had many successes in this area and as a result have made changes

in the way we do business. These innovative changes are a result of Navy Medicine’s focus on four goals: (1) taking health care to the deckplates; (2) moving information, not people; (3) making TRICARE work; and (4) re-engineering our business

practices.

TAKING HEALTH CARE TO THE DECKPLATES

When I visit our men and women at Navy and Marine Corps bases around the

world, I see many examples of health care at the deckplates. This means taking care

of Sailors and Marines as close to their unit as possible so we can keep them on

their jobs. It means providing care in mobile vans at pierside, in aviation squadrons,

at base gyms, in barracks and in the operational field environment.

I see Navy sports medicine specialists taking health care to the field, resulting

in timely health care and injury prevention. At Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,

the Naval Hospital created a Sports Medicine and Reconditioning Therapy, or

SMART, clinic which is located right on site where Marine recruits are training. Recruits and staff alike applaud this arrangement because it saves recruits a 42-mile

round trip to the base hospital and reduces lost training time. In addition, the

SMART clinics have been very successful in reducing injuries and decreasing rehabilitation time. At Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, our Naval

Hospital has established injury prevention and rehabilitation services at the base

gym where providers work with Marines to ensure safe exercise protocols.

Our Dental officers, too, are taking care directly to our Sailors and Marines onboard ships. Dental readiness is particularly important when ships are deploying

because dental facilities are more limited at sea. To this end, we have set the goal

for dental readiness of our active duty forces at 95 percent and ensure everyone onboard receive annual dental care, with special emphasis extended before deployments. The Dental center is living up to its slogan of ‘‘Fit to bite, fit to fight.’’

Deployment of our Medical Corps specialists on aircraft carriers has proven extremely successful. Last year, at the request of the fleet, a clinical psychologist was

deployed with the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk and a physical therapist with the U.S.S. Enterprise. Availability of professionals during the carriers’ deployments demonstrated a

substantial return on investment towards keeping Sailors and Marines on the ship

and on the job. Additional deployments have confirmed the results and Navy Medicine manpower specialists are currently working with Pentagon officials to implement pre-deployment placement of clinical experts on all twelve aircraft carriers

over the next four years.

Coordinating medical care for our deployed Sailors and Marines requires concurrent efforts by multiple people. The staff at our Naval Station Branch Medical Clinic

in San Diego, California have done just that. The clinic has a fleet liaison program

to coordinate with the 61 ships homeported in San Diego ensuring the crews’ medical needs are met. Instead of waiting for the phone to ring, the fleet coordinator anticipates the needs of incoming ships’ personnel. Medical personnel on deployed

ships are contacted a month before their arrival in San Diego and met by the fleet

coordinator upon arrival, with appropriate medical appointments already scheduled.

Not only does this help keep our Sailors on the job, but our customers are much

happier with this personalized service.

MOVE INFORMATION, NOT PEOPLE

Along with taking health care to the deckplates, Navy Medicine is using technology to move information, not people, as we meet our readiness mission. I was

very gratified during my visits this year to such remote locations as Diego Garcia

in the Indian Ocean and to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to see our medical personnel

using technology to store and transmit medical information. Over the years, we became pretty good at moving people to Medical Treatment Facilities. We utilize an

extensive medevac system that is complex to use, expensive to operate and takes

our Sailors and Marines away from their workplace. As we move forward in the inU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
431

formation age, using technology to move information rather than people has become

part of our day to day life.

This effort has resulted in tremendous strides in learning ways to employ telemedicine and technology to our advantage. My favorite ‘‘good news’’ story concerns

my specialty, Pediatrics. In Rota Spain, a two-year old’s complicated case of pneumonia was managed using telemedicine techniques. The pediatrician in Rota was

able to ‘‘electronically’’ consult with specialists at National Naval Medical Center

Bethesda, Maryland, to determine the best treatment plan for the patient. In addition to improved quality, the use of telemedicine prevented a costly stateside

medevac for this patient and his family.

Navy Medicine is also using technology to improve pharmacy services. At Naval

Hospital Bremerton, Washington, a pharmacy technician, while revising the command’s homepage, asked why couldn’t they have a pharmacy refill request page on

the Internet. He created one, and now their customers have an additional avenue

to obtain pharmacy refills. Naval Hospital Sigonella, Sicily, is our second hospital

to offer Internet refills, and we expect to offer this service at additional facilities

in the next year.

Navy Medicine is using training exercises to incorporate technology into the operational environment. Kernel Blitz 97 (KB97), held off the coast of southern California in June, is an example. The medical portion of KB97 was designed to evaluate

training methods used to prepare for our wartime mission, improve medical readiness, get the hospital ship U.S.N.S. Mercy underway with the fleet, stand up a Reserve fleet hospital and test the augmentee manning of the amphibious ships.

Data on Personal Information Carrier (PIC) was used by the U.S.N.S. Mercy, U.S.S. Tarawa, Fleet Hospital Operations Training Command, and the Surgical

Unit ashore. PIC is the generic term used to describe any self-contained computer

technology with personal data carried on an individual, resulting in all vital patient

data being readily accessible to the medical team. During Kernel Blitz, a commercially available version of PIC, the Multi-technology Automated Reader Card

(MARC), was used. The MARC contained patient information and algorithms for all

casualty management, a record of clinical care, and required time for administering

patient care treatment steps. The Military Health System (MHS) plans on deploying

PIC technology to support active duty forces in the operational environment during

fiscal year 1999.

We even have an on-line mentor program, known as the ‘‘Virtual Naval Hospital.’’

The ‘‘Virtual Naval Hospital’’ is a digital health sciences library designed to provide

naval health care providers access to current, authoritative medical information. It

assists providers by providing information on about eighty of the most common medical problems at sea, common medical procedure descriptions, and the General Medical Officer Manual; thereby, improving quality of care. It also has a section for patients, where they can access information on first aid, consumer health products and

twenty-five health topics on preventive medicine.

Technology has been applied to innovations that are great morale boosters for our

people. The Telemedicine system operates on the same protocols as the existing site

televideo conferencing systems throughout the Navy. Then when the system is not

being used for medicine, it is a Quality of Life enhancement for the crew to communicate with loved ones ashore. The Naval Hospital Naples, Italy, staff created a program where pictures of newborn babies are digitized and can be forwarded through

the e-mail system to the baby’s father at sea or grandparents in the United States.

With our Naples-based families being so far from their loved ones, this is a great

way to help them share news of the arrival with their loved ones back home. Some

Navy ships also have used Video TeleConferencing (VTC) to connect with our hospitals, allowing mom to talk to dad and letting him see the ‘‘new arrival’’ while he

is deployed at sea.

Our ships are benefiting from, and making good use of, telemedicine. The medical

department of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. George Washington has teamed up with the

Telemedicine Department of the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, creating the most advanced treatment facility in the fleet. Telemedicine enhancements proved very effective during the ship’s latest deployment. Utilizing technology once exclusive to a fixed Medical Treatment Facility, the George Washington

performed 39 ‘‘electronic’’ consultations with stateside medical specialists; 200 digital radiology procedures; and prevented six medevacs, saving over $26,000.

In the past, when faced with mental health issues at sea, the patient was often

medevaced off the ship. During the first three weeks of the George Washington’s deployment, medical staff performed five mental health exams using VTC. Shipboard

medical staff transmitted the patient’s mood, body language and response to questions to the hospital-based psychiatrist. Combining the VTC with the clinical history, the psychiatrists assessed the patient and recommended a course of treatment.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
432

Navy Medicine is working to make virtual mental health specialty care at sea a routine service.

On another occasion, the George Washington needed a radiologist to monitor a live

ultrasound study. The patient had typical symptoms of acute gallbladder disease,

but the physician was having difficulty confirming the findings and requested a specialist’s help. Through VTC, the radiologist offered a differential diagnosis and clarified the imaging artifacts.

Needing an ophthalmologist, the George Washington again turned to telemedicine.

They had a patient with an injured cornea complaining of vision loss upon waking.

Within seven minutes of the original request, an ophthalmologist was examining the

patient on the ship from over 5,000 miles away via satellite. This turned out to be

a two-fold success story. The patient stayed on the ship knowing that he had received the best possible care; and, an unnecessary medical evacuation was avoided.

As a result of this innovative technology, the sailor was treated aboard ship and returned to duty within 48 hours of initial evaluation in sick call.

Telemedicine is not only effective on board ship, but has direct applications at our

shore-based regional and remote medical facilities. Our health care providers at

Naval Medical Clinic Annapolis, Branch Medical Clinics at Arlington Annex; Dahlgren, Virginia; and, Sugar Grove, West Virginia have used telemedicine for assistance in expediting care in the National Capital Area. Remote locations such as

Naval Hospital Rota, Spain and McMurdo Station, Antarctica have also utilized

telemedicine services provided by the Telemedicine Consultation Center in Bethesda. Expediting care for a complicated case of bacterial pneumonia in a two year

old child; routine healthcare in evaluating Naval Academy midshipmen for history

of nasal and sinus pathology; consultative follow-up and treatment of new and preexisting skin lesions and pathology in the oral cavity; as well as cardiology support

to the Independent Duty Corpsman for urgent care management of chest pain have

all been demonstrated this past year. Telemedicine’s potential as a time saving device in the day to day operations of Navy Medicine is readily apparent; along with

its expanding capability to improve the overall quality of care rendered to our beneficiaries in remote areas.

MAKING TRICARE WORK

Our third goal is ‘‘making TRICARE work.’’ Implementation of TRICARE is near

completion, all contracts have been awarded and all regions are scheduled to be

operational in the near future. With implementation complete, we will be able to

meet our readiness mission while providing our beneficiaries choice, guaranteed access, and quality health care at the lowest out of pocket cost possible.

TRICARE is a profound and fundamental change in the way we provide health

care services and, as with any change, is unsettling for our beneficiaries. The Services are working together to address key concerns of our customers: portability; improving access to care for geographically separated units; solving balance billing concerns; and, claims processing in order to make the system more customer-focused

and user friendly. To further reduce confusion, Active Duty Family Members, who

live within an MTF’s catchment area, should be automatically enrolled in TRICARE

Prime, unless they choose another option.

In addition, the Under Secretary of the Navy has appointed a task force headed

by the Navy’s Deputy Surgeon General to develop strategies for identifying educational techniques to simplify TRICARE and improve understanding. The task

force is comprised of medical, line personnel and family members from the Navy and

Marine Corps, who are actively exploring educational instruments, materials and

methodologies for improving understanding of TRICARE.

Navy Medicine sees TRICARE education as a continuum throughout an active

duty member’s career. We plan on developing separate briefs targeted to the recruits in Navy and Marine Corps boot camp, when an individual reports to the first

duty station, upon getting married, and when a couple has their first child. In addition, Navy Medicine is developing an information card for our active duty members

outlining the procedures to use when seeking medical care outside of their normal

duty station. We are also investigating methods to telemarket TRICARE through

the Internet, and recommending the development of a national TRICARE hotline

number to provide universal access to TRICARE information.

In July 1997, Navy Medicine initiated a TRICARE Customer Advocacy Demonstration Program. The intent of the project was to provide a location outside of

the medical facility where beneficiaries could go to receive assistance in understanding TRICARE and problem solving. The base and medical facility commanding officers determined the actual location. Demonstration sites were opened in Bangor,

Washington; Corpus Christi, Texas; Camp Pendleton, California; Jacksonville, FlorU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
433

ida and Yuma, Arizona. Preliminary data demonstrates a very favorable customer

response to this outreach effort. We are currently collecting data from the six-month

demonstration project to evaluate possible expansion to other sites.

Navy Medicine is also playing a leading role in the development of TRICARE

Prime Remote. TRICARE Prime Remote will involve the provision of care through

a network of civilian primary care managers to Active Duty Service Members and

their families living 50 miles or approximately one hour of driving time from a comprehensive Military Medical Treatment Facility. As Executive Agent for this program, Navy Medicine will support the development of a management process to

oversee the health care of all members participating in this initiative. We are

pleased with the potential of this initiative and expect it to improve health care access, uniformity of care, and quality of life; reduce time traveling to an MTF; and,

decrease out-of-pocket expenses for our Service-members and their families.

In this process of restructuring our health care system, we are ever mindful we

must not disenfranchise our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. They remain our most

loyal customers in military medicine. DOD believes the military can provide Medicare-eligibles health care at a lower cost than commercial at-risk HMO’s and expressed the need to transfer Medicare Trust fund dollars to DOD (Medicare subvention) during the past decade. Landmark legislation passed in 1997 authorizes a

3-year demonstration of Medicare subvention. Titled TRICARE Senior, the demonstration project is authorized to be conducted at six military sites and will permit

a specified number of our Medicare-eligibles to enroll in TRICARE Senior. Naval

Medical Center, San Diego, California is the Navy’s demonstration site. Following

the MTF’s application and acceptance into the Medicare program; a prescribed number of military retirees will be able to enroll into the TRICARE Senior Program. The

target enrollment period is slated to begin this summer, with healthcare delivery

beginning 60 days later. Navy Medicine is very excited about this new venture; and

if successful, look forward to permanent legislation.

We realize Medicare Subvention is only a partial fix to resolving the ‘‘Broken

Promise’’ of lifetime care for our retirees. Over half of Medicare-eligibles do not live

near an MTF and are not likely to enroll in TRICARE Senior. Retiree groups are

urging other alternatives to Medicare subvention for our retirees 65 and over. Presently, the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) is conducting a study to improve options

for access to care in the Military Health System (MHS) for these beneficiaries. This

study is focusing on the possibility of offering the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as an alternative for those 65 and over. The other part of

the CNA study will evaluate the feasibility of expanding the mail order pharmacy

program to all Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, vice the current policy of providing

this benefit only for residents of Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC)

sites. We expect to have CNA’s report later this year.

The FEHBP option, known as FEHBP–65, is the most comprehensive and enthusiastically supported by the various retiree groups. Presently not available to the

military, FEHBP is a collection of health plans offered to federal civilian employees

and retirees. FEHBP is paid for through monthly premiums, with the federal government subsidizing up to 72 percent of the premium. While we appreciate the merits of this system and its potential to ensure full health care coverage of our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, Navy Medicine advocates the continued review and assessment of the cost and benefits of both FEHBP–65 and other alternatives to increase MTF access for our Medicare-eligibles.

CUSTOMER FOCUSED BUSINESS PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING

Navy Medicine continues to improve readiness by re-engineering our business

practices. We are continually looking for new ways to do an even better job of keeping our Sailors and Marines healthy and on the job.

Recently the quality of Military Medicine has been called into question by various

media reports. In response, Navy Medicine is working closely with the Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to reevaluate our system and processes. Be assured, Navy Medicine is strongly dedicated to providing the highest

quality of care to all our beneficiaries and has taken specific actions aimed at refining and monitoring health care. We continue to participate in the Joint Commission

on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations accreditation process and are developing initiatives to improve our surgical procedures and clinical practices. Resolution

of pending malpractice and adverse action cases with the National Practitioner Data

Bank is aggressively being pursued. We are ensuring all Navy health care providers

possess a valid unrestricted license. Navy providers with special Oklahoma licenses

practice medicine under plans of supervision; none is practicing independently. To

assist beneficiaries to make informed decisions on health care, a ‘‘report card’’ for

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
434

each MTF is being created providing ‘‘on line’’ quality and consumer information;

and, the feasibility of a shared decision making process between patients and providers regarding treatment plans and priorities is being studied. Finally, improved

support to our providers is being enhanced through application of various automation tools and Internet services designed to produce the best possible outcome for

all our patients.

In today’s environment of scarce resources, Navy Medicine is very involved in several initiatives to collaborate and consolidate assets with other Services. Within the

National Capitol Region, the National Naval Medical Center, Walter Reed Army

Medical Center and Malcolm Grow Air Force Base Hospital have created Tri-Service

psychiatry, pediatric, neurosurgery, neurology, neonatal intensive care, obstetrics,

and substance abuse units. Not only are patients from all three Services routinely

admitted to these units, but the units are made up of Army, Navy and Air Force

clinical staff. Top administrative roles are also taking on a Tri-Service flavor. The

Executive Officer at Naval Hospital Charleston, South Carolina is an Air Force Officer, while the Deputy Commander at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii is a

Navy physician. The Interservice Training Review Organization continues to move

forward with the consolidation of training programs to ensure maximum utilization

of our training dollars. To date 33 programs are currently consolidated or under consideration for consolidation including Physician Assistant, BioMedical Repairman,

Nuclear Medicine, Cardiopulmonary and Hemodialysis technology.

Navy Medicine is an active member of the Joint Department of Defense (DOD)/

Veterans Affairs (VA) Executive Council. This council is developing several initiatives designed to promote cost-effective use of federal health care resources by minimizing duplication and underuse while benefiting both VA and DOD. Navy Medicine

currently has over 100 facility-level Navy/VA agreements in effect including major

medical and surgical services, laundry, blood, and laboratory services. Development

of a DOD/VA formulary; joint development, assessment, insertion and use of telemedicine; and, integration of VA Networks and TRICARE Lead Agents offering

more healthcare options to our beneficiaries are a few of the other exciting initiatives currently underway.

Navy Medicine is strongly committed to maintaining a quality Graduate Medical

Education (GME) program. Our training programs ensure Navy providers are exposed to clinical experiences required to become skilled practitioners. GME Tri-Service cooperation is becoming more of a factor in ensuring the success of these programs. All three Services are now required to fill GME slots available in the other

Services before out-service training is authorized.

Recruitment and retention of quality military physicians and dentists remains a

priority. Within the physician community, surgical specialties continue to be the

most difficult to recruit and retain and we currently have shortfalls in family practitioners, general and orthopedic surgeons. Physician specialty shortages are being

addressed through the Financial Assistance Program which provides recruiting incentives for civilian physicians already trained in undermanned specialties and the

Navy Active Duty Delay for Specialists program which allows graduating scholarship students to defer their active duty obligation until completion of their civilian

residency. End strength shortfalls persist for our Navy dentists. In fiscal year 1998,

legislation was passed to increase special pays for Dental Corps officers. These improvements, as well as increases in the number of Armed Forces Health Professions

scholarships are expected to balance and stabilize the force structure of Navy Dentistry by fiscal year 2000.

To better meet the health care needs of our female Sailors, Marines, family members and retirees, Navy Medicine is taking some bold new steps in the area of women’s health. As assignments for active duty women have expanded, so have the challenges and opportunities to re-evaluate Navy Medicine initiatives ensuring women

are able to access the care they need. We have created a Women’s Health Strategic

Planning Group as part of a demonstration project addressing active duty women’s

health issues, including family planning, pregnancy counseling, breast care, parenting issues, sexually transmitted diseases and other women’s health concerns. We

want to create a comfortable, supportive and private environment for active duty

women that will enable them to express their health care needs and concerns.

Our reengineering efforts are reaching all facets of Navy Medicine. The Navy’s

overseas research labs in Jakarta, Indonesia; Lima, Peru; and Cairo, Egypt, are

vital to keeping our Sailors and Marines healthy when they visit foreign lands. Before our ships make foreign port visits or when they conduct military operational

missions or exercise overseas, these labs ensure commands are fully aware of any

potential health risks they will face not normally encountered within the United

States. These labs also interact extensively with their host countries, fostering good

will with the United States.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
435

Navy research labs occasionally play an important role outside their normal duties. When a suspicious package was discovered at B’Nai B’rith Headquarters in

downtown Washington, D.C. this past April, scientists at the Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI) in Bethesda, Maryland were called upon to assist the community. A letter accompanying the package claimed dangerous biological agents

were present in the petri dish found inside the package. The FBI requested NMRI

run tests on the dish and the gelatin-like substance also found in the package.

Working through the weekend, NMRI personnel found no disease causing organisms, other than common environmental bacteria. Their hard work saved the day

and the FBI’s Assistant Director complimented the Navy for its prompt and efficient

work in the incident.

CONCLUSION

In closing, I would like to reemphasize Navy Medicine’s commitment to providing

quality, cost effective health care to those entrusted to our care, be they in our hospitals, on foreign shores, at sea, or in harm’s way. The beginning of the twenty-first

century will continue to provide us new challenges and opportunities. Navy Medicine is responding to these challenges by emphasizing and building a state-of-theart health care system and ensuring that the health and fitness of our Navy-Marine

Corps team remains at the highest level.

On a more personal note, I will be retiring on June 30, 1998, 40 years to the day

I took the oath as a Midshipman at the Naval Academy. It has been an exciting,

challenging forty years. I would like to thank you for your outstanding support of

Navy Medicine over the years. It has been an honor to share Navy Medicine’s successes with you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Do not worry about

that 65. Dan and I can tell you about that. [Laughter.]

Senator INOUYE. That is a long time ago. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. That is what Senator Thurmond said the other

day. Someone said, oh, to be 70 again. He said, what do you mean?

Oh, to be 80 again. [Laughter.]

General Roadman.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CHARLES H. ROADMAN II, SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE OVERVIEW

General ROADMAN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for

having us here.

I think if you listen to what Ron and Harold have talked about,

it is really that we are trying to reshape our system as we find requirements to do business differently. You cannot get to a 1-percent

increase in inflation vis-a-vis 7 unless you do the job differently.

All of us are really approaching it in five categories. One is readiness, which is clearly our main business.

The second is TRICARE and learning the techniques of how you

get the best bang for the buck, for the dollars, and give great service, to look at the infrastructure that we currently have and draw

the inefficiencies out of that, which, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned,

while focusing on building healthy communities. Part of what we

all worry about are some of the behaviors that we have in the first

half of our life and then try to have the medics pull us out of the

fire in the second half of our life. We need to get well into prevention, in order to be able to deliver the quality care that we need.

I would like to address readiness first. We all see that there is

a changing threat environment. The Air Force is currently working

on and has fielded the first operational chemically hardened ATH,

air transportable hospital. The entire program should be up, fully

funded, and ready to go by September, the year 2000.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
436

As we talk about telemedicine, telemedicine is not just images

and consults. It is also getting the right information to the right

provider at the right time to be able to make decisions in individual cases as well as populations because our job is to have a fit

fighting force ready to support combat arms.

We are currently fielding now in a program called Desert Care,

part of the DOD surveillance program, the ability to track symptoms and diagnoses real-time on web technology so that we can see

what is occurring within our population. As a matter of fact, about

2 months ago within 1 day we diagnosed an outbreak of food-borne

illness, salmonella, and were able to, within 1 day, then go back

and track that to the food source rather than having it become

rampant within the community. So, that is telemedicine as well. It

is informationalization of the system.

As the theater becomes more mobile, less in the world war III

mindset, we also are looking at aeromedical evacuation and care in

the air. Care in the air is the ability to transport more critical patients than we had previously transported. It requires retraining

and repurchasing of equipment because the intervention in the air

requires the ability to be able to make diagnoses in the air, and

that is different from what we used to do. So, we are reshaping

that airevac capability.

We also are very well aware that, as we look at the end game,

which looks more like a militia nation than a large standing force

that we have had in the past, we recognize the requirement to put

the Guard and Reserve on equal status with the active as we field

a total force team. We have been very successful in a project called

Mirror Force in trying to settle some of the cultural issues that

really separate us and have separated us for years.

Just last Monday we had the great opportunity to bid farewell

to a Reserve unit that was actually going to Al Kharj replacing an

active unit at an air transportable hospital. So, we are seeing that

integration that is absolutely critical.

As we talk about TRICARE, I think many people do not understand that TRICARE is a strategy. It is not just a benefits package.

But as the Active Force becomes smaller, we have to be outsourcing

and privatizing a lot of care that we did not do in the past.

TRICARE is the DOD’s approach to support the warfighters and

their families.

I would add to Harold’s statement. Automatic enrollment is a

critical issue, but I will tell you the annual reenrollment is another

issue that forces people to jump through a hoop to maintain their

care. So, the legislation probably needs to, as we work that text for

you, add the reenrollment.

I would like to foot-stomp the issue of the promise. I believe that

we recruited and retained, ever since 1973 when we went to an AllVolunteer Force, based on the promise of health care for life. I see

us backing away from that. I believe that we have a promise that

we must step up to, and I also believe that the expansion of the

national mail order pharmacy is the first step in doing that, as well

as testing other alternatives.

In addition to that, we are reshaping our health care delivery

system with sharing agreements with folks like the VA. The Air

Force currently has about 119 sharing agreements, and Senator

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
437

Cleland is doing an evaluation of the interface between DOD and

the VA. I was talking to Congressman Sonny Montgomery and he

said one of the real positive things is how much we, as the three

services, have already done in trying to get better synergy in Federal medicine. As a matter of fact, we have two joint ventures that

are currently working. And, Mr. Chairman, as you know, Elmendorf Hospital will be opening in October of this year which is both

joint Air Force and VA.

In addition, in New Mexico we have got the Gerald Champion

Hospital which is an alliance with a commercial venture, trying to

look for synergy of how to do our business better.

All of these are win-win propositions for the Government in our

quest to be a steward for the dollar, for the local community, and

for our patients.

Recruiting, I think, is an issue. As Ron talked about, the Reserve

issue for us is not a big problem. The only corps I am particularly

concerned about is in the Dental Corps where we are having some

retention and some recruitment problems. We are transferring

HPSP scholarships to dentists as well as the bonuses that you all

have supported in the past.

As we look at the acquisition for most of our physicians, USUHS

is a critical issue for us. It gives us a cadre of strong military physicians that stay with us for a long time, and it is not just physicians as we have the graduate school of nursing giving us a strong

cadre of nursing skills as well.

We, as well as the other services, are looking at developing initiatives to develop leaders. As you know, all of our flags are now

no longer corps specific and so all competition for all flags is all

corps.

In order to do that, we have got to increase the experiential level

of corps that previously have been at a disadvantage. As a matter

of fact, over the past 2 years we have increased from 35 percent

to 55 percent of nonphysicians as commanders. So, we are seeing

that experiential level rise because you cannot go from the bedside

or the chairside and directly into a large system leadership. It is

a graduated phenomenon.

PREPARED STATEMENT

As you recognize, the environment is changing at the speed of

heat, and we have got to change our system along with it. We

think that our past performance over the past 3 years has reflected

that. We are looking forward to a bright future and we thank you

for all your continued support in the past and what you are doing

in the future. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CHARLES H. ROADMAN II

Mister Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity

to address the goals and accomplishments of the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS)

in realizing our vision for the future. We achieved significant progress this year in

our strategic plan to enhance high quality of life standards for the men and women

of the Air Force, their families, and retired members. We use the Parthenon to illustrate our strategy, which is based on four pillars: medical readiness, deploying

TRICARE, rightsizing, and building healthy communities, with customer service as

the capstone.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
438

REENGINEERING MEDICAL READINESS

This past year has been a banner year for our primary mission, medical readiness,

as we continued to reengineer our major programs. Reengineering goals include ensuring rapid response to support theater commanders, institutionalizing evacuation

of the stabilized casualty, and aggressively enhancing Total Force partnership.

We’ve made dramatic strides in achieving these goals under the medical readiness

pillar.

The AFMS introduced new medical technologies and strategies to maintain a high

level of readiness with a smaller, more mobile medical ‘‘footprint.’’ For example, the

old contingency hospitals, designed for large-scale conflicts during the Cold War era,

were large, costly and immobile. In July 1997, active, Guard and Reserve personnel

worked together to reengineer the contingency hospital into the new Air Force theater hospital. Because the theater hospital is based on the modularly deployable air

transportable hospital (ATH), it is more responsive to theater commanders’ needs

for both flexibility and larger inpatient facilities.

Contingency support for theater commanders.—Air Force medics provided support

to contingency and humanitarian operations this year in locations such as Southwest Asia, Croatia, Africa, Central and South America, and the Pacific Rim. Highlights included manning our prototype chemically hardened ATH at Prince Sultan

Air Base, Saudi Arabia, and a 10-bed ATH in support of U.S. humanitarian operations in Haiti.

In addition, the AFMS provided crucial force protection services to deployed

troops, such as stress counseling before, during and after deployments, and epidemiological surveillance and education in-theater to prevent disease. Certainly, immunizations are an important part of our epidemiology program. As such, we support the DOD initiative to immunize our airmen against anthrax, a highly lethal

disease. We know that our deployed troops face a validated biological warfare threat

of anthrax and are confident in the safe and effective FDA-approved vaccination. In

addition, the Air Force anthrax vaccination implementation plan ensures accurate

tracking of all personnel who receive the vaccine. Our force protection measures also

mandate a response to chemical warfare threats. We anticipate initial operating capability of our tested and fully functional chemically hardened ATH (CHATH) in

August 1998, with full operational capability of all CHATH’s scheduled for September 2000.

Institutionalizing evacuation of the stabilized casualty.—Throughout contingency

and humanitarian operations, Air Force aeromedical evacuation (AE) flight crews

and critical care air transport teams (CCATT’s) provided in-flight care to quickly

move stable and stabilized patients. Moving stabilized patients, defined as airwaysecured, hemorrhage-controlled, shock-controlled, and fracture-stabilized, represents

a change in DOD doctrine to support the reduced forward medical footprint. The

CCATT, which adds an intensive care capability to routine medical flight crews, provides high quality enroute care without draining staff and equipment from theater

commanders. CCATT’s are operating out of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, and Keesler Medical Center in Biloxi, Miss. With the initiation of a

certified CCATT course in October 1997, the Air Force began training 106 teams

per year at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio.

In further support of the Air Force’s unique ‘‘care in the air’’ mission, we continue

to pursue the insertion of telemedicine into the aeromedical environment. We completed the Phase I Proof of Concept Demonstration in September 1997, having flown

nine missions within U.S. Air Forces, Europe, on three aircraft—the C–9, C–141

and C–130—for a total of 70.6 hours. In this demonstration, we used commercial

off-the-shelf computer systems and applications in addition to existing airframe

communication systems, and were able to validate use of e-mail and ‘‘chat’’ to and

from the aircraft to ground AE command and control elements. We are now working

toward our Phase II Proof of Concept Demonstration in the Pacific Air Forces theater.

Ensuring Total Force partnership.—The AFMS goal to change and sustain the

Total Force culture was formally established with the implementation of the Mirror

Force strategy. The Mirror Force Strategic Plan provides a blueprint to organize,

train, and equip our medics as one seamless team, with no distinction between active duty, Guard, or Reserve. The Mirror Force concept has been incorporated into

all aspects of readiness efforts. All integrated product teams, conferences, training

activities, operating instructions, and deployable medical teams now stress active

and reserve component participation.

As more operational missions transfer to the Guard and Reserve in the future,

Mirror Force will ensure one standard: the AFMS standard. To prepare for these

combat support missions, reserve component medical forces will be taking on some

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
439

traditionally active duty missions in the near future. For example, beginning this

summer, the Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard will deploy ATH

units to support Operation Southern Watch at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia. The Eskan Village Clinic in Riyadh will see similar rotations by reserve component units in the summer of 1999. Medical readiness personnel from the Air Force

Reserve Command and Air National Guard will serve rotations in the Joint Task

Force-Southwest Asia theater planner position. These deployments clearly demonstrate Mirror Force in action.

What we witnessed in 1997 was a major transition from the past. By the Year

2000, we will have a reengineered, deployable medical force that is more flexible

and modular to support theater commanders and is capable of supporting evacuation of the stabilized casualty.

DEPLOYING TRICARE: BETTER ACCESS AND MORE CHOICES

The ‘‘Deploying TRICARE’’ pillar incorporates several key aspects of our strategy:

population-based health management, marketing, partnership with the civilian

health care sector, and TRICARE infrastructure. Much of our progress can be described in terms of these facets.

Population-Based Health Management.—TRICARE is designed to ensure patients

receive the appropriate care and procedures they require. By deploying TRICARE

as part of an overall strategy, the AFMS is able to optimize quality, cost, and access

to care, while offering beneficiaries a choice of health care plan options.

Enrollment in TRICARE Prime has been strong and well ahead of predictions. In

fact, as of October 1997, DOD had more than 2.7 million Prime enrollees, to include

more than 800,000 at Air Force MTF’s. TRICARE Prime is available in nine health

services regions; contracts have been awarded in the remaining three regions where

Prime will be available by June 1998. A survey last year of TRICARE Prime enrollees found that 80 percent rated their care good to excellent and nine out of 10 would

reenroll. Customer service for our beneficiaries is further enhanced through

TRICARE Service Centers, Health Care Information Lines, and self-help information.

As primary care managers and other members of the health care team work to

coordinate care for our beneficiaries, we’ve increased efficiencies to control costs and

improve access to primary care. We realigned services that were less efficient in

terms of scarce dollars, personnel, and facilities. Inpatient services used well below

capacity are being closed or consolidated with other services. Careful evaluation of

emergency services resulted in closures of those used for mostly non-urgent care.

This shifts more resources to provide routine and non-urgent acute care in more appropriate settings such as primary care clinics, promoting continuity of care for our

patients. In addition, the limited use of emergency rooms (ER) for true emergencies

results in a loss of skills proficiency for the ER staff. Therefore, local civilian ER’s

provide an equal or better standard of care to our patients. In the long term, our

greatest efficiency will be realized from our increased emphasis on preventive services, such as health and wellness centers. Disease prevention saves dollars, but

more importantly, greatly enhances the quality of life for our military families.

Marketing.—The AFMS has aggressively communicated our strategy and vision to

our military beneficiaries, Air Force leadership, and members of Congress. Briefings

and written materials help everyone better understand their health plan and how

best to use health services to meet their needs. However, continued emphasis is necessary; thus ongoing communication efforts are taking place as TRICARE evolves

throughout the 12 regions.

Partnership With the Civilian Sector.—To better serve our patients, we continue

to forge stronger partnerships with the civilian health care sector. The DOD Managed Care Support Contracts bring services that optimize and complement those

available in our military facilities to ensure beneficiaries can access required services through quality provider networks. DOD is working with contractors to tackle

concerns that have caused beneficiaries or providers to be dissatisfied with the program, to include problems in claims processing. Data on how the contractors are

doing in terms of timely, accurate processing of claims show continual improvement.

TRICARE Infrastructure.—TRICARE infrastructure, such as policies and contracts, is improving our care to beneficiaries as well. We implemented fixes to many

problems our beneficiaries and network providers helped identify. Problems such as

balance billing of beneficiaries, multiple copayments for a single episode of care, and

the portability of Prime enrollment will all be resolved by late Spring 1998.

Finally, thanks to your support, there is now legislation authorizing a demonstration project to give Medicare-eligible beneficiaries the same access to MTF’s as retired TRICARE Prime enrollees. The Medicare demonstration will be at six sites in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
440

the continental United States and will last for three years. While this is an important first step in providing seamless care to all our beneficiaries, we do have two

concerns.

One concern is that a limited number of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries will be allowed to enroll in the initial demonstration project, creating some dissatisfaction

among others who will not be able to enroll at that time. However, the value of a

demonstration project is that it offers a trial period to learn lessons and improve

the process before expanding the program. A second concern is that, following the

announcement in February of the actual demonstration sites, we still require at

least six months to implement the program because of extensive regulations, particularly those of the Health Care Financing Administration. Recognizing and planning for these concerns, the AFMS has taken a lead role in implementing this demonstration project, and we are committed to its success. In addition, we are working

with our DOD counterparts to explore other alternatives to improve access to care

for Medicare-eligibles.

RIGHTSIZING OUR MEDICAL FACILITIES AND FORCES

With rising health care costs and reductions in the DOD budget, the military

must maintain a health care system capable of providing high quality medical care

within the constraints of a capitated budget. Therefore, the objective of our

rightsizing pillar is to develop an overarching strategy that will optimize the overall

force size while it ensures we have the right number of people with the right skills

at the right place and time. Further, it makes sense to rightsize as we evolve from

an inpatient to an outpatient environment.

Model using best business practices.—To make the transition to a rightsized environment, we applied the DOD Sizing Model. This model was created as a joint effort

by the Army, Navy, and Air Force to establish the optimum baseline for medical

authorizations, so the services could still execute readiness and day-to-day overseas

missions.

In addition to this baseline, the AFMS developed several assumptions instrumental in deriving the current target being programmed into the budget. The first assumption is readiness is our first priority. The second assumption is quality health

care for our beneficiaries must continue, with the goal of ensuring ‘‘blue suit’’ (Air

Force) care for blue suiters and their families. Third, we must also provide a mechanism for quality graduate medical education. Finally, it was noted that health care

is a process, not a place; care delivered outside the MTF is acceptable when based

upon appropriate quality, cost and service considerations.

The rightsizing strategy, although initially directed from senior leadership, has

been validated through a comprehensive strategic planning process, essentially a

bottom-up review and analysis. The end product is a rightsizing strategy that will

change how care is delivered in the AFMS. Programmed changes will result in fewer

medical centers and hospitals. Inefficient small hospitals will convert to clinics as

we move to a prevention-based system. Inpatient care at these clinics will shift to

the civilian community.

The changes in facilities and reduction of inpatient beds have also prompted us

to decrease our active duty and civilian personnel, ‘‘rightsizing’’ the force. We focused on making sure the decreases are made in the appropriate medical specialties

while still meeting mission and peacetime requirements, and ensuring personnel

policies are as humane as possible. Military treatment facilities will determine the

specialty mix required for their patient population.

Two major strategies, the Integrated Forecast Board (IFB) and the Joint Services

Graduate Medical Education Selection Board, were initiated to help ensure these

changes are efficient, timely, and maintain a quality force to meet mission requirements. The IFB represents a major change in the way the AFMS projects training

for the future. In the past, training requirements were identified by individual

Corps without the benefit of integrated oversight and management. Due to shrinking resources, the Air Force sought to enhance its efficiency in forecasting medical

training needs. Hence, the purpose and design of the IFB is to project Air Force

medical personnel training requirements along product lines in support of changing

mission requirements. It will determine Air Force needs for trained specialists in

the future and then identify and prioritize training activities and programs that will

prepare selected officers to meet those needs. The IFB ascertains training requirements for all specialties and corps, and considers various types of education programs including clinical residencies, fellowships, advanced academic degrees and

non-clinical fellowships with both Air Force headquarters elements and private industry.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
441

One of the important elements of the IFB process is to identify needs for specialty

trained physicians. The IFB is conducted in the spring each year, and is followed

by the annual Graduate Medical Education (GME) Selection Board. The GME selection board chooses physicians for residency and fellowship training programs beginning the following year. Prior to 1993, the AFMS conducted its GME selection

boards entirely by itself. Beginning in 1993, the Army, Navy, and Air Force began

conducting joint GME selection boards. Each year, the joint selection board is

planned, coordinated, and conducted by one of the military services acting as executive agent. The years since 1993 have shown increasing cooperation among the military services in sharing training capabilities. In 1997, with the Army acting as executive agent, approximately 100 students were selected for training in programs conducted by other services. The Air Force will act as the lead agent in 1998, and we

expect to continue this selection method.

As we forecast our personnel needs in a rightsized Air Force, we must consider

the impact on our enlisted forces. For example, the issue of how to maintain skills

proficiency when our facilities are downsizing may be critical in the future, particularly as unlicensed enlisted medics are unable to take those skills ‘‘downtown.’’

One of the greatest challenges we face as we make these transitions is to effectively communicate our rightsizing efforts to our customers. Briefings and written

materials are provided to the MTF’s to help answer concerns and dispel confusion,

and Congress is kept informed through several forums.

The process of rightsizing our force is expected to continue through fiscal year

2006. It integrates both planning and programming efforts and will focus on innovative approaches to health care delivery that are cost-effective, provide continuity of

care for our patients, and solidify prevention strategies.

BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES—INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION

The global mission of the Air Force requires airmen who are fit, healthy and

ready to deploy on a moment’s notice. The AFMS strategic pillar, building healthy

communities was designed to meet that demand as well as deliver top-quality health

services for the entire Air Force community.

The building blocks of our ‘‘building healthy communities’’ pillar include: an enterprise focus that ensures healthy, safe, ecologically sound work and community environments; prevention-oriented health service delivery system; force enhancement

initiatives; and decision-making based on factual data analysis.

Fact-based initiatives.—To build healthy life styles and do it in the most cost-effective manner, we are investing in capabilities that promote prevention and intervention. Put Prevention Into Practice (PPIP) is a strategy developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which the Air Force has implemented to

organize and guide the preventive medicine efforts of our medical providers.

The first step in PPIP is the Health Enrollment Assessment Review (HEAR),

which is conducted with each patient as they enroll in TRICARE Prime, and then

is updated annually. Data from the HEAR helps us to identify the health status and

prevention needs of our patients. This data is then reviewed and discussed between

the provider and patient as a basis for clinical management and is used by major

commands and the Air Staff to assure that resources are available to care for the

populations assigned.

The second element of PPIP is the Preventive Health Assessment (PHA), which

last year replaced the periodic physical examination program for all active duty

members. The PHA is a four-stage process that includes a prevention-oriented clinical screening, occupational examination, screening of military-unique medical requirements, and counseling. The PHA will help us ensure the highest rates of mission and mobility readiness by providing feedback to commanders on the health of

their troops.

Downsizing and increased operations tempo continue to challenge us, and we are

responding with a variety of force enhancement initiatives, such as tobacco cessation

classes and individual fitness prescriptions. To support these programs, we are establishing Health and Wellness Centers (HAWC’s) at every Air Force installation.

We now have HAWC’s on 53 bases and installation fitness program administrators

to help members improve their fitness at 70 bases. Our HAWC’s provide ‘‘one-stop

shopping’’ for health promotion and fitness assessment. These efforts are paying off,

as we are beginning to see decreases in smoking and increases in fitness rates in

our active duty force.

Another key aspect of building healthy communities is our occupational health

program. Our state-of-the-art program provides for the anticipation, recognition,

evaluation and control of physical, chemical and biological hazards in all Air Force

workplaces. Our expertise has a high return on investment in terms of decreased

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
442

lost time, reduced compensation, improved performance and greater productivity.

Success depends on dedicated teamwork within the medical service and with many

other segments of the Air Force.

Air Force leadership is concerned about the ability of its members to cope with

increasing levels of stress in the face of significant increases in operations tempo

and force downsizing. As a result, the Air Force established an integrated product

team (IPT) to evaluate suicides among active duty members and develop strategies

for suicide prevention and intervention.

The IPT identified numerous factors as leading causes of suicide service-wide.

Chief among them were relationship difficulties, members facing adverse actions

viewed as ‘‘career ending,’’ financial difficulties, substance abuse, and the perception

that seeking help would have a negative impact on the individual’s career. After

evaluating this information, the team called in consultants from both the Air Force

and public sector to develop a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention.

Since the inception of the suicide prevention IPT, the suicide rate for active duty

members has decreased by more than 30 percent. This has been largely due to

strong senior leadership, awareness training for all Air Force members, training at

all levels of professional military education, and the development of critical incident

stress management teams at every installation. The bottom line is that successful

suicide prevention depends on self-aid and buddy care. Everyone must lead the culture shift in the way prevention services are delivered and remove the stigmata of

seeking help. I’m proud to say that a civilian consultant hired by DOD to evaluate

the military services’ suicide prevention programs praised the Air Force’s program

as one that is ‘‘as advanced and enlightened as any I have heard of.’’

The Air Force established policies providing limited confidentiality protection to

service members charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and

is seeking ways to broaden the coverage. We also greatly expanded the proactive

role of mental health service providers. Various helping agencies in the Air Force—

such as family services, chaplains, mental health services, substance abuse, and

health and wellness centers—now work together to provide comprehensive prevention services that enhance both individual and organizational resilience.

Base helping agencies are now working closely together under an integrated delivery system, or IDS. The new system is designed to link base helping agencies to

address risk factors, reduce stress and improve the coping skills and general wellbeing of individuals and families in the Air Force community. Wing commanders received guidance on implementing this system for their units last fall. Commanders

at all levels can now work closely with the various agencies to offer a more comprehensive range of prevention services, increase the protective factors and decrease

the behavioral risk factors in the community.

Family Advocacy is among the agencies that have shifted their focus from intervention to prevention. Professional family advocacy outreach managers at every

base are providing educational and training programs, such as courses in parenting

and couples communications.

In summary, base agencies now work closely with each other, helping to integrate

those services which provide direct assistance to members and their families. As

these agencies join ranks, officials believe potential problems can be identified earlier and efforts taken more quickly to prevent tragic trends.

QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Customer satisfaction with quality care is the capstone of the AFMS strategic

plan. The AFMS has a long tradition of providing quality care, but we can’t rest

on past success. Air Force medics rigorously seek out and submit to external and

internal quality assurance reviews, many by the same professional organizations

that measure the civilian medical industry. Regardless of the measure, Air Force

medics consistently score as well as, and in many cases better than their civilian

counterparts. In fact, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations survey scores indicate Air Force hospitals have outscored civilian hospitals nationwide by 5 percent during the past six years. In addition, 17 percent of Air Force

hospitals have received ‘‘accreditation with commendation,’’ JCAHO’s highest appraisal, for their outstanding services, quality patient education, and staff training

programs. Only 12 percent of civilian hospitals have received this same appraisal.

As an example, during a recent JCAHO inspection of Malcolm Grow Medical Center,

Andrews AFB, MD, the surveyors commented: ‘‘Your medical staff is

excellent*** better than any civilian hospital I’ve ever surveyed;’’ and ‘‘On a

scale of one to 10, with 10 being the highest*** patients who continually

stopped me gave you a 10 plus * * *.’’

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
443

We’re also very proud of the fact that the number of Air Force physicians who

are board-certified compares favorably with the number in the civilian community

(67 percent vs. 66 percent) and that we experience a much lower rate of malpractice

claims than the civilian community (seven claims per 100 physicians per year for

the Air Force vs. 14 claims per 100 physicians per year in the civilian sector).

High marks in clinical performance are only part of the picture. The AFMS also

measures itself by how satisfied customers are with the care they receive. Recent

survey results show that our scores are higher in customer satisfaction than those

of our civilian counterparts in terms of satisfaction with access, interpersonal relationships, and quality.

As we journey toward the next millennium, our ability to support the Air Force

and DOD depends upon our progress in each of the four pillars: medical readiness,

deploying TRICARE, rightsizing, and building healthy communities, with a capstone

of customer satisfaction. We’re confident in our ability to maintain an outstanding

level of service for the Air Force and our country for many years to come, and appreciate the continued support of our beneficiaries, military leadership, our President

and the Congress.

WOMEN’S HEALTH STUDIES

Senator STEVENS. I apologize. There has been a crisis come up

about a situation developing tomorrow and I am still trying to solve

it.

Before I forget about it, Admiral, we certainly agree with you

about the women’s health studies. We have done our best to assure

that the transition is totally complete now, in terms of the services

that the women in the armed services need. To my knowledge, no

one has ever requested money for what you just suggested, those

studies.

Could you give us an idea how much money would be required?

And I assume it would have to be a joint services study, not just

the Navy. Right? You do not need to give it to us now.

Admiral KOENIG. No; I know that.

Senator STEVENS. Give it to us for the record.

Admiral KOENIG. Yes; we are prepared to do that.

[The information follows:]

Current proposed Women’s Health Research Studies in the Department of the

Navy submitted by Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Naval Health Research Center (NHRC), Center for Naval Analysis

(CNA), and Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) include:

Priority: 1

Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy Outcomes in Navy Women Serving Aboard Ship

and Ashore. Cooperative study with Naval Health Research Center designed in response to recommendations of the Standing Committee on Military and Civilian

women in the Department of the Navy three year study; total funding: $1.065 million ($355,000/year).

Priority: 2

Development and Refinement of Interventions to Reduce Unplanned Pregnancy in

Navy and Marine Corps Women. Two year study; total funding: $440,000 ($220,000/

year).

Priority: 3a

Occupational Fitness of Active Duty Women for Sustained Operations. Three year

study; total funding: $450,000 ($150,000/year).

Priority: 3b

Dynamic Strength Capability of Women in High Performance Flight Tasks. Three

year study; total funding: $900,000 ($300,000/year).

Priority: 4

Gender Norming Human Factors for the Next Generation Ships and Equipment.

Five year study; total funding: $1.5 million ($300,000/year).

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
444

Priority: 5a

Premilitary History of Sexual Assault and Active Duty Revictimization and Resulting Health Care Utilization. Three year study; total funding: $2.4 million

($800,000/year).

Priority: 5b

Relationship Between Active Duty Women Premilitary Maltreatment History and

Health Care Utilization. Three year study; total funding: $2.4 million ($800,000/

year).

Priority: 5c

The Relationship Between Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptomology and Occupational Performance and Attrition in Active Duty Women. Three year study;

total funding: $2.4 million ($800,000/year).

Priority: 6

The Effects of Maternal Absence on Child Development, Health Care Utilization,

and Operational Readiness. Two year study; total funding: $500,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 7

Pregnancy, Physical Fitness, and Force Medical Protection: A Pre and Post Natal

Exercise Model for Active Duty Navy and Marine Corps Women. Two year study;

total funding: $400,000 ($200,000/year).

Priority: 8

The Development of a Safe and Effective Exercise Curriculum to Reduce Musculoskeletal Injury in Navy and Marine Female Training Populations/Operational Communities. Two year study; total funding: $500,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 9

Establishment of a Registry of Birth Defects in Offspring of Active Duty Women.

Ongoing registry; total funding: $250,000/year.

Priority: 10

Medical Care of American Women in OCONUS Host Nation Medical Systems. Cooperative study with George Mason University. Two year study; total funding:

$180,000 ($90,000/year).

Priority: 11a

Self Esteem of Active Duty Navy and Marine Corps Women and Relationship to

Medical Force Protection. Three year study; total funding: $450,000 ($150,000/year).

Priority: 11b

Shipboard Health of Active Duty Women in the Navy and Marine Corps. Three

year study; total funding: $1.5 million ($500,000/year).

Priority: 11c

Health, Wellbeing, and Health Care Delivery Services Available to Women Aboard

Ship. Three year study; total funding: $1.5 million ($500,000/year).

Priority: 12

Application and Assessment of Urine Based Screening for Chlamydia in Navy and

Marine Corps Women. Two year study; total funding: $300,000 ($150,000/year).

Priority: 13

Gender Differences in Immune Defense Mechanisms: Potential Application to the

Management of Combat Associated Major Trauma. Three year study; total funding:

$750,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 14

The Effectiveness of Telemedicine Consultation in Assessing Gynecological Disease. Three year study; total funding: $750,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 15

The Knowledge Base of Active Duty Navy and Marine Corps Women Concerning

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Behaviors. One year study; total funding:

$50,000 ($50,000/year).

Priority: 16

Continuation of Defense Medical Epidemiological Database Development. One

year study; total funding: $100,000 ($100,000/year).

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
445

Priority: 17

Mixed Gender Value Added Tactical Decision Making Under Stress. Three year

study; total funding: $750,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 18

Gender Comparison of Suicide Risk and Adverse Psychological Response Assessment in the U.S. Navy. Two year study; total funding: $280,000 ($140,000/year).

Priority: 19

Gender Differences in Response to Cold Stress. Two year study; total funding:

$500,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 20

Female Physiological Heat Exposure Limits (PHEL). Two year study; total funding: $1.2 million ($600,000/year).

Priority: 21

Tri-Service Hospitalization Rate Comparison for Female Specific Disease. Two

year study; total funding: $400,000 ($200,000/year).

Priority: 22

Anthropomorphic Measures as Indicators of Body Fat Change. One year study;

total funding: $100,500 ($100,500/year).

Priority: 23

The Health Status of Repatriated Female Prisoners of War/Torture Survivors.

One year study; total funding: $100,000 ($100,000/year).

Proposed future studies addressing successful integration of women aboard submarines are: Gender difference in response to potential toxic atmospheric contaminants or radiation exposures that may occur during submarine duty; Women on submarines-health issues; Psychological predictors of attrition; and Psychological predictors of successful integration of women aboard submarines.

TRICARE/MEDICARE SUBVENTION

Senator STEVENS. You all mentioned TRICARE and Medicare

subvention. I do have some questions about that.

TRICARE, 12 regions in the country. We have done nine. We

have three more to do, but it looks like every time we are just

about ready to go ahead, we have an appeal. There has been an

appeal in every instance, and they have been settled. But the problems that develop in each region seem to be comparable to the ones

that developed prior to the new one coming on line.

Is there not some way that you can have some kind of a cadre

that can go and say, look, these are the problems that all the other

nine have encountered, do not make the same mistakes? It would

seem to me that a management structure to assure that the delays

that the others have encountered would be avoided in these last

three would be in order. Is that possible?

Admiral KOENIG. I will take that on. Yes; I think it is possible,

and I think that we have a good chance at this time—it is actually

two contracts to serve three regions—that this will not occur.

I have personally talked to the CEO, the one that is to come up

first on May 1, and the biggest issue has always seemed to be the

rapidity with which they process claims. I think these people indicate to me that they have learned lessons by looking back at what

the other folks have been through.

Some of the other issues, though, that we identified in reference

to enrollment and continuous enrollment, are issues that need to

be fixed by the tri-service CHAMPUS office, the TRICARE Support

Office. These are issues that we, the three SG’s, keep asking to

have fixed. These issues do not necessarily require legislation.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
446

On the issue that I did mention to you earlier about automatic

enrollment of active duty family members who live within the

catchment area of a facility, I suspect we are going to need to have

some sort of legislative help to get that done because of the resistance that we feel at other areas.

TRICARE ENROLLMENT

General ROADMAN. It will require a legislative change because

the law now mandates choice and it is choice at the beginning rather than choice to opt out. Language is being written for that legislation and submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

General BLANCK. Mr. Chairman, if I may—I am sorry. Go ahead.

Senator STEVENS. Be sure we get it too. We are probably going

to have the first vehicle to deal with, if it is something that has

to be done. We are going to be working on a supplemental when

we get back in just 2 weeks, and I think we can get their concurrence to do a fix like that in a supplemental if you give it to us

in time.

Yes, General?

General BLANCK. Besides the slowness in the payments and the

issues you have already heard addressed, there are two other major

problems with TRICARE. One is being fixed and one is not.

The one that is being fixed is the maximum allowable rates of

reimbursement that were in some cases below that of Medicare.

The rates that will make them at least as great as Medicare will

be published in the Federal Register in the next month or so, and

that will obviate that problem. So, no longer will physicians have

to rely on being reimbursed at even below Medicare rates.

But the second problem is that the rates really are set to those

of Medicare which many consider to be too low. As long as we are

linked with that, we are kind of a captive of those rates, and some

providers, some groups just will not accept those rates. They do in

areas that are relatively provider-rich where there is a lot of competition, but in areas where that is not true, where providers do

not have to take those rates, they really are opting out. Now, they

have to accept Medicare by law, but they do not have to accept

CHAMPUS by law. So, there are some issues with that as well.

Senator STEVENS. Well, they have to accept Medicare by law if

they take Medicare. But I have had a whole series of people from

Alaska—I just finished visiting with a young woman doctor who

told me she just cannot afford to do the Medicare anymore, and it

is not what she is getting repaid, it is all of the forms and reports

and inspections and everything else that come from Medicare when

she gets involved in it. She is a sole practitioner in a rural part

of Alaska, and literally she was in tears and she told me she just

cannot do it anymore.

TRICARE AND MEDICARE

Now, you guys have a lot of clout with that Medicare bunch. You

ought to get in there and tell them to stop this because with Medicare subvention and TRICARE using Medicare rates, what you are

doing is you are leading these people into a blank wall, if you think

retirees are going to take that option, because they know that the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
447

doctors that they have dealt with in the past are not taking Medicare patients.

My question to you is how can we interface all these people now

using the private sector doctors. As you mentioned, Admiral, that

is the filler that is necessary. As we have reduced the number of

medical facilities, you have to move some of them out there, do you

not? But if you take Medicare rates, they are not going to take it.

This is a horde of people we are pushing out in the private sector,

and if this young woman is right, they are not going to take them.

Have you talked to the Medicare people about this? What is

going to happen to them? The private doctors cannot take that load

if it is going to mean that they are swamped by all these Medicare

reports, and they are probably going to have to give you reports

too.

You talk about the Internet, Admiral. Why can some of these

things not be put into some sort of a program that these doctors

can have someone put a report through on the Internet and file it

and not have all this paperwork and all these investigations and

everything else that is going on in these little towns of America

today?

General BLANCK. My understanding is that you can do that. You

can file electronically by the Internet.

Admiral KOENIG. Unfortunately, there are I think over 1,500 different forms.

Senator STEVENS. That is what she said.

Admiral KOENIG. Yes; it is insane. We need a single form in this

country that is filed for every kind of claim and it should require

the minimum amount of information, not anything that anybody

wants to have for their own little study.

Senator STEVENS. What is more, she told me that they give instructions as to how she is to perform her services. Her services

must be performed according to this particular protocol or she is

not going to get reimbursed. Now, that is a lot of baloney when you

are out there operating on your own. She told me she would have

to have a separate room in her office just to store the forms that

she has to file if she is going to take Medicare.

I am serious now because all the retirees that want to go off and

take this other Medicare subvention are going to be back at you

like a dirty shirt. That is all there is to it. They are going to come

after you if it does not work, and we will hear from them.

We are already hearing from retirees in terms of access, gentlemen. The facility has been closed. They do not know where to go.

You talk about the young people being confused. They are confused.

The place they got their service before—they do not know what

their rights are. We are getting a lot more congressional inquiries

on how do I do this than you would believe. I do not know about

you. We have one person working on that now and we are a small

State.

So, I would urge you to do something about that concept of the

Medicare program being ready to provide private sector service for

your people.

Admiral KOENIG. I think you got three guys down here who are

in adament agreement with you on all this.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
448

Senator STEVENS. Well, tell us who to go to battle with. I will

join you.

Admiral KOENIG. We can do that.

Senator STEVENS. I do not know anything about those blasted

forms. I wondered when she told me about this protocol. She could

not get repaid because she did not follow a particular approach to

providing a medical service. But you all have to help us on that.

ANGIO-CT

I am taking a lot of time. You mentioned the angio-CT that is

out there at Walter Reed. I do not have answers on this now. I

went out to see the man who invented that, as you know, and went

through it. I got to tell you I think the second generation is going

to be staggering if they can achieve their goals.

But beyond that, I have notified every Member of the Senate

that they ought to get out there to Walter Reed and use that because that is preventive medicine. That is not a diagnostic tool to

tell me what is wrong with me now. It is to tell me how to not get

sick in the future. Even this first generation has a great deal to

do with lessening the workload of your service hospitals if we could

find some way to put them to work.

Now, as I understand it, that is the only one we have, is it not?

General BLANCK. There is another one at Brooke Army Medical

Center and I know some of the other centers use that technology,

though they may not own it. They use it in the local community.

There are perhaps 40 in this country total.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I wish you all would make a study of

that and see whether it is as good as I think it is. If it is, I think

we ought to expand the number of them that are available. You all

have mentioned preventative medicine, and that is the answer to

this baby boom generation is to try to keep them healthy so that

they are not in inpatient guise.

I hope that we can find some way to not only accelerate the development of the second one. The second one is the one I told you

about which really would have battlefield implications, could be put

in a small van, the back of a pickup, and would diagnose a person’s

injuries within 90 seconds and tell the corpsmen within another 90

seconds what to do to save the life in order that they can be put

into air transport and taken to a field hospital. If there is, God forbid, another war, the war of the future will be an awful fast one,

and that device is absolutely necessary if we can bring it about.

But right now I really would urge you to tell us—let me back up.

Are you making a study on this one that is at Walter Reed and

how it has performed?

General BLANCK. Yes, sir; we have several protocols of how we

are using it, who goes through it, the ages, what we are finding,

all of those kinds of things. But some longer-range studies, because

exactly as you have described, we are trying to use it not as a diagnostic tool when someone comes in with chest pain. We want to get

them much, much earlier than that so that early on they can see

their own coronaries noninvasively. And what a tool we believe this

is to give them information that will allow patients to make choices

and motivate them to make the right choices, the healthy choices.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
449

If they see the beginning of disease, they can do things now that

will then prevent the need for coronary bypass later.

Senator STEVENS. I asked the developer of that to give me all of

the instructions that he sends out, and I am going to read that over

this recess.

In terms of preventive medicine, it seems to me if it is really

going to work, that ought to be the first thing you do on an annual

physical of your people, and you ought to get back to the idea of

asking all these people to take an annual physical so you can stay

ahead of the curve as far as providing health services to them. But

that is going to take a lot of those machines.

General BLANCK. Exactly right. Of course, TRICARE has built

into it for the prime option the periodic fitness evaluation, the

health promotion evaluation, and this would be one of the tools

that potentially could be used. It gives a lot of information that

again motivates patients to change behavior. We can give them a

lot of information but it is difficult for them to take that step—and

them is all of us too. Understanding that we are all patients—is

critical to real health promotion.

Senator STEVENS. I have some other questions I want to ask.

First I want to give it over to my friend here to see what questions

he has. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. A long time ago I learned that when Senator

Stevens speaks, I listen. [Laughter.]

And I would suggest to you gentlemen you listen very intently.

He has given you the green light to get more facilities. He has

given you the green light to cut down the paperwork from 1,500 to

15. I think it can be done.

In looking over the reports of the medical services, it is easy to

note that there is an increasing demand upon your services for humanitarian operations and low intensity operations. Looking at the

budget again, I somehow feel that the budget will have an impact

upon your readiness.

Are you concerned?

BUDGET IMPACT ON READINESS

General BLANCK. We are all pointing at each other.

Yes; I am concerned. I will let the others speak for themselves.

Not that we cannot continue to do our day-to-day business. We can.

But there are increasing demands, new surveillance demands on

us, new kinds of health promotion demands. Increasingly we are

trying to shift resources to healthy communities, to preventing disease, but that does not have a payoff in the same year. It has a

payoff 5 or 10 or 20 years down the pike. So, when you are dealing

with a year-to-year budget, sometimes it is difficult to make the decisions to shift that when you have a waiting room full of patients

that have acute problems or where you are dealing with chronic

care.

So, again, yes, we can continue to do the same things, even do

some innovations perhaps, but all of us are, I am sure, constrained

by the resources. Yet, there is only so much money and I think we

all understand that. So, we are looking for innovative ways to be

able to shift dollars.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
450

I would comment that the Department of Defense has committed

to fully funding, within that budget constraint, the health program,

and right now we are working with the Department of Defense to

find some moneys that were taken by their inflation readjustment.

And I think all of you have information papers on that. It totals

I believe $87 million because when they readjusted for inflation, it

cut the managed care contracts, which by contract have to get a

certain amount. So, it cannot be adjusted. Therefore, we are short

a certain portion.

And also our pharmacy costs have increased out of proportion to

just the normal inflation, as it has throughout this country in every

system, not just ours. So, you cannot apply the lower inflation rates

to that as well.

We believe that the Department of Defense will find those dollars, but it still does constrain us, as I have described.

General ROADMAN. But I also think that it is perfectly obvious

that we also consume WRM assets as we put air transportable hospitals and the tentage is out and being exposed to the environment

and the supplies are being used. So, there are costs to that, and

WRM is underfunded for us. Obviously, we can give you those

numbers for the record.

But there is another component, Senator Inouye, that we have to

keep in mind and that is as we do these missions, this is the best

training that we can get for the real mission that we have which

is our war readiness ability. I would just give you the example of

the six burn patients that we brought back from Ecuador about 4

weeks ago. We had a group of people from Wilford Hall down in

Ecuador giving training to the Ecuadorian physician community on

trauma care. They got through 1 day of the trauma care didactics,

and early in the morning or late that night, an oil pipeline exploded and oil came down through a community. These same physicians that were there then shifted into an operational mode and

began treating severe wound casualties, burn casualties, and ultimately through the State Department, we, through our casualty

transport system, brought six of them back to Galveston.

That is the type of stuff that differentiates us from all the other

civilian health care agencies. That ability to do that real-time

training, that real-time experience just pays for itself.

So, there are two aspects of it. One is positive and one is negative.

Admiral KOENIG. We are, as I mentioned before, about ready to

deploy the hospital ship for a 6-week exercise. When you send a

force like this to a part of the world where they have never seen

anything like this, it sends a real message. This has great diplomatic benefits for the United States, but we do it at a cost. We will

send 600 people on that ship. That will impact our health care system. We will adjust to that as best we can by cross-leveling and

bringing in Reserves and so forth. But it is very important that we

do this because if we do not know how to make that ship work, if

we ever really need it for something very, very critical, and we do

not know how to run it, we will not be able to do it. So, it comes

at a cost when we do this, but we will benefit.

There are things that we need to do with those type of platforms

in the future. We are already starting to skimp on that and I do

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
451

not like to see it happening. If you ask for it, we could certainly

provide that information for you.

AIR FORCE HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS

General ROADMAN. Senator, if I could just add one more thing.

When our people come back from those deployments, in our parlance we say they are really reblued. If it is their first deployment,

they finally understand why we do what it is we do. If they have

gone before, they have come reblued. So, it is important that we

do those things both for recruitment and retention, as well as for

the diplomatic aspects of our playing on the world stage.

Senator INOUYE. So, these operations have a positive impact.

General ROADMAN. Absolutely.

Senator INOUYE. Admiral, I was pleased to learn that women are

not little men. [Laughter.]

RESEARCH PROGRAM FUNDS

But they make up 14 percent of the military population. There

are about 340,000 now.

In fiscal year 1994 and 1995, we did have a research program in

which we appropriated $40 million per fiscal year. I would like to

ask the same question the chairman asked. Why did we not request funds after 1995?

Admiral KOENIG. It was not in the defense program after those

years, so there has been no additional funds brought in to continue

this research for the last 2 years. We have a lot of questions that

we need to get answers to, and we simply do not have the dollars

to go after that right now.

Senator INOUYE. Do you consider this important enough to submit it?

Admiral KOENIG. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. I would hope that you will submit it to the committee.

Admiral KOENIG. We will.

USUHS GRADUATE RETENTION

Senator INOUYE. On retention, that concerns the committee. Retention and recruiting. I note that all three services have concerns

about not being able to retain physicians and physicians’ assistants, nurses, et cetera.

What is the retention rate for the USUHS grads? I ask this because last year we saw numbers that were unbelievable, that 92

percent of the graduates of USUHS who have gone through the

obligatory time have stayed on. Is that number still holding?

General ROADMAN. I think it is in the 96 percent range now.

Admiral KOENIG. Admiral Zimble is sitting back there. He is the

resource man. He can tell us.

Senator INOUYE. Well, Admiral?

General BLANCK. But the point is, it is very, very high. Jim,

what is it specifically?

Admiral ZIMBLE. The number—of the 2,740 graduate physicians

in the Uniformed Services University, 92.5 percent remain on active duty. Some of them still obligate, but they are still on active

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
452

duty. So, roughly 17 percent of the physicians in the Department

of Defense are graduates of the Uniformed Services University.

Thank you for the opportunity.

General BLANCK. But the point is correct. The retention of those

trained in the Uniformed Services University is far higher than

from any other program. In-house GME is next. Those who train

in civilian institutions are the ones least likely to remain on active

duty because they do not have quite the culturalization. They have

not identified themselves as military physicians. I think all of us

are absolutely committed to have everyone in our medical departments, physician, nurse, physicians’ assistants, dentist, whomever,

practice military medicine, know about military medicine, not just

medicine in the military, and it is fundamentally different.

Admiral KOENIG. Many of the USUHS students, by the way,

have prior service. They come to us with a whole lot of military

background and they are very, very valuable assets.

Senator INOUYE. I met an outstanding physician who was a commander of a tank company who is now an M.D.

I am happy that DOD has finally seen the light and taken their

fingers off USUHS and will permit it to go on. I do not want to

bring this up, but the retention rate of USUHS grads, when placed

against the retention rates of West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado

Springs, would make the other services look pretty bad. So, congratulations to all of you.

Mr. Chairman, I have many other questions I would like to ask,

but may I just submit them?

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir, please.

Senator INOUYE. I have to get back to the other hearing.

Senator STEVENS. So do I.

Senator INOUYE. I am going to be back for the little men. [Laughter.]

Admiral KOENIG. Twenty-five percent of our nurses are male.

[Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. I think we better stay off that. [Laughter.]

I am going to submit some of my questions, but I am first going

to yield to Senator Shelby and see what he has——

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this. I have a written opening statement I would like to be made part of the record,

and I have some questions that I would just submit to the record.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

The American health care system is the best in the world. The Defense Health

Program reflects our society’s expectation of quality care: a highly trained medical

professional supported by innovative technology and research. United States military personnel receive the best medical care of any military in the world. The military has a tradition of providing quality care.

There are serious problems in the Defense Health Program, however. Military

personnel and their families who have opted for TRICARE Standard coverage have

reported being denied treatment at military facilities. The Military Services are experiencing difficulty in recruiting and retaining dentists. Military retirees are being

shut out of the Defense Health Program and contend that they are not receiving

health care. The Administration has consistently underfunded the military health

care program, which indicates a lack of commitment to our military personnel and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
453

their families. It is clear that these deficiencies are causing members of our armed

forces to vote with their feet, because the erosion of the health care benefit is frequently cited as a primary reason for leaving the military.

We can improve the Defense Health Program and correct the deficiencies in the

system. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today and their

responses to our questions.

FACILITATING SERVICE

Senator SHELBY. I see my friend, General Blanck, here. I am always glad to see you as well as the other Surgeons General.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much. Let me be as brief

as I can, and I am not too good at it this morning.

I agree with you on Internet. All of you now have Internet developments and availability. But not many guys my age are using the

Internet. [Laughter.]

What are we going to do to find some way to facilitate the services?

I was thinking of trying to see if we could not find some way to

find a person in every community where there are a sizable number of retirees and have that person be the contact point who from

their own home will run Internet services for fellow retirees. Can

we do things like that? Are you trying to outreach to somebody who

knows how to do it? Otherwise, despite the availability or not, they

are going to be coming to the hospitals to make their appointments

despite the fact we are going to have an Internet appointment system.

General BLANCK. Absolutely. The mail order pharmacy is an attempt to make something available that is relatively easy, everybody is familiar with. The use of a 1–800 number for information

for appointments for various services, including refills, making

things more readily available through a drive-in pharmacy that is

in use in some of the facilities. All of these things—and there are

many, many more—have to be used in combination. There should

be a whole menu for a variety of services that people can choose

from and, of course, making that information available is part of

our challenge, whether it is through mailout, through the Internet,

through visits to the hospitals, or health benefits advisors.

TECHNOLOGY AND COSTS

But, yes, we are very interested in working with groups and with

specific representatives.

Senator STEVENS. I am not tooting my own horn, but I just want

to tell you something. I hope you know when I first came here, that

to use the PET scan process, you had to have an enormous cyclotron. I looked at that out at UCLA and said, you know, the trouble

is there are not many universities who are going to get a cyclotron.

Let us miniaturize cyclotrons. So, we used some of your money and

we did that. Right? Cyclotrons are now fairly small. I saw one at

UCLA that fits in a room one-third this size.

What are we doing about using your systems now to try to drive

down costs of this technology? That is what I asked my friend out

there with that angio-CT. It is a wonderful thing, but how are we

going to drive down the costs so we can have one of those in every

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
454

military hospital? Are you looking at these things to be the cost

driver on second and third generations of these things?

Admiral KOENIG. I think we have seen the cost of new technologies that have come into medicine over the last decade or two

drop significantly. I am thinking of things like computer tomography, MRI’s. The cost of this kind of equipment has dropped as

it has become more proven and more people learn how to use it.

I think we are going to see the same thing with this new technology that we have spoken of.

COST REDUCTION OF MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY

Senator STEVENS. I have to tell you, Admiral, I went to a symposium and they showed us the telecommunications and digital communications and the interfaces of all of the things that come out

of the computer and digital revolution. And every new generation

of that has been less costly, and it is now down to a factor of one

one-hundredth of what it was when it started.

If you look at your medical technology, in spite of the fact that

the costs are being held down, each new generation is more costly

than the one preceding it. We have not had the drivers. There have

not been any drivers in terms of trying to get the costs of medical

technology down ala the concept of looking at what was the largest

cost of the PET scan which is a cyclotron and driving it down. I

think you ought to have within the services a group that is there

to try and look at the systems and find out how those costs could

be driven down.

General ROADMAN. That is being done, but the CBO in 1996 did

a study and said 62 percent of the increases in health care from

1996 to 2000 would be attributable to technology. The problem that

we have with technology is that, as you bring this up and if you

have the electron beam CT scan, what you then have got to do is

quit doing some of the interventive stuff that we have done in the

past. So, the preventive stuff has really got to be a cost lever in

order to be effective.

What technology has done in medicine in general, not in the

service, is that medicine has been paid for on a fee-for-service basis

and it encouraged more films exposed, more surgeries done, more

procedures done, and what that has done since 1965 in our country

has driven the cost of health care in an almost exponential climb.

So, as we take the technology, what we have got to do is assure

ourselves that it does something that we are trying to stop and

that we then can lever that to prevent illness out in the future because it is waiting for people to get sick that is so expensive for

us. That is why we are talking about prevention and why you have

as well. We have got to apply technology in the prevention area,

not just in the intervention area.

Senator STEVENS. I do not disagree with anything you said, but

I do think you ought to think of a contract like MIT and Cal Tech

and a few others and get them to look at this current generation

and ask them to reengineer them, look at them, and find out how

they could produce them for less money in volume. And we are not

doing that. You need volumes of these things that are coming on

that are preventive medicine related.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
455

If you look at the PC—did you ever see that first computer over

in the Smithsonian? Look at the cost of that thing and I am told

you are going to have one that size by 2005. It will have the same

power that that thing had over there in the Smithsonian.

It is a question of who is driving the cost. CBO showed us that

figure. That means if we are going to have any impact on cost of

your services, we have got to have an impact on the cost of the new

technology.

General ROADMAN. And the utilization, Mr. Chairman.

General BLANCK. Mr. Chairman, we have a steering committee

that Admiral Koenig chairs, and it rotates, called the Technology

Insertion Steering Committee. What we do is try to look at technology and we try to, through our research communities, partner

with academics and with industry and in some ways we can use

what is developed out there and in some ways be a testing bed for

it and reduce the cost. We can get their expertise in downsizing

and miniaturizing.

We right now, by the way, are not buying these things. We are

leasing them because the next one that will come along will be better and we do not have to rebuy the thing and so forth.

All of this is going on and we need to continue that because we

should be a model not only for how we manage care, health promotion, but also how we use the technology in health care.

Admiral KOENIG. Another thing that we are working on is with

the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. We are working very,

very closely with the VA now on these issues, and we figure if we

can bring the power of our Department, along with the Veterans,

to bear on some of these very tough issues, these high cost areas,

we can drive the cost down.

For example, we buy that machine that we have been talking

about like they have at Walter Reed. Why not put one in a VA facility or a military hospital and then use it 24 hours a day? For

some reason we are wed to the idea of 8-hour days, 5-day weeks.

When you buy a piece of equipment that costs $1 billion, you better

get the most out of it.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I agree with that.

Admiral KOENIG. And that is the kind of innovative change thing

we need to make.

Senator STEVENS. But I also think if you can design one that

costs $1 billion, you can redesign it and it will cost $500 million

and the next one ought to cost $250 million. And you can get it

down to where we have got one everywhere.

We were talking about angio-CT II, and this will be my last comment. I foresee that that is going to be in the emergency room of

every major city in the world. If it will work for the guys who have

just come off the battlefield, it ought to work in Battlefield D.C.

too, you know. [Laughter.]

But we have got to prove it through your use and then I think

find some ways to produce it for less.

Well, let me thank you all. Admiral, we wish you the best. Maybe

you can head up that task force I would like to see created and find

some ways to analyze these things and bring the cost down. Most

of the private practitioners just do not have time to do it, and your

guys and the hospitals do not have time. Someone is going to have

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
456

1 Annals Internal Medicine October 15, 1996.

to take the time and sit off and think about it. Let us drive the

cost down. Miniaturization. You had the word, General.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We thank you all for what you are doing and look forward to

working with you. And you are going to give us that figure.

Admiral KOENIG. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LT. GEN. RONALD R. BLANCK

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

HEPATITIS C

Question. I am informed that Hepatitis C continues to be a public health threat

and may be particularly alarming to the men and women of our military. Does the

military have an accurate count of the number of active duty personnel infected

with Hepatitis C?

Answer. The prevalence of Hepatitis C among the Active Duty population is 1.3

percent, as determined by a Serosurvey at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

involving 16,000 AD and 30,000 applicants. This compares to a 1.4 percent prevalence of Hepatitis C in the general population.

Activities 1 placing any individual at greatest risk for contracting Hepatitis C are:

IV drug use; transfusion; hemodialysis; tattooing; high risk sexual behavior.

Causes: 1 40 percent to 50 percent no identifiable risk factor; 40 to 50 percent intravenous drug use; 5 to 10 percent transfusion.

Question. Does the military routinely screen active duty personnel, not just new

recruits, for Hepatitis C in order to slow the progression of disease in infected personnel and to prevent the transmission of disease to other military personnel?

Answer. Individuals found serendipitously to have positive Hepatitis C serology,

individuals with acute Hepatitis C, and people found to have serological evidence

of Hepatitis C at blood donation are reported through Preventive Medicine channels.

Identifying asymptomatic individuals who have positive serology for Hepatitis C is

not being pursued.

Question. I have been told that exit testing for Hepatitis C at the time of retirement or discharge is the only reliable method of detecting the presence of Hepatitis

C infection to ensure the health and safety of the individual separating from the

military. Does the Department test for Hepatitis C during the exit physical? If so,

what specific tests are performed during the routine exit exam?

Answer. The military does not screen active duty personnel. However, all blood

donors are tested for Hepatitis C virus. Additionally, the Army continues random

drug testing to identify and eliminate drug abuse within its ranks. The Department

does not test for Hepatitis C during the exit physical. However, the SM completes

a history form on which he/she is questioned about hepatitis, liver disease, etc. Depending upon further history and physical exam, appropriate tests would be ordered

to determine if pathology or chronic diseases are present.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

MEDICAL READINESS

Question. An important readiness issue of concern is the shortage of provider specialties, dentists and physician assistants. What types of recruitment incentives are

you implementing to actively recruit and retain these providers?

Answer. The recruitment and retention of highly trained individuals to serve

within the Military Health System is critical to the overall health and readiness of

the force. There are actually two areas which we feel assist us in meeting this challenge. They are economic and educational, and both assist in recruitment and retention.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
457

The following economic incentives are in place to assist us in the recruitment of

active component health professionals:

Nurse Corps Recruitment Bonus.—This bonus of $5,000 is paid to Nurse Anesthesia Recruits and Family Nurse Practitioners who opt to accept a four-year active

duty service obligation rather than a three-year obligation.

Dental Corps Accession Bonus.—This bonus of $30,000 is paid to Dental officers

who join the force with a four-year active duty service obligation. This program was

begun in fiscal year 1996 and has proven to be a valuable tool. The current statutory authority for this program expires in fiscal year 2002. By that time, we are

hopeful that our efforts to increase Health Profession Scholarship Program allocations utilized by the Dental Corps will be successful and that program will become

the basis to meet future recruitment needs.

Health Professions Loan Repayment Program.—This program was provided to us

by the Fiscal Year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act. It provides for the repayment of loans utilized for professional education. It provided for $22,000 per year

of incurred obligation to a maximum of four years. Our experience with this program is limited to date, but we are optimistic that it will assist us. If there is a

‘‘downside’’ to this program, it is the fact that it is funded with monies which are

available as a result of unexecuted Health Professions Scholarship Program allocations. One program has to be less than successful for this program to succeed. As

we gain experience with this program we are initially limiting it to the recruitment

of Dental officers.

The following economic incentives are in place to assist us in the recruitment of

reserve component health professionals:

Education Loan Repayment Program.—Health Professions Officers Serving in Selected Reserve with Wartime Critical Medical Skill Shortages (10 USC, Sec 16302).

The loan repayment currently pays $3,000 per year up to a max of $20,000 to certain shortage specialties for service in the Selected Reserve. Amounts have not kept

up with the costs of schooling. The dollar amount should be increased so that it actually means something to a physician or dentist with many times that amount in

loans. Suggested change is $20,000 per year to a lifetime max of $50,000. Also needing a change in language is the requirement that a person be fully qualified in his

specialty to be eligible. We would like the law to allow participation by someone in

training as well.

Special Pay.—Selected Reserve Health Care Professionals in Critically Short Wartime Specialties program (37 USC, Sec 302g) is currently being used as an accession

program wherein practicing physicians and other healthcare professionals receive

up to $10,000 per year for a maximum of three years for participation in the Selected Reserve. This incentive is no longer appropriate given the increased chance

of mobilization today. Active Component uses a tiered Multiyear Special Pay (MSP)

for retention of certain health professionals. The law allows this reserve program

to be used in a similar fashion and the Reserve Components would like to work toward that end.

Financial Assistance.—Health Care Professionals in Reserve Components program

(10 USC, Sec 16201). The Financial Assistance Program (FAP) pays a stipend

(∼$10,000/yr) to interns, residents, and some others in certain critical shortage specialties in return for future two-for-one obligation to the Selected Reserve. This program could be the best recruiting tool available to the Reserve Components by modifying the law to allow physician and dental students to participate (similar to the

Active Component HPSP (10 USC, Sec 2121). The obligation is based on full years

of participation. The program should be changed to allow six-month increments

similar to several of the Active Component counterpart programs.

Another one of the invaluable tools assisting recruitment is the educational opportunities offered. In addition to attracting high quality applicants, graduates of the

various programs have incurred an active duty service obligation which provides a

level of stability to the force as a whole.

Currently, the following educational programs are being utilized to attract high

quality individuals into military service:

Health Professions Scholarship Program.—This program provides the bedrock levels of accessions into various health disciplines. Currently, we are utilizing HPSP

allocations to support entry level training for physicians, dentists, veterinarians,

nurse anesthetists, optometrists, and clinical psychiatrists.

Financial Assistance Program.—This program enables us to ‘‘subsidize’’ individuals undergoing specialty level training within civilian institutions. At the present

time, this program is being utilized to recruit physicians and dentists in specialties

which directly effect force readiness.

Enlisted Commissioning Program.—Enlisted members already on active duty may

compete for this program. It is designed for individuals who can complete a Bachelor

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
458

of Science in Nursing within two years. Upon completion of the academic requirements and licensure by the appropriate state, the individual is commissioned into

the Nurse Corps. We find to this to be an extremely popular program providing excellent upward mobility to outstanding enlisted soldiers.

Physician Assistant Training Program.—This is another in service training program which provides us with highly trained health care providers. Currently, sixty

active duty individuals are selected to undergo this two-year, tri-service course. We

have in the past counted on this source to provide 100 percent of our requirements.

In fiscal year 1999, we will attempt to directly recruit physician assistants. Our success in this venture will determine if additional measures are required to insure the

force structure required in this critical readiness specialty is maintainable without

additional incentives.

In addition to the specific programs mentioned above, we are also offering in service training programs for our Physical Therapists, Podiatrists, Pharmacists, and Dietitians.

Currently there are five Medical Corps Specialty pays authorized for payment

under Title 37, USC. These are: Variable Specialty Pay; Board Certification Pay;

Medical Additional Specialty Pay; Incentive Special Pay; and Multi-Year Special

Pay. These pays obviously increase the economic incentive for our physician force

to remain on active duty. The yearly adjustment of these rates by OSD (HA) to

maintain parity among the services is a critical link in the entire retention process.

Non Physician Health Care Provider Board Certification Pay is provided to nonphysician clinical specialties who have demonstrated clinical excellence by virtue of

becoming Board Certified in their particular area of expertise. Again, this economic

incentive aids in the retention of our clinical specialists.

Dental Officer currently receive three type of Special Pays. They are: Variable

Special Pay; Dental Additional Special Pay; and Board Certification Pay. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act has authorized the

Dental Officer Multi Year Retention Bonus. Currently, we are working within the

service process to insure funding is available to support this new initiative. Once

funding is obtained, we are confident that this will assist us in the retention of our

future dental leadership. We are currently offering, and have funded, a multi-year

retention bonus for Oral Surgeons. Also, the Army has included in its POM submission funding for expansion of the multi-year retention bonus to all qualified Dental

Corps officers.

USUHS

Question. The 1997 DOD Defense Reform Initiative mandates the USUHS remain

open with one of you as Executive Agent. Was this transfer of management from

Health Affairs to the Surgeons General a sound business decision for military medicine?

Answer. Yes. The decision to establish the Navy as the executive agent for the

operation of the University is sound. The building is physically located on a Navy

installation. All of the base operations support received will be ‘‘controllable’’ by one

service. Placing the service Surgeons General in an oversight role of the University

established to meet their needs is an excellent move. We feel that this will make

the University more responsive to our individual and collective needs. This coupled

with the fact that the University does not exhibit the same growth of costs to operate as the civilian counterparts, makes the outcome of the DRI with regard to the

University a sound decision for us all.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

MOBILE BREAST CARE CENTER

Question. General Blanck, I have been following a program by the Army Medical

Research and Materiel Command called the Mobile Breast Care Center. The vehicle

that other Senators and I toured here on Capitol Hill is filled with the latest digital

mammography equipment, as well as a telemedicine capability. The idea is to give

mammograms to populations of women who have traditionally been underserved,

such as in the inner city, rural areas or remote military locations. At the same time,

the telemedicine technologies incorporated in the vehicle are useful to ongoing DOD

research. Last year the Defense Appropriations Bill contained language which urged

the Army to continue this program.

General, does the Army have any plans to procure any more of these vehicles?

I hope you look at procuring more than just the one demonstration vehicle, and then

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
459

moving forward with clinical trials. This technology is too important for military

women—and all women—not to be properly tested.

Answer. In response to Congressional interest and last year’s Defense Appropriations Bill, the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program has included in

its 1998 Breast Cancer Research Program Announcement language that encourages

research proposals that test the optimization and efficacy of digital mobile mammography/mobile breast care centers to address the basic and clinical research needs of

at-risk, underserved, rural, and urban communities, as well as active and retired

military personnel and their beneficiaries. In the Program Announcement, investigators are advised that the Medical Research and Materiel Command has assembled a prototype digital mobile mammography vehicle, which is available for inspection during concept development of proposals and may be used for study. The Food

and Drug Administration has not yet approved the use of digital mobile mammography vehicles, and the efficacy of such vehicles to address the needs of populations

of women at risk for breast cancer still needs to be established through peer reviewed research.

As per Institute of Medicine recommendations, Strategies for Managing the

Breast Cancer Research Program: A Report to the U.S. Army Medical Research and

Materiel Command, proposals submitted in response to the fiscal year 1998 Announcement will undergo two levels of review to ensure both scientific excellence

and program relevance. The first tier is a peer review of proposals against established criteria for determination of scientific merit. The second tier is a programmatic review of proposals that compares submissions to each other and recommends proposals for funding based on the program goals.

PERSONAL INFORMATION CARRIER [PIC]

Question. General Blanck, I also see in your statement that the Army is working

with the other services on something called a Personal Information Carrier, or PIC.

This is a sort of high-tech dog tag that will carry medical information about each

soldier, thus helping to track and correct medical problems that may occur while

a soldier is deployed. I have two questions about the PIC. First, how much data

should a PIC be able to carry in order to maximize its medical effectiveness?

Answer. It is undetermined at this time how much should be stored on the PIC

for maximal medical effectiveness. A chartered group of quad-service health care

providers, the Theater Clinical Workgroup, has determined the essential requirements for the initial phase of the PIC. However, as enhanced automated medical

systems get deployed to the field to support the requirements of H.R. 1119 (Force

Health Protection), the PIC will need to expand to store and transport the new data

produced by these systems. The maximum medical effectiveness of the PIC will be

realized when the PIC includes all relevant information required to maintain a fit

and healthy force.

Question. Second, I have heard that DOD plans to test the PIC in a 30,000-person

deployment overseas. Is that effort funded in the President’s budget request?

Answer. The fiscal year 1999 President’s request included a command and control

issue of the funding for PIC and another system called Preventive Health Care System (PHCS), which will be one of the major data sources for the PIC. PHCS will

integrate data needed for force health protection, the pre and post force protection

questionnaire information, immunization information, history and physical. It will

be installed in all medical treatment facilities. The PIC was addressed as a high

priority unfinanced requirement. Costs to develop and deploy 30,000 PICS were included in the budget projections. The total additional fiscal year 1999 funding for

both the PIC and PHCS is $32.1 million. At present, this remains unfunded in the

President’s Budget.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO VICE ADM. HAROLD KOENIG

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

FREEZE-DRIED BLOOD

Question. The Navy has for many years been supporting research to develop a

freeze-dried blood platelet product for the treatment of battlefield wounds. As you

know, platelets are the blood cells critical for clotting and thus for stemming the

loss of blood from battlefield wounds. The product being developed by the Navy in

collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry would be a lightweight powder with

a shelf life of 1–2 years (compared with the current short shelf-life of five days for

liquid platelets).

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
460

What is your opinion of the development of such a product and do you agree it

would enhance the quality and effectiveness of medical care in combat situations?

Answer. Yes, the development of freeze-dried blood would enhance the quality and

effectiveness of medical care in combat situations. The development of functional

freeze-dried blood products to treat combat casualties is an important R&D program

for the military, particularly the Navy because of its remote, isolated, and afloat

platforms. The development of improved blood product preservation and storage are

key technologies because of blood product therapeutic importance in decreasing combat casualty hemorrhage and mortality. Currently, the availability of blood components and their shelf-life and storage capacities is severely limited and creates huge

logistical burdens for delivery to remote locations.

Freeze-dried blood products, including red blood cell and platelets, will enhance

medical readiness and support for warfighting requirements. Clear economic savings

accrue because of the reduced need for replacement of expired blood products. The

costs associated with providing blood products in the combat theater and aboard

surface ships is a relatively significant component of medical support costs. In the

relatively short Gulf War, approximately $20 million was spent to maintain the

blood inventory. The increasing costs of testing units of blood for safety would also

be improved by extending the usable shelf-life for these tested transfusion units. Finally, the very real need for long-term storage capability is further demonstrated

in providing the ability to meet blood requirement surge capacities during major

combat contingencies.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

HEPATITIS C

Question. I am informed that Hepatitis C continues to be a public health threat

and may be particularly alarming to the men and women of our military. Does the

military have an accurate count of the number of active duty personnel infected

with Hepatitis C?

Answer. No, at this time the military does not have an accurate count of the number of active duty personnel infected with Hepatitis C. It is assumed that the prevalence is the same as the civilian community.

Question. Does the military routinely screen active duty personnel, not just new

recruits, for Hepatitis C in order to slow the progression of disease in infected personnel and to prevent the transmission of disease to other military personnel?

Answer. The Navy does not routinely screen recruits or active duty personnel for

Hepatitis C. Hepatitis C positive individuals are identified during voluntary blood

donations. The Navy has been screening its blood donors for Hepatitis C since 1990.

Question. I have been told that exit testing for Hepatitis C at the time of retirement or discharge is the only reliable method of detecting the presence of Hepatitis

C infection to ensure the health and safety of the individual separating from the

military. Does the Department test for Hepatitis C during the exit physical? If so,

what specific tests are performed during the routine exit exam?

Answer. Hepatitis C testing is not routinely performed on individuals separating

or retiring from the Navy or Marine Corps. Routine laboratory tests performed as

a part of discharge or retirement physicals include a PPD (tuberculosis test), lipid

profile (cholesterol test), RPR (syphilis test), and HIV determination. For individuals

over the age of 50 years, a prostate specific antigen and stool for hemocult (blood

in stool) are also performed.

ACUTE LUNG INJURY RESEARCH

Question. Admiral Koenig, in the past, Navy medical research and development

programs have supported research efforts in acute lung injuries associated with

combat trauma and massive hemorrhage, particularly the condition called Acute

Respiratory Distress Syndrome at university centers. Does this remain a high priority research initiative for the Navy?

Answer. Yes, research efforts in acute lung injury remain a high priority initiative

for the Navy. A number of potential combat injuries including battlefield wounds,

extensive burns, hemorrhagic shock, sepsis, smoke inhalation, or exposure to agents

used in biological or chemical warfare, often result in a clinical condition referred

to as Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). This condition is characterized

by respiratory insufficiency, tissue hypoxemia, and multi-organ failure as a result

of trauma and tissue ischemia or oxygen deprivation. The incidence of ARDS in the

civilian population in the United States is estimated at 150,000 cases per year, and

regardless of its etiology, ARDS has an associated mortality of 50–70 percent. HisU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
461

torically, more than 90 percent of combat casualties who die after evacuation from

the battlefield had histological evidence of ARDS; those surviving for more than two

to five days had a high incidence of pneumonia and alveolar hyaline membranes,

and well known sequelae of ARDS.

Presently, there is no known cure for ARDS. A common mechanism that may explain the clinical manifestations of ARDS is excess production of free radicals by

various lung and inflammatory cells. Current R&D efforts are developing novel

mechanisms for antioxidant defenses to reduce the morbidity and mortality of

ARDS, including specific drug and gene delivery to lung and other tissues to prevent

the occurrence of ARDS complications. Researchers have identified new strategies

for the enhancement of antioxidant defenses in both the lungs and systemic organs,

thus limiting the catastrophic consequences of various combat traumatic injuries,

sepsis, chemical/biological warfare agents, and various inflammatory agents in combatants and civilian personnel. These efforts will permit definitive preventive and

treatment measures for combat trauma and massive hemorrhage associated with

acute lung injuries, particularly acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and

related complications.

The acute lung injury program strengthens collaborative research efforts between

participating DOD research organizations and civilian institutions working to meet

combat casualty care requirements. These efforts are recognized as high priority initiatives for the Navy. Principal performers and past collaborators include: University of Alabama, School of Medicine Birmingham, Alabama; and Uniformed Services

University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.

Question. The Navy medical research and development organization should be

commended for maintaining strong research efforts in combat casualty care that

have produced life-saving measures in combat environments. Do the efforts in acute

lung injury research represent a component of this research strategy to support casualty care life-saving and treatment initiatives?

Answer. Yes. Future Navy warfighting requirements have emphasized the need

to limit the medical support footprint in theater and develop the capability to stabilize severely injured and hemorrhaging casualties with minimal on-site medical

support assets. Navy medical research endeavors emphasize projects supporting farforward care and delayed resuscitation procedures extending the classic ‘‘golden

hour’’ to enable casualty evacuation and transport to fixed, stateside medical facilities for definitive surgical care and treatment.

The primary emphasis for these efforts is directed at casualty stabilization and

sustainment modalities that permit a delay in resuscitative measures prior to definitive care and treatment. Current research and development efforts involve study of

the therapeutic induction of a state of tolerance to temporary, severe to complete,

systemic ischemia; i.e., protection from injury of the casualty during extended circulatory collapse and/or cardiac arrest beyond the ‘‘golden hour’’, followed by resuscitation to full recovery without brain or other vital organ damage, particularly

acute lung injury to maintain essential respiratory functions upon full resuscitation.

These initiatives constitute a comprehensive strategy for saving the lives of future

severely injured combat casualties, who have historically died from massive injuries,

organ failure, and hemorrhage.

Question. Will this research have application to civilian trauma victim management?

Answer. Yes. The results of these initiatives can be applied to both combat-related

trauma victims as well as emergency cases presenting to a major civilian trauma

center.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

MEDICAL READINESS

Question. An important issue of concern is the shortage of provider specialties,

dentist and physicians. What types of incentives are you implementing to actively

recruit and retain these providers?

Answer. Several initiatives have been taken to improve recruiting/retention effectiveness within the Medical and Dental Corps. Recruitment/retention goals for nonphysician providers in the Nurse Corps and Medical Service Corps are currently

being met.

Medical corps

Field recruiting efforts are focusing on key specialties, rather than diffusing efforts over several specialties. In fiscal year 1996, Navy Medicine recruited for direct

accessions in 14 specialties. The staffing needs in many of these specialties were

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
462

small. Navy Recruiting Command suggested improved recruiter effectiveness could

be gained by focusing efforts on key requirements. Thus in fiscal year 1998, we recruit for direct accessions in just five specialties.

The Financial Assistance Program (FAP), a stipend program, when applied to

physicians in residency training has proved successful. In addition, the FAP incurs

longer obligated service than direct accessions, reducing attrition. Unlike student

scholarships, this program can be focused on key specialties. Currently 50 percent

of available funds are devoted to three key shortage areas: family practice, general

surgery, and orthopedic surgery.

The Loan Repayment Program (LRP) is a new program authorized for implementation in 1998. This program will further expand the breadth of the potential market in which we compete by providing medical school loan repayment for physicians

at the end of residency training. It can also be focused on key specialties, and is

expected to further assist correction of manning shortfalls.

In an effort to reduce the family dislocation resulting from operational assignments, a ‘‘homeporting’’ concept is being utilized. Physicians completing training in

a large homeport area are assigned to an operational unit based in that homeport,

and upon completion of the operational assignment can often be reassigned to a

medical facility in the same homeport location. Thus, families are not required to

move from their home or school. Medical Corps assignment officers estimate that

90 percent of operational assignments are now made in this fashion.

Naval Recruiting Command conducted focus groups in 1997–1998 which revealed

previously unrecognized misconceptions held by young physicians regarding Navy

physician quality of life as compared with other services. The results of these focus

groups formed the basis of the 1998 physician marketing plan, including a physician

recruiting video. This video has been very effective at capturing the attention and

addressing the concerns and misconceptions of potential physician candidates. Other

marketing media now in use likewise more effectively address the interests of today’s young physicians.

Continued attention to reducing the civilian-military pay gap, focusing financial

aid programs on key specialties, precise marketing guided by focus groups, and reducing family dislocation will steadily reduce manpower shortages.

Dental corps

In 1995 the Chief of the Navy Dental Corps with the support of the Surgeon General and in concert with the Bureau of Naval Personnel and Navy Recruiting Command developed a 10-point action plan to restabilize the Navy Dental Corps. The

program consisted of legislative action to increase dental special pays to make the

Navy Dental Corps competitive with the civilian market; to offer a $30,000 accession

bonus to allow new dentists to pay educational loans; and to offer medical loan repayment for dental school loans. Promotion incentives; Navy Recruiting Command’s

primary focus on general dentists; initiation of student financial incentives through

scholarships and other educational incentive programs; the expansion of postgraduate training opportunities for recent graduates, and the production of a dental

recruiting video are also underway.

Navy Recruiting Command conducted focus groups in 1995 which revealed previously unrecognized misconceptions held by dentists regarding military dentistry in

general; Navy compared to other services, and that of the civilian sector; and, addressed quality of life concerns. A video was prepared both addressing these concerns and targeting the 40 percent female market in dental schools. This video was

mailed to dental students and recent graduates in fiscal year 1998 and has been

very effective at capturing the attention of young dentists and addressing common

misperceptions of military service.

The Navy Dental Corps through the 10 Point Program seems to have stabilized.

Scholarships, other financial incentives, the accession bonus and the dental video

seem to have cured the accession problem.

USUHS

Question. The DOD Defense Reform Initiatives mandates that USUHS remain

open with one of you as Executive Agent. Was this transfer of management from

Health Affairs to the Surgeons General a sound business decision for military medicine?

Answer. The Defense Reform Initiative placed oversight of USUHS under the collective management of the Services Surgeons General. The Navy has been appointed

executive agent for program, budget, and funding execution responsibilities for

USUHS. By moving direct oversight to the Surgeons General, the transfer moves

management of the university closer to the customers and assures continuation of

responsiveness to Service requirements. The added benefit is that the middleman

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
463

is removed from the management process, thus making savings possible on the DOD

staff.

WOMEN’S HEALTH RESEARCH

Question. Do you see a need for focused research in military women’s health

issues?

Answer. Yes, I think we need focused research in military women’s health issues.

Approximately 340,000 women, 14 percent of the total active duty personnel and 16

percent of reservists, serve in the Armed Forces. Military women are generally

young, healthy and fit. However, from basic training to deployment in combat, military women experience physical stresses that may include overuse injuries and exposure to environmental extremes, as well as the need to cope with military equipment, clothing and procedures designed largely for men. Research is needed to focus

on how these stresses may affect the female physical condition and factors that can

prevent short-term and long-term injuries and illnesses which may be peculiar to

women. For example, as we have deployed increasing numbers of women on ships

over the past few years, we have recognized the need for a longitudinal study of the

effects of ship board living and working conditions on the health of pregnant women

and the short-term and long-term effects of these stresses on their unborn children.

Question. What is the current status of the DWHRP and what is needed in terms

of funding for the next fiscal year?

Answer. Current proposed Women’s Health Research Studies in the Department

of the Navy submitted by Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED), Office of

Naval Research (ONR), Naval Health Research Center (NHRC), Center for Naval

Analysis (CNA), and Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) include:

Priority: 1

Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy Outcomes in Navy Women Serving Aboard Ship

and Ashore. Cooperative study with Naval Health Research Center designed in response to recommendations of the Standing Committee on Military and Civilian

women in the Department of the Navy three year study; total funding: $1.065 million ($355,000/year).

Priority: 2

Development and Refinement of Interventions to Reduce Unplanned Pregnancy in

Navy and Marine Corps Women. Two year study; total funding: $440,000 ($220,000/

year).

Priority: 3a

Occupational Fitness of Active Duty Women for Sustained Operations. Three year

study; total funding: $450,000 ($150,000/year).

Priority: 3b

Dynamic Strength Capability of Women in High Performance Flight Tasks. Three

year study; total funding: $900,000 ($300,000/year).

Priority: 4

Gender Norming Human Factors for the Next Generation Ships and Equipment.

Five year study; total funding: $1.5 million ($300,000/year).

Priority: 5a

Premilitary History of Sexual Assault and Active Duty Revictimization and Resulting Health Care Utilization. Three year study; total funding: $2.4 million

($800,000/year).

Priority: 5b

Relationship Between Active Duty Women Premilitary Maltreatment History and

Health Care Utilization. Three year study; total funding: $2.4 million ($800,000/

year).

Priority: 5c

The Relationship Between Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptomology and Occupational Performance and Attrition in Active Duty Women. Three year study;

total funding: $2.4 million ($800,000/year).

Priority: 6

The Effects of Maternal Absence on Child Development, Health Care Utilization,

and Operational Readiness. Two year study; total funding: $500,000 ($250,000/year).

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
464

Priority: 7

Pregnancy, Physical Fitness, and Force Medical Protection: A Pre and Post Natal

Exercise Model for Active Duty Navy and Marine Corps Women. Two year study;

total funding: $400,000 ($200,000/year).

Priority: 8

The Development of a Safe and Effective Exercise Curriculum to Reduce Musculoskeletal Injury in Navy and Marine Female Training Populations/Operational Communities. Two year study; total funding: $500,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 9

Establishment of a Registry of Birth Defects in Offspring of Active Duty Women.

Ongoing registry; total funding: $250,000/year.

Priority: 10

Medical Care of American Women in OCONUS Host Nation Medical Systems. Cooperative study with George Mason University. Two year study; total funding:

$180,000 ($90,000/year).

Priority: 11a

Self Esteem of Active Duty Navy and Marine Corps Women and Relationship to

Medical Force Protection. Three year study; total funding: $450,000 ($150,000/year).

Priority: 11b

Shipboard Health of Active Duty Women in the Navy and Marine Corps. Three

year study; total funding: $1.5 million ($500,000/year).

Priority: 11c

Health, Wellbeing, and Health Care Delivery Services Available to Women Aboard

Ship. Three year study; total funding: $1.5 million ($500,000/year).

Priority: 12

Application and Assessment of Urine Based Screening for Chlamydia in Navy and

Marine Corps Women. Two year study; total funding: $300,000 ($150,000/year).

Priority: 13

Gender Differences in Immune Defense Mechanisms: Potential Application to the

Management of Combat Associated Major Trauma. Three year study; total funding:

$750,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 14

The Effectiveness of Telemedicine Consultation in Assessing Gynecological Disease. Three year study; total funding: $750,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 15

The Knowledge Base of Active Duty Navy and Marine Corps Women Concerning

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Behaviors. One year study; total funding:

$50,000 ($50,000/year).

Priority: 16

Continuation of Defense Medical Epidemiological Database Development. One

year study; total funding: $100,000 ($100,000/year).

Priority: 17

Mixed Gender Value Added Tactical Decision Making Under Stress. Three year

study; total funding: $750,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 18

Gender Comparison of Suicide Risk and Adverse Psychological Response Assessment in the U.S. Navy. Two year study; total funding: $280,000 ($140,000/year).

Priority: 19

Gender Differences in Response to Cold Stress. Two year study; total funding:

$500,000 ($250,000/year).

Priority: 20

Female Physiological Heat Exposure Limits (PHEL). Two year study; total funding: $1.2 million ($600,000/year).

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
465

Priority: 21

Tri-Service Hospitalization Rate Comparison for Female Specific Disease. Two

year study; total funding: $400,000 ($200,000/year).

Priority: 22

Anthropomorphic Measures as Indicators of Body Fat Change. One year study;

total funding: $100,500 ($100,500/year).

Priority: 23

The Health Status of Repatriated Female Prisoners of War/Torture Survivors.

One year study; total funding: $100,000 ($100,000/year).

Proposed future studies addressing successful integration of women aboard submarines are: Gender difference in response to potential toxic atmospheric contaminants or radiation exposures that may occur during submarine duty; Women on submarines-health issues; Psychological predictors of attrition; and Psychological predictors of successful integration of women aboard submarines.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSIS [CNA] FEHBP–65/EXPANSION OF MAIL ORDER PHARMACY

STUDY

Question. At page 14 of your remarks, you refer to a Center for Naval Analysis

study being performed on the subject of FEHBP–65 for retirees, as well as on the

subject of expanding the mail order pharmacy to retirees. You also state that the

studies are expected to be completed later this year. Do you have a specific date

when these studies would be available to this committee?

Answer. A draft of the CNA study regarding the feasibility of FEHBP–65 and expansion of the Mail Order Pharmacy will be sent to the sponsor, Principal Deputy

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), on May 31, 1998.

The final report will be published on September 30, 1998.

Question. What is the current status of those studies?

Answer. The CNA study is ongoing and currently in the analysis phase.

Question. Is there any doubt of what the outcome will be?

Answer. Currently CNA only has preliminary cost estimates, which may change

with further analysis.

Question. Isn’t the only solution to the problem of availability and affordability

of health care for retirees over 65 to allow them to enter the Federal Employees

Health Benefits Program?

Answer. CNA is examining the cost effectiveness of a range of options for beneficiaries over 65. These options include a pharmacy benefit, some form of Medigap

coverage, along with the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.

Question. What about the problem of billings and payments; is the Navy getting

any complaints? If so, are these complaints being taken at face value, with solutions

being sought and implemented?

Answer. Yes, the Navy has received complaints regarding balance billing and civilian provider reimbursement.

The current ‘‘balance billing’’ system is a major irritant and financial problem for

many of our beneficiaries. Under the present system, providers who ‘‘participate’’ in

CHAMPUS (now TRICARE) agree to accept the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable

Charge (CMAC), cost-shared between the government and patient, as payment in

full. However, providers who do not ‘‘participate’’ receive the CMAC payment, but

may also bill their patient for an amount not to exceed 115 percent of CMAC. In

addition, non-institutional providers (ambulances, clinical laboratories, etc.) are currently exempt from CMAC limits. Bills from these providers are fully payable and

the patient is responsible for the co-payment and any remaining balance exceeding

the government CMAC.

OASD(HA) is presently working on implementing the provision in the Fiscal Year

1996 Authorization Act to remove the 115 percent limit exclusion for non-institutional providers. This provision will limit the financial liability of the TRICARE

Standard user to normal co-payments and 15 percent above CMAC. Navy Medicine

has stressed that once language is implemented, policy needs to be retroactive to

date Fiscal Year 1996 Authorization Act was signed into law. The fiscal year 1997

and fiscal year 1998 Authorization Acts have also enacted provisions that will cover

all bills for TRICARE Prime enrollees above the TRICARE Prime fees. These provisions will remove the possibility of the patient being billed for services above the

TRICARE Prime user fee. Both initiatives are scheduled to begin Spring 1998.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
466

Prompt civilian provider reimbursement is another issue being addressed. Civilian

providers customarily submit claims for payment to a fiscal intermediary who processes the claim. These claims are on behalf of TRICARE Prime, Extra and Standard

patients. Prompt payment ensures satisfaction by the provider community. However, delayed payment aggravates the provider who may consider dropping out of

a TRICARE network, refusing to see further TRICARE patients, and/or passing the

bill to the patient for complete payment.

The current DOD contract standard for claims processing is 75 percent of all

claims being paid within 21 days. This standard is being achieved and often exceeded, however Navy Medicine believes this standard is too low and should be raised.

Aside from cases when the contractor fails to meet the standard, the fact that one

out of four claims need not be paid is unsatisfactory given today’s technology and

adjudication processes. TRICARE Standard providers incur the most delays in payment, while contractors focus on paying their network providers first.

OASD(HA) is acutely aware of this issue and has worked hard with the TRICARE

contractors to improve performance when it falls below standard. OASD(HA) also

plans to set a new standard for claims processing to 100 percent within 14 days in

the next generation of TRICARE contracts.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LT. GEN. CHARLES H. ROADMAN II

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

HEPATITIS C

Question. I am informed that Hepatitis C continues to be a public health threat

and may be particularly alarming to the men and women of our military. Does the

military have an accurate count of the number of active duty personnel infected

with Hepatitis C?

Answer. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA virus transmitted almost exclusively by blood or blood products. It is possibly transmitted by sexual contact, but efficiency of transmission is exceedingly low. Hepatitis C infection is a significant problem in the United States, and is usually a chronic illness without symptoms until late in its course. It is close second to chronic alcoholism as the cause

of cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, and a hepatocellular carcinoma in the United

States. Available treatments are expensive and are only curative in 15 to 25 percent

of cases; therefore, primary disease prevention is key.

Literature shows that in the United States, there are approximately 3.5 million

carriers of the Hepatitis C virus. The significance of HCV infection in the Air Force

is low. Among blood donors in Air Force medical treatment facilities in 1996, prevalence of HCV by repeat-positive enzyme immunoassay was 0.27 percent. The Air

Force Reportable Events Surveillance System (AFRESS) shows 47 cases of HCV

among active duty personnel in 1996 (0.012 percent), four of whom were health care

workers but only one of whom was involved in direct patient care. In 1997, AFRESS

reported a total of 44 active duty cases of HCV.

Question. Does the military routinely screen active duty personnel, not just new

recruits, for Hepatitis C in order to slow the progression of disease in infected personnel and to prevent the transmission of disease to other military personnel?

Answer. The risk in the Air Force is very low for Hepatitis C infection, therefore

the level of risk does not warrant routine screening of the general Air Force population.

Question. I have been told that exit testing for Hepatitis C at the time of retirement or discharge is the only reliable method of detecting the presence of Hepatitis

C infection to ensure the health and safety of the individual separating from the

military. Does the Department test for Hepatitis C during the exit physical? If so,

what specific test are performed during the routine exit exam?

Answer. The Air Force does not test for Hepatitis C during exit physicals. No

major public health authorities recommend routine screening for Hepatitis C. Additionally, current treatment of cases has not significantly improved outcomes, and

current screening tests have relatively high false positive rates.

Intravenous drug abuse is the major risk factor in the nation for acquiring Hepatitis C. The Air Force’s aggressive entrance and random screening for drug abuse

is the most effective method to minimize the incidence and prevalence of Hepatitis

C in the military population (i.e., controlling the behavior that puts one at risk for

acquiring the disease). Again, from all available evidence, Hepatitis C does not appear to be a major public health threat in the United States or in the U.S. military

population.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
467

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

MEDICAL READINESS

Question. An important readiness issue is the shortage of provider specialties,

dentists and physician’s assistants. What types of incentives are you implementing

to actively recruit and retain these providers?

Answer.

Provider specialties:

Recruiting.—For short-term immediate needs, our primary accession tool is direct

recruiting from civilian sources. Recruiting produces accessions in the current year.

Over the past six year period, recruiting services attained over 80 percent of their

physician recruiting goal. The desire is to reduce reliance on recruiting and focus

on sponsored accessions through various scholarship programs, which select high

quality candidates from a very competitive selection process.

Retention.—Retention varies by specialty; but overall retention has remained stable and predictable. The anticipated losses are replaced by new accessions. Most

physician accessions enter the Air Force because of an active duty service commitment resulting from sponsored training. Most common forms of sponsorship are the

Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), the Financial Assistance Program

(FAP), or the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). Sponsorship is our principal sustainment pipeline which is programmed years in advance

prior to the actual year of accession. Annual incentive special pay contracts are one

of the tools we use to motivate physicians to remain in the Air Force. These pay

amounts are determined annually by a DOD Flag Officer review board and consider

staffing levels as well as comparable salaries for civilian physicians in similar specialties. Additionally, opportunities for senior leadership positions are used as retention incentives.

Dentists:

Recruiting.—The new $30,000 dental accession bonus is an incentive motivating

new accessions to enter for four years vice three. Additionally, we increased our

level of Health Professions Scholarships for dentists to sponsor high quality candidates in dental school which relieves some of the burden from Recruiting Services.

Retention.—Existing special pays for dental officers have increased for the first

time since 1981. The increases affected both junior and senior officers, and is expected to improve retention noticeably. Additionally, the new Multi-Year Special

Pay (MSP) will enhance retention. It will offer an incentive for dental officers to remain on active duty for contractual periods ranging from two to four years. The

amounts will vary by specialty and length of the contractual obligation. Furthermore, active duty Graduate Medical Education offers advanced dental training

(often in active duty programs) for general dentists to become specialists. This is

also a retention tool as dentists become trained in a specialty and incur a training

obligation. Finally, board certification pay offers incentives to advance their personal standing in the dental profession.

Physician assistants:

Recruiting.—Although we have been successful in recruiting direct accessions, the

volume necessary for sustainment is mostly generated from an active duty two-year

educational program which commissions highly qualified, and very competitively selected, enlisted personnel. This is a highly successful program, and one which is a

great incentive to our enlisted force to become a commissioned officer.

Retention.—It appears that the incentive is to serve as a commissioned officer for

at least 10 years, so Physician Assistants can retire with the benefits of an officer

rather than their prior enlisted grade. Approximately 95 percent of Physician Assistants in the Air Force (397 of 418 per the September 30, 1997 database) had some

form of prior service. Almost half of those Physician Assistants with prior service

had served over 10 years as a commissioned officer (186 of the 397 officers).

USUHS

Question. The 1997 DOD Defense Reform Initiative mandates that USUHS remain open with one of you as Executive Agent. Was this transfer in management

a sound business decision for military medicine?

Answer. The Air Force agrees with the concept of unifying the administration of

Graduate Medical Education under USUHS with executive agent oversight. This

unification would enhance economies of scale, encourage resource sharing and joint

planning, and standardize monitoring and oversight using a common database.

However, we need to further define goals and objectives that will drive the types

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
468

of resources, personnel and budget required in the unified office at USUHS and

where they would come from.

In the short term, there are no cost savings realized by the Air Force, but in the

long term, this joint venture will allow us to more effectively meet force management demands and training requirements.

TELEHEALTH

Question. How has nursing interfaced with telemedicine/telehealth?

Answer. As the primary aeromedical evacuation (AE) mission operators, flight

nurses and aeromedical evacuation technicians (AET’s) have been pivotal in the pursuit of telemedicine in AE. Due to severe limitations in our present aeromedical

communication systems, it is almost impossible to relay important information from

the flight nurse in the air to the physician on the ground. This has always been

an extreme frustration for flight nurses and AET’s as they provide care at 40,000

feet and 4–6 hours flying time from the closest medical treatment facility. This can

be an extremely prolonged time when a patient’s condition deteriorates and the

nurses need immediate and clear consultation with a physician. Telemedicine can

provide real-time communication for health care professionals and improve medical

capabilities essential in our quest for quality care to battlefield soldiers anywhere,

anytime. Almost two years ago, the Air Force stood up the first DOD working group

to establish an Aeromedical Evacuation Strategic Plan for the insertion of telemedicine into the aeromedical environment.

As the champion for this effort, the Air Force Medical Service brought 45 participants from all walks of the DOD telemedicine and user communities together in

May 1996. Of this group, one-third were Total Nursing Force personnel: active duty,

Reserve, and Air National Guard personnel. They developed the strategic plan and

the operational demonstration. They initiated a Breakthrough Area to architect and

implement a proof of concept demonstration to document the need for telecommunication from ground to air to ground. With our current operations of transporting

more critical patient loads during peacetime and contingency operation missions,

this communications capability is vital to safe quality patient care. The operational

demonstration was conducted from September 22–27, 1997, and involved ‘‘live’’

channel AE missions using C–141, C–9, and C–130 airframes for a total of 70.6 flying hours. This demonstration used commercial off-the-shelf computer systems and

applications in addition to existing airframe communication systems. We were able

to validate the use of e-mail and ‘‘chat’’ to and from the aircraft to ground AE command and control elements. The flight nurses and AET’s on the team were impressed with the enhanced communication capability demonstrated by the test. We

are excited and energized by the successes and lessons learned. We are now working

toward our Phase II proof of concept demonstration in the Pacific Air Forces Theater.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

TRICARE

Question. It is my understanding that the transition to Tricare has gone quite

smoothly in North Dakota. There has been some question as to why dependents

must re-enroll on an annual basis, once they are enrolled in ‘‘Tricare Prime.’’ Can

you explain why this is necessary?

Answer. The lack of automatic reenrollment into TRICARE Prime has been an active concern of the Air Force and Department of Defense. The TRICARE Management Activity is pursuing regulatory, contract and program actions necessary to establish continuous enrollment. This will allow family members who enroll in Prime

to remain enrolled until they elect to disenroll or lose their eligibility. As early as

this summer, Prime will automatically re-enroll users who live in the 40-mile

‘‘catchment areas’’ unless they elect to end participation or become ineligible. According to surveys, we know the vast majority of our Prime enrollees, about 90 percent, are satisfied with the program.

Question. What is the status of billings and payments in the Air Force portion

of the Tricare program?

Answer. Each of the regions has experienced claims processing problems as health

care delivery was initiated. This difficulty in meeting the claims processing standards listed in the Managed Care Support Contracts resulted from larger than anticipated enrollments and claims submissions. The TRICARE Management Activity and

the Lead Agent closely monitor the claims processing on a monthly basis. The contracts also contain quarterly positive and negative incentive clauses that are autoU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
469

matically implemented when thresholds are reached. At the moment, close to 80

percent of claims are processed within 21 days.

Question. Are there complaints being received from Tricare contractors?

Answer. Yes. The most often heard complaint from contractors is that the requirements in the current Managed Care Support Contracts are much too voluminous,

prescriptive and inflexible. The contractors believe this hamstrings them and prevents them from employing their best commercial practices. The next generation of

Managed Care Support Contracts under development are substantially smaller in

volume, significantly less restrictive and expressly encourage best commercial practices. During development of these new contracts, industry officials were invited to

review the proposed requirements and offer suggestions based on their private sector experience.

Question. Is the Air Force experiencing any problems with medical providers

being reluctant to continue providing services because of failure of the Tricare system to promptly pay bills submitted?

Answer. Yes. There have been a few instances where civilian providers have expressed frustration with untimely claims payments and the cumbersome system

used to process claims. The TRICARE Management Activity and Lead Agents have

worked hard to reduce the administrative impediments associated with claims processing. As a result, claims processing currently exceeds the current contract requirements.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
(471)

NURSE CORPS

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. LINDA J. STIERLE, DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL READINESS AND NURSING SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OPENING STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. We are going to now go to a second panel, the

Chiefs of the Nurse Corps. We want to welcome Brig. Gen. Bettye

Simmons, the Chief of the Army Nurse Corps; Capt. Mary Anne

Gardner, the Deputy Director of the Navy Nurse Corps; Brig. Gen.

Linda Stierle, Director of Medical Readiness Doctrine and Planning

and Nursing Services for the Air Force.

The two of us know a lot about nurses. We have seen a lot of

them from beds. I want you to know we respect what you do. Your

health care professionalism does not go unnoticed by the Congress.

This committee in particular appreciates the dedication and the

high professionalism that military nurses bring to their jobs.

Your statements have all been filed in the record, as I said in the

last panel, and I want to give my good friend and your good friend,

Senator Inouye, an opportunity to make opening remarks first.

Senator INOUYE. I wish to join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming

General Simmons, General Stierle, and Captain Gardner. It has

been my pleasure to work with military nurses for many years, and

I thank you once again for the 60 years of help and assistance.

I understand, Captain, that this is your last appearance as Deputy Director of the Navy Nurses Corps.

Captain GARDNER. Yes, sir, it is.

Senator INOUYE. I would like to take this opportunity to thank

you for your outstanding service. I wish you the very best.

Captain GARDNER. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. I also would like to take a few moments to congratulate the Nurse Corps for recent landmark achievements. In

the Navy, Rear Admiral Engel was promoted to a second star in

the fall of 1997. In the Army, Brig. Gen. Nancy Adams, former

Chief of the Army Nurse Corps, was nominated for a second star

and she just assumed command of Tripler Army Medical Center on

March 17, making her the first Army nurse to command a major

medical center. I am looking forward to the Air Force to be able

to give similar reports soon.

We have worked long and hard for the statutory change which

allowed Nurse Corps officers to compete for senior corps in material positions.

Advanced practices nurses must often fight for the very existence

when they are placed in competition with other health care professionals as the most economical providers of primary care. A recent

example is the present controversy between anesthesiologists and

certified nurse anesthetists. The Health Care Financing AdminisU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
472

tration has proposed a rule to remove the Medicare requirement for

supervision of nurse anesthetists by anesthesiologists, and I am

certain all of us have noted the resistance to this rule from the

medical community. However, I am pleased that it has not been

the case within the military health system.

Nurse anesthetists are clearly proving themselves as independent practitioners both in peacetime and during conflicts. I believe

that at the present time the nurse anesthetists throughout the

United States provide at least 85 percent of the anesthetics.

Military nurses have often led the way in creating new and expanded roles for nurses, but the core of nursing care and concern

for the individual remains constant. This combination has enabled

the services to provide health care throughout the world, on land,

at sea, and in the air.

As the military health system again leads the way in the development and implementation of health care delivery models, the

military nurses will be at the forefront in developing innovative

ways to reduce health care costs and to continue to provide quality

care.

So, I appreciate the appearance of all of you this morning and

look forward to hearing more about the progress of the corps in

terms of readiness, research, the graduate school of nursing, and

telehealth.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

OVERVIEW OF NURSING IN THE AIR FORCE

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

We started from the left before. We will start from the right this

time. Let us go with the Air Force first this time.

General STIERLE. All right, sir.

Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, it is an honor to report on

the achievements of Air Force nursing. Thanks to your ongoing endorsement and our determination, we continue to be a vital player

in the Air Force Medical Service.

I have submitted my written testimony for the record and will

now highlight some of our successes.

First, I am encouraged by the increasing leadership opportunities

for nurses in the Air Force Medical Service. The percentage of medical groups commanded by nurses steadily progressed from 5 percent to 16 percent over the past 3 years.

After we reorganized into squadrons in 1994, squadron commander positions filled by nurses dipped from 16 percent to 13 percent in 1996. I am pleased to report the most current statistics on

these squadron commander positions indicate a rebound back up to

16 percent.

Not forgetting the Air Reserve component, the Air National

Guard has 12 percent presently of the medical units with nurse

commanders, and the Air Force Reserve Command has 36 percent.

We anticipate continued progress on filling active and reserve senior positions as more nurses are competitively selected and successfully meet the challenges of command.

Now I would like to spotlight some of the successful disease and

population health management initiatives. Medical commanders

have capitalized on nursing’s expertise and have developed nurseU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
473

run clinics. Typically these clinics focus on case management, patient education, followup, and coordination of services. The medical

groups at Patrick AFB, FL, and Grand Forks AFB, ND, have expanded their nurse-run clinics to manage women’s preventive

health services. Nurses in primary care triage services manage

acute appointments, referral processes, and provide self-and home

care advice. The triage service at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska responded to 266 patient calls per day with home care advice sufficient for 14 percent of the callers.

Also the medical groups at Barksdale AFB, LA; Travis AFB, CA;

and Eielson AFB, AK, reassigned nursing personnel to manage

medical specialty consultation process. Their clinical understanding

of primary care changed the historically bumpy consultation system into a smoother process with fewer delays and referral appointments and more reliable provider followup.

Across the board, nurses and medical technicians have played a

pivotal role in converting inpatient medical units to 23-hour ambulatory procedure units. These units provide nursing care services to

patients on an outpatient basis and are excellent examples of customer convenience and quality care.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that Nursing Services has

often provided the vision and the tenacity to move all of these programs forward. The total nursing force has been integral in improving medical force protection programs, aeromedical evacuation

operations, and advanced trauma education. Our support of

sustainment operations, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief missions around the world directly keeps the wartime skills of

our nurses and medical technicians honed while assisting those in

need.

The partnership between the active, the Reserve, and the Guard

nursing forces has never been better. I credit our success with the

development of our first total nursing force strategic plan.

One of the best examples of our enhanced working relationship

is a program called TopSTAR, a medical readiness training program using state-of-the-art mannequins and computer-based instruction. In 2 weeks, students complete 100 percent of their

sustainment training that was previously spread out over 1 to 4

years. With the significant reduction of Air Force hospitals, it will

be increasingly more difficult to meet clinical training requirements

for the active and the Reserve components. We hope to expand

TopSTAR from the first training platform at Wilford Hall Medical

Center to more sites in the coming years.

Accession and recruiting efforts remained in the forefront also in

1997. In recent years, we have had an ample supply of entry level,

novice nurses. In order to enhance our force structure with clinically experienced and specialty nurses, we have redirected the

nurse accession bonus policy to incentivize these more difficult recruitment categories.

A recruitment initiative, that I described in last year’s testimony,

was the cadet BSM to MSM program, and I am pleased to report

that the Air Force Academy has scholarships for cadets to attend

nursing school. In the fall of 1997, two cadets entered Vanderbilt

University, and starting with the class of 1998, up to five cadets

annually will have the opportunity to attend nursing schools.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
474

Another resounding recruitment success story is the commissioning of airmen who have completed a bachelors of science degree in

nursing and we have targeted 10 allocations per year but hope to

see this increase over time because we are committed to retaining

these stellar individuals as Nurse Corps officers.

Now I would like to recognize the cost savings and outstanding

joint training offered by the Uniformed Services University of

Health Sciences, the family nurse practitioner program, and the

certified registered nurse anesthetist program. We have seen an increased demand for FNP’s in our peacetime health care delivery

system and recently validated wartime requirements for FNP’s in

our mid-level provider deployment taskings. Our CRNA’s continue

to provide critical wartime skills and the majority of peacetime anesthesia services. After 45 years, we closed the Air Force CRNA

training program. We found the USUHS program to be strong and

have assigned all Air Force CRNA students to USUHS. By incorporating Air Force CRNA faculty and training into USUHS, we

saved approximately $300,000 in civilian contract costs.

I have continually been impressed by the value that nurses place

on advanced technologies and educational opportunities. We maintain a dynamic nursing home page, offering worldwide access to

our strategic plan, our newsletter, the nursing research corner, and

professional development opportunities. We developed a distance

learning guide as a ready reference to courses and programs that

give our nursing personnel the opportunity to advance their education. The USUHS Graduate School of Nursing offers an innovative distance learning program affording geographically separated

nurses avenues to pursue advanced degrees.

Foremost, though, I want to thank Congress for the continued

backing for the tri-service nursing research program. Air Force

nursing is generating lines of research aimed at issues critical to

military and civilian health care delivery. Our clinical investigation

sites, staffed with a doctoral prepared nurse, have spearheaded our

efforts to educate our nursing personnel and to improve practice

through research validated results.

In closing, I feel a great sense of pride and accomplishment as

the Corps Chief of such an extraordinary group of officer and enlisted nursing professionals. I can say with absolute certainty that

Air Force nursing personnel are ready, willing, and able to protect

our forces, protect our national interests, and advance democracy

and freedom anytime anywhere.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman and Senator, thank you for providing us this

forum to showcase military nursing. We appreciate your support in

behalf of the Department of Defense, the Air Force Medical Service,

and the patients we serve.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, General.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. LINDA J. STIERLE

Mister Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to report on the

achievements of the Air Force Nurse Corps (AFNC) since my testimony in April of

1997. Thanks to your ongoing endorsement and our determination, the AFNC conU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
475

tinues to be a vital player in the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS). As reported

in my testimonies over the past three years, we developed the first-ever Total Nursing Force Strategic Plan (TNFSP), outlining the future directions of nursing personnel in the Air Force. This nursing strategic plan stands apart from previous plans

as it is the first time the Total Nursing Force (TNF), officer and enlisted, active

duty, reserve and guard, collaborated on a shared vision, mission, goals and objectives.

The TNFSP links directly to the AFMS strategic initiatives and in a broader perspective, correlates with the strategic plan of the Military Health System (MHS).

This strategic plan presently has six goals. The goals are (1) Cultivate, Identify and

Advance Strong Leaders, (2) Spearhead Customer-Driven Nursing Practice, (3)

Forge Ahead as a Full Partner in the AFMS Building Healthy Communities, (4)

Champion an Integrated Ready Force, (5) Effectively Use AF Nursing Resources,

and (6) Employ and Integrate Technology and Research. These goals will help us

reach our vision of Air Force Nursing as an integrated force committed to maximum

readiness and customer-focused practice.

Goal No. 1: Cultivate, Identify and Advance Strong Leaders:

Goal statement.—Optimize nursing leadership to meet mission challenges of the

21st century.

Command Opportunities

I am encouraged by the leadership opportunities for Nurse Corps (NC) officers in

the AFMS. It is my opinion that a NC officer in a medical group or squadron commander position brings a customer-focused orientation to the organization. Nurses

have the distinct advantage of understanding all the disciplines. By virtue of providing specialty services to patients after duty hours or coordinating the delivery of

those services, nurses have a diverse blend of clinical expertise, managerial experience, and interpersonal skills. Nurses are perceived to be the strongest patient advocate by the patients themselves. The majority of nurses start out as generalists caring for our beneficiaries in our bedded facilities, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365

days a year. In addition, I believe advanced academic degrees serve to strengthen

their qualifications for command roles. Thus, robusting the number of NC commanders means increased diversity within the Major Commands and at senior medical

leadership forums thereby enhancing problem solving and decision making.

I am pleased to report opportunities for command in the AFMS is on the rise for

NC officers. Since 1987, all corps had the opportunity to compete for medical group

commander positions however; these positions were physician dominated. The

AFNC never had more than 2–3 nurses as commanders at any given time. After the

centralized group commander selection process began in January 1996, the number

of nurses selected for the opportunity to command medical groups significantly rose

from 5 in 1996, to 11 in 1997, and to 18 in the most recent fiscal year 1998 board.

As a result, the percentage of medical groups commanded by AFNC officers steadily

progressed from 5 percent to 16 percent over the past three years. While the number of NC officers selected to command small and medium facilities has increased,

the number of nurses to command large facilities and Major Commands has not. We

anticipate continued progress in this area as more nurses are competitively selected

and successfully command medical groups.

In order to evaluate progress in our goal achievement for the TNF, we also began

tracking senior leadership positions for nurses in the Air Reserve Components

(ARC). The percentages of medical units commanded by nurses in the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) is 36 percent, and in the Air National Guard (ANG) is 12

percent, averaging to 23 percent of the total Air Reserve Component (ARC).

I would like to briefly focus on one of the squadrons in the medical group. The

Medical Operations Squadron (MDOS) is usually the largest of the squadrons in our

medical groups and known for its clinically focused mission. Gaining squadron commander experience is crucial for future selection to medical group commander positions. The MDOS is ideal for nurse commanders to gain that experience. After the

AFMS reorganized into squadrons, the MDOS commander positions filled by nurses

dipped from 44 percent in 1994, to 34 percent in 1996. I am pleased to report the

most current statistics on MDOS commander positions filled by NC officers has rebounded to 47 percent. Similarly, the overall number of squadron commander billets

from all four squadrons filled by NC officers rose from 13 percent to 16 percent this

past year.

Nurses In Senior/General Officer Billets

In September 1994, the 2-star general officer promotion board opened to all corps

and in September 1995, the 1-star board became a corps neutral opportunity. Moreover, the Fiscal Year 1996 DOD Authorization Act expanded the 3-star Surgeon

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
476

General position beyond the Medical Corps (MC) to include all health care service

corps. Finally in 1996, all services allowed all corps to compete for major command

roles. These are important steps in assuring a level playing field for leadership opportunities for all corps throughout the AFMS.

Officers compete for 1-star flag officer promotion at 2 years time in grade of colonel and must assume 1-star rank before their mandatory retirement date (normally

30 years commissioned service). Officers competing for 1-star flag officer positions

in the AFMS normally progress through a series of medical group commands and

other senior leadership positions. Eligibility for Medical Group command begins

after the officer has been selected for colonel and ends at 26 years of commissioned

service.

The usual phase point for Medical Corps (MC) and Dental Corps (DC) officers to

reach colonel is between 13 to 18 years of commissioned service. The MC/DC officers

have up to 13 years as a colonel to progress through medical group commands, and

a total of 17 years to reach other higher level career milestones in preparation for

general officer promotion. In comparison, the normal phase point to colonel for the

DOPMA constrained corps, the Nurse Corps, Biomedical Science Corps (BSC), and

Medical Service Corps (MSC), is 21 to 22 years. These officers only have a 4 to 5

year window to progress through multiple medical group commands, and a total of

8 years to achieve higher positions that make them competitive for general officer

promotion. This puts nurses, as well as other DOPMA constrained corps, at a distinct disadvantage for general officer promotion.

In order to be competitive with the non-DOPMA constrained corps (MC/DC) and

have enough time to progress through a career track toward general officer promotion, DOPMA constrained candidates (NC, BSC, MSC) need at least one, if not

more, below-the-primary-zone (BPZ) promotions. Currently, the BPZ opportunity for

DOPMA constrained corps is significantly less than for Line of the Air Force (LAF)

officers and non-DOPMA constrained corps (physicians/dentists). We are evaluating

the viability of these BPZ promotion opportunity percentages for NC, BSC, and MSC

officers.

Senior Leadership Development

In March 1997, we had our very first Total Nursing Force Executive Leadership

Symposium for both enlisted and officers. For the first time we were able to bring

together the vast majority of Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve Chief Nurses and

senior enlisted Medical Service Managers. A survey conducted during the symposium overwhelmingly demonstrated a need to continue this Total Nursing Force senior leadership forum. Similarly, at the Association of Military Surgeons of the

United States (AMSUS) meeting, we had our first Total Nursing Force day. The

Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty nursing leadership presented overviews of their respective programs, a progress report on the TNFSP, a panel discussion surrounding

enlisted training issues. We also received presentations from guest speakers on utilization of forensic nurses and the challenges of forensic investigation of the airline

crash in the Florida Everglades. The programs were top-notch with standing room

only. The TNF is committed to exploiting these opportunities annually to help us

achieve our vision of a seamless, integrated Total Nursing Force.

Another senior leadership strategy undertaken this year was the revision of the

USAF Nurse Corps career path. We are in the process of distributing it and posting

it on our Total Nursing Force Homepage. The career path expands guidance beyond

the traditional clinical track to career paths in senior leadership and staff officer

tracks such as medical readiness, health promotion, managed care, and education.

Goal No. 2: Spearhead Customer-Driven Nursing Practice:

Goal statement.—Champion competent, collaborative practice among healthcare

professionals to deliver truly customer-centered, affordable and accessible

healthcare.

Customer Satisfaction

The TNF is heavily invested in the AFMS Customer Satisfaction Task Force,

chartered to develop an overall strategy for instilling a climate and culture of customer focus and service. Our Surgeon General has emphasized this focus must be

a cultural change rather than a program.

The Task Force determined that the implementation of this culture change was

dependent upon eight essential elements: Leadership; Performance Management;

Education and Training; Communications; Measurement; Best Practices; Facility

Implementation; and Products, Services, and Systems. The Task Force appointed

champions for each element and then developed objectives to meet the overall strategies. Nurse Corps officers are champions for the Leadership, the Performance Evaluation, Recognition and Rewards, and the Education and Training elements.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
477

The future endeavors of the Task Force will include planning for the roll-out of

the AFMS Customer Service Culture Change Plan to all AF Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) next spring. The Task Force will provide support to five model sites,

taking their ‘‘lessons learned’’ to refine the Customer Service tools and pushing for

inclusion of customer service training in all AFMS formal courses.

A revolution in customer service culture in the AFMS is on the horizon. The TNF

is committed to continually improving our skills in patient advocacy and supporting

our personnel in their initiatives to ensure quality care to delighted customers.

Goal No. 3: Forge Ahead as a Full Partner in the AFMS Building Healthy Communities:

Goal statement.—Integrate nursing’s unique healthcare expertise into building robust prevention-based health and wellness, which will make healthy communities

cultural and societal realities.

Prevention-based Health and Wellness

Nurses and medical technicians have traditionally been the front-line champions

of this goal through day-to-day health promotion and utilization management (UM)

activities. Approximately 75 percent of the AFMS health promotion and UM officers

are nursing personnel.

Disease management is a part of UM methodology, but it represents a change in

paradigm. What can disease management do for the AFMS? A review of the literature has demonstrated that managed care organizations which have embraced

disease management have documented improved quality of care and services, and

cost efficiencies. An effective disease management strategy seeks to reduce the variability in treatment between providers and individuals. Each phase of the patients’

care, from an ambulatory preventative visit, to illness, then recovery must coincide

with the disease management strategy. Thus, a population health management approach requires specific techniques, skills, and strategies in addition to those needed

in clinical practice. Nurses and medical technicians have the basic skills to fully contribute to these programs. We have targeted nurses to take on the role of the Health

Care Integrator (HCI). We anticipate assignment of an HCI at every MTF to be the

driving force in case management and in coordinating a continuum of care and services for the patients in the AFMS system.

With the patient’s best interest in mind, nurses and medical technicians have

stepped forward with vitality to take on this new role. In my previous testimony,

I described the HCI role. The HCI’s responsibilities range in depth and scope based

on individual MTF needs, however the majority are extensively involved in disease

and population health management. We believe the HCI’s can make a tremendous

impact at MTF’s supporting large and diversified populations. We invested in our

HCI’s by sending them for training at the 1998 AF Worldwide Prevention Conference where they participated in presentations and panel discussions by the

LoveLace Healthcare Innovations Corporation and other AF HCI’s. The educational

objectives focused on the application of disease management programs to day-to-day

nursing practice and the successful implementation of the HCI role.

Since its introduction in 1997, 48 percent of the AFMS facilities have resourced

an HCI, as compared to 11 percent a year earlier. Of the facilities that do not have

HCI’s assigned, 75 percent plan to do so in the next year. We anticipate the HCI

will become the focal point for our enrolled population and the conduit between the

Primary Care Manager (PCM), the patient, and the community at large. We believe

the HCI will be the bridge to successful and sustained implementation of the DOD’s

Putting Prevention into Practice Program. I would like to highlight some of the successful disease and population health management initiatives implemented at our

facilities.

Ambulatory clinics across the AFMS have consistently developed Nurse-Run clinics, primary care triage services, and Ambulatory Procedure Units (APU). Typically

Nurse-Run clinics focus on managing asthma, hypertension, and diabetes with

HCI’s providing case management, patient education, follow-up, and coordination of

care between the PCM’s, referral services and patients. Some facilities have expanded management activities to routine women’s health and obstetrical services.

Nurses in primary care triage services use approved protocols to manage acute appointments, referrals, and provide home and self care advice.

The triage service was especially valuable at Offutt AFB in Nebraska during peak

influenza season. The triage nurses responded to 266 patient calls per day with

home care advice sufficient for 14 percent (37) of the callers. The 2nd Medical Group

(MDG) at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, the 60th MDG at Travis AFB, California, and

the 354 MDG at Eielson AFB, Alaska, have reassigned consult management from

administrative personnel to nurses or medical technicians, exploiting their clinical

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
478

expertise, rapport with PCM’s, and problem solving skills. This move has changed

a historically ‘‘bumpy’’ system into a smooth process with fewer delays in referral

appointments, fewer missed appointments, and reliable provider follow up.

The 74th MDG at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, instituted pediatric disease management strategies for special needs children. In the past, the parents of these children were on their own to identify and access all needed resources in the military

and civilian medical communities. The HCI for this population enhanced the holistic

multi-disciplinary team approach, coordinating services addressing the family’s clinical, psychological, financial, and social needs. Similarly, the 45th MDG at Patrick

AFB, Florida, and the 90th MDG at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, instituted pediatric asthma clinics. Intensive patient education in these clinics improved home care

treatment and decreased readmission rates.

Across the board, nurses and medical technicians played pivotal roles in converting inpatient medical units to 23-hour APU’s. The APU’s were designed to provide

nursing care services to patients on an outpatient basis such as administering intravenous antibiotics and intravenous hydration, performing dressing changes, giving

wound care, and offering extended post-procedure monitoring. This is a primary example of offering customer convenience and point of contact quality care. WrightPatterson developed a Nurse-Run Ambulatory Infusion Service for oncology patients

with chemotherapy regimes. Previously, these patients were admitted to inpatient

units because of traditional practice, insufficient staffing in the clinic, and inadequate clinic hours. Since implementation, the outcomes are overwhelmingly positive. The service provides therapies at the appropriate level of care, patients are

pleased with reduced time in treatment, and admission for that treatment have decreased from 117 to 19 per year.

In summary, I am proud to say the TNF has often provided the vision and tenacity to move these programs forward. These are just a few examples of nursing programs that directly support the AFMS strategic initiative of building healthy communities.

Goal No. 4: Champion an Integrated Ready Force:

Goal statement.—Maximize medical readiness capability with the right mix of

multi-skilled personnel, incorporating joint training and interoperable equipment.

The AFMS continues to lean forward in the areas of medical force protection and

has made great strides in the past year to improve AE operations, advanced trauma

education, Biological Warfare/Chemical Warfare (BW/CW) protection, Self Aid and

Buddy Care (SABC) training, health promotion and disease prevention programs.

The TNF is an integral part in the development, implementation, and deployment

of all these programs. The AFMS has not lost sight of the fact that our number one

job is to ensure we have a ‘‘healthy and fit force.’’ Through these programs, our Airmen will be ready to do their job, whenever and wherever that may be.

As our Surgeon General pointed out in his testimony, the operational tempo (Ops

Temp) in the past year for the AFMS has again been extremely high. The deployment of medical forces in support of sustainment operations, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief has continued to grow. The AFMS has directed many of

its energies in the past years to operations identified as Operations Other than War

(OOTW). Such involvement directly supports our goal to keep the skills of our

nurses and medical technicians honed for rapid deployment while truly assisting

those in need; a definite Win-Win situation for all involved. Now, I will highlight

the OOTW’s the TNF has supported.

Sustainment Operations

Operation Desert Focus.—The ongoing support to Southwest Asia (SWA) has been

a Total Nursing Force commitment from all Active Duty, AFRC, and ANG medical

specialties. A 25-bed Air Transportable Hospital (ATH) remains deployed to Prince

Sultan Air Base (PSAB), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is staffed with 65 medical personnel on a 120-day rotational deployment. Aeromedical evacuation assets are collocated serving as the hub for tactical and strategic patient movement. In addition,

the ARC was tasked to provide complete coverage of the ATH. The ANG’s rotation

begins in April 1998.

Our enlisted Independent Duty Medical Technicians contribute to a theater medical surveillance team positioned at PSAB to monitor the health of personnel pre/

post deployment and to conduct environmental surveillance of sites within the SWA.

They also support an in-theater clinic at Eskan Village in Riyadh and numerous

Squadron Medical Elements (SME) deployed with operational flying units.

Operation Joint Guard.—The TNF remains engaged in Bosnia and Croatia primarily in aeromedical evacuation missions and staffing a 5-bed Air Transportable

Hospital and a Mobile Air Staging Facility (MASF) asset.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
479

Operation Uphold Democracy.—The AFMS was tasked by the Joint Chief of Staff

to deploy a 10-bed ATH to support deployed forces at Port Au Prince, Haiti. The

TNF performed numerous humanitarian projects within the Haitian community

during this operation.

Humanitarian Civic Actions (HCA)/Disaster Relief

The AFMS provides medical relief for natural and man-made disasters throughout

the world. From contributing to flood relief efforts in Grand Forks, ND, to responding to military and civilian airline accidents, to providing health care to refugees,

the TNF is a full participant. These programs enhance our National and Military

Strategic Objectives, provide quality healthcare to a needy population, and imparts

good healthcare practices to future generations.

Joint Training Through Mirror Force

A major objective of the TNFSP Goal No. 4 is to arrange (joint) training to meet

contingency needs. As has been briefed in previous year testimonies, Mirror Force

is an Air Force Leadership initiative by the Active, AFRC, and ANG to share similar

training and missions, optimizing utilization efficiencies. Mirror Force is designed

to bring the Active, Reserve, and Guard personnel together into a seamless, medically ready force. The TNFSP directly links to this strategy.

Recently the AFMS established active duty nurse positions at the AF Reserve Region Support Groups (RSG) at each of the three AF Reserve Numbered Air Forces

(NAF). As Directors for Clinical Readiness Programs, Training, and Readiness missions, these nurses will be responsible to the RSG Surgeons General for all clinical

professional matters and provide expert guidance and operational guidance to all

subordinate medical and aeromedical units within the NAF’s. This initiative will enhance readiness training for 2,500 medical officers and 5,000 enlisted technicians

and offers a ‘‘Total Force’’ approach by developing a team composed of active duty,

air reserve technician and reserve personnel.

To promote interoperability the DOD conducted one of the largest joint medical

training exercises in history. In June 1997, more than 2,000 Active-Duty, Reserve

and Army, and Air National Guard doctors, nurses, medical technicians from all

services came together for Patriot Medstar 1997. The exercise helped military medical professionals assess, treat, stage and evacuate ‘‘wounded’’ soldiers from a fictional battleground. Initiatives are underway to make this a recurring Joint bi-annual DOD Patient Evacuation exercise.

The Nursing Department at the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB,

Texas stood up a total force training endeavor in the past year. The Critical Care

Air Transport Course was established and began accepting students this year.

Flight nurse instructors put together this training program to meet the patient care

skills needs in both peacetime and wartime environments. It trains Total Force physicians, nurses, and enlisted specialists who may be required to provide critical care

support to AE patients.

A prime example of the partnership of the TNF in support of medical readiness

is the training initiative called TopSTAR (Sustainment Training/Advanced Readiness). The TopSTAR initiative was identified in last year’s testimony, as a total

force program creating optimal and efficient medical training opportunities for all

clinical specialties required to perform wartime tasks. The primary driver for the

initiative is the reduction of Air Force inpatient MTF’s as medical readiness training

platforms. In 1988 the AFMS operated 82 hospitals with 5,053 operating beds. Currently we have 37 hospitals with 1,487 beds. It will be impossible to meet all training requirements in the remaining inpatient settings for our active duty medics, not

to mention our reserve component medics.

TopSTAR was implemented in February 1998 at its first training platform at

Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. The training is conducted

in a simulated environment, using state-of-the-art mannequins and computer-based

instruction. The highly technical nature of medical skills training requires extensive

practice in both actual and simulated patient care settings. Simulated wartime environments can be used in the lab to practice critical skills and procedures prior to

actual patient care or deployment and improve access and training opportunities for

medical personnel. After a 2-week rotation, the students complete 100 percent of

their sustainment training requirements. Previously, this sustainment training was

fragmented and spread out over the entire year. We hope to identify west and east

coast sites to expand this valuable program in the years ahead.

Standardized Medical Readiness Training System

Another task under the TNFSP Goal No. 4 of the TNFSP is to deploy the Standardized Medical Readiness Training System (SMRTS) implementation guidelines for

nursing to the field. SMRTS is an automated system to track standard medical

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
480

readiness training for all medical personnel. The original SMRTS database was

quite comprehensive but was cumbersome and redundant. Nursing Services took the

lead in reengineering the SMRTS. System changes have centered on restructuring

the database to provide user requested features and system flexibility and compatibility with other data base management programs. The Air Force Inspection Agency (AFIA) is actively engaged in ensuring all training programs are in compliance

with Air Force directives.

Goal No. 5: Effectively Use AF Nursing Resources

Goal statement.—Capitalize on Air Force nursing personnel to optimize support

for the AFMS mission requirements. We want to ensure the TNF maintains the

proper skill mix, grade structure, and experience balance necessary for mission accomplishment. We begin this sustainment process through accessions and recruiting

efforts, accompanied by force sculpting of size, skill mix, and grade requirements.

Accessions

Since 1979, the entry-level educational requirement for commissioning as AFNC

officers was a Bachelors of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree. In response to the

nursing shortage in 1987, the AFMS altered the entry-level requirement to include

registered nurses graduating from an Associate Degree in Nursing (AND) or Diploma programs. However, the candidates must also have completed a Baccalaureate degree in a health science field. In the past several years, the AFMS attained its nursing accession goals. We have an ample source of entry level, novice

nurses with BSN degrees. In 1997, the Air Force senior nursing leadership carefully

scrutinized our accession success rate and the AFNC manpower requirements. The

AFMS changed the entry-level educational requirements for AFNC commissioning

to a minimum of a BSN degree.

BSN nurses have the requisite knowledge base, flexibility, and experience to teach

our medical technicians, and collaborate with interdisciplinary professionals and

agencies. Our nurses plan and evaluate health care for individual patients and communities in a wide range of settings. Military nurse officers require the same enhanced leadership skills and professional expertise required by other medical service

and line officers. In the rapidly changing U.S. health care environment, the military

nurse must be educated to focus on patient education, health promotion and disease

prevention. Air Force nurse officers must independently lead, manage, teach, and

integrate health care across the spectrum of peacetime, war, and humanitarian operations.

Recruitment

In order to meet the AFMS strategic initiative and the more complex demands

of our present and future health care environment, we want to enhance our force

structure. We refocused the accession bonus policy to incentivize difficult recruitment categories, such as nurses with three or more years of nursing experience, and

nurses with specific advanced academic degrees.

A recruitment initiative I described in last year’s testimony was the Cadet to

BSN/MSN program. As early as 1992, cadets at the United States Air Force Academy had voiced interest in entering the AF Nurse Corps. I am pleased to report that

the Air Force Academy now has scholarships for cadets who want to attend nursing

school. In the fall of 1997, two cadets entered Vanderbilt University. Starting with

the Class of 1998, up to five cadets annually will have the opportunity to attend

nursing school. To assist these cadets in validating that a health profession career

is what they want, the U.S. Air Force Academy Hospital established a shadow for

those who wish to enter the Health Profession.

Finally, an area of concern in previous testimony was the insufficient number of

obstetrical (OB) nurses we have in our inventory. We addressed this issue by increasing the number of accelerated obstetrical training sites and establishing a rigorous on-the-job-training program. These two initiatives, coupled with the incremental closure of OB services across the AFMS, brought the OB nursing shortage under

control.

Force Sculpting: Rightsizing

The AFMS Mission Support Plan (MSP), accomplished in late 1997, was a ‘‘bottom-up’’ review process in which each MTF identified their plans for health care delivery and resource requirements through the year 2003. The changes in facilities

and reduction of inpatient beds significantly decreased nursing manpower requirements in these patient care areas. We support this downsizing of clinical nurses assigned to inpatient areas.

Conversely, the number of nurses in ambulatory care settings will need to increase, not in management roles, but in providing disease and population health

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
481

management, patient education, and coordination of care. The Community Health

Clinic (CHC) model for primary care (whether hospital-based clinic or freestanding

clinic) was developed by the AFMS. The staffing pattern for CHC’s is populationbased—the number of providers needed is based on enrollee population and casemix. The nurse to provider ratio defined in the CHC model is one nurse for every

two providers. The Surgeon General’s office will be conducting an ‘‘enterprise’’ level

multidisciplinary review to ensure the MSP manpower requirements support the

AFMS strategic initiatives. From a nursing perspective, the review will focus on the

ratios of nursing personnel to providers and the evaluation of the appropriate mix

of physician and nurse providers in the CHC’s, women’s health, primary care, pediatric and mental health environments.

Even after robusting nursing requirements into the outpatient areas, we anticipate a reduction of nursing manpower requirements over the next five years. In reviewing potential rightsizing goals for the AF Nurse Corps, it appears all nurse specialties except flight nurses could be decreased by varying degrees. Planning at this

point indicates that in order to meet the overall fiscal year 2003 end strength, we

need to increase annual losses approximately 130 above and beyond normal attrition

(separations/retirements). For fiscal year 1999 we anticipate that voluntary reduction options, such as Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) and Limited

Active Duty Service Commitment (LADSC) waivers should be available to NC officers. Reduction incentives would be limited to the specialties with rightsizing targets beyond normal attrition. For nurse-provider specialties, end-strength numbers

can most likely be achieved through normal attrition and by decreasing the number

of nurses selected for graduate education to enter the provider specialty, and/or by

decreasing recruiting goals for those specialties.

Force Sculpting: Skill Mix

Graduate Education.—The professional practice model of nursing demands that

all nurses practice in each of four domains: clinical, research, education and administration. Graduate education prepares the nurse for expanded roles in one or more

of these domains.

We have been successful at validating the wartime requirement for increased

numbers of Women’s Health and Family Health Nurse Practitioners. As we deploy

TRICARE for peacetime healthcare, there is an increasing need for a mixture of

these nurse practitioners to provide cost effective quality care.

The Air Force Nurse Corps will continue to stress the importance of Master’s and

Doctoral prepared nurses as it is a hallmark of our profession and supports our

changing mission. We analyzed our advanced academic requirements for each MTF

and coded each authorization that required an advanced degree for the position. We

used these codes to participate in the Inter-disciplinary Forecast Board (IFB), as described in General Roadman’s testimony. The IFB process compares the current inventory of specialists with the number of coded authorizations for that specialty,

and forecasts the training requirements. The IFB enhances our efficiency and accuracy in forecasting advanced academic education needs and non-clinical fellowships.

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS).—The USUHS

Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) was officially approved on February 26, 1996.

The mission of the GSN is to prepare advanced practice nurses (APN’s) at the graduate level to deliver primary and chronic care, including anesthesia services, to active duty members of the Uniformed Services, their families, and all other eligible

beneficiaries. USUHS has a worldwide perspective for education, research, and consultation uniquely related military health care and military medical readiness.

Three Air Force Nurse Corps officers are assigned to the GSN faculty, two to the

Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) program, and one to the Family

Nurse Practitioner (FNP) program. By incorporating USAF faculty and training into

the USUHS program, we saved the USAF approximately $300,000 in civilian contract educational costs. With the addition of these officers, the faculty is now more

Tri-service and more military oriented. Already I am hearing how these AF nurse

instructors contribute significantly to curriculum development and student mentoring.

In April 1994, the CRNA Program was accredited, permitting admission of students. Recognizing the outstanding training and cost savings offered by the USUHS

CRNA program, the Air Force has now assigned all CRNA students to the USUHS

GSN. This program allows us to continue the tradition of military trained CRNA’s

at a lower cost then we have ever experienced before. Additionally, we have evaluated the program and believe it to be one of the strongest in the country. The USAF

CRNA students graduating from the USUHS program have had a 100 percent success rate on their board certification exams.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
482

Force Sculpting: Enlisted Specialists

A resounding success story is the increasing number of medical technicians utilized in non-traditional roles like managed care, readiness, and health promotion.

Exploiting their professional talents acts as a force multiplier increasing efficiency

without degrading effectiveness. Another success story is the commissioning of enlisted Airmen who have completed a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Nursing. The

TNF is committed to retaining these stellar individuals as NC officers who have already demonstrated their leadership potential and investment in the AFMS. Therefore, the AFMS chartered an Inter-disciplinary Process Team to develop a marketable total force career track for enlisted medical personnel, providing them with opportunities to achieve appropriate academic credentials or commissioning. Initial

focus will be on medical technician personnel with commissioning opportunities in

the AFNC.

Goal No. 6: Employ and Integrate Technology and Research:

Goal statement.—Exploit cutting edge technology and research to manage information and advance nursing practice.

Modeling and Simulation Technology in Medical Readiness

NC officers have recognized the value of advanced technologies and have been the

driving force in its development and use. Currently, Air Force medical readiness is

using databases and simulation models to answer a variety of questions about our

medical deployment packages in the areas of staffing, equipment, configuration and

patient management. We call our simulation models Unit Type Code (UTC) Validation Models. The models simulate patient care within a given facility created by the

user selecting a variety of packages. As the model runs, we analyze where patient

bottlenecks occur. We evaluate the maximum number of major equipment items

such as ventilators or cardiac monitors in use at one time, then recommend changes

or an augmentation package for a particular casualty stream. The models allow us

to test changes in aeromedical evacuation policies to see how it effects staff and bed

utilization. Similarly, we can also analyze the difference in patient care outcomes

between deploying a specialty surgeon versus a general surgeon.

Exploiting modeling and simulation technology provides many benefits in the

areas of cost containment and increased efficiency. Organizing and conducting large

readiness exercises consumes a great deal of resources and time. A smaller cadre

of personnel can run models against many different scenarios in a very short period

of time. The results can be more exact and provide valuable information for decision-making or planning real time exercises. Modeling is also a defendable, valid

and auditable means to determine medial readiness manpower requirements.

Telemedicine Technology in the Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) Environment

Almost two years ago, the Air Force stood up the first DOD working group to establish an AE Strategic Plan for the insertion of telemedicine into the aeromedical

environment. Their charter was to provide telemedicine capabilities throughout the

AE continuum, from the point of entry into the system to the patient’s final MTF.

Telemedicine, or telehealth, is integrated across the military and civilian health

care continuum. It is a technological tool that provides quality consultation and assessment to patients separated from medical providers by time and space. The insertion of this capability into our aeromedical environment leverages our readiness

capability by placing advanced medical technologies closer to the battlefield. It supports changing doctrine of a smaller forward footprint, earlier evacuation of injured

soldiers and movement of stabilized verses stable patients. The Bottom-line: telemedicine provides communication and medical capabilities essential in our quest for

quality care to battlefield soldiers anywhere, anytime.

As the champion for this effort, I brought 45 participants from all walks of the

DOD telemedicine and user communities together in May of 1996. We developed the

strategic plan for the insertion of Telemedicine into the AE environment. Of this

group, one-third were TNF personnel. The intention of this strategic plan was to insert a system that makes a difference in how we provide care, not to insert state

of the art technology that is not wanted or needed by AE system users.

Dedicated, reliable communication from the air to the ground, and back to the air

was identified as the most desired attribute of telemedicine. Due to severe limitations in our present communication systems, changes in patient’s conditions, the

need for further clinical information, and updates prior to landing are almost impossible to relay in today’s AE environment. This has always been a frustration for

flight nurses and aeromedical evacuation technicians as they routinely provide care

in the air without direct access to a physician.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
483

A Breakthrough Area was initiated to architect and implement a proof of concept

demonstration to document the need for telecommunication from ground to air to

ground. With our current operations of transporting stabilized rather than stable

patient loads during peacetime and contingency operation missions, this communications capability is vital to safe quality patient care. The operational demonstration was conducted September 22–27, 1997 and involved ‘‘live’’ channel AE missions

using C–141, C–9, and C–130 airframes for a total of 70.6 flying hours. This demonstration used commercial off-the-shelf computer systems and applications in addition to existing airframe communication systems. We were able to validate the use

of e-mail and ‘‘chat’’ to and from the aircraft to ground AE command and control

elements. We are now working toward our Phase II proof of concept demonstration

in the Pacific Air Forces Theater.

Information Technology

The TNF maintains a viable and dynamic homepage website offering access to

real-time information to AF nursing personnel around the world. We reached a significant milestone this year through the use of this medium. Our constituents now

have an INPUT FORM they can access from the Nursing Homepage, complete it

and forward to Headquarters Air Force, Nursing Services. The senders receive an

immediate return receipt. Nursing Services’ then forwards the suggestion to the appropriate goal group for consideration. Through this form all nursing officers, enlisted and civil service personnel have the opportunity to actualize the Total Nursing Force vision.

Technology in Education

Contemporary training of the USUHS CRNA program requires innovative technologies while maintaining traditional, proven techniques. A diversified clinical and

basic science cadre of instructors is teaching a unique program. The classrooms and

library have several software packages ‘‘on line’’ and these are used during the

Anatomy/Cell Biology Course. In addition, computer-aided instruction is routinely

used to teach human anatomy, cell biology, and nervous system structure and function. These courses utilize the Visible Human Project, which is available through

the National Library of Medicine. Anesthesia Simulators allow students to practice

anesthetic procedures in a more controlled virtual environment before progressing

to the clinical area. These programs are a high-tech link between didactic and clinical education.

Distance Learning Technology

The DOD Federal Nursing Chiefs requested that APN’s in the TriServices complete a Master of Science Degree in their specialty. A distance learning CRNA advanced degree program is now offered by the USUHS GSN. It was established to

afford military CRNA’s the opportunity to complete an advanced academic degree

even though they are geographically separated from USUHS. Students participate

in discussion groups over website technology and use video teleconferencing for oneon-one interaction with their instructors. This distance learning program is able to

reach out to military nurses around the world to provide them an opportunity for

higher education. There are five students enrolled, one is stationed as far away at

Turkey and one is assigned to shipboard duty. The program eliminates the need for

expensive relocation assignment and the cost of tuition.

In November 1996, the TNF stepped out and established a working group to define available distance learning program options for nurses. Distance learning provides an economical, effective, and efficient method of achieving academic goals even

though students may be geographically separated from colleges or universities. The

working group developed a Distance Learning Guide and published it on the AF

Nurse Corps website and in hard copy. The guide is a quick reference for distance

learning websites, descriptions of degree-awarding programs, and listings of colleges

and universities offering distance learning nursing courses. The guide focuses on

programs that may be of interest to our enlisted and officer force in pursuing bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral level courses or degrees.

Military Nursing Research

Thanks to Congressional financial backing for the Tri-service Nursing Research

Program, Air Force nursing research continues forward again this year. Between

1992 and 1995, 13 of the 75 Tri-service nursing research studies came from the Air

Force: 1 of 8 (13 percent) in 1992, 5 of 20 (25 percent) in 1993, 3 of 24 (13 percent)

in 1994, 4 of 23 (17 percent) in 1995, 7 of 29 (24 percent) in 1996, and 4 of 30 (13

percent) in 1997. Proposals completed through Tri-service Nursing Research Program during those years included: Readjustment of Gulf War Veteran Women/A Follow Up, Healing Touch, Impact of Story Telling on Burnout/Nursing Expertise, the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
484

Air Force Nurse Transition Program, and Leadership Development. Through the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Bill for military nursing

research, 12 of the 63 proposals for Tri-service nursing research were forwarded by

the AF Nurse Corps for consideration by the Tri-service Nursing Research Program

oversight body. In line with legislative language in the appropriations bill, proposals

submitted by Air Force nurses in the Active-Duty, Guard, and Reserve Command

included: Prenatal Care for Women In and Out of the U.S., Preventive Services:

Role of the Nurse Practitioner, Nurse Roles During Deployment to Croatia: A

Grounded Theory, and Health of Persian Gulf War Veteran Women.

Our medical centers have spearheaded the TNF efforts to ‘‘change the culture’’

and infuse research into practice. Assignment of Clinical Nurse Researchers (CNR)

to each of our clinical investigative sites has provided the integral and essential link

for nursing staff to incorporate research into day-to-day activities. The CNR’s are

tasked with increasing the nursing staff’s knowledge and participation in clinical research, increasing dissemination of research findings, and then utilize research findings.

Investigators at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) received four TriService

Nursing Research grants over the past 18 months. The studies are ongoing, and although no results are available, we anticipate the findings will have direct applicability to the AFMS. Nursing research will study: Effects of Position on Chest Tube

Drainage and Pressure, Efficacy of Three Fluids on Hydration During BW/CW training, Critical Care Experience and Training During Aeromedical Transport, and Experience of Chief Nurses in Military OOTW’s. In addition, the number of nursing

research studies at WHMC has increased 900 percent since assignment of the CNR.

In the previous 18-month period there were two nursing research protocols, currently there are 18. A study in the prevention of blister formation changed the management Basic Military Trainees preventing unnecessary outpatient visits and lost

training time. Investigation of the safe time frame for use of disposable oxygen humidification bottles for each patient led to a decreased consumption rate, saving

$6,000 annually in resupply.

Since assignment of a CNR to Keesler Medical Center in Mississippi, nursing staff

conducted and collaborated on eleven research studies and clinical trials as compared previously to two studies. Research topics range from health outcomes in diabetic management, effectiveness of smoking cessation programs, music therapy, and

clinical trials testing alternative antibiotic treatment of penicillin-resistant pneumonia and use of Interferon as a treatment for interstitial fibrosis. For the first

time, three research proposals were submitted to the Tri-Service Nursing Research

Program for extramural funding. The proposals will study self-help for women with

breast cancer, management of hypertensive patients through clinical nurse specialist interventions, and improvement of mother/infant outcomes by a locally designed

and implemented prenatal program.

David Grant Medical Center (DGMC) in California conducted three different types

of research classes per quarter for nursing personnel. Subsequently, nursing personnel received over 254 continuing education units at no external cost to the Air Force.

Six nursing studies were completed in clinically diverse areas such as prenatal fatigue for active duty mothers, birth control, visual changes with hyperbaric treatment, assessment of pitting edema, critical care nursing experience, and value perspectives of military officers. Four more clinical studies are ongoing, with three

more studies in the planning process.

A recent Air Force graduate of the USUHS Nurse Anesthesia program won the

American Association of Nurse Anesthetists’ 1996 Student Writing Contest for the

study she prepared on the ‘‘Incidence of Visible and Occult Blood on Laryngoscope

Blades and Handles,’’ published in the Association’s June 1997 journal. This paper

discussed the extent of contamination on anesthesia equipment that was identified

as being ready for patient use. The study confirmed that more rigorous decontamination protocols must be instituted to ensure complete removal of blood prior

to sterilization.

An Air Force Associate Professor at the USUHS is in the third phase of a large

international project to study the education and utilization of Nurse Anesthetists in

177 World Health Organization (WHO) member countries. The WHO collaborated

in this international study to provide information with respect to the quantity and

quality of anesthesia care delivered by nurses in all countries. This study is providing information that can serve as a basis for the future planning of anesthesia manpower resources and education. The results will be of use to the MHS as health care

providers and executives search for cost-effective approaches for the provision of

care and the management of services for their beneficiaries.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
485

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, I believe you can see that

Air Force nursing is generating lines of research aimed at issues critical to

healthcare delivery, whether in the military or civilian sector.

CONCLUSION

In closing, I feel a great sense of pride and accomplishment as the Corps Chief

of such an extraordinary group of officer and enlisted nursing professionals. The

Total Nursing Force is eager to work tough systemic issues impacting our people,

health care, and outcomes. Our Total Nursing Force Strategic Plan scripts the foundation of an evolving, living document addressing the challenges and opportunities

facing Nursing Services and the Air Force Medical Service today and into the 21st

century. As I address you today, I can say unequivocally that Air Force Nursing personnel are ready, willing, and able to protect our forces, protect our national interests, and advance democracy and freedom anytime, anywhere. Mr. Chairman and

committee members, thank you for recognizing the invaluable contributions of military nursing. We appreciate your support in behalf of the Department of Defense,

the Air Force Medical Service and the patients we serve.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. MARY ANNE GARDNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

NAVY NURSE CORPS

Senator STEVENS. Now we turn to you, Captain Gardner.

Captain GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, Senator, on behalf of Admiral

Engel who unfortunately could not be here today, I am honored to

attend and wish to thank you for this opportunity.

As Admiral Engel prepares to relinquish her position as Director,

I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few of Navy

Nurse Corps’ accomplishments and relay some concerns.

NURSE’S ROLE

In the changing U.S. health care environment, the military

nurse’s role remains unique. As we shift our practice focus to

health promotion and illness prevention, we must continue to care

for patients who are critically ill due to disease or trauma. At the

same time, we must remain prepared to go into harm’s way to care

for casualties in our operational missions. I am proud to relate

some of the work that Navy nurses of all grades, assignments, and

practice settings are doing to implement and support the seven

goals of the Nurse Corps’ strategic plan: operational readiness,

nursing practice, quality of life, leadership, participation in political

processes, education, and resources.

OPERATIONAL READINESS

Our fundamental goal and reason for existence is operational

readiness. Over 5,300 active and Reserve nurses constantly prepare

and are ready at a moment’s notice when the call comes to deploy.

Navy nurses excel in their abilities to practice diverse clinical nursing skills in varied locations such as aircraft carriers, hospital

ships, fleet surgical teams, and with the Fleet Marine Force.

Operational readiness also means being instantly prepared for

any event. A few examples include the recovery and treatment of

survivors after the tragic crash of Korean Air flight 801 in Guam,

deployment to Laos to aid in the humanitarian assistance program

educating the local hospital staff on the setup and use of donated

hospital equipment, and the upcoming exercise which will deploy

the U.S.N.S. Comfort that Admiral Koenig spoke of.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
486

UTILIZATION OF RESERVE FORCES

Crucial to our ability to continue the daily peacetime mission,

while maintaining a readiness posture, is the successful utilization

of our Reserve forces. Providing total force integration, Reserve

nurses superbly replace deployed active duty staff, thereby allowing continuation of our peacetime mission without interruption of

care. They have done this at Naval Hospital Bremerton during the

deployment of Fleet Hospital Five to Haiti, during operation Kernel

Blitz, and we drill at regular mobilization sites.

Contributory support at stateside, overseas, and other service

military treatment facilities is another example. The reserves

same-day surgery program, staffed by Navy, Army, and Air Force

Reserves, moved to David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air

Force Base, when Naval Hospital Oakland closed.

EXECUTING HEALTH CARE

But operational readiness also means keeping our service members fit, healthy, and at work. Navy nurses excel in planning and

executing health care delivery wherever needed. This could be

pierside, underway in local or extended ship operations, during

plebe summer at the Naval Academy, or during various recruit

training exercises such as the 54-hour Crucible Exercise at the end

of Marine Corps recruit training.

In more conventional settings, Navy nurses independently manage various patient populations in nurse-run clinics or they may be

at headquarters staff, working on the strategic plan that Admiral

Koenig also spoke of for women’s health.

In concert with the Surgeon General’s goal of making TRICARE

work, Navy nurses play pivotal roles at all levels, ranging from

one-on-one beneficiary education at the facility level, to shaping

and implementing policy at the lead agent and headquarters level,

all in a tri-service environment.

Recognizing health care delivery requires knowledge and proficiency related to information management and technology, Navy

nurses informatics expertise is steadily rising as more and more

nurses gain increasing education and even master’s degrees in this

exploding field. Nurses at all levels are closely involved with the

development and deployment of current clinical information systems which assist providers in making decisions about diagnoses

and treatments and also tracks readiness status for deployment.

As telehealth awareness increases, there are endless possibilities

for increasingly independent applications of telehealth by nurses,

by corpsmen, and by other health care personnel. A few of the

nursing applications include education conferences and the clinical

applications might include wound care clinics or patient education

efforts.

In another new initiative, we have focused efforts on acknowledging and respecting cultural diversity among our customers and

among our corps. Our recently formed cultural diversity working

group is defining culturally competent care and identifying ways to

ensure its delivery, with the understanding that culturally competent care is a major issue for Navy medicine and not just the

Nurse Corps. On the local level, various commands have estabU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
487

lished diversity councils and nurses reach out into communities assisting groups in melding cultural practices with healthy lifestyles.

As the complexity of our professional practice increases, it is absolutely essential to maintain a strong research foundation. Thanks

to the support of this committee, nursing research in the Navy has

made huge strides. Our doctorally prepared nurses at larger stateside and overseas facilities actively mentor the junior nurses in

basic clinical studies, in grant writing, and practice-based research

utilization. Study topics may range from military managed care in

the tri-service nursing environment and clinical studies on the effect of pain and patient positioning on patient recovery. These research results will help focus our efforts and limited resources in

areas that will positively impact our customers and provide potential cost avoidance.

FUNDING AND LEADERSHIP

Continued funding availability is essential to our maintaining a

solid base of nurse researchers. We continue to disseminate new

findings to the caregivers in the field, yielding new scientifically

validated information as the basis for our nursing practice.

Leadership is one of the strongest attributes of the nurses in our

corps. Admiral Engel, as you mentioned, exemplifies the changes

allowing Nurse Corps officers to compete for promotion to O–8, or

for a second star. Legislative initiatives that allow all Medical Department Corps to be eligible for selection as Surgeon General are

certainly welcome. The recent revision of the DOPMA grade tables

which allows more equitable promotion for Nurse Corps officers is

having positive effects.

By mid-1998, there will be 9 nurses in command and 15 executive officers or chiefs of staff at military medical treatment facilities, lead agent staffs, and education commands. Reserve Nurse

Corps officers currently command two of the four reserve fleet hospitals in the Navy and three of the nine stateside hospitals that

will be receiving casualties after combat.

The numerous accomplishments noted here would not be possible

without the dedicated, educated, and motivated nurses who demonstrate nursing excellence on a daily basis. Essential foundations

for this level of success have included a diversified accession plan,

an all baccalaureate basic preparation sufficient numbers of master’s prepared and board-certified members, and increasing doctoral

education for research and practice development.

Legislative initiatives have both encouraged and rewarded these

efforts. Accession bonuses for registered nurses, the nurse officer

candidate program, special pay for nonphysician providers with

board certification, incentive special pay for certified registered

nurse anesthetists, and continuing funding for nursing research are

welcome evidence of this committee’s support for nursing.

With an increased demand for baccalaureate prepared nurses by

the civilian sector, coupled with early indications of decreased numbers of eligible nurse graduates in the 21st century, we depend on

the continuation of these diversified programs to meet our requirements. Navy ROTC, the nurse officer candidate, and enlisted commissioning programs, combined with the direct recruiting accession

bonus, in total form a robust source for the best qualified nurses.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
488

As Admiral Engel’s tenure as the Director of the Nurse Corps

comes to a close, we feel great pride in the accomplishments resulting from the hard work of so many people throughout Navy medicine. However, much work remains. Increasing demands despite

limited resources require that our efforts be focused on maximizing

and integrating our personnel and training assets. Rapidly changing technologies and health care environments, coupled with expanding joint humanitarian missions, chemical, biological, and radiological threats, increased operating tempos, and the implementation of TRICARE will continue to challenge our readiness.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share the successes of the Navy Nurse Corps with you. These achievements

would not be possible without the continuing support of this committee. The Nurse Corps will always treasure that support because

it has been instrumental in allowing Navy nurses to demonstrate

that Navy nursing is nursing excellence.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Admiral Engel looks forward to serving this great Nation of ours

in a new capacity and providing the necessary leadership to develop tomorrow’s leaders today as we move into the 21st century.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. JOAN M. ENGEL

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to represent the Navy Nurse Corps. This is my last appearance before you

as Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Before I relinquish my tenure, I would like

to highlight a few of our many accomplishments and to relay my concerns.

The Compass that will continue to direct the Nurse Corps into the next century

is our Strategic Plan—‘‘Charting New Horizons.’’ Fittingly named at its origin, our

plan is a living document, which guides all aspects of our practice. Our plan is in

concert with the goals of the Navy Medical Department’s plan, ‘‘Journey to Excellence—Meeting the Challenges of the Future,’’ as well as the Military Health System (MHS) plan. In the changing U.S. health care environment, the military nurse’s

role is unique. As we shift our practice focus to health promotion and illness prevention, we must continue to care for patients who are critically ill due to disease or

trauma. At the same time, we must remain prepared to go into harm’s way to care

for casualties of our operational missions. I am proud to relate some of the work

that Navy Nurses across the spectrum of grades, assignments, and practice settings

are doing to implement and support the seven goals of our Strategic Plan: Operational Readiness, Nursing Practice, Quality of Life, Leadership, Participation in

Political Processes, Education, and Resources.

Our fundamental goal and reason for Navy Nurse Corps’ existence is operational

readiness. Over 3,200 active and 2,100 reserve nurses constantly prepare to be

ready at a moment’s notice when the call comes to deploy. On a daily basis, this

means keeping diverse clinical skills honed for patient care, whether in a stateside

military facility or assigned to one of many operational platforms worldwide. Nurse

Corps officers’ broad range of expertise and the comprehensive view they bring to

any assignment are well utilized in multiple operational settings. They excel in their

abilities to practice nursing in such diverse locations as aircraft carriers, hospital

ships, Fleet Surgical Teams, and with the Fleet Marine Force. Additional assignments include the Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force, Flight Nursing at

Scott Air Force Base, and as part of the Hyperbaric Medicine Team at the Naval

Operational Medicine Institute in Pensacola. Nurses also play a significant role as

medical planners at the Naval Doctrine Center and the Marine Corps Combat Development Center.

Operational readiness also means being instantly prepared in response to sudden

tragedy. Navy nurses from Naval Hospital Guam participated in the recovery and

treatment of survivors after the tragic crash of Korean Air flight 801 with 254 passengers and crew onboard. Nurses from other military medical treatment facilities

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
489

also played a key role in saving lives. Of the 32 survivors of this tragedy, 19 received treatment in the Naval Hospital, many requiring intensive nursing care.

Navy nurses provided significant psychological and debriefing support to the caregivers as members of our Special Psychiatric Rapid Intervention Team (SPRINT) deployed to this area.

Navy Nurses routinely support numerous operational exercises including all annual Marine Corps Medical Battalion exercises. Exercises involving our hospital

ships U.S.N.S. Mercy and U.S.N.S. Comfort are critical to giving Navy Nurses experience in an operational setting as well as supporting the exercise itself. In the upcoming ‘‘Baltic Challenge’’ exercise, the U.S.N.S. Comfort will deploy significant

numbers of Nurse Corps officers for an extended period. It will also test the lessons

learned from Desert Shield/Desert Storm in meeting our day to day missions of

peacetime health care in facilities supporting the deployment. In an unprecedented

assignment, last fall, an operating room nurse was sent to Sepon Hospital, Laos,

to support a Humanitarian Assistance Program—Excess Property program. The

purpose of the mission was to educate the local hospital staff on the set up and use

of donated medical equipment.

Integral to our ability to continue our day to day peacetime mission while maintaining a readiness posture is the successful utilization and integration of our Reserve personnel. Reserve nurses contribute to the ‘‘total force integration’’, providing

superbly skilled replacements for deployed active duty staff, thereby allowing continuation of our peacetime mission without decrement in care. Prior to Fleet Hospital Five’s deployment to Haiti, staffed by Naval Hospital Bremerton, Naval Reserve medical department nurses and other health care personnel substituted for

hospital staff members sent to Fleet Hospital training. During the active duty training phase alone, inpatient care was largely uninterrupted and over 1,000 patient

visits with ancillary tests were accomplished in 9,600 hours of Reserve duty (all

corps and specialties).

Several other treatment facilities implemented the Integrated Medical Support

Plan (IMSP). This plan emphasizes consistent Reserve drills at mobilization sites,

enhancing both the Reservists’ skills and the facility’s ability to meet its peacetime

and operational missions. A facility can gain six full weeks a year of a Reservist’s

time, instead of two weeks of annual training and disjointed portions of weekend

drills. For example, with the IMSP implementation, National Naval Medical Center,

Bethesda will become the primary drill site for approximately 450 officer and enlisted personnel. The positive effects of contributory support also extend to our overseas facilities. Twenty-nine Nurse Corps officers are providing support at such diverse sites in Okinawa, Guam, Spain, Italy and Africa. Reserve nurses’ contributory

support also extends to the other Services. Specifically, the Naval Reserve Same

Day Surgery program, which moved to David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air

Force Base, California when Naval Hospital Oakland closed, is being staffed by

Navy, Army, and Air Force Reserves.

Operational readiness also means keeping the Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Marines fit, healthy and at work. Numerous efforts are underway to bring medical care

to the deckplates, instead of the patient going to traditional clinic sites or medical

treatment facilities. Navy nurses were integral in this planning and remain essential to the daily operations of pierside clinics in Norfolk and Okinawa. In addition

to providing care in the clinic, the medical staff has expanded its services to include

a broader spectrum of health care onboard several of our ships. For example, a

nurse goes aboard these ships while in port or on local operations, supporting a

weekly women’s clinic, conducting regular health promotion classes and assisting

the staff in routine care. Nurses independently manage various patient populations

in wellness centers, cardiac rehabilitation programs and diabetes clinics, utilizing

established protocols, focusing on improving patient outcomes.

Navy Nurses practice at a broad scope of sites ranging from recruit training to

the headquarters level. Joining other Navy medical personnel, they support Marine

recruits as they complete their final boot camp exercise—‘‘The Crucible.’’ They are

there throughout the 54-hour exercise, assessing the potential risks, administering

treatment for blisters and dehydration, and providing lessons learned to better prepare for the rigors of the next exercise. Traditionally responsible for the education

and preparation of hospital corpsmen for independent roles, nurses are carrying out

this important task in a variety of settings. They are assigned to Field Service Support Groups, Field Medical Service Schools, to Marine Forces Pacific, and they deploy with Amphibious Readiness Groups on Fleet Surgical Teams. The nurse-run

Wellness Clinic at Quantico implements the Marines’ ‘‘Semper Fit’’ program objectives during the annual summer ‘‘Operation Bulldog’’ exercise, and nurses are part

of an augmented medical staff supporting Midshipmen at Annapolis during their

plebe summer. At the headquarters level, Navy nurses are integral members of the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
490

Women’s Health Strategic Planning Group (WHSPG), which coordinates, guides,

and monitors women’s health issues throughout the Navy Medical Department.

In concert with the Surgeon General’s goal of ‘‘making TRICARE work,’’ Navy

nurses play pivotal roles in the TRICARE arena. Interfacing with all levels of customers, these nurses provide consumers and staff members comprehensive education regarding key TRICARE concepts. Their assignment to Lead Agents staffs ensures valuable insights into staffing, contracting, performance improvement, and

standards of care, critical to shaping and implementing policy within the Military

Health System (MHS). With the advent of managed care, the three uniformed Services have integrated Mental Health and Maternal Child services in the National

Capitol Region. Uniformed and civilian nursing staff are shared between National

Naval Medical Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Malcolm Grow Air

Force Hospital. Issues related to consolidation are actively addressed and resolved

by multidisciplinary, TriService groups intent on keeping the patient as the focus

and center of care-giving.

As the complexity of our professional practice increases, it is absolutely essential

to maintain a strong research foundation. Thanks to the support of this committee,

nursing research in the Navy has made tremendous strides since its inception.

There are doctorally prepared nurses at our larger stateside and overseas facilities

who are actively mentoring junior nurses in basic clinical studies, in submission of

grant proposals and in utilizing research results in practice. A few of the newly

funded Navy studies for this fiscal year include: ‘‘Barriers to Subspecialty Care in

Military Managed Care;’’ ‘‘Effects of Pain on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications;’’ ‘‘Effects of Patients Positioning on Post-Surgical Recovery;’’ ‘‘Infant Birth

Weights and Psychosocial Profiles of Mothers;’’ and, ‘‘Nursing in a TriService Environment.’’ Results of these studies will help focus our efforts and limited resources

in areas that will positively impact our customers and provide potential savings to

the Navy. Funding availability for novice as well as experienced investigators is essential to ensuring we maintain a solid base of nurse researchers. Research Dissemination conferences help to get the new findings out to the caregivers in the

field, yielding new, scientifically validated information as an underpinning for nursing practice.

Recognizing that health care delivery requires knowledge and proficiency related

to information management and technology, Navy nurses at the local and enterprise

level are closely involved with the development, deployment and maintenance of

current Department of Defense (DOD) clinical information systems and the development of the Computer-based Patient Record (CPR). These systems are much more

sophisticated than bedside computers used to create a patient record. They will accept data from monitoring devices, feed data to personal information carriers, incorporate health risk assessment surveys, and accept and deliver information from

multiple providers involved in the beneficiary’s care. These information systems and

their data assist providers and clinicians in making decisions about diagnoses and

treatments, and also ascertain readiness status for deployment. The Computerbased Patient Record will ensure that data are accessible to authorized users at

military health facilities worldwide; from medical centers to ships, field medical

units; and, TRICARE network sites. In addition, automated information systems

will aggregate data, without patient identifiers, to support research, utilization

management and improvements in patient care. Expertise in information management as well as computer and database technologies applied to nursing is being

operationalized as more nurses are gaining masters’ degrees in nursing informatics

and becoming certified each year. This knowledge is being utilized in our military

medical treatment facilities, at information management commands, and by health

care policy staffs. There is also growing Nurse Corps participation in the rapidly expanding field of telemedicine. While the primary users are currently physician-focused, as exemplified by radiology, pathology and medical education applications,

nurses are increasingly involved as more clinics, hospitals and ships utilize telemedicine as an adjunct in the delivery of health care. As telehealth awareness increases, there are endless possibilities for increasingly independent applications of

telehealth by nurses, corpsmen and other professionals. A few of the nursing applications include wound care clinics and the extensive array of patient education opportunities.

Leadership is one of the strongest attributes of the nurses in our corps. Changes

allowing Nurse Corps officers to compete for promotion to O–8, and for all Medical

Department Corps to be eligible for selection as Surgeon General are welcome. The

recent revision of DOPMA grade tables, to allow more equitable promotion, is having positive effects on the Nurse Corps, and on Navy Medicine. By mid-1998, there

will be 9 nurses in command and 15 executive officers or chiefs of staff at military

medical treatment facilities, lead agent staffs, and education commands. Reserve

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
491

Nurse Corps officers currently command two of the four Reserve Fleet Hospitals.

Three of the nine Integrated CONUS Medical Operations Plan (ICMOP) facilities

(San Diego, Bremerton and Bethesda) are commanded by Reserve Nurse Corps officers. In the past two years we doubled the presence of Nurse Corps officers assigned

to Health Affairs and the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA). They hold such

pivotal positions as Director, Health Services Financing Policy, acting TMA Chief

of Staff and another as the Clinical Business Area Functional Manager. These assignments provide much-needed clinical background and expertise during planning

and decision-making in health care delivery. Additional experience is provided to

our Nurse Corps leaders of the future, who will continue to break new ground in

health care delivery and contribute to a strong Navy presence in the Military Health

System.

The many, many accomplishments mentioned here would not be possible without

the dedicated, educated, and motivated nurses who demonstrate nursing excellence

on a daily basis. The essential foundations for this level of success include an all

baccalaureate basic preparation, a sufficient number of master’s degreed and boardcertified members, and increasing doctoral education for research and practice advancement. Again, legislative initiatives have both encouraged and rewarded these

efforts. Accession Bonuses for Registered Nurses, Nurse Candidate Program, Special

Pay for Nonphysician providers with board certification, Incentive Special Pay for

certified registered nurse anesthetists, and continuing funding of nursing research

are welcome evidence of this committee’s support for nursing.

These external quality of life initiatives complement the internal efforts focused

on acknowledging, respecting, and valuing cultural diversity among our customers

and our Corps. Our newly formed Cultural Diversity Working Group is defining Cultural Competence and identifying ways to ensure its delivery, with the understanding that Culturally Competent Care is a Navy Medicine issue. Valuing the necessity

for culturally competent care, this group’s goal is to conduct and disseminate research findings that will familiarize and educate our staff members in our military

medical treatment facilities worldwide to practices and customs unique to our diverse patient populations. To date, emphasis has been placed on identifying educational resources, literature review, and exploring community resources to develop

a cultural competency model. More local efforts are visible as various commands establish diversity councils and as nurses go out into communities to assist groups in

melding cultural practices with healthy lifestyles.

As I review events over my tenure as the Director of the Nurse Corps, it gives

me great pride to reflect on the accomplishments that resulted from the hard work

of so many people throughout Navy Medicine. However, our work is not finished.

Increasing demands despite limited resources require that our efforts be focused on

maximizing and integrating our personnel and training assets. Our rapidly changing technologies and health care environments coupled with expanding joint humanitarian missions, chemical, biological and radiological threats, increased operating

tempos and the implementation of TRICARE will continue to challenge our readiness.

The Nurse Corps will continue to reap the benefits of and rely on the various diversified Nurse Corps initiatives that target recruitment and retention of generalist

and advanced practice nurses. With an increased demand for baccalaureate prepared nurses by the civilian sector, coupled with early indications of a reduced pool

of eligible nurse graduates in the 21st century, we depend on the continuation of

these programs to meet strength requirements. The Naval Reserve Officers Training

Corps (NROTC), Nurse Candidate Program (NCP), Medical Enlisted Commissioning

Program (MECP), in addition to the direct recruiting accession bonus, in total combine to form a robust source for the best qualified nurses. The NROTC Nurse Option

program has finally matured. This program is the linchpin of Nurse Corps accessions, with 287 midshipmen currently enrolled in 52 colleges and universities. Every

NROTC unit with Nurse Option midshipmen has been ‘‘adopted’’ by one of our Navy

Military Medical Treatment Facilities’ Nurse Corps officer staff. As a result, the

transition is eased from academia to the first practice assignment for these new

nurses and naval officers.

After several years of annual loss rates between 10 percent and 11 percent (or

higher), the Nurse Corps recorded an annual loss rate for fiscal year 1997 of 8.75

percent. While too early for conclusive analysis, these indicators point to the payoff of these diversified accession sources and special pays (increased incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists and board certified pay for non-physician providers)

so important for retention. As in the other Corps, the Nurse Corps relies on training-to-skills required for specialties within the community, as recruiting has been

historically unsuccessful. I ask that my relief continue to benefit from these various

initiatives that target the recruitment and retention of generalist and advanced

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
492

practice nurses. These accession and retention initiatives, in conjunction with strong

leadership and congressional support are critical components to turning the challenges ahead into readiness successes.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share the successes of the Navy

Nurse Corps with you. These achievements would not be possible without the continuing support of this committee. I will always treasure that support because it has

been instrumental in allowing Navy Nurses to demonstrate that ‘‘Navy Nursing IS

Nursing Excellence’’. I look forward to serving this great nation of ours in a new

capacity providing the leadership necessary to move us into the future as we develop tomorrow’s leaders today.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

Give the Admiral our best.

General Simmons.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. BETTYE SIMMONS, CHIEF, ARMY NURSE

CORPS

General SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, thank

you for this opportunity to provide brief remarks on the Army

Nurse Corps which today is 34 percent men. We are very, very

proud that we have such a high percentage of men in our Army

Nurse Corps. Senator, you will be glad to know that.

Army nurses continue to set the pace for innovations with a focus

on improving the timeliness, appropriateness, and quality of health

care. I will share some brief comments within the context of the

three core functions of the Army Medical Department: projecting a

healthy force, deploying the medical force, and managing the care

of our beneficiaries.

One initiative Army nurses are engaged in is a project to project

a healthy force through the Put Prevention Into Practice Program.

This program, part of a national campaign, focuses on the community and soldier work site prevention of disease rather than urgent

intervention. Through this initiative we formed partnerships with

commanders to promote healthy family lifestyles and prevent injuries. This unit-based program improves overall line unit readiness

by decreasing the amount of time soldiers are away from their unit

because of injuries and promotes healthy soldier lifestyles and personal responsibility for health.

TRI-SERVICE NURSING PROGRAM

Senator Inouye, your vision and support of tri-service nursing research serves to enhance the proliferation of relevant military

nursing research. For example, one study funded through tri-service nursing research dollars examined the benefits of physical

training for pregnant soldiers. The study analyzed the effects of a

pregnant soldier wellness program, including exercise and health

education in regard to birth outcomes, health care costs, and soldier postpartum physical fitness. Findings indicated that soldiers

participating in this program were more likely to carry their babies

to term and that they had fewer birth complications. Hospital costs

for soldiers in this program were significantly less than for soldiers

who did not participate. We thank you, sir.

We support the second core function of deploying the medical

force by ensuring individual medical readiness and the deployment

of Army nurses who are specialty trained to provide care in any

contingency. Again, a study funded by the tri-service nursing reU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
493

search program lays the foundation for clarifying the concept of individual readiness. We have used this information to develop training programs aimed at keeping ourselves ready and ensuring that

we are personally and mentally prepared and physically qualified

for the challenge.

We are training and graduating flexible advanced practice

nurses, specifically family nurse practitioners, who play a pivotal

role in TRICARE. Based on the tri-service nursing need to graduate the most flexible nurse practitioners, the Uniformed Services

University of Health Sciences instituted a 1-year program to transition adult and pediatric nurse practitioners to become family

nurse practitioners. The role of the family nurse practitioner in

providing quality, affordable, accessible health care is gaining acceptance in the service as well as in the civilian sector.

Army nursing continues to use research as the mortar and bond

for clinical practice. The tri-service nursing research program is the

foundation on which we build this initiative. The tri-service nursing research program has enabled the creation of a partnership

with the National Institute of Nursing Research. This initiative fosters the rapid translation of fundamental research findings into

clinical applications and directs a portion of this investment toward

military and peacetime operations and the urgent problems stemming from preventable disease, violence, and substance abuse.

Nursing continues as a linchpin in the health care delivery system by spearheading initiatives to increase individual responsibility and accountability for wellness.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and members of this committee for

your ongoing support of initiatives to improve the delivery of health

care to our beneficiaries. As military nursing practice continues to

evolve, we remain a recognized leader in our profession because of

the unswerving commitment to recruit and retain the very best

nurses to care for America’s sons and daughters.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. BETTYE SIMMONS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am Brigadier General Bettye Simmons, Chief, Army Nurse Corps. Thank you for this opportunity to

provide a brief report on the status of the Army Nurse Corps. Army nursing continues to set the pace for innovations with a focus of improving the timeliness, appropriateness and quality of healthcare. Today I will share some of these initiatives

within the context of the three core functions of the Army Medical Department.

These functions are: Project a healthy and protected force, Deploy the medical force,

and Manage the care of all beneficiaries as accountable advocates.

Army nurses are active participants in deploying a healthy force through initiatives aimed at protecting the health of soldiers. These initiatives include improving

soldier access to care, preventing disease and injury and promoting soldier awareness of healthy lifestyles. We are improving access and efficiency by providing care

where soldiers live. At Fort Hood, soldier sick call and family care services are provided in a facility that is co-located with troop billets and family housing areas.

Here, the health care team collaborates to not only provide acute care management

but teach family strategies designed to promote family health. Readiness is enhanced with a nurse managed OB-GYN clinic at Fort Campbell staffed with nurse

practitioners and nurse midwives that provides easy, in and out nursing care conducive to female soldier’s around-the-clock schedules.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
494

We continue to make tremendous strides in health promotion. Army community

health nurses are busy putting the punch into the Army’s ‘‘Put Prevention into

Practice’’ program. This program, part of a national campaign, focuses on community and soldier worksite prevention of disease rather than urgent intervention.

Today, at Fort Bliss, Texas, we are collaboratively implementing one of the first

service model sites for this program. By figuratively pushing the walls of the medical facility out to soldier worksites, we can form partnerships with line commanders

to promote healthy soldier lifestyles and prevent injuries. This concept of worksite

wellness includes wellness lecture and self-care portable take-home packages. The

program will improve overall line unit operability by decreasing the amount of time

soldiers are away from their unit due to disease or injuries and will promote healthy

soldier lifestyles to further reduce sick days. Commanders will have optimally fit

and healthy soldiers with which to perform their missions.

Military nursing research supports our initiatives to deploy a healthy force. One

Army nursing study examined whether physical training is safe for pregnant soldiers and their unborn children. Physical training is a routine part of normal military duty because of its role in maintaining combat readiness. The study’s investigator analyzed the effects of a pregnant soldier wellness program, including exercise

and health education in regard to birth outcomes, health care costs and soldier

postpartum physical fitness. Findings indicated that soldiers participating in the

program were more likely to carry their babies to term, their babies had higher

birth weight and there were fewer birth complications. Hospital costs for the care

of each soldier in the wellness group was significantly less than for soldiers who did

not participate in the program. This research sparked a highly successful nurse

managed program at Fort Campbell that enrolls active duty pregnant females; monitors and educates them as they proceed through their pregnancy so that these soldiers are returned to duty quicker, healthier, fitter.

Moving health care access out to the soldiers and their families, providing fast,

‘‘carry-out’’ health education for soldiers, promoting healthy lifestyles that focus on

prevention of illness rather than intervention, are three ways that we are supporting the Army Medical Department to deploy a healthy force.

We support the second core function of deploying the medical force by ensuring

individual medical readiness and the deployment of Army nurses who are specialtytrained to provide care in any contingency. Defining the term, ‘‘individual medical

readiness’’, is crucial to our abilities to measure it, track it and promote it. One

study funded by the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program lays the foundation for

clarifying the concept of ‘‘individual readiness.’’ The Army nurse researchers uncovered interesting go-to-war readiness variables such as psychological readiness and

attitude readiness that extend beyond the variables we’ve traditionally used to define readiness, that is; immunization status or weapons qualification. We can use

this information to develop training aimed at promoting a type of ‘‘comprehensive

readiness coverage’’ that insures our medical personnel are mentally prepared and

physically qualified to face the austere combat environment.

We have re-focused our specialty nurse training so that active duty nurses as well

as our reserve component partners are capable of global deployment with the right

skills and the right knowledge for the right mission. We implemented the reserve

and active duty Emergency Nurse Course to increase our pool of trauma-trained

nurses thereby expanding and improving our capabilities on the battlefield. We are

training and graduating flexible advanced practice nurses; specifically, family nurse

practitioners who play a pivotal role in TRICARE as well as any contingency environment. Based on the Tri-Service’s urgent need to graduate the most flexible kind

of nurse practitioners, the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences

(USUHS) instituted a one-year certification program whereby adult or pediatric

nurse practitioners can become family nurse practitioners. This partnering between

the Tri-Service community and the University opened three faculty positions for active duty instructors at the nurse practitioner schoolhouse. As the mission of the

Army Medical Department changes and continues to evolve, we remain proactive in

producing nurses who can meet the challenges of a dynamic healthcare environment.

Army nurses are an important linchpin in managing beneficiary care as accountable advocates. Several Army nursing studies that examined better business practices were funded through Tri-Service nursing grants. For example, a project dubbed

the electronic housecall is using technology to improve access to care. This project,

directed by a nurse at Eisenhower Army Medical Center in Georgia, furnishes interactive television nursing assessment of patients at high risk for complications and

frequent admissions to the hospital. The project has been underway for more than

a year and has provided over 200 telenursing visits to more than two dozen patients. Data shows that patients enrolled in this project are requiring less outpatient

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
495

clinic visits and fewer in-home visits. Community health nurses in Hawaii are using

telehealth technology to reduce the potential for child abuse and neglect with a Department of Defense sponsored program called ASPECTS, an acronym that stands

for ‘‘A Solid Parenting Experience through Community Teaching and Support’’. Long

range goals for this program include utilizing real-time images, voice, worldwide

web and Internet chat rooms to provide enhanced 24-hour access for the program’s

parents to resources that support their learning process. The program just completed a research study that demonstrated a reduction in child abuse and neglect

tendencies as well as the unexpected finding of 99 percent child immunization rates.

Army nursing continues to use research as the mortar linking science with clinical

practice. The Tri-Service Nursing Research Program is the foundation for this movement. Recently, a full-time executive director position was established, based on Institute of Medicine guidance, to provide oversight and maintain day-to-day operational management of the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program. The Army Nurse

Corps had the honor of being the first to serve in this new position, which will rotate among the three services. The maturation and evolution of the program, with

an ever-growing number of funded grants, now over 135, has demanded this oversight to ensure fiscal responsibility. The Tri-Service Nursing Research Program has

enabled the creation of a partnership with the National Institute for Nursing Research. This initiative fosters the rapid translation of fundamental research findings

into clinical applications and directs a portion of the Department of Defense investment toward military and peacetime operations; humanitarian assistance, and the

urgent problems stemming from preventable illness, violence, and substance abuse.

Army nurses continue to serve soldiers and their families by preventing disease,

promoting health and delivering specialized care. Wherever you find soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines or Coast Guard personnel, you will find Army nurses standing

by, Ready, Caring, Proud.

In closing Mr. Chairman, I thank you and members of this committee for your

ongoing support of initiatives to improve the delivery of care to our beneficiaries.

Military nursing continues to be on the cutting edge of healthcare as well as a recognized leader in our profession through your commitment to a world-class

healthcare system.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, General.

Senator Inouye.

ENTRY LEVEL DEGREE

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I just received my second call to

return to the Commerce Committee. So, I have many questions I

would like to submit to the panel, but I have one question I want

to ask for the record here.

As most of you are aware, I have been following nursing careers

ever since the end of World War II, and I have noted that since

the end of that war, the entry level for nurses has always been a

professional bachelor’s of science baccalaureate degree. This has

provided you the independence, the professionalism that is necessary in your work. But now I gather that OMB is recommending

that the entry level be reduced to an associate’s degree. I personally think it is a bad step, and I hope you agree with me. What

are your thoughts?

General SIMMONS. Sir, thank you for that statement. We cannot

afford to let the associate degree be the entry level in the Army

Nurse Corps. The standard for professional military officership is

minimally the baccalaureate degree.

In addition, in an ever-increasing complex health care delivery

system, we need to ensure that we have the very brightest and

very best providing care. The only way to ensure that nursing as

a discipline is at the decisionmaking table in the health care delivery system is to ensure that we are comparably leader developed

and educated as the rest of our colleagues. To compromise that in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
496

any way is to subjugate us in the organization and to decrease our

ability to be at the table in our organizations.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Captain GARDNER. I would certainly endorse everything that

General Simmons has said. It is my understanding that for the moment OMB has agreed to support us, but will ask for a separate

independent study of associate degree prepared nurses. And that is

fine. We would be glad to support and provide that information. It

is readily available about the differences between associate degree

graduates and baccalaureate graduates, and what we need is the

additional training and experience and education that a baccalaureate has because of the unique role of a leader as well as a

nurse.

ENTRY-LEVEL QUALIFICATIONS FOR AIR FORCE NURSES

Senator INOUYE. General.

General STIERLE. I would agree with what both of my colleagues

have said.

In addition I would say—I think General Simmons hit on it a little bit in terms of flexibility—that in the military you really have

to be a generalist, and a baccalaureate education provides our

nurses with the additional skills and knowledge that they need to

be able to operate successfully in many different environments. We

are not talking just about inpatient care. As health care moves into

the ambulatory care setting, as we become more and more involved

with prevention and community health care, individuals that are

trained at the ADN level absolutely do not have that knowledge

and skills.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

May I be excused?

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir. Thank you.

General Simmons, you spoke about the physical training study.

Have you published the results of that in places like the Journal

of American Medicine and that sort of thing?

General SIMMONS. Yes, sir; the results of that study—sir, it was

funded by tri-service nursing research in 1997 and it is pending

publication right now. But we have numerous examples of studies

that have focused on wellness of soldiers to include certainly female

soldiers, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I think that is the kind of thing that we can

do for the general community is to make available the results of

studies like that. I am a prostate cancer survivor. We have a whole

series of statistics now coming out following people in the military,

men who have had prostate problems. The whole concept now having this enormous force of women in uniform is that there is a statistical base there, and the results of these studies can be shared

with the public at large. I hope that you will do that and follow

through on it.

I also want to congratulate you very much in terms of what you

are doing to shift the concepts of military health care delivery to

focus on prevention rather than on really intervention and in-hospital care. The concepts that you have with collocating your health

care facilities in the family housing areas are extremely beneficial

to all concerned.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
497

I understand that those are at a very limited number of facilities.

Can you tell me why are those programs that have been so beneficial just at a limited number of military facilities?

General SIMMONS. Sir, I think the move toward wellness, obviously consumer driven, takes time. Health care has always been

hospital based. It is totally a different mindset and we have to

evolve as well. We are hospital based. The structures are based on

where people come when they are sick. The initiatives to put

wellness centers, health promotion centers in family housing areas

is evolving, slowly but surely, but we also have to resocialize ourselves and our consumers of health care to be responsible and accountable for their own health care rather than coming to a health

care provider to treat them when they are sick. We are resocializing ourselves. We are resocializing our consumers, just as mainstream America is doing the same.

That does not really answer your question, but it is happening,

probably not as quickly as any of us would like to see, but I would

say that we are making steady progress, sir.

PHYSICAL TRAINING/BREAST FEEDING

Senator STEVENS. Well, the results of your study on physical

training—has a directive gone out in the services to women who

are in all the services to pursue the physical training tactics?

General SIMMONS. Yes, sir; initially when women became pregnant, they sort of became physically inactive. As a result of this

study, we have at least one-half of our installation wellness programs for pregnant soldiers to keep them ready, to keep them actively engaged in their units. So, the findings are disseminated in

the Army and in the other services, and all of those programs to

keep women healthy during pregnancy, to return them to duty very

quickly, to ensure that they deliver healthy babies with few complications and decrease the cost of the hospitalization and recovery

are again, sir, happening very, very successfully.

Senator STEVENS. What are you doing about breast feeding for

soldiers and people in the service?

General SIMMONS. Sir, breast feeding. General Stierle probably

wants to answer that. [Laughter.]

AIR FORCE BREAST-FEEDING PROGRAM

Senator STEVENS. We are very pragmatic up here. I am looking

at some programs now trying to find ways to assist women in the

economy in general to have access to breast feeding time and to assure that they can follow their own desires in that regard but have

available time for that.

Are you looking into that in the services?

General STIERLE. Well, I think again that Put Prevention Into

Practice Program and the focus on health promotion in terms of

educating not just the medical community but the line community.

Recent studies, that have been done, show the advantages that

breast feeding has for the child throughout the course of their lifetime. So, it is making sure that we get this information out there

so that there is support for these individuals that want to breast

feed and, not only those that want to, but also trying to increase

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
498

the numbers that will breast feed in terms of the long-term benefits.

Also when you were speaking about what we are doing to try and

get the word out in regard to various nursing research studies that

have been completed, we are partnering also with USUHS to develop a central repository for all of the tri-service nursing research.

It will also then tie into the national data base, so that we do not

necessarily have to keep replicating and we can build upon research that has been done in the past.

Senator STEVENS. I am going to put someone in touch with you

all to see that we have your ideas as we go into this new concept

of legislation to assure that there is a national policy that allows

for time. In my State, 70 percent of the women of childbearing age

work out of their home, and this is becoming a sizable problem now

to assure that the facilities are available, that the people understand, particularly the male employers understand, what their obligations are to see that the woman can follow the procedures she

wants to follow with regard to her child.

CAREER PROFESSIONALS

Let me talk to you about another thing. I think you heard I have

sort of got a technology bent here lately. The advancements in technology, particularly in medical technology, are creating new careers

now for professionals that are nonphysicians. What are the nurses

doing about examining those careers and determining which should

be in the Nurse Corps and which should be in any other part of

the armed services?

The technology really I think is coming very rapidly, the angioCT and all those things. You do not have to be a physician to be

involved, but they are going to require very capable career professionals. Tell me, what is your thinking about that?

General SIMMONS. Sir, as we look at scope of practice issues,

what constitutes appropriate practice for nursing, we collaborate

with all members of the team, the physician, the physicians’ assistant, our clinical medical service corps officers, to identify what

skills we need to best provide beneficiary care in a resource efficient manner that translate, oh, by the way, to our go-to-war skills.

There are some skills, if you talk about advanced procedures and

techniques that are the basis for graduate medical education. Some

of that in our health care delivery system will almost always be

provided by physician providers because of graduate medical education and the need to prepare physician providers.

But as we look at resource efficient primary care, maintaining

health—you mentioned earlier about physical exams and the components of those. The role of the nurse practitioner to keep people

healthy rather than treating disease, that is, someone comes in for

an annual physical, needs a colonoscopy and all those other things

associated with wellness. That role is indeed happening as we

speak in our family practice clinics, in our adult primary care clinics to maximize the ability of every member of the team, the nurse

practitioner, the PA, to maximize the skills that we have and at

the same time ensure that we get our beneficiaries to the right

place that we maintain physician subspecialty care for the sickest

and maximize our own ability to keep our beneficiaries healthy.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
499

Senator STEVENS. Captain, we saw a demonstration of the use of

telemedicine in operating procedures. I am sure you have seen the

same demonstration. What is the Navy doing? Are some of those

professional requirements being filled by nurses in the Navy, highly technical medical delivery services?

Captain GARDNER. As far as delivering health care via telehealth, we are doing this to a certain extent, but along the more

traditional lines of the providers that we have right now—for instance, the nurse midwives have been heavily involved in some

telehealth with both conferencing, consulting, and with educating

their population.

Where we have more involvement, rather than increasing the

technological skill level of the providers by using telehealth, is

where we have more nurses involved in the policy and planning of

telehealth and how best to leverage it for all health care personnel.

We have people involved in the computer-based patient record development which benefits all of the providers, as well as the patients.

We have people involved in the radiology and picture archiving

technology system, not as the individual who is going to read the

technology, but the individual who plans how best to utilize it once

it is in place and where best to put it.

We have other nurses involved in the clinical information system

that again is a system used by more than just nurses. You are

going to seldom find things that are just targeted toward one provider but really require the collaborative team, and that has been

our place in the telehealth business to date.

TELEHEALTH

Senator STEVENS. General, you started to answer.

General STIERLE. Yes; in the U.S. Air Force, again, one of our

unique missions is global aeromedical evacuation. General

Roadman addressed care in the air. We are going to be transporting stabilized versus stable patients—more critically ill patients

than we have ever transported in the history of the Armed Forces.

Again, telehealth, is going to be an important concept of caring

for those patients in the air. It is going to become increasingly

more important that we be able to transfer real-time information

from the air to the ground and back to the air. We must be able

to consult with people on the ground in regard to patients that may

deteriorate in flight and need things changed.

Actually the delivery of care in the aeromedical environment is

predominantly nursing. That is going to be changing over time. We

are going to have more physicians and respiratory therapists involved than we have had in the past. But historically it has been

predominantly a nursing care environment.

But getting back to again what you are saying about advanced

technologies and who are we allowing to do what, I think, again,

the Armed Forces has always been an example of where we have

typically allowed people to practice beyond the traditional scope of

practice because of wartime requirements.

All three services have been looking at very intently at positions

and they need to be a specific discipline or be corps neutral. We

have individuals very qualified to practice in many different areas,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
500

and we should not deprive them of opportunities to expand into

other areas of practice, based on historical practices.

Senator STEVENS. Very good. We thank you very much.

Senator Inouye and I will send a letter to OMB about the issue

of lowering the educational requirements. We would not like to see

the situation develop where we have to put a prohibition in law but

I think they might get the message. We hope they will.

General SIMMONS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator STEVENS. We do thank you for what you do, and I commend the way that you are moving into these areas and assuring

us that we have the ability to carry out the plan which is downsizing, to a great extent, the people who are involved in military

hospitals. More and more the system is going to rely upon the physicians’ assistants and the nurses who are going to take on particularly this outpatient load that is increasing as the facilities are

closed. So, I want you to know Senator Inouye that I have had a

great interest in this over the years. We hope you will keep us informed if you run into any difficulties.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

And we congratulate you on the studies you are doing too. I

think they are very beneficial.

So, thank you very much. I am looking forward to seeing you

again.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO BRIG. GEN. BETTYE SIMMONS

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

TELEHEALTH

Question. How has nursing interfaced with telemedicine/telehealth?

Answer. The Army Nurse Corps has two ongoing telenursing initiatives, two research studies with a telehealth focus and a distance learning initiative.

Telenursing initiatives

A telenursing project at Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center in Georgia

furnishes interactive television nursing assessment of patients at high risk for complications and frequent admissions to the hospital. The project, funded through

DOD, Medical College of Georgia, the medical facility and Georgia Institute of Technology, has been underway for more than a year and has provided over 200 telenursing visits to more than two dozen patients.

Community health nurses in Hawaii are using telehealth technology to reduce the

potential for child abuse and neglect with a DOD sponsored program called ASPECTS (‘‘A Solid Parenting Experience through Community Teaching and Support’’). The program just completed an intensive, valid and reliable research project

that clearly demonstrated the program is in fact reducing the potential for child

abuse and neglect within the targeted high-risk population. Long range goals for the

project are to increase the nurse’s frequency of contact with patients and allow them

to assess potential problems more quickly and efficiently, thus making the nurse

more responsive to the family’s needs.

Telenursing research

One nursing study funded by Project Akamai is aimed at identifying key factors

of patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine. The nurse researcher intends

to use data collected during the study to develop a survey instrument geared toward

evaluating the impact of telemedicine on the science of medicine (technical/instrumental aspects of care), the art of care interpersonal/expressive/communicational aspects of care) and the amenities of care (properties of the setting in which care is

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
501

provided). The finalized instrument will provide guidance and a quality focus for

emerging telemedicine systems.

A nursing study funded by the TriService Nursing Research Program is developing a monitoring system using piezoelectric film material to provide an accurate

measurement of patients’ vital signs in high-noise, high-vibration environments

such as MEDEVAC helicopters or combat areas. The piezoelectric material is built

into MEDEVAC stretchers and is picking up pulse and respiratory rates very effectively, even through Battle Dress Uniforms.

Distance learning

The DOD/VA Distance Learning Project (initiated in Fall, 1997) at the Uniformed

Services University of the Health Sciences, successfully links DOD and VA assets

to collaboratively implement an accredited academic post-master’s program. The

program is designed for clinical nurse specialists practicing at VA or DOD Medical

Center facilities who met the admission criteria. It will award a certificate in adult

nurse practitioner education and graduates will be eligible for national certification.

The interactive teleconferencing technology located at USUHS is the broadcast site

that connects with eight offsites for two-way (audio and video) interaction. This program will reduce educational costs by electronically reaching out to different worksites across the country. This project can offer recommendations for further uses of

distance learning.

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO CAPT. MARY ANNE GARDNER

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Question. How has nursing interfaced with telemedicine/telehealth?

Answer. Expertise in information management, computer and database technologies applied to nursing is being operationalized. More nurses are gaining masters’ degrees in nursing informatics and becoming certified each year. This knowledge is being utilized in our military medical treatment facilities, at information

management commands, and by health care policy staffs. Examples include the following:

A Navy Nurse Corps Commander is the Project Officer for Joint Imaging Technology Project Office (JITPO) under the direction of the Telemedicine Program Office.

Triservice personnel as well as government/contract civilians are responsible for

the planning, coordination and installation of Picture Archiving Communication

Systems for digital radiography and management of 31 sites valued at more than

$100 million.

Clinical Business Area.—Navy Nurse Corps officer is assigned as Functional Manager. Navy nurse participation in telemedicine is growing. Although primary use is

currently physician-focused and directly applicable to radiology, pathology and medical education applications; nurses are becoming increasingly more involved as clinics, hospitals and ships begin to utilize telemedicine as an adjunct in the delivery

of health care. Further examples of Navy nurse involvement in telemedicine/telehealth are:

Distance learning:

Presentation of a Bicoastal Emergency Room/Critical Care Nursing conference.

Participation in joint Department of Veterans’ Affairs/Department of Defense distance learning program.

Participation in USUHS distance learning for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists to obtain Masters of Science degree.

Telemedicine/Telehealth application is a high interest item for the Military Nursing Chiefs. Future uses of telehealth by nurses and corpsman are envisioned in

independent settings such as wound care clinics and through an extensive array of

patient education opportunities.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
502

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. We are going to recess now. On April 22 we

are going to have the ballistic missile defense program before the

subcommittee, and we will announce the room at a later date.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Wednesday, April 1, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 22.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP01.000
(503)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Shelby,

Hutchison, Inouye, Bumpers, and Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION

STATEMENT OF GEN. LESTER L. LYLES, U.S. AIR FORCE, DIRECTOR

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Good morning. We are pleased to welcome you

to discuss ballistic missile defense [BMD] programs. There are

many other committee meetings going on this morning. I have no

knowledge of how many other members of our committee will get

here today. I do hope others will come if they have questions.

When we met 1 year ago, we were still on the verge of a fifth

bad intercept attempt. We are awaiting the first PAC–3 intercept

attempt, and we are anticipating the selection of a lead systems integrator to permit the National Missile Defense Program to proceed.

The underlying progress—there is underlying progress in many

areas, both the national and defense interceptor secrets have been

successfully flown and collected data. Further significant integrated

testing has been completed on THAAD and the PAC–3 interceptors,

testing which will, hopefully, lead to successful flight tests. I am

sure you will highlight other progress made in this past year as

you outline the fiscal year 1999 budget request. I think we need

to be conscious of what lies ahead.

The Defense budget is likely to be flat for the foreseeable future.

Together with other members of this committee, I have been and

will continue to be a strong supporter of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. These programs to me are still very essential. The

tight budget environment will provide less tolerance for cost growth

and troubled programs. We need to work with you to ensure that

your programs are structured for success, with adequate ground

and flight testing to develop a combat ready system.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
504

The supplemental spending bill is moving to conference now. It

does include funds to enhance the integration and testing of current theater ballistic missile defense systems. I want to welcome

your thoughts on the initiatives recommended in the supplemental,

many of which were highlighted to the Congress by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Hamre.

You have a tough job, General. We want to help you whenever

possible. We look forward to your testimony, and I’m going to make

your full statement a part of the record. Before you proceed, when

he arrives—Senator Inouye will be late—we will ask him to make

his opening remarks when he comes and will reserve a place in the

record here for his statements if he wishes to make any.

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I have to tell you I am a little frustrated with

what is going on up my way in terms of that Kodiak test site. I

do hope to get a chance to talk to you about that, either here today

or later.

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. But I would be pleased to have your comments

at this time. Thank you, General.

OPENING STATEMENT

General LYLES. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, it really is

a pleasure to be back here to present the Department of Defense’s

Ballistic Missile Defense Program. Mr. Chairman, I do have a formal statement that I will submit for the record and some brief remarks I would like to go through, and I promise to keep them brief

so we can welcome your comments and the comments of the other

members.

Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, Congress and the administration have consistently directed that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization [BMDO] focus on three priorities for our missile

defense programs. The first priority is developing and fielding highly effective theater missile defense programs or TMD as we refer

to them. The second priority is developing for deployment a National Missile Defense Program and a third is maintaining a substantial advance missile defense technology program.

Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 1999 budget request reflects those

priorities, and it maintains both program focus and momentum to

try to keep the challenges we have ahead of us on the right track.

To outline very quickly, Mr. Chairman, our total BMDO fiscal year

1999 budget request is $3.6 billion. This includes $3.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation; $409 million for procurement; and $17 million for military construction.

When you combine these three budget categories and you look at

the aggregate in terms of percentages, theater, air, and missile defense account for $2.1 billion of that $3.6 billion or roughly 59 percent. NMD, the National Missile Defense Program represents $962

million in fiscal year 1999, or 27 percent. Advanced technology is

$253 million, which is about 7 percent of our budget, and something we call generically technical operations which includes infrastructure support for all of the other programs is $194 million or

5 percent of our budget.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
505

There are two new categories for fiscal year 1999, Mr. Chairman.

One is threat and countermeasures. A program that owes a lot of

credit to Senator Cochran for the strong support he’s given us in

trying to make sure that’s a robust effort. And the next is international cooperative programs. Now, these are not new efforts, but

we’ve aggregated them in a different manner. Together they represent $72 million or about 2 percent of the BMDO budget.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t need to tell you our experience over the

last couple years reaffirms that developing and fielding missile defenses is not an easy task. It’s a unique challenge in many respects.

And all of us who participate in this challenge realize how difficult

it really is.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MISSION AREAS

Ballistic missile defense should not be looked upon as individual

programs, but literally as an entire mission area. As an example,

in theater missile defense, we’re trying to develop a family of systems. And that’s not just BMDO that’s making that statement. We

recently had several of our CINC’s, including Admiral Gaman from

an Atlantic command talk to the Joint Requirements and Operations Counsel, the JROC, within the Joint Staff emphasizing that

we need to look at theater missile defense as a family of capabilities, interoperable capabilities.

Those family of systems have to be interoperable with each other.

They have to complement each other to provide what the warfighter needs in terms of capabilities. And as the committee is

keenly aware, when conflicts arise, the military fights jointly. They

do it in an integrated manner, and we have to make sure that

we’re procuring systems and acquiring and developing them in that

same joint manner. That’s what interoperability and in some respects what our organization is all about.

Mr. Chairman, this past year, the Department of Defense has

given BMDO an added responsibility. About a little over 11⁄2 years

ago, we were directed to develop and integrate a joint architecture

for not just ballistic missiles threat, but for cruise missile defense

also. We’re bringing together those two architectures, and we really

are trying to do them from a joint perspective. We call this integrated activity theater air and missile defense. And our task is to

provide a joint architecture for both sides of that particular problem.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of our many challenges, I can tell you literally that we are on the verge of fielding a comprehensive interoperable and highly effective missile defense system that’s responsive to the existing and to the emerging threats to the United

States. And clearly, this is due in no small part to the very, very

strong support we get from Congress.

I provided a set of charts which outline the details of our programs and the details of what we’re trying to do. I would not go

through each one of them in detail. I’ll just very quickly list them

and tell you what’s in them, and they have been provided for the

record, and we can literally answer any questions associated with

each one of them.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
506

mj-80411B / 032098

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

MASTER SCHEDULE

Acronyms:

	 MS	-	Milestone

	 CD	-	Concept Definition

	 DAB	-	Defense Acquisition Board

	 UOES	-	User Operational Evaluation System

	 FUE	-	First Unit Equipped

	 IOC	-	Initial Operational Capability 

	 PD-V	-	Program Definition-Validation

	 IFT	-	Integrated Flight Test

	 IST	-	Integrated System Test	 

Acquisition Program FY 98 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 99 FYDP

TY $ In Millions

National Missile Defense

 (3+3)

2 3 4 5 IST

CD Phase EKV

Down Select

1st Deploy

Decision Point

Earliest IOC

1st Launch

SBIRS

941.7 962.7 3,164.9

PATRIOT (PAC-3)

MS III

Conf 3

FUE

Navy Area

MS III

FUE

UOES I UOES II

Navy Theater Wide First

Intercept Kill Vehicle 

Assessment

DAB

MS II

FUE 

Block 1

THAAD System MS II UOES

FUE

MEADS PD-V Phase 

Complete

Theater Missile Defense

539.6 480.5 2,158.1

293.8 300.0 1,950.8

390.8 821.7 3,276.2

419.4 190.4 843.5

46.1 43.0 99.3

Production

Production

Dev

Dev Production

FY 07

MS III

Dev

O F E F E N E S

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DEFE E N S

M ISS IL E

A LL ISTI C

B

The first chart illustrates the master schedule for our theater

missile defense programs and for our NMD Program. It outlines

the current funding shown on the chart, the fiscal year 1999 request, and our projected future years defense program of FYDP

level for each one of those specific programs.

In addition, the chart outlines some of the key milestones for

each one of those major defense acquisition programs and including

when they will go into production and when we will actually start

fielding them. While TMD and NMD comprise the lion’s share of

our budget as I mentioned earlier, as I stated also, we’re developing very critical missile defense technologies.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
507

Advanced Concept For Space Based Global 

Coverage Missile Defense From Space

Advanced Technology Test Bed For 

Integrating And Testing The Next Generation 

Endoatmospheric Interceptor

Exploring Tomorrow’s Technology Today To 

Make The Next Generation Exoatmospheric 

Interceptor Affordable And Capable

Ensuring That The “Eyes And Ears” Of The 

Defensive System Are Keenly Tuned To The 

Evolving Missile Threat

Innovative Approaches To Exploit Latest 

Technical Discoveries For Improved 

Performance At Lower Cost

Harnessing Small Business Innovation For 

Advanced Missile Defenses

mj-81174 / 032098

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

O F E F E

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN N ES

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DE FE E N S

M IS SI L E

AL LI STI C

B Advanced Technology

	 •	 Space Based Laser

	 •	 Advanced 	 	 	

	 Interceptor 		 	

	 Technologies

	 •	 Discriminating 	 	

	 Interceptor 		 	

	 Technology 	 	

	 Program

	 •	 Phenomenology

	 •	 Innovative Science 	

	 And Technology

	 •	 Small Business

	 	 Innovative Research

409.4

	 122.1

33.0

27.3

30.9

64.5

49.1

253.5

	 58.8

24.5

25.3

20.2

24.0

61.5

1,215.7

	 293.4

97.1

186.1

76.5

198.8

287.7

Program FY 98 FY 99 FYDP Remarks

TY $ In Millions

The second chart, Mr. Chairman, lists some of those key efforts.

And that’s just a subfit of all the things we’re doing in technologies,

but those are some of the major efforts that we are embarking

upon.

AFFORDABILITY

Mr. Chairman, my prepared statement also provides some detailed information on cost control. And I think it gets to the heart

of one of your comments. Affordability is a very, very important parameter for all of us. I can tell you literally in the past when we

talk about missile defense programs, we talked about performance,

we talked about schedule.

I can tell you and promise you, Mr. Chairman, that affordability

is now a major part of our efforts for each one of our programs. My

prepared statement outlines some of the major things we’re doing

to ensure that we are addressing affordability for each of our specific programs. I have insisted not to just my own office, but to the

executing agents that we make sure that all of our programs are

not just effective, not just timely, but they’re also affordable. And

we’re doing a lot to make sure we can bring that to fruition, and

I’d be happy to address any questions or concerns anybody might

have about what we’re doing in the area of affordability.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
508

mj-76811 / 031098

THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA Lower Tier

•	THAAD (Endo / Exo)

•	Navy Theater Wide 

(Exo Only)

Upper Tier

•	Navy Theater Wide 

(Exo Only)

Ascent Phase Boost 

Phase

•	Airborne Laser

Ascent Phase

Late Midcourse Terminal

Phase

Exoatmosphere

300

Scud B

100

Scud

Mod 2

Lower Atmosphere 1,000

No Dong 1 3,000

CSS-2

600

M-9

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Boost 

Phase Endoatmosphere

Aim

Point

Midcourse

PATRIOT

THAAD

Navy Area 

MEADS

Navy Theater Wide

(Coverage Dependent On Ship Location)

ABL

2,000

Shahab 4

1,300

Shahab 3

Ascent Phase

Boost Phase

O F E F E N E S

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DEFE E N S

M ISS IL E

A LL ISTI C

B

•	PAC-3

•	Navy Area

•	MEADS

My third chart, Mr. Chairman, illustrates something I think

you’ve seen before and I think the committee members are very familiar with. It talks about the battle space, the battle space covered by each one of our programs. We show this to show and illustrate that each one of our programs has a unique niche. They are

all extremely important. All of them are required to ensure that we

really do have robust and effective theater missile defense systems.

While we’re emphasizing affordability, we also emphasize that

we need to have all of our programs because of the unique nature

that they provide in terms of protecting us against the threat.

MAJOR PROGRAMS

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to briefly give you an update on each one

of our major programs. I will keep this very, very brief, again, in

the interest of time. I want to just highlight some of the key areas

associated with them.

Let me start with PAC–3. The PAC–3 Program is currently in

the engineering, manufacturing, and development phase, EMD, for

our development and acquisition cycle. It’s currently being fielded

in three phases, that is PAC–3. We currently had the first two

phases already in the field. And as a matter of fact, if something

had taken place in the Middle East over the last couple of months,

we would have had the capability in the Patriot Program to have

those first two phases in the field. And I think had the capability

to counter any threat that exists in today’s environment.

The third and final configuration for PAC–3 is the most important one, however. And that is bringing on the hit-to-kill lethality

methodology for PAC–3. That is extremely important because that

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
509

is the kill mechanism we think is required to counter weapons of

mass destruction whether they be chemical, biological, or nuclear

warheads. The hit-to-kill technology is the key element of both the

final variant of PAC–3, it is also the key element for our Theater

High Altitude Area Defense Program for our Navy Theater Wide

Program and also in a different form for the National Missile Defense Program.

And so this is an important parameter. And PAC–3 will be the

first system that will demonstrate that. We are currently maturing

and preparing for our first intercept of the PAC–3 Program. That

intercept is now scheduled to take place in the midpart of the summer, roughly the latter part of July or the early part of August.

We’re making sure that every step in our preparation for the testing is being done accurately and thoroughly. We’ve had some

delays, but I think we’re now on track to have a successful intercept at the midpart of the summer.

Our other lower tier program, the Navy Area Program, following

last year’s successful intercept flight test is now also in EMD

phase, engineering, manufacturing, and development phase of our

acquisition cycle. The program commenced development flight tests

in fiscal year 1999, the early part of fiscal year 1999 following some

operational evaluation sea trials being done for the aegis fleet

which will take place in fiscal year 2000. And we plan to have first

unit equippers for the Navy lower tier program in 2001, and that

program is on track to meet that specific date. Switching now to

the very robust things we need to have to really counter the

threats of the future, the long-range and medium-range threats

possibly carrying weapons of mass destruction. The Theater High

Altitude Area Defense Program or THAAD is one of our two Hallmark upper tier programs. It’s the one that’s pacing the effort in

terms of schedule, and the one that we’re looking for to getting that

capability as rapidly as we possibly can. It complements the program we have with the Navy, the Navy Theater Wide Program.

Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 1997 as a result of all the failures we

had following four attempts for an intercept with the THAAD Program, we conducted a series of detailed evaluations, detailed reviews, and detailed tests to ensure we understand how robust the

THAAD Program is and specifically how robust the design is.

We worked very closely with the prime contractor, and I am very

confident that the prime contractor is doing everything they can to

ensure they are working with us to have a successful THAAD Program. We’ve completed those detailed reviews, and I can tell you

the basic premise of those reviews is that we have a sound design

for the THAAD Program. We had some concerns about the reliability, concerns about the margins of the testing that we’ve done in

the past, but in terms of the basic design both we, the Government,

and the contractor feel very, very confident about that.

THAAD TESTING

Nevertheless, I want to outline some of the key tests we’ve done

over the last year. We’ve done ground testing. We’ve done specific

subsystem hardware testing. We’ve done systems testing at an aggregate level. We’ve done subtesting for all the various components.

We’ve done software testing, and we’ve done hardware in the loop

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
510

testing. And amongst those testing, I think probably the most key

are tests to ensure that we understand how reliable the components are and what design margins we have in the components.

Those latitude tests, I think, get at the heart of why we had four

specific, but unique failures in our four attempts for intercepts to

date for the THAAD Program. Both we and the contractor are very

confident that we have addressed the right kinds of testing, and we

think we’re prepared to proceed to a very successful intercept for

the THAAD Program.

The next THAAD intercept attempt is scheduled for the month

of May. Roughly the midpart of May, we think we’ll be prepared

to do that test. We’ve had some slips, some minor slips as we prepared for the test, but I’m very confident that those slips were for

good reasons because we identified in some of those tests some

questions we didn’t have answers to. In the past, we would have

flown anyway. In today’s environment, we want to ensure that we

have a successful program, so we went back and did more testing

to ensure that we understand how robust the design is, hence, the

delays in our program. But we’re now ready and on track to proceed to a successful intercept in the May timeframe for the THAAD

Program.

Mr. Chairman, I think one issue that’s been of concern to the

Congress and also a concern to the Department following the successful THAAD intercept test, our current plans were to proceed to

a user operational evaluation system or UOES for THAAD. Under

this plan, we would have procured 40 UOES missiles for the program. That is currently our plan, but I want to assure you that

we’re not going to do that, we’re not going to proceed along that

plan based just on that one intercept flight test.

We actually have always had in the program a robust series of

ground tests and hardware tests and software tests before we actually committed all the dollars associated with the UOES Program.

There have been some roughly $190 million of commitment today

in the cost to the UOES Program. Most of that money has been associated with battle management command and control with the

launcher, with all the support activities associated with the total

THAAD system.

USER OPERATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEM

The one area that’s been hanging out because of our failure to

have a successful intercept has been buying the UOES missiles.

And that’s the part we would have committed dollars for assuming

we have a successful intercept. There’s some $67 million roughly

that would have to be committed this fiscal year with that successful intercept. But I want to assure you again, Mr. Chairman, we’ve

laid out a step by step approach to ensure that before we commit

all those dollars, we understand exactly how good the design is.

The next chart you have in your package lays out that step-bystep approach.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
511

It showed the series of tests that are being done in the hardware

and ground environment. It also shows that we actually scheduled

to have two more flight tests and will complete them before we

make our final commitment of dollars to the UOES Program. I

think this is a sound approach, and I am committed to make sure

we stick to this to ensure we address everything we need to know

about THAAD in the THAAD UOES Program before we commit

very, very valuable dollars to the specific initiative.

We think UOES is a smart thing to do, but we want to make

sure we know everything about the program before we make the

final commitment of dollars. I’ll be happy to answer any questions

that anybody might have about this approach.

NAVY THEATER WIDE

Let me switch, Mr. Chairman, very quickly to our other upper

tier program, the Navy Theater Wide Program. We are preparing

to enter into a Defense Acquisition Board Review for the Navy

upper tier program this summer. This will give us an opportunity

to have the first milestone review of the Navy Theater Wide Program. We’re looking at an evolutionary acquisition strategy for the

Navy Theater Wide Program.

This consists of an initial block one capability that we will plan

to procure as quickly as we possibly can followed by sometime in

the future with a more capable block two. The block one will have

the capabilities we need to address the threat at the time, but we

ultimately want to get a full up block two capability no later than

the year 2010 or somewhere around that.

I fully endorse this evolutionary acquisition approach. I think it’s

a wise thing to do, both we and the Navy program office are comU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
512

mitted to make sure that we lay out the right kind of strategy and

get support for that strategy so we can embark on that program.

During this POM development for this year, for the year 2000 to

2005, we are working very aggressively to understand the types of

program, total program, we need for the Navy Theater Wide Program, trying to get the capability no later than 2006, but looking

at opportunities to try to move it back as much as we possibly can

and specifically in an approach that could give us the capability by

the year 2005.

MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM [MEADS]

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in the area of theater missile programs,

let me quickly talk about the MEADS Program. As you know, this

is our cooperative program with Germany and Italy. It is currently

in the project definition and validation phase. The program, that

phase, is scheduled to be completed in the first quarter of fiscal

year 1999. This is a program that is very important to us in terms

of its specific requirements that’s giving us a maneuverable system

with 360 degree coverage to protect the maneuver forces in the

kinds of environment we think we’re going to see in contingencies

in the future.

The Department is committed to make sure we address both the

requirements and how we might get the MEADS Program into our

inventory. We addressed this during a quadrennial review. Other

Defense priorities, however, precluded us from addressing anything

more than the fiscal year 1999 budget. We had the responsibility,

and I am now addressing a wide range of alternatives working with

the leadership in the Department to see how we can get a viable

MEADS Program to continue and to get it into our POM and our

program for the out-years. We are looking at those alternatives,

and we will be able to address something relative to MEADS in our

POM development.

AIRBORNE LASER

Mr. Chairman, one area that I did not address in terms of our

total architecture for theater missile defense is airborne laser. I

know you’re very familiar with that program and what unique

niche it provides in terms of providing a space intercept capability

force. While airborne laser is not in my specific portfolio, that is we

do not provide funding for it within BMDO, it is a very, very important part of our architecture.

I could tell you I feel very, very comfortable with that program

being worked by the U.S. Air Force. I know they feel very strongly

about it and have committed the resources to the program. I think

they’re doing the right things to ensure that they mitigate all the

technology risks associated with this new endeavor and that they

are proceeding very, very well to ensure the program stays on

track.

They keep me apprised very often on how the program is proceeding. And to my knowledge and what has been provided to me,

it is progressing not just on schedule, but ahead of schedule. And

all the things they’re doing are very, very encouraging toward having a very, very successful Airborne Laser Program. And I wholeU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
513

heartedly endorse the effort that’s being addressed in that particular effort.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD]

Let me switch very quickly to our National Missile Defense Program. Mr. Chairman, I know you’re very familiar with it. It is, as

you know, our primary program to provide defense of the United

States, all 50 States. This program gives us the capability of providing a limited ballistic missile defense from either a rogue nation

attack or to have some capability against a small accidental or unauthorized launch from one of the current nuclear powers.

You’re very familiar, Mr. Chairman, with our Three-Plus-Three

Program that we have embarked upon. This strategy we consider

to be a right one, but it’s a very ambitious program strategy in

terms of schedule. But we are committed to it because it allows us

to develop the NMD system as rapidly as we possibly can.

Under this program strategy, we will test and integrate all the

different elements that are required to give us a total national missile defense system. We will do this in the next couple years and

look to evaluate the threat and do an integrated test by the year

2000. And if this threat warrants it, we will be prepared to deploy

the system within another 3 years, by the year 2003.

The program strategy is laid out so that if the threat does not

warrant it, we will continue refining the development but always

be prepared to deploy the system within 3 years of the identification of a threat against the United States. This program has actually made significant progress over the last year, Mr. Chairman.

We’ve conducted two tests, as you mentioned in your statement.

Two very successful national missile defense exoatmospheric kill

vehicle or EKV flight tests. Those tests were very, very encouraging toward reducing some of the risk and identifying what we know

about being able to discriminate a real target in the exo environment in which the national missile defense system has to operate.

Both tests were very successful. Each test was done by one of

two different contractors who were competing to be our EKV contractor. And again, we’re looking forward to the successful completion of that effort as part of our National Missile Defense Program.

Also, as part of NMD in the very near future, literally in about

11⁄2 weeks, Mr. Chairman, BMDO and our National Missile Defense Joint Program Office will announce the award of the lead systems integrator, our prime contractor for national missile defense.

We have two very, very strong industry teams competing to be our

prime contractor for NMD. The Boeing Co., and the United Missile

Defense Co., which is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and

Raytheon and TRW.

I am scheduled literally, Mr. Chairman, to get the down select

briefing tomorrow and to spend the rest of the time from tomorrow

for the next week or so deliberating on my recommendation and decision for the prime contractor and then give that recommendation

to the Secretary of Defense and others who are very involved and

very interested in the National Missile Defense Program and then

be prepared to make an announcement and to award the contract

by the first week of May. We’re on track for that schedule, and I

am looking very much forward to the briefings tomorrow to ensure

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
514

that we can stick to the environment and the schedule that we

have laid out for this program.

We have a very strong contractor team. The contractor team led

by the Joint Program Office is a federated approach. We have

strong support and a strong team that’s developed in all aspects of

this federated environment. At Huntsville, at Colorado Springs, in

Boston, in Los Angeles, everywhere where there’s an aspect of the

National Missile Defense Program, we have developed and evolved

a very, very strong team. And I feel very, very confident about our

ability to execute the National Missile Defense Program ahead of

us.

We’re proceeding very, very well and progressing very, very well.

And again, Mr. Chairman, I feel very confident about that.

MISSILE TESTING

Mr. Chairman, let me just mention two other comments before

I close. One is on the issue of defense testing. Missile testing is

very, very important to us, and I think we all are very, very confident in ensuring that we have a very, very successful test program for all of our missile defense programs, whether we’re talking

TMD or national missile defense. I have one last chart that I’ve

laid out in front of you.

mj-80903 / 031198

BMD TEST PHILOSOPHY O F E F E N ES

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DE FE E N S

M IS SI L E

AL LI STI C

B

•	 To Learn

	 	 -	 Greater Reliance On Modeling And Simulation

	 	 -	 Heavy Use Of HWIL And Ground Testing

	 	 -	 Flight Test (Instrumentation)

•	 To Verify

	 	 -	 Flight Test

Test And Evaluation

BMDO Objective Is To Be Consistent With Task Force Report

Digital Models

And 

Computer

Simulations

Measurement

Facility 

Testing

Component

Testing / 

Integration 

Laboratory

Testing Hardware-InThe-Loop 

Testing Installed 

System 

Testing

Number Of Trials

Flight Testing

Design, Evaluation, And Sensitivity Analyses At Multiple Fidelity Levels

Quantify Performance Parameters Precisely 

With Scale Models Or Actual Hardware

Stress Element Performance And Interactions 

Prior To Platform Integration And Interaction

Open Or Closed Loop Under Controlled Conditions 

To Exercise Total Functionality Of Test Item

Exercise Entire Systems Or Multiple System

Interactions With Controlled Inputs

Instrumented System Testing 

In Natural Environments

It reflects the testing philosophy for all of our programs. It just

happens that this test philosophy matches the test philosophy done

by our DTE defense test environment and test community, the

independent test community. We are also very, very confident that

we are trying to lay out our programs in the same manner that’s

reflected on this chart.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
515

We have to make sure that we have a robust test program. Because of our compressed schedules, we don’t have as many tests as

I would like to see in programs of this importance. We also have,

as I stated, some compressed schedules. So it’s very, very important to us that we follow this hierarchy of tests. We follow the philosophy shown on this particular chart.

The independent test community has raised concerns in the past

about how well we’re doing this, and I think you’re very, very familiar, Mr. Chairman, with a recent test report done by the Institute of Defense Analysis, Gen. Larry Welch and a lot of others including my former boss, Dr. Paul Kaminski, who have specifically

reviewed all of our missile defense test programs. We chartered

them. I was one of the sponsors to look at our programs.

They identified some concerns. And in some respects, I consider

their report to be a wake up call to ensure that we don’t deviate

too much from the test philosophy shown on that last chart. As a

result of that report and my concerns about making sure we do robust testing, we’re going back and relooking at our—taking a

relook at our theater missile defense programs and also at our national missile defense programs to ensure we know exactly the

kinds of test we’ve done and whether there are some things that

we need to do a little bit differently in terms of following this test

philosophy. And I’m—what we find once we get a report out and

continue our look see at how robust our test programs are.

We’re committed to ensure that we have an aggressive program.

The threat warrants that we do that, but I want to make sure

we’re doing testing in the right manner to ensure effective and successful programs.

ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY

Let me make my final comment, Mr. Chairman. The final comment talks about our third priority and that is advanced technology, making sure we continue an advanced and robust technology program. Just about 1 month ago marked the 15th anniversary of President Reagan’s speech that launched the original Strategic Defense Initiative [SDI] Program. If you look back on our SDI

Program, at the time, for very good reasons, we devoted some 70

percent of our budget to technology. The program was technology

focused.

Today, if you look at our programs, because of our emphasis on

getting rubber on the ramp or capability in the field, only about 6.8

or 7 percent of our budget is devoted to technology. I am not confident, Mr. Chairman, that that’s the right amount. I have a vision

that I’ve articulated to our program office and to all of our executing agents that we would like to get our technology budget up to

about the 10-percent level.

That level matches the goals in the entire Department of Defense

for advanced technologies. Now, I know the exigencies of the budget environment probably are not going to make it very easy for us

to realize that 10 percent number. But we want to keep the stretch

goal in front of us so we can try to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to make sure we have a robust technology program.

And two specific actions that I’ve taken to help us even if we

can’t get additional funding in this area is to ensure that we’re

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
516

leveraging the right kinds of technology funds with the money we

have today and moneys in other areas within the Department of

Defense. We started two specific things to ensure we do that.

One, I have commissioned and started what I call a Joint Technology Board. It’s an effort to bring together the technology experts

from all the services. I have on that Joint Technology Board the

missile defense expert from the laboratories down at Huntsville,

AL, from the Army. We have the missile defense experts from the

Navy’s Research Laboratory. We have the missile defense and

space experts from the Air Force’s Research Lab at Kirkland Air

Force Base in Albuquerque.

Those people are part of my Technology Board to advise me on

how we should spend our very precious technology dollars. They’re

also there to advise me where we may have plans to spend some

technology money but somebody else in one of the other laboratories also has money devoted to that effort and how we might

bring together our efforts so we can leverage, again, the very precious dollars that we have.

Part of the responsibility of this Joint Technology Board is not

just to advise me, but also to help me and my office to lay out a

technology master plan, a road map for where we need to be in the

future with all of our technology programs and where we specifically need to apply our efforts, particularly to ensure we can address the threats of the future. We have our first variant, first entity of this technology master plan that was published just in the

last month or so. We’re now taking it out to the entire missile defense community throughout the entire Department of Defense.

We will also be sharing it with industry, and I think between

these two efforts, even if we can’t get our technology dollars up to

about the 10-percent level, we will be doing a better job in the future of ensuring we have the right kind of focus on technology for

missile defense.

CLOSING

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to close here. I’ve talked perhaps a little

bit long because I wanted to assure you of the things we’re doing

to make sure we have robust and effective missile defense programs for the Department of Defense and for our country. I want

to assure you and the committee members that we are absolutely

committed to making sure we can provide those effective missile

defense programs for our country and more importantly for our

warfighters.

We want to make sure in both theater missile defense and national missile defense we have effective programs, we have interoperable programs, and we also have affordable programs.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks; and I’ll be happy to

address any questions you or the other members might have on

this particular subject. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
517

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. LESTER L. LYLES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my privilege to appear before

you today to present the Department of Defense’s Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)

program and budget for fiscal year 1999.

Over the last few years, working with Congress, the Department of Defense has

structured a comprehensive missile defense program that is responsive to the existing and emerging threat to the United States, our deployed military forces, our allies and friends. In years past we have characterized the BMD program as having

three fundamental priorities: Theater Missile Defense (TMD), National Missile Defense (NMD) and Advanced Technology. While those priorities remain consistent

today, I think we have modified them slightly to respond to emerging realities.

First, increasingly, I refer to the program as missile defense instead of ballistic missile defense. This is because during the past year BMDO has taken on the additional responsibility for developing and integrating a joint architecture for theater

air and missile defense (TAMD). I will provide greater detail on this matter later

in my testimony. The next substantial modification has been the increased emphasis

on NMD, with the designation of NMD as a major defense acquisition program

(MDAP). This increased emphasis demonstrates that the Department’s policy priorities are clear and remain consistent. Finally, we are focusing our advanced technology program to ensure that our resources are dedicated to those efforts that have

direct pay off for missile defense technology needs.

Last year’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) reaffirmed the importance and

priorities of the missile defense program, including the integration of Cruise Missile

Defense (CMD) activities into our capabilities. The specific recommendations of the

QDR, which were designed to improve program stability and reduce risk, were provided to BMDO in the accompanying Fiscal Guidance. BMDO and our Service Executing Agents have successfully implemented the Department’s direction. Our fiscal

year 1999 budget reflects these adjusted priorities for the missile defense program.

In order to successfully manage and execute these important priorities—and to successfully field missile defenses for the warfighter—I have directed my organization

and our Service Executing Agents to evaluate and strengthen our management tools

and processes. I will close out my statement with a review of the management improvements I have directed at BMDO.

Before I begin with the programmatic details, I would like to outline for the Committee the highly active year we anticipate in the world of missile defense. It will

feature some highly visible flight tests and program decisions that will demonstrate

the results of our past efforts and investments. Frankly, I would characterize this

year as one of ‘‘challenging opportunities.’’ I say this because almost everything we

are attempting is a substantial challenge as we are not responsible for a single

weapons system or even a class of weapons—but rather an entire joint mission area.

One of our successes in this area is the shared responsibility of BMDO and the

Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO) to provide the Joint

Force Commanders with an improved capability to defend against air and missile

threats. The JTAMDO is defining the required system interoperabilities and operational architectures and validating mission capabilities in coordination with the

war-fighting CINC’s and the military Services. BMDO assumes the role of System

Integration Architect for theater air, cruise, and ballistic missile defenses working

with JTAMDO and the Services translating the operational architecture into a systems architecture and carrying out systems engineering, integrated testing and program acquisition functions.

Another example of our joint view of missile defense is in the area of Attack Operations. As a result of SCUD missile attacks during the 1991 Gulf War, the Department decided that the preferred method of negating attack by threat missiles is to

prevent launch by conducting attack operations. Such attack operations ultimately

will help reduce our missile defense inventory requirements. BMDO and the Joint

Staff have formed a collaborative team, which includes the Services and defense

agencies, called the Joint Attack Operations Working Group (JAOWG) to improve

our joint warfighting capability to conduct attack operations.

Equally important is the need to conduct and evaluate realistic joint training,

field experiments, and demonstrations. These activities are low cost, high payoff opportunities to improve our joint attack capability.

While we consider our relationship with the Joint Staff, the CINC’s, and the Services to be a success, the development and acquisition of systems in a joint manner

remains a challenge. And when we add to that the technical challenges of missile

defense, one immediately realizes how difficult a task this really is.

This year we will conduct a series of important flight tests for our TAMD and the

NMD programs. We will continue several important technology development efforts

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
518

as well. The NMD program began 1998 with a highly successful flight test of the

exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) sensor, which I will address in more detail later

on. Another major element of our NMD program strategy is the award of a Lead

System Integration contract. We plan to award the LSI contract this Spring. Two

contractor teams, Boeing North American and the United Missile Defense Company

(a joint venture between Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW) are competing for

this effort. The LSI contractor’s main task will be to complete element development

and integrate the elements into a system in time to provide the Department a viable

deployment option in the year 2000.

Two systems in our TAMD program, the Patriot Advanced Capability–3 (PAC–3)

and Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), will undergo a series of intercept tests at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. THAAD is scheduled to

fly two intercept attempts and PAC–3 will conduct five. As we have seen in the

past, complex flight tests like the ones we plan to conduct this year are very challenging. Sometimes, we experience slight delays because of minor technical difficulties with either range instrumentation, the target or the interceptor vehicle. Moreover, the challenge of achieving a ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ intercept is significant when one considers that the closing velocities of the target and interceptor are over 8,000 miles

per hour, depending upon the missiles’ ranges. However, we are confident that we

have structured our programs to succeed on the test range and look forward to beginning this new year of challenging opportunities. I will talk about both the

THAAD and PAC–3 flight tests in more detail later in my testimony. We will also

make several important decisions and conduct some less-visible, albeit important,

tests in our Advanced Technology program.

Fiscal Year 1999 Program and Budget.—In order to address the missile threat

and fully execute the plans for missile defense, the Department has structured a

sound and affordable program for fiscal year 1999. The total fiscal year 1999 budget

request for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is $3.605 billion. This includes

$3.179 billion for RDT&E, $409 million for procurement, and $17 million for military construction activities. Combining these three budget categories, Theater Air

and Missile Defense programs account for $2.121 billion or roughly 59 percent of

the budget, while National Missile Defense represents $962.7 million or 27 percent.

We are requesting $253.6 million for Advanced Technologies, which is about 7 percent of the overall budget. BMD Technical Operations accounts for $194.7 million

and is about 5 percent of the budget. Finally, two of our new program elements,

Threat and Countermeasures and International Cooperative programs represent a

total of $72.8 million, or about 2 percent of the budget.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
519

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION FUNDING

[TY dollars in millions]

Program

element Program

Fiscal year—

1997 actual 1998 estimate 1999 estimate 2000 estimate 2001 estimate 2002 estimate 2003 estimate

Procurement:1

0208861C THAAD System Procurement ...................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 131.9520208863C HAWK Procurement .................................................... 14.989 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................0208864C TMD—BM/C3 Procurement ........................................ 17.320 19.653 22.827 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................

0208865C PAC–3 Procurement ................................................... 219.038 341.300 343.235 446.737 431.543 417.973 381.3060208867C Navy Area .................................................................. 9.087 15.058 43.318 125.679 155.034 226.607 215.780

Total Procurement ................................................. 260.434 376.011 409.380 572.416 586.577 644.580 729.038

RDT&E:

0602173C Support Tech—Applied Research ............................. 122.176 109.628 86.866 79.370 75.295 69.722 67.5330603173C Support Tech—Adv Tech Dev ................................... 248.011 299.788 166.676 165.431 163.514 170.079 171.1690603861C THAAD System—Dem/Val .......................................... 549.579 390.785 497.752 37.000 5.400 ...................... ......................0603867C Navy Area—Dem/Val ................................................. 157.028 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................0603868C Navy Theater—Dem/Val ............................................ 304.171 419.414 190.446 186.144 183.258 139.273 144.3570603869C MEADS—Dem/Val (PDN) ........................................... 58.825 46.144 43.027 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................0603870C Boost Phase Intercept—Dem/Val ............................. 22.755 15.766 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................0603871C NMD—Dem/Val ......................................................... 811.416 941.142 950.473 864.435 664.930 359.444 313.4060603872C Joint TMD—Dem/Val ................................................. 493.429 582.000 176.846 219.480 217.220 221.349 219.9820603873C Family Of System E&I ............................................... ...................... ...................... 96.915 130.289 141.315 155.948 147.8100603874C BMD Technical Operations ........................................ ...................... ...................... 190.147 161.136 165.802 170.125 166.6170603875C International Cooperative Programs .......................... ...................... ...................... 50.676 37.716 37.555 ...................... ......................0603876C Threat And Countermeasures .................................... ...................... ...................... 22.113 17.608 23.909 23.720 22.0200604861C THAAD System—EMD ................................................ 66.737 ...................... 323.942 596.310 574.513 602.713 501.9740604865C PAC–3—EMD ............................................................ 382.808 198.273 137.265 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................0604867C Navy Area—EMD ....................................................... 143.343 278.790 245.796 231.592 160.193 50.296 36.7920908612C Acq Stability Reserve ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 6.347 12.651 18.905 25.115

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
520

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION FUNDING—Continued

[TY dollars in millions]

Program

element Program

Fiscal year—

1997 actual 1998 estimate 1999 estimate 2000 estimate 2001 estimate 2002 estimate 2003 estimate

Total RDT&E .......................................................... 3,360.278 3,281.730 3,178.940 2,732.858 2,425.555 1,981.574 1,816.771

MILCON:

0603871C National Missile Defense ........................................... ...................... .540 12.230 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................0603872C Joint Theater Missile Defense ................................... 1.404 1.965 .331 1.372 .323 1.549 1.5500603874C BMD Technical Operations ........................................ ...................... ...................... 4.600 ...................... ...................... ...................... ......................0604861C THAAD System ........................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 4.689

Total MILCON ........................................................ 1.404 2.505 17.161 1.372 .323 1.549 6.239Total BMDO Program ............................................ 3,622.116 3,660.246 3,605.481 3,306.646 3,012.455 2,627.703 2,552.048

1 Returned to the BMDO.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
521

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

mj-70717D / 011998

BMDO HISTORICAL FUNDING O F E F E N ES

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DE FE E N S

M IS SI L E

AL LI STI C

B

Support Technology TMD NMD

Fiscal Years

TY $ In Millions

647

1,048

1,177

1,423 1,651 1,583

1,265

1,916

1,886

553

387

729

811 942 963

864

665

359 313

125

111 131

392 822

1,103 1,646 1,970

2,234

2,418 2,293 2,122

1,975 1,869 1,816 1,786

461 466 434 427 521 382 381 393 425 529

718

1,194

1,431

1,865 1,857 2,025 2,005

1,606

748

22

22

78

Program Element Realignment.—As you will note, our program element structure

has been modified in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. My organization proposed

these changes to the Department, after consulting with Members and Committee

staff, in order to update the program element structure to align with the current

BMDO mission focus and program management responsibilities. The catalyst for

this proposal is the fundamental shift in the Department’s management approach

for both the NMD program and TAMD ‘‘Family of Systems,’’ and Congressional direction on our International Cooperative program.

Last year, the Deputy Secretary of Defense delegated to BMDO the total TAMD

integration and architectural-level planning responsibility. These TAMD ‘‘Family of

System’’ costs are now captured in the ‘‘Family of Systems’’ Engineering and Integration (FoS E&I) program element. These are the activities and functions primarily

executed by BMDO’s TAMD Systems Engineer and supported by the Chief Architect. These activities include providing optimal TAMD architectural solutions via

cost-performance analyses evaluating the participation of each system, working in

concert with all other systems, to address the entire theater-level threat. This program element will increase the stature and visibility of these architecture-level,

MDAP-like program activities and costs, and align the program management responsibility for the TAMD efforts consistent with the current BMDO organization

focus.

The BMD Technical Operations program element captures those BMDO centrallymanaged activities that provide functional expertise, analytic tools and support (i.e.

the Joint National Test Facility), and test resources (i.e. data collection assets and

test ranges) for TMD, FoS E&I, NMD and Advanced Technology efforts. These activities were previously ‘‘housed’’ across three separate program elements, with algorithms to determine cost-shares between TMD, NMD and Technology. By consolidating these activities into one program element, it enhances resource visibility and

simplifies our management of these activities—especially from the perspective of

paying internal Departmental ‘‘taxes’’ or allocating undistributed reductions in the

authorization or appropriations processes.

The creation of the International Cooperative Programs program element is in response to both a Congressional initiative and new Secretary of Defense cooperative

program policy guidance. This program element contains significant developmental

programs which are jointly funded with international partners. However, it specifically excludes the MEADS program (which is housed in its own program element)

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
522

and small-scale Innovative Science and Technology programs. Hence, it provides

greater insight and focus for BMD international cooperative programs.

The Joint TMD, NMD, and Advanced Technology Development program elements

have been modified to reflect the transfer of the infrastructure (Technical Operations) and International activities. The Boost-phase Intercept and TMD BMC3 program elements have been eliminated, as these costs have been accounted for in the

new program elements. The remaining RDT&E and Procurement program elements

for MEADS and the TAMD MDAP’s are unchanged.

Theater Air and Missile Defense Programs—The Family of Systems

The Family of Systems (FoS) concept is a flexible configuration of Interoperable

Theater Air and Missile Defense systems capable of joint operations, which allows

the joint force commander to tailor the right mix of systems and capabilities according to situation and threat. This FoS must be able to counter a wide range of

threats providing a near-leak proof shield to U.S. forces, allies and friends around

the world. This mission cannot be accomplished with just one or two systems, it requires multiple systems designed to counter an ever-growing and diverse missile

threat during all phases of flight.

One system cannot do it all, which requires a layered defense allowing for multiple shot opportunities. The threat is so varied, and the mission demands so complex, that we do not currently have the technology to allow us to develop a single

weapon system that can meet all of the demanding and complex requirements. In

short, there is no single ‘‘silver bullet.’’ Multiple systems working in unison greatly

enhance the probability of destroying incoming missiles before they can effect critical assets.

For these reasons, BMDO is pursuing the acquisition and integration of land and

sea-based systems that will effectively counter current and future theater missile

threats. This strategy includes leveraging prior investment in ongoing Service programs, and developing new systems and capabilities for the future.

mj-80411B / 032098

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

MASTER SCHEDULE

Acronyms:

	 MS	-	Milestone

	 CD	-	Concept Definition

	 DAB	-	Defense Acquisition Board

	 UOES	-	User Operational Evaluation System

	 FUE	-	First Unit Equipped

	 IOC	-	Initial Operational Capability 

	 PD-V	-	Program Definition-Validation

	 IFT	-	Integrated Flight Test

	 IST	-	Integrated System Test	 

Acquisition Program FY 98 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 99 FYDP

TY $ In Millions

National Missile Defense

 (3+3)

2 3 4 5 IST

CD Phase EKV

Down Select

1st Deploy

Decision Point

Earliest IOC

1st Launch

SBIRS

941.7 962.7 3,164.9

PATRIOT (PAC-3)

MS III

Conf 3

FUE

Navy Area

MS III

FUE

UOES I UOES II

Navy Theater Wide First

Intercept Kill Vehicle 

Assessment

DAB

MS II

FUE 

Block 1

THAAD System MS II UOES

FUE

MEADS PD-V Phase 

Complete

Theater Missile Defense

539.6 480.5 2,158.1

293.8 300.0 1,950.8

390.8 821.7 3,276.2

419.4 190.4 843.5

46.1 43.0 99.3

Production

Production

Dev

Dev Production

FY 07

MS III

Dev

O F E F E N E S

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DEFE E N S

M ISS IL E

A LL ISTI C

B

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
523

Advanced Concept For Space Based Global 

Coverage Missile Defense From Space

Advanced Technology Test Bed For 

Integrating And Testing The Next Generation 

Endoatmospheric Interceptor

Exploring Tomorrow’s Technology Today To 

Make The Next Generation Exoatmospheric 

Interceptor Affordable And Capable

Ensuring That The “Eyes And Ears” Of The 

Defensive System Are Keenly Tuned To The 

Evolving Missile Threat

Innovative Approaches To Exploit Latest 

Technical Discoveries For Improved 

Performance At Lower Cost

Harnessing Small Business Innovation For 

Advanced Missile Defenses

mj-81174 / 032098

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

O F E F E

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN N ES

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DE FE E N S

M IS SI L E

AL LI STI C

B Advanced Technology

	 •	 Space Based Laser

	 •	 Advanced 	 	 	

	 Interceptor 		 	

	 Technologies

	 •	 Discriminating 	 	

	 Interceptor 		 	

	 Technology 	 	

	 Program

	 •	 Phenomenology

	 •	 Innovative Science 	

	 And Technology

	 •	 Small Business

	 	 Innovative Research

409.4

	 122.1

33.0

27.3

30.9

64.5

49.1

253.5

	 58.8

24.5

25.3

20.2

24.0

61.5

1,215.7

	 293.4

97.1

186.1

76.5

198.8

287.7

Program FY 98 FY 99 FYDP Remarks

TY $ In Millions

mj-76811 / 031098

THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA Lower Tier

•	THAAD (Endo / Exo)

•	Navy Theater Wide 

(Exo Only)

Upper Tier

•	Navy Theater Wide 

(Exo Only)

Ascent Phase Boost 

Phase

•	Airborne Laser

Ascent Phase

Late Midcourse Terminal

Phase

Exoatmosphere

300

Scud B

100

Scud

Mod 2

Lower Atmosphere 1,000

No Dong 1 3,000

CSS-2

600

M-9

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Boost 

Phase Endoatmosphere

Aim

Point

Midcourse

PATRIOT

THAAD

Navy Area 

MEADS

Navy Theater Wide

(Coverage Dependent On Ship Location)

ABL

2,000

Shahab 4

1,300

Shahab 3

Ascent Phase

Boost Phase

O F E F E N E S

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DEFE E N S

M ISS IL E

A LL ISTI C

B

•	PAC-3

•	Navy Area

•	MEADS

Let me summarize the status of these programs:

PAC–3.—The Patriot PAC–3 is the most mature of all our TAMD systems—it is

currently in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the

acquisition process. PAC–3 is being fielded in the course of three phased upgrades

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
524

called ‘‘configurations.’’ Currently, we have fielded the first two configurations of

PAC–3, providing the Army with improved operational performance. The third configuration will provide the final element in the form of the hit-to-kill interceptor

missile, along with additional communications, radar, and ground support system

improvements. I expect the program to conduct the first intercept flight this year,

to be followed by a decision to begin Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the new

missile. The first deliveries of the ground system hardware and software have already begun, and development and operational testing will start this year. All of

these efforts support a First Unit Equipped (FUE) date of late fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for PAC–3 is $137 million for RDT&E and $343 million for Procurement. The funding request supports the deployment of the

Configuration 3 system starting in 2000.

As the Committee is aware, we had planned to fly an intercept test for the PAC–

3 missile in February but the test date has slipped. The reason for this delay is that

the Patriot Program Manager assessed that the missile development effort and integration of the hardware and software into our hardware-in-the-loop testing facility

would take longer than planned. As a result, we now plan for the test to take place

in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998. The hardware-in-the-loop and acceptance

testing are important pre-flight qualifications to ensure that all system hardware

and software meet our standards and are ready to fly. Operational testing is currently planned to begin in fiscal year 1999.

Navy Area.—Following last year’s successful intercept flight test, the Navy Area

program was approved for entry into EMD on February 22, 1997. The program will

commence Development Test (DT) flight testing in fiscal year 1999, followed by an

at-sea demonstration of the User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) in fiscal

year 2000. LRIP will begin in fiscal year 2000, with an FUE date of fiscal year 2002.

The BMDO fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Navy Area program is $245 million for RDT&E and $44 million in Procurement funds. As part of our ‘‘shared approach’’ for this program, the Navy has requested in their Procurement budget $111

million.

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).—The THAAD program is currently

in the Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PD&RR) phase of development and

is the most mature of our upper-tier TAMD systems. In 1997, as a result of our failure to achieve an intercept in flight tests and the need to reduce technical and programmatic risk, the QDR endorsed a plan to restructure the program and to achieve

a FUE in 2006.

After flight test seven, BMDO and the Army commissioned an Independent Review Team (IRT) to review the program’s processes and the design of the THAAD

missile. I believe the IRT has had a direct, positive impact on the way the THAAD

program conducts its business. As a result, we have increased the rigor in our

ground testing program as we prepare for the next flight test. That is where we detected the most recent technical problems. Therefore, I applaud the THAAD team

for discovering these faulty components during their many ground-tests and quality

assurance checks—well before we tried to fly the interceptor. The next flight test

is scheduled for later this Spring.

The Department’s fiscal year 1999 budget request for $822 million fully supports

deployment of the THAAD system in 2006. This level of funding is required for completion of the PD&RR flight test program, continuing risk reduction for EMD, and

for acquiring missiles for a UOES capability. In fact, the budget request is tied very

closely to three concurrent contractual requirements. About $414 million is for the

extension and completion of the PD&RR flight test program and completion of the

Pre-EMD risk mitigation effort. This risk reduction effort is principally focused on

the design of the EMD radar and battle management software, both of which are

on the critical path to achieving the FUE in fiscal year 2006. Another $302.9 million

will be used to initiate EMD and its associated start-up costs, such as materiel orders, Government Furnished Equipment procurement and ‘‘turning on’’ five major

subcontractors. A substantial portion of the EMD start-up costs are associated with

the THAAD radar development and not the interceptor missile. Finally, about $105

million will be used to execute the UOES missile buy for 40 missiles. This will provide the warfighter with an interim capability in fiscal year 2001 until the objective

system is fielded. The THAAD program is currently on schedule to fly its next intercept attempt in May. A successful intercept will allow exercise of the UOES contract

option.

Navy Theater Wide (NTW).—The Navy Theater Wide program is currently in the

Program Definition and Risk Reduction phase of development and is preparing for

an initial Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) Review. This review is equivalent to a

Milestone I review. The Navy has proposed an evolutionary acquisition approach

consisting of an initial Block I system followed by a more-capable Block II system.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
525

The Milestone I-level DAB will be asked to review and approve the proposed evolutionary acquisition strategy. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for Navy Theater

Wide is $190 million.

Family of Systems Engineering and Integration (FoS E&I).—Each member of the

Family of Systems contributes what is sees to a common picture of what is occurring

in the battlespace, and then based on that picture, the warfighter launches the most

effective and efficient response. All TAMD systems must be capable of joint or autonomous operations. For example, based on cueing from a space-based sensors and

target detection and tracking by a THAAD radar, a Navy Area interceptor could be

launched to counter a threat. This concept is demonstrated through a series of ‘‘systems integration tests,’’ such as the one we conducted last year, where we operate

Army, Navy and Air Force TAMD sensors, such as the THAAD or AEGIS radars,

to track and ‘‘communicate’’ the threat with a Patriot firing unit.

Our Family of Systems concept will provide the warfighting CINC a ‘‘plug and

fight’’ architecture, allowing him to selectively deploy the weapon system or systems

tailored to the requirements of his theater. This Family of Systems responsibility

means that all the TAMD weapons systems must be completely interoperable and

capable of sharing and exchanging information that provides a common view of the

battlespace. Through a rigorous systems engineering process, BMDO ensures that

BMC4I, sensors, and weapons systems retain their singular capability, yet can function as one complete defense no matter what elements it is comprised of to meet

the CINC’s needs. The ‘‘plug and fight’’ approach enables the CINC’s to tailor their

forces to the threat and theater geography.

Our budget request for Family of Systems engineering and integration is cur- rently $96 million in RDT&E and roughly $20 million in Procurement funds. The

responsibility for TAMD integration of ballistic missile defense, cruise missile defense, attack operations and the BMC4I ‘‘back bone’’ capability into a single integrated air picture will continue to drive the requirement for additional resources.

Airborne Laser (ABL) program.—I would like to take a moment and talk about

an important TAMD system that is a part of our Family of Systems architecture,

but managed and budgeted by the U.S. Air Force. The Airborne laser is the Department’s primary boost-phase intercept program for theater missile defense. BMDO

and the Air Force work very closely to ensure that the ABL system is effectively

integrated into our TAMD Family of Systems. When this system is developed and

deployed it will provide our warfighters with a powerful TAMD capability and will

strengthen our overall TAMD architecture. By providing a critical boost-phase intercept capability, before a missile can deploy a separating warhead or countermeasures, ABL will thin out the attack for ground- and sea-based TAMD systems.

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).—The MEADS program is a cooperative development program with our German and Italian allies. The program is

currently in the Project Definition and Validation phase, which is scheduled to be

completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) negotiations for the Design and Development (D&D) phase are currently

underway with our international partners. The QDR recommended continuation of

the MEADS program and increased the fiscal year 1999 funding level to provide a

bridge to the next RDT&E phase, D&D. In light of the QDR guidance, the importance of this international program and continuing Congressional interest in outyear funding, I raised MEADS as an issue during the Department’s POM deliberations this past Fall. Nonetheless, other defense program priorities at the time superseded addressing the issue. During the POM process this Spring, the Department

will identify the resource requirements for all BMD programs and future funding

of MEADS will be reviewed in this process.

Joint Theater Missile Defense.—This activity funds projects which support our

TAMD programs. This includes target missiles, collection and analysis of target signatures, technical support and TMD-unique test resources. In addition, funding in

this program element supports CINC-level planning and participation in wargaming

exercises. This ensures that TAMD program development reflects military needs

and the combined warfare capabilities of allies and friends. These efforts support

all the TAMD major defense acquisition programs in a centralized manner. I believe

such centralization reduces costs and enhances the integrity in our test program.

National Missile Defense (NMD) Program.—The primary mission of the NMD system is to defend the United States against a limited ballistic missile threat by a

rogue nation, should such a threat emerge. In addition, the NMD system would

have some capability against a small accidental or unauthorized launch of a ballistic

missile from more nuclear capable states. To ensure that the Department would

have the required capability to defend the Nation against an emerging threat, it has

adopted an ambitious strategy known as ‘‘3 plus 3’’ for National Missile Defense:

by 2000 the United States will be in a position to make a deployment decision if

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
526

warranted by the threat, which would result in the deployment of an initial NMD

system by 2003. To meet this challenging schedule, and to mitigate risks, we have

taken numerous steps to leverage previous NMD technology development. We are

constantly evaluating our performance in mitigating risk to achieve the strategy and

meet the program objectives. If, in 2000, the threat assessment does not warrant

a decision to deploy, improvements in the NMD system component technologies will

continue, while the ability to deploy a system within three years of a decision is

maintained. In order to give the program the appropriate level of acquisition emphasis and oversight, NMD was designated an Acquisition Category (ACAT) 1D program and the Joint Program Office (JPO) under BMDO was formed to manage the

program.

NMD ‘‘Tool Box’’.—The NMD system is being developed with a flexible architecture to allow for a variety of deployment options in order to respond to unknown

and emerging threats and provide an evolutionary path to a more robust system.

The elements of this system include battle management/command, control and communication; the Ground-Based Interceptor; and X-band and upgraded early warning

radars. The architecture also uses space-based sensors such as the Defense Support

Program (DSP) and Space-based Infrared System (SBIRS). Since the architecture is

very flexible, we refer to the collection of potential NMD system elements as the

‘‘NMD Tool Box.’’ Literally, as we approach the 2000 deployment decision and assess

the threat to the United States, we will be in a position to determine which NMD

system element ‘‘tools’’ we will need to address the threat. If the threat does not

warrant deployment at that time, we will continue to develop and refine both the

individual system element ‘‘tools’’ and strengthen the overall NMD architecture.

During the past year, the NMD program has conducted two very successful flight

tests that demonstrated sensor performance for the two competing contractor

exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) designs. EKV’s are a major subcomponent of the

GBI—indeed it is the ‘‘front end’’ of the interceptor that ‘‘sees’’ the target and destroys it by colliding with it at an incredibly high velocity. The first successful sensor flight test took place on June 23, 1997, using an EKV sensor built by Boeing

North American. The second flight test, flying a Raytheon-designed EKV, took place

on January 16, 1998. The purpose of each test was to analyze the ability of an EKV

sensor to identify and track objects in space, including a representative threat target and decoys to provide risk reduction for future intercept flight tests, and to conduct an integrated system test of other NMD elements and surrogate systems. Data

gathered during the tests indicate that both EKV sensors performed extremely well.

The EKV sensor payload includes an optical seeker, a data processing system and

a telemetry unit. The seeker and data processor are literally the ‘‘eyes’’ and ‘‘brain’’

of the EKV, enabling it to intercept an attacking intercontinental ballistic missile

(ICBM). Neither of these flight tests attempted an intercept.

In addition to these two important flight tests, the NMD team participated in

three NMD risk reduction flight tests, in May, June and November 1997, to evaluate the BMC3 software and NMD system communications and cueing of groundbased sensors. Finally, the NMD program completed construction of the groundbased radar prototype facility at the Kwajalein Missile Range. The GBR will be used

in upcoming flight tests and will play a vital role in next year’s integrated system

test.

The next flight test for the NMD program will also be the first intercept test

under the ‘‘3 plus 3’’ program. During this test, we will fly one of our competing

EKV designs against an ICBM target. The interceptor and kill vehicle will be

launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean and will attempt to

intercept and destroy a ‘‘dummy’’ warhead deployed from a Minuteman ICBM

launched out of Vandenberg AFB, California. A second intercept attempt, using the

other competing EKV design, will follow and provide the data necessary to

downselect to one EKV design. These represent important milestones on the path

to the integrated system test in 1999 that will demonstrate overall system capabilities against threat-representative targets.

In the very near future, BMDO and the JPO will announce the award of the Lead

Systems Integration (LSI) contract. Two industry teams are competing for this contract: the Boeing Company and the United Missile Defense Company, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW. The LSI contractor’s main task

will be to complete element development and integrate the elements into a system

in time to provide the Department a viable deployment option in the year 2000. We

have received two excellent proposals and are completing our evaluation.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
527

mj-80903 / 031198

BMD TEST PHILOSOPHY O F E F E N ES

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DE FE E N S

M IS SI L E

AL LI STI C

B

•	 To Learn

	 	 -	 Greater Reliance On Modeling And Simulation

	 	 -	 Heavy Use Of HWIL And Ground Testing

	 	 -	 Flight Test (Instrumentation)

•	 To Verify

	 	 -	 Flight Test

Test And Evaluation

BMDO Objective Is To Be Consistent With Task Force Report

Digital Models

And 

Computer

Simulations

Measurement

Facility 

Testing

Component

Testing / 

Integration 

Laboratory

Testing Hardware-InThe-Loop 

Testing Installed 

System 

Testing

Number Of Trials

Flight Testing

Design, Evaluation, And Sensitivity Analyses At Multiple Fidelity Levels

Quantify Performance Parameters Precisely 

With Scale Models Or Actual Hardware

Stress Element Performance And Interactions 

Prior To Platform Integration And Interaction

Open Or Closed Loop Under Controlled Conditions 

To Exercise Total Functionality Of Test Item

Exercise Entire Systems Or Multiple System

Interactions With Controlled Inputs

Instrumented System Testing 

In Natural Environments

Ballistic Missile Defense Testing.—Flight testing represents a particular challenge

for advanced programs like ballistic missile defense hit-to-kill interceptors, especially when the test events are limited in number and compressed in time. As an

integrated part of any military acquisition program, test and evaluation activities

will be most successful if we can conduct them according to some important principles:

—Event driven rather than schedule driven test events to have the opportunity

to apply test outcomes deliberately within the systems engineering process.

—Stable funding at levels to permit adequate testing.

—A disciplined engineering approach extending throughout the system development activity, to include its test and evaluation.

—Modeling and simulation including full program life-cycle modeling and simulation. Ground testing using hardware-in-the-loop and software-in-the-loop test

capabilities gives vital preflight information, especially when conducted in realistic environments.

—Flight testing at a level that allows verification of system performance and also

to acquire the extensive data needed for successive phases of engineering and

development—and the latter signifies substantial amounts of instrumentation.

—Finally, because success can never be assured, spare resources—targets, interceptors and range instrumentation support are needed to conduct a testing program consistent with these principles.

Despite the valuable information that flight testing produces, even in the absence

of a successful intercept, we all recognize that the investment we make in a flight

test, the publicity attendant to it, and the limited time and resources for accomplishing the performance verification of our interceptors, place a high premium of

achieving successful flight test outcomes.

In conjunction with the OSD testing organizations, I recently initiated an independent Task Force on Reducing Risk in BMD Flight Test Programs out of shared

recognition of the challenge that flight testing represents. The report of that task

force highlights a number of important aspects of our overall BMD test and evaluation program.

The task force noted that there have been deviations from that philosophy in the

past and our programs have been making adjustments over recent months to use

our test and evaluation infrastructure more effectively. The task force found that

PATRIOT’s test and engineering approach was deliberate and is following a supportU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
528

able schedule with adequate resources; and the PATRIOT program manager is staying the course.

National Missile Defense has applied its additional funding, as intended, to increase the number of flight tests as well as supporting ground tests. The program

manager has provided resources for both his targets program and engineering program to provide spare targets and system hardware.

The task force’s insights have generated a set of recommendations that I have

shared with our PEO’s and PM’s, and I will be evaluating with them alternatives

for how we might implement the recommendations for the benefit of all of our programs. The task force’s tasking was to identify and additional ways in which we

could bring best technology and practices to bear effectively on our T&E programs

for hit-to-kill interceptors. Its recommendations point to engineering disciplines and

management practices at the PM level and at my level. There may be value in taking its recommendations as the basis for a follow-on review team to report more specifically on the technical attributes that our test managers and infrastructure managers must plan for in their future test activities.

Our existing and planned T&E and M&S facilities are complete and well-suited

to meet the needs or our programs as they develop hardware from flight testing.

The task force has reported persuasively that we need to keep greater discipline in

using those capabilities as intended. BMDO recognizes its important role, not only

in bringing best technology and practices to bear, but in helping our programs apply

them in consistent ways to help solve the engineering challenges of building hit-tokill interceptors.

Threat and Countermeasures Program.—Fiscal year 1999 marks the first time

that our Threat and Countermeasures program is treated as a separate program

element of our requested budget. I directed that we do this in response to recommendations by Congress that this important area of our program gain greater

oversight visibility. In addition, it is a prudent step because it simplifies our internal budgeting practices and allows us to make program and budget decisions in a

more coherent fashion. The fiscal year 1999 request for this program element is $22

million, or roughly 0.6 percent of our budget.

BMDO’s Threat and Countermeasure program provides a wide spectrum of intelligence and threat support to all aspects of the missile defense program. The efforts

covered under this program element directly support our TAMD and NMD acquisition programs by providing potential threat and countermeasure information central

to the planning and execution of those programs. In addition, it supports our Advanced Technology program by providing information on future threats and the

timelines associated with their emergence. Our effort draws heavily on the Intelligence Community for analysis, reports and, in some cases, collection of technical

data in the field. It also sponsors threat work tied closely to the performance parameters of BMDO’s defense systems, exploring possible vulnerabilities as they might

be perceived by potential adversaries. This countermeasures-oriented work is conducted in a systems engineering context by means of a newly developed threat risk

assessment methodology that is supported by selected hardware-oriented experiments. For example, we work with the U.S. Air Force Phillips Laboratory’s Countermeasures Hands-on Project (CHOP) to assist us with such hardware-oriented efforts. Lastly, the BMDO Threat and Countermeasures program produces a series of

carefully constructed and documented missile attack scenarios, including simulated

flight trajectory information, for use in many forms of missile warfare engagement

modeling and simulations. These include wargames conducted at the Joint National

Test Facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Advanced Technology Programs.—For many years the primary focus of the Nation’s missile defense program was the research and development of fundamental

technologies. Under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, the focus was

largely directed toward the development and demonstration of technologies useful

in building a missile defense system capable of defending the United States against

missile attack. Therefore, the budget dedicated to technology development was significant. The dividends from those investments are substantial, for as the program

focus shifted to the development and fielding of actual defenses for the theater and

Nation, we were ready to ‘‘cash in’’ on those technologies we had developed.

However, with the increased emphasis on fielding TAMD systems and developing

an NMD system for deployment, one critical effect has been the limited resources

available for continued technology development. Today, our technology budget accounts for only 7 percent of the overall BMDO budget request. Continued technology

investment is absolutely necessary because it represents not only our seed corn for

future missile defense systems, but it also helps us address near-term technology

needs that our MDAP’s may experience. The chart on the following page illustrates

the declining investment in technology programs.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
529

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

mj-70717D / 011998

BMDO HISTORICAL FUNDING O F E F E N ES

D

E P A R MT E N

D

T

DE FE E N S

M IS SI L E

AL LI STI C

B

Support Technology TMD NMD

Fiscal Years

TY $ In Millions

647

1,048

1,177

1,423 1,651 1,583

1,265

1,916

1,886

553

387

729

811 942 963

864

665

359 313

125

111 131

392 822

1,103 1,646 1,970

2,234

2,418 2,293 2,122

1,975 1,869 1,816 1,786

461 466 434 427 521 382 381 393 425 529

718

1,194

1,431

1,865 1,857 2,025 2,005

1,606

748

22

22

78

Today’s technology program, therefore is a leaner one. However, reduced resources

present us both a challenge and opportunity. Reduced resources drive us to the challenge of ensuring all our technology efforts are directly relevant to the mission of

missile defense—to make every dollar spent on technology truly matter. With this

in mind, I have instituted two major efforts that demonstrate we are rising to the

challenge and seek greater cooperation with the Services in this critical area.

Joint Technology Board.—The first effort is the Joint Technology Board (JTB)

which will examine areas where BMDO and the Services can better coordinate technology efforts, share resources and leverage off one another to develop an integrated

technology program. The JTB includes members of my staff and representatives

from the Service technology communities. The JTB advises me on the advanced

technology program, ensures the Services have better insight into the BMD technology program, and provides an avenue for BMDO to work with the Services to

understand both their technology requirements and investments. The JTB works

within our existing BMDO ‘‘board structure.’’ Hence, by being fully integrated into

our core processes, the JTB represents a critical management response to the challenge of leaner technology resources. Indeed, we have come to the point in time

where we must think smarter and not simply rely on increased resources to meet

the missile defense challenge. This initiative ties directly into the second one, the

establishment of a Missile Defense Technology Master Plan.

Missile Defense Technology Master Plan.—In a few moments, I will address some

of the initiatives I have instituted at BMDO to strengthen our management and

execution of the program. One of those is the development of an organizational strategic plan, which includes the ‘‘mission essential task’’ to plan and execute a coherent missile defense advanced technology program that reduces program risk, improves system performance and affordability, and keeps pace with the threat. The

Technology Master Plan is the guiding document that will help us implement this

mission essential task. The plan represents a fundamental shift in the way we do

business in the BMDO advanced technology program. It represents a development

and maturation program consistent with the requirement of maintaining and enhancing U.S. technical superiority in missile defense technologies. The Technology

Master Plan will address the issue of transitioning technology investments into the

MDAP’s using a more structured and routine planning process. Specifically, the

process will:

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
530

—Create a greater understanding of the evolving threat and mission essential/enabling capabilities;

—Identify and define which technologies should be pursued to keep pace with the

threat, reduce MDAP costs, and mitigate MDAP risk;

—Identify the timelines along which technology development should be undertaken;

—Align existing technology programs and development of new programs to meet

the needs and foster innovative technologies for potential BMD applications;

and

—Determine the level and timing of required financial resources.

The approach I have directed follows a path from understanding the BMD architectures to identification of missile defense drivers to meet military needs. From

there we identify technology needs, along with solutions which satisfy those needs

and produces an investment strategy. The Technology Master Plan is designed to

have a major influence on the development and execution of the BMDO advanced

technology program, as well as the BMDO budget process. Therefore, the process

is closely coupled and synchronized with the overall BMDO and Office of the Secretary of Defense financial planning, programming and budgeting process—the

PPBS.

The Technology Master Plan process begins each year in January with an annual

review of both the evolving threat and the performance of the MDAP systems under

development. Working with the user representatives, MDAP Program Managers,

and others in the missile defense community, my Chief Engineer will identify needs

for technology focus to counter evolving threats by existing or new systems/architectures, reduce MDAP costs and mitigate MDAP risks. These technology needs are

then prioritized and approved by my System Architecture and Engineering Board.

The technology needs are then used as input by my Deputy for Technical Operations, who in turn formulates and designs the advanced technology program.

To achieve these objectives, we will use an approach similar to Integrated Product

Teams (IPT)—however, they will be called Technology Planning Teams (TPT). We

have set up TPT’s for specific technology areas, such as Interceptor and Surveillance

Technology, and will soon set up a TPT for BM/C4I and others. Membership of the

TPT’s is both diverse and inclusive to provide a comprehensive, corporate approach.

They will include Service representatives of the Program Executive Officers (PEO’s),

the MDAP program offices, the threat community, technology program managers

and executing agents, BMDO, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA). The Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization (JTAMDO) and

organizations within OSD are also invited to participate.

Throughout the technology planning process, periodic reviews are provided by senior leadership from BMDO and the Services. The Joint Technology Board, System

Architecture and Engineering Board (SAEB) and Planning and Resources Board

(PRB) will review the results of the TPT’s during the course of the planning year.

This rigorous review cycle ensures that the Technology Master Plan addresses the

challenges of emerging threats; provides a means to address technical issues as they

arise in the acquisition process and executes technology programs to provide for

block upgrades or pre-programmed product improvements for BMD systems. Finally, the missile defense technology investment strategy that results from the

Technology Master Plan has the single, important goal of providing maximum effectiveness for each defense dollar spent. My bottom line is that the Technology Planning Process ensures a strong, effective and stable technology program which is responsive to the needs of BMDO, the Services and our Nation.

Advanced Technology Programs.—While we just started the Technology Master

Planning process during this past year, we obviously have a legacy of technology developments which have laid the foundation for today’s missile defense systems. The

focus of our technology program has been, and will now be in a stronger sense, focused on developing those components and systems that may be required in the future. Currently, the largest efforts we have underway are two specific programs: the

Space-based Laser (SBL), a high-payoff next-generation concept for a missile defense

weapons, and the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program, a technology

integration program to exploit advances in kill vehicle technology to counter more

complex threats. Together, these two programs represent roughly 33 percent of the

advanced technology program budget in fiscal year 1999.

Space-based Laser.—The SBL program is a high-payoff, next generation concept

for a missile defense system. The SBL system, if developed and deployed, could provide highly effective boost-phase intercept of both longer-range theater-class and

strategic ballistic missiles. Working with ground-based defenses, the SBL’s boostphase intercepts would ‘‘thin out’’ missile attacks and reduce the burden on groundor sea-based mid-course or terminal phase defenses.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
531

Last year BMDO and the Air Force signed a Memorandum of Understanding, designating the Air Force as the new executing agent for the program. While the SBL

remains an important BMDO technology program and will continue to be funded in

the BMDO budget, the Air Force will be responsible for executing the program. As

the Director of BMDO, and the Acquisition Executive for BMD programs, I will retain the role of program oversight and will be responsible for centrally planning and

budgeting for SBL. In addition, I will be responsible for making overall system architecture trades for SBL as we integrate it both as a technology development program and as a potential weapon system in the future.

In response to Congressional interest in accelerating the development of the SBL

technologies through a readiness demonstration program, both BMDO and the Air

Force sought to increase program resources through the Department’s POM process.

Other Defense program funding needs superseded this BMD funding issue. Together, BMDO and the Air Force internally realigned approximately $65 million for

SBL in fiscal year 1999, with a combined budget request of about $94 million.

BMDO added approximately $30 million to its previously planned budget and the

Air Force added $35 million. Funding at this level allows the program to progress

at the level of maturing SBL technology and components, but precludes the integration of those components and launching an SBL readiness demonstrator in the foreseeable future. BMDO and the Air Force are currently reviewing the feasibility of

alternatives to such a launch by the year 2005. The Air Force recently concluded

that a more realistic approach may be to plan a space-based experiment for 2008.

The Air Force has awarded two Concept Definition Study contracts with industry

hardware teams to examine all the development options and lay out schedules

which bracket a number of potential launch dates for a space-based experiment.

Once these studies are reviewed, the Air Force and BMDO will make a concept decision. This approach allows us to reduce development risk and test a configuration

that would be more readily scaleable to an operational system.

In parallel to the Air Force concept definition studies, BMDO is working to identify a suitable location for a facility to develop, integrate and test the SBL system.

The current test facility in San Juan Capistrano, California has been deemed inadequate to fully integrate and ground-test a readiness demonstrator and prepare it

for space-launch. Site selection is expected to be completed by late Fall 1998. Four

potential sites have been visited by a site selection team. They are Cape Canaveral

Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center, Florida; Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; and the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. I will keep the Committee fully informed as this process proceeds.

Atmospheric Interceptor Technology.—The other major technology endeavor is

AIT. It is a technology integration effort which will exploit advances in hypervelocity

hit-to-kill vehicle technology to counter more complex and evolving threats. I do not

view the AIT program as the development of a new system per se, but rather a technology testbed. In this approach, we use the AIT program to develop component

technologies which could be applied to current acquisition programs as part of a preprogrammed product improvement program. The AIT program is designed to provide: new capabilities with reduced costs and risks compared to current interceptor

weapons systems, and enhancements to other interceptors under development; reduction of technical risks and costs in support of current acquisition programs

through direct technology insertions; and technical solutions to provide theater missile defense interceptor capabilities for contingencies and against advanced threats

not currently addressed by the TMD system programs.

I have specifically directed that AIT be planned and conducted with BMDO, Navy,

Army and Air Force cooperation to make maximum use of existing Service infrastructures and to ensure that AIT is responsive to the needs of our current TMD

acquisition programs. As part of this process, the Army and Navy in particular have

provided information about their requirements in order to ensure AIT meets the

needs of its primary end users.

BMD Management Initiatives.—During the past year, my staff and I have embarked on a critical process of developing and strengthening our management tools.

Specifically, we have begun our strategic planning process, refined and strengthened

our corporate board processes, commenced a second round of our internal management reviews, initiated cost control and Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV)

measures and begun work on our performance-based contract. These measures will

help us focus our efforts, ensure our resources are appropriately allocated to developing and fielding missile defense systems, and organize our efforts toward achieving those important results.

Strategic Planning.—As I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony, BMDO

does not manage a particular weapon system, nor even a class of weapons. We manage the development and acquisition of an entire mission area—one which cuts

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
532

across all the Services. No one else in the Department does this to the scale that

BMDO does. Therefore, in line with our chartered responsibilities, BMDO’s vision

is to be the Department’s premier joint mission area acquisition agency, ensuring

the deployment of interoperable missile defenses to the warfighter. Our strategic

plan is our roadmap to achieve new levels of missile defense effectiveness, interoperability, and affordability for the 21st century. Our plan embodies the relevant elements in Joint Vision 2010, the Office of the Secretary of Defense planning and acquisition guidance, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the National Defense

Panel. The Strategic Plan focuses our efforts toward the successful development, deployment, and follow-on initiatives for both NMD and TAMD.

Within the Department of Defense, BMDO is responsible for managing, directing,

and executing the acquisition of joint missile defense systems. This is our mission

and reason why a centrally-organized BMD agency exists. In order to achieve this

mission, we have identified a series of mission essential tasks, with each task incorporating key performance goals that deliver greater service, foster partnerships, and

drive our own internal reinvention. To this end, BMDO strives to develop the systems which will defend our Nation, our deployed forces, friends and allies. In so

doing, we seek to become the premier agency for achieving the National Performance Review Reinvention Impact Center’s acquisition goals by the year 2000. The

Mission Essential Tasks that we are dedicated to executing are:

—Serve as the Nation’s source of technical expertise for all matters relating to

ballistic missile defense;

—Establish and implement joint systems engineering processes that provide the

technical foundation for BMD planning and execution;

—Develop and enable the deployment of a cost effective, affordable, and interoperable Theater Air and Missile Defense (TAMD) to meet the missile threat to deployed U.S. forces, friends, and allies;

—Develop options to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) for the United

States, should a deployment decision be required;

—Plan and execute a coherent missile defense advanced technology program to reduce program risk, improve systems performance and affordability, and keep

pace with the threat;

—Lead the international dialogue and cooperation for missile defense activities;

—Articulate and advocate the joint mission area of missile defense;

—Support our people by developing and implementing human resource strategies

that enable and enhance the achievement of our vision and mission; and

—Plan and execute a program budgeting system process and other key business

processes that enable and support the accomplishment of our mission essential

tasks.

These tasks are goals upon which our performance will be measured. They also

simultaneously serve as a planning tool and our basis for benchmarking. Each one

of these mission essential tasks include a full implementation plan, with measurable

activities and outcomes. My intention in embarking on this process is to: first, to

comply with the Department’s Defense Reform Initiatives; and, just as importantly,

add rigor into every one of our efforts to ensure that we are appropriately focused

toward achieving results.

Even before we began our strategic planning process in earnest, my senior staff

and I redesigned our corporate board processes. The two most central are our Systems Architecture and Engineering Board—which reviews critical systems-level and

architecture-level issues and makes fundamental system or architectural decisions—

and our Planning and Resources Board—BMDO’s senior executive corporate body—

which reviews and directs all missile defense plans, programs, budget actions and

policies. During the past year, we have made major strides in streamlining these

processes, ensuring the inclusion of Service program stakeholders, and focusing our

efforts toward more timely decisions. In addition, my Deputy, Rear Admiral Richard

West, has been spearheading our Management Review Team effort to review our organization, staffing and use of support service contractors. The purpose is to assess

how we are organized and staffed to perform our mission—with the purpose of buttressing those areas that need additional focus and resources while reducing those

areas that no longer require the support they traditionally have enjoyed. I expect

that this process will conclude later this Summer, with organizational adjustments

occurring in the new fiscal year.

Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV).—In order to control missile defense program cost growth, I am in the process of instituting very specific processes and procedures for all our acquisition programs to follow. Cost as an Independent Variable

(CAIV) features aggressive, realistic cost goals that the Program Manager and the

contractor team work together to meet or exceed. Given the costs of developing and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
533

fielding missile defense systems, and the overall constrained Defense budget, we

must effectively utilize these tools to contain or reduce program life-cycle costs.

While the NMD Program CAIV process is under the purview of a single program

manager who is managing a single acquisition program, the CAIV process for theater missile defense programs is complex because we are involved in a joint mission

area, as opposed to a single acquisition program. While an individual TAMD system

Program Manager has the primary responsibility to formulate CAIV metrics tailored

to his specific program and will use those metrics to manage progress toward cost

objectives, BMDO must be concerned with the overall architectural impacts. For example, the design of an interceptor in one TMD system may impact the design or

performance of a fire control sensor and the battle management/command, control

and communications. Therefore, these ‘‘cross system’’ interfaces must be carefully coordinated to achieve the full system requirements. Hence, BMDO has the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of TAMD CAIV, whereas the individual

Program Manager bears the primary responsibility for the development and management of TAMD CAIV objectives for his program. Implementation of this important process involves the necessary procedures to state requirements in terms of

needed military capability at the architecture level without offering specific system

designs. Architecture cost objectives may be established through analysis of architecture-level development and performance issues which drive element costs. Therefore, CAIV at the TAMD architecture-level will allow the process to ‘‘trade-off’’ requirements, design parameters, and features versus cost of individual elements,

while producing a missile defense system that fully provides the needed military capability. I consider our cost control measures to be an extremely important element

of our overarching effort to develop and field highly effective and affordable missile

defense systems.

Performance-based Contract.—Finally, we are beginning to develop our performance-based contract. As the Committee is aware, the Deputy Secretary of Defense

will chair the Department’s Defense Management Council. All defense agencies and

OSD staff offices will be required by the end of the fiscal year to prepare, negotiate

and sign a performance contract with the Defense Management Council. This contract will be directly linked to the BMDO strategic plan. If the strategic plan is our

roadmap, then the contract will be the guideposts that measure our progress.

I view these management initiatives as absolutely critical efforts that will ensure

we remain focused on our goals and deliver for the public, the Congress and our

warfighters the very best systems and technologies we can in an affordable manner.

My staff and I are committed to accomplishing these important mission essential

tasks—in spirit, in results, and in the stewardship of our vital defense resources.

Closing.—Mr. Chairman, in closing I appreciate the opportunity to appear before

the Committee and share my perspective on the BMD program and budget. This is

indeed an ambitious year in the world of missile defense. We will attempt more

flight tests and intercept tests this year than any previous year. As we have already

seen, some of those tests have experienced delays. However, I encourage the Committee to not equate delay with failure. These are very complex weapons systems.

They operate at extreme conditions of speed, atmospheric pressures, and short times

of flight. The closing velocities of the target and the interceptor are absolutely incredible. And we are attempting to create a TAMD ‘‘family of systems’’ that are

interoperable with other Service systems. Indeed, we are attempting things that are

not frequently accomplished elsewhere in the Department. While I will admit that

I do not want to see any further delays in the PAC–3, Navy Area, THAAD or Navy

Theater Wide programs, I am encouraged that these most recent test delays are the

result of strong quality control checks and procedures. Frankly, I would rather see

a flight test delayed because an astute engineer or technician questions the reliability of a component during a pre-flight review, than see a flight take place and fail

because of faulty quality control processes. The importance and expense of these

flight tests are too high to risk failure in the name of haste. We must obviously balance the need to demonstrate and field these systems as quickly as possible with

the responsibility to ensure they are fully effective. I am confident that both PAC–

3 and THAAD will experience a successful series of flight tests beginning in the very

near future.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to report that the NMD program is progressing on

schedule. Brigadier General Cosumano and his team are literally working six and

seven days per week to conduct the planned test program and to execute all the critical acquisition process requirements for this program. I think they should be commended for their drive and perseverance to ensure the Nation is in a position to

make a deployment decision in 2000, if required by the threat. In spite of the fact

that the NMD program has an extremely aggressive schedule and is technically

challenging, I am confident that once the third critical element of the NMD stratU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
534

egy—the LSI contractor—is in place, General Cosumano and his team will continue

to make unprecedented progress in the 3 plus 3 program.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage the Committee to support our efforts to bring strength

and coherence to our advanced technology program. Our Technology Master Plan

represents a critical roadmap to the future for this portion of the missile defense

program. While we started the technology planning process out of sequence, we recognized its importance and have been working the monumental task of a yearlong

process in roughly six months. Again, the dedication of the BMDO and Service Executing Agent staffs has been remarkable. The level of teamwork and jointness

across BMDO and the Services in this critical area has been tremendous. I ask that

the Committee have patience as we continue to build the correct technology roadmap and identify critical technology needs. Ultimately, I ask that the Congress help

us instill both coherence and relevance into the investment plan for our missile defense future. With the Technology Planning Process we are trying to rigorously assess where we must invest. I feel this is an issue that requires strong leadership

on the part of both the Administration and Congress—to ensure we provide adequate funds for our future. If we fail to invest today in a coherent and relevant manner, those component technologies and follow-on systems will not be there when we

need them five, ten or fifteen years hence. We must maintain our technological superiority in the face of evolving and emerging threats across the spectrum—especially as weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies proliferate.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, after another year as Director, I must tell you how impressed I am with the combined Government-industry team that is working to develop and field highly effective missile defenses. This is true in every part of our

program: TAMD, NMD, Technology and our Management team. Missile Defense is

a very challenging field. In many ways, this team is charting new ground for the

Department. This is frequently overlooked. BMDO is not responsible for a single

weapon system or even a class of weapons. We are responsible for a new concept:

joint mission area acquisition. As we have all seen, this requires incredible levels

of support from the Services and the OSD staff to embrace the notion of jointness.

In many ways, this requires a cultural change for the Services and Department—

to look beyond a single Service solution—because in future conflicts our military will

be called upon to fight jointly. Therefore, as we must develop and acquire our missile defense systems in the same joint manner. While our critics may focus on the

differing interests of one Service over another, the most important message I want

to convey to the Committee is that today, we are working together better than ever

before to build into all our missile defense systems the capability to communicate

and fight together. That is our mission and I am confident that we will succeed.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working closely with you and the

Members of the Committee on this important program. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions.

OUT-YEAR FUNDING

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, General. We will run the clock up

here on a 10-minute basis. I do want you to know that we have

great confidence in you and your leadership, and there is some political problems developing, and you have been very capable in

keeping yourself out of those political problems. But we have a very

difficult problem facing BMDO, and that is the out-year due bills.

You do not have any funds now identified for the 1999–2003 Defense budget to deploy a national missile defense system or to develop and buy MEADS.

Those are both multibillion dollar bills. Congress has urged

BMDO to accelerate the Navy theater wide missile defense. Senator Lott and others have urged BMDO to move forward with a

demonstration of a scale model. That would cost $2.3 billion. We

have now given you responsibility for 10 missile defense programs

and almost every one has cost more than was originally estimated.

I really think that the real problem we face is the continued deployment that we have had of our forces in Bosnia and in the Persian Gulf is eating away at our ability to develop the systems our

Nation will need, in my judgment, and need them long before we

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
535

are going to have them. I would urge that we find some way to try

to settle in on a system and try to develop it. I remember so well

the arguments we had here with some of your predecessors over

the question of PAC–2.

And although it did not solve the whole problem, at least it was

available when we needed it. And I have that feeling that we are

not going to have anything available when we need unless we start

singling out something and moving forward. I do congratulate you

personally for your decision to be very thorough about testing, but

I do think that somehow or other there is a lot of intraservice competition entering into this.

I, as I indicated before, personally am extremely disturbed over

this attitude that is now coming out of the Army that the testing

that is going on or proposed to be tested up my way is just an exercise in futility, and they are doing everything they can to block it.

With attitudes like that really reflect intraservice rivalry. I think

the whole system is going to lose support that it needs in Congress.

So I would urge you to do what you can to straighten this thing

out so we do not have that kind of development. It does seem to

me and you really have emphasized PAC–3, and whether it is

PAC–3 or 1 of these other systems, if 1 of them shows capability

of moving forward, I think we are going to have to decide to move

1 or 2 forward and not to spend all our time on 10 or more systems.

You mentioned that you believe we should have a system that

would provide protection for all 50 States, and I remember when

Senator Inouye and I heard the proposal that indicated that the

system that would be considered would not cover our States and

probably not some of the southern States. I want to ask you again,

do you think we should put a requirement in law that the system

to be deployed should protect all 50 States?

NMD THREAT COVERAGE

General LYLES. Mr. Chairman, I think we already have that requirement. And actually, it’s been stated in two ways. It’s been

stated within the Congress. It’s actually language within the fiscal

year 1998 authorization bill. But even before that, the requirements given to me by the user, by CINC-SPACE, Commander in

Chief for U.S. Space Command, was to protect all 50 States. That’s

an absolute for us for the National Missile Defense Program, and

we are not deviating from that at all.

Senator STEVENS. Then I do not understand without modification

why we are spending money on the Grand Forks deployment because by definition it does not cover 50 States.

General LYLES. Mr. Chairman, as we look at the various architectures, possibilities, one of the key things is to understand where

the threat might emanate. And I’d love to come back and lay out

and show you some of the classified charts. I can’t do it in this particular room with the audience here.

But there are some threats from some places around the world

where you could actually provide protection for all 50 States from

the one site that you mentioned. That’s not necessarily from all

threats. They can’t meet it from all threats. So we are looking at

examining all the different architectural approaches, but the key

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
536

premise for us, the key mandate—it’s not just a premise—is protection for all 50 States.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I think I can use the reference to C–1

threat, can I not, here?

General LYLES. Yes, sir, you can. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Well, where Senator Inouye and I live, the C–

1 threat is predominant. The Grand Forks deployment will not protect against that. I do not have—I really think that the two of us

are going to have to get on our high horse here pretty soon because

it seems that we are at every turn that is being forgotten.

General LYLES. Sir, I can assure you that I haven’t forgotten it,

that the Joint Program Office and the program manager, Brig.

Gen. Joe Cosumano sitting behind me, we absolutely have not forgotten that. And the term we use, Mr. Chairman, is C–1 capability,

and that C–1 capability will look at all varieties of threats and depending on where the threat emanates we will make sure that if

there is a decision to deploy we always deploy to protect all 50

States. And I can promise you that that is not something we’re deviating from.

WELCH PANEL

Senator STEVENS. You mentioned the Welch panel. That panel

based on its review said this: successful execution of the three-plusthree formulation on the plan schedule is highly unlikely. You

again this morning mentioned three-plus-three. Can you realistically develop and deploy that national missile defense system by

2003?

General LYLES. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we’re trying

to do. As I’ve stated to the committee and other committees last

year and throughout the past year, it is a very high risk schedule.

The program was laid out as sort of a hedge strategy because of

the concerns about a possible emerging threat.

And so we are trying to do this in a very aggressive manner. I

don’t disagree, and actually I support everything that came out of

General Welch’s study. Again, we were one of the people who commissioned that study, and what we have to do is sort of make a

balance between good, robust proper hierarchal testing and also

the need to ensure we get a capability as rapidly as possible. So

we are desperately trying to make that a reality.

NMD DEPLOYMENT

Senator STEVENS. But I think Welch’s panel looked at the probability of funding at the current level of the budget. Would you give

us your best estimate of the cost and schedule for deploying the initial national missile defense capability for the record?

General LYLES. For the record—I’d like to provide it for the

record if I could, Mr. Chairman. And one of my reasons for hesitating in discussing it openly is that the cost, the real costs, are going

to be part of this down select source election decision we’re going

to make in the next couple weeks from this prime contractor. And

to give you real good numbers, I’d like to provide that for the

record and tell you exactly what——

Senator STEVENS. I am not trying to compromise your judgment

on that. What I am trying to see is whether it is really possible

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
537

with the budget we have. I really do not see the budget capability

to add the money that is necessary to meet the existing bills, as

I said.

General LYLES. Oh.

Senator STEVENS. The out-year bills that are due under the system already seem to eat up the money, and we do not see a capability of funding that in the three-plus-three concept under this

budget as it stands now.

General LYLES. I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I gave you the wrong

answer. You were correct. We do not, and the administration’s position has been there are not deployment dollars currently in our

budget for it to be three-plus-three.

[The information follows:]

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD]

Current RDT&E funding for NMD development is sufficient to complete the system design for an initial operational system by fiscal year 2003, if a decision to deploy is made in fiscal year 2000. However, each year beyond fiscal year 2000 that

a deployment decision might be deferred would require additional RDT&E dollars

which are currently not budgeted. Once the decision to deploy is made, an additional

$4 billion to $6 billion in procurement, MILCON, and Operations and Maintenance

funding, beginning in the year of the deployment decision, is necessary to field an

initial system. Specific funding is dependent on threat, selected architecture, and

siting considerations.

THAAD DEVELOPMENT

Senator STEVENS. Let me shift to another one. If the THAAD

flight test is successful, will that be sufficient in your judgment to

give THAAD a clean bill of health and let it proceed?

General LYLES. No, sir; I will never say that one flight test at

this stage of a program is sufficient to give a system like that, a

complex system like that, a clean bill of health. As you know, we’re

still in the demonstration and validation phase of the THAAD Program, and that phase is really to wring out the design.

We have a lot more testing, a lot more development to go before

I could sit in front of you, Mr. Chairman, or the committee, or the

Secretary of Defense and say that we have a clean bill of health,

the program is ready to proceed to deployment. It’s a major step,

but I would not use that statement.

Senator STEVENS. We may have to have a subsequent meeting,

General, in our classified area to discuss this further.

General LYLES. I would love to, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. I think we should try to see if we cannot get

more members here at that time. Senator Bumpers.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Lyles, on

the question Senator Stevens was just asking about, are we going

to go ahead with buying THAAD missiles after one successful test,

and you said something to the effect that no we’re not. But I am

not sure what the qualifier was because the Department of Defense

said on March 24, once we have one success, we are going to order

40 interceptors. Now, how does that square with what you just

said?

General LYLES. Senator Bumpers, as I stated in my opening

statement, and that one chart that I showed in your package, we

actually have a series of hierarchy of different tests that we’re

doing for the THAAD Program. The plan is after the first intercept,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
538

this is what we have put on contract, that we would make a decision to procure those 40 user operational evaluation missiles,

UOES missiles, and that is a correct statement.

But if you look at that one chart, you will see that there are a

series of other tests, some of which have been going on for some

time, ground tests, hardware-in-the-loop tests, software testing, et

cetera, that are also giving us confidence in that design.

But more importantly, the thing I’ve tried to ensure is that before we commit our precious dollars to totally commit all the money

for this particular program that we’ve laid out a hierarchy of reviews. The chart shows that there are at least two if not three in

progress reviews that we will conduct before we fully obligate the

money this year for the UOES Program. And if we stay on schedule, there will actually be two more flight tests that will be completed before we fully obligate the money for that particular effort.

So our contractual requirement is to turn it on, turn on that option with the contractor, but I want to make sure from a fiscally

smart manner that before we fully obligate the effort we know exactly everything about THAAD, hence the other activities that are

taking place.

BMD TEST PHILOSOPHY

Senator BUMPERS. Well, General, I may during the appropriations process or the authorization process offer some kind of an

amendment to be sure that we do not obligate ourselves to a few

billion dollars on one possible random hit. And this chart right

here, BMD test philosophy, down at the bottom it says, BMDO’s

objective is to be consistent with the task force report. Now, I have

not read the report in detail, but I have had my staff do the highlights for me, and I thought it was an excellent report that General

Welch and his group put together.

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. Apparently you do, too.

General LYLES. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator BUMPERS. And they called what is going on now in

BMDO, they called it a rush to failure. Now, that is a fairly current

report. What have we changed? What have we changed to make

sure that we honor the task force observation that we are headed

for a rush to failure? I mean, what are we doing? You know how

strongly I support the Three-Plus-Three NMD Program. But it is

insane to me to set deadlines for doing these things regardless of

what the tests or the technology may be. What are we doing to

make sure we are not rushing to failure?

General LYLES. Senator, let me answer that——

Senator BUMPERS. I am still not satisfied that that is not precisely what we are doing.

General LYLES. Yes, sir; Senator, let me tell you exactly what I

have done in response to that report. Again, one of the reasons I

was one of the commissioners of that study is to ensure I specifically and all of our program managers knew and understood how

we were doing from an independent look at our test program. Since

that report came out, I have specifically tasked the program managers for each one of our programs and their program executive officers, PEO’s as we call it, to go back and in light of that report,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
539

in light of the lessons learned from the THAAD Program over the

last year to come back and tell me what things we may have to

consider doing in each one of our programs to ensure that we stay

consistent with that test philosophy and the concerns raised by

General Welch.

They owe me that response and answer within the next 30 days

or so, and I would, again, be very happy to report back to Congress

as to what our assessment is of that. In the National Missile Defense Program at a recent hearing, I have committed to Senator

Levin that I will bring back that Welch panel to have them to review our test program for national missile defense once we have

down selected to our prime contractor, our lead systems integrator.

And we have essentially gone on contract for the test approach

being recommended by that specific contractor.

PATRIOT EFFECTIVENESS

We will bring back that panel to relook at that to ensure we are

staying consistent with that test philosophy. We are very serious

about that, and we don’t want to take it lightly.

Senator BUMPERS. General Lyles, let me ask you two quick questions. No. 1, on Patriot, we found out after Desert Storm that Patriot had not been nearly as successful as we thought watching

CNN and watching the Patriot explode instead of intercept. Now,

it is now estimated that so far as the real threat to our forces is

concerned it is mostly from Scud-type missiles with ranges of less

than 500 kilometers. And my question is, it seems to me that if the

Patriot is what it ought to be or what we have been led to believe

that it is and which you alluded to in your comments, that gives

us a little breathing room. If 97 percent of the threat is from short

range missiles, it seems to me that that gives us a little breathing

room so we do not have to go balls out to do this thing on some

kind of a time schedule that we cannot possibly meet.

General LYLES. Senator, the Patriot——

Senator BUMPERS. What I really want you to tell me is what is

the confidence level in the Patriot as against the Scud for example?

General LYLES. The confidence level is very high of the current

Patriots we have fielded today with the first two phases of the Patriot Program, Patriot Advanced Capability Three Program, the

guidance enhanced missile that’s fielded today. The confidence is

very high, and I can tell you a specific reason. Because about this

time last year in February or March specifically in 1997, we actually tested the current generation of Patriots against the current

generation of Scuds.

I can’t obviously talk in this environment about how we acquired

those, but we did do testing in the Kwajalein Pacific missile range.

We conducted two tests. Both were intercept tests. Both were very,

very successful. Both cases, we intercepted and killed the Scud.

Now, we did learn something. We learned something about the aim

point selection on one of those tests, and we’ve now made some

software modifications to actually improve even what we have in

the field.

And those software modifications are now in the field today. So

I am very confident, Senator Bumpers, based on those tests, based

on the current threat, based on what we have in the field today

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
540

that we can counter today’s threat. The key is about tomorrow’s

threat and weapons of mass destruction. That’s our concern.

PROTECTION OF 50 STATES

Senator BUMPERS. Well, my final question is also a follow up to

what Senator Stevens was asking and I share his concern about his

home State, as well as Hawaii. I do share their concern about their

home States just as any of us would have. And the ABM Treaty

grants us one site. And that is Grand Forks. And it seems to me—

I am a great champion of the ABM Treaty. I do not want a brouhaha or a violation of it, and I think the Russians are comfortable

right now. But do you feel comfortable with your answer to Senator

Stevens on the 50 State philosophy from Grand Forks? I mean, I

think there is a real question as to whether you can do it from

Grand Forks or not, but I would be interested in hearing your answer to that.

General LYLES. Senator Bumpers, I think the correct answer—

and I probably should have expanded upon this earlier as stated

literally 2 years ago when we embarked on this three-plus-three

strategy by Dr. Perry when he was the Secretary of Defense—is we

will develop this capability is a treaty compliant manner, but when

it comes to actually to deploying a capability we will deploy and if

necessary readdress the ABM Treaty. We will deploy to make sure

we can protect our Nation, protect all 50 States from the threat.

As I stated to Senator Stevens, from Grand Forks, if you look at

it architecturally, there are at least some threats by which you can

protect all 50 States from that particular site, but not all threats.

And the key issue is what do we think about the threat and where

the threat may emanate that will determine where and when we

deploy.

ABM TREATY COMPLIANCE

Senator BUMPERS. Are you familiar with the bill called the American Missile Defense Act of 1998?

General LYLES. Yes, Senator, I am.

Senator BUMPERS. So far, there are 47 cosponsors, only 2 Democrats, but it says it is the policy of the United States to deploy as

soon as it is technologically possibly an effective national missile

defense system capable of defending the territory of the United

States against limited ballistic missile attack whether accidental,

unauthorized, or deliberate. Have you read this bill? Have you

looked at it?

General LYLES. Yes, sir, I have.

Senator BUMPERS. Are you comfortable with some of the language in it? For example, there is no definition of technologically

possible, and it does not define territory of the United States. For

example, does it include Guam?

General LYLES. I’m not sure what is meant by territory in that

particular bill so I’m not clear as to whether or not that does.

Senator BUMPERS. It does not say that this defense system has

to be ABM compliant. I assume though that that is a given by both

the administration, you and the Department of Defense.

General LYLES. Again, Senator Bumpers, as we stated before, our

program will be developed in a treaty compliant manner, ABM

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
541

Treaty compliant manner; but when it comes time to making a decision to where to and when to deploy, we will deploy to make sure

we’re protecting the United States. And if they have to relook at

the ABM Treaty—I think that’s what Dr. Perry said—we will do

that.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you very much, General Lyles. I have

maybe two or three questions I might submit to you in writing.

General LYLES. Yes, sir. Sure. I would be very happy to answer

those. Thank you.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Bumpers, I am sure you realize that

there is nothing in the ABM Treaty that specifies Grand Forks. It

is one site in the United States.

Senator BUMPERS. I did not say that.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

AIRBORNE LASER

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Lyles,

many Americans would be astounded to know that we have no ballistic missile defense at this point. People would probably be surprised that we have no missile defense in place.

It seems to me you are in a dilemma because you have to decide

whether you are going to do something in the short term that will

be partially effective or wait for a longer-term solution that will be

more effective. That is what I am hearing you indicate your concerns about in terms of technology availability and which program

might work and to what extent.

I have a concern that as each of the branches of the military proceed to carry out their budget squeeze that you will not be involved

in their budgets as it pertains to their participation in the ballistic

missile defense system. I believe we could go down the one path

which says full speed ahead here where in another department

things are slowed down. With the Air Force being short of money,

it may be going down a slower path in something that contributes

to the solution. So I have two issues involved, just to point up my

concerns. I understand that the Air Force has some very, very exciting technology by way of the Phillips Laboratory in Albuquerque,

NM.

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. And tied into some of the other big laboratories which have worked on the airborne laser system. Now, let

me ask are you certain that even though that program is exclusively within the U.S. Air Force, that as the Air Force has to cut

its budget that somebody is speaking up when the budgets are prepared that this is a very distinct function that is bigger than the

Air Force, it is part of the overall system, and that they get adequate funds for something like the airborne laser?

General LYLES. Senator Domenici, I am very confident about that

for two reasons. One, the very strong commitment that we see from

the Air Force leadership to ABL and not just ABL in terms of how

it supports missile defense, but as you stated, that it is such revolutionary technology it stands a chance of revolutionizing air warfare for the future. And so I, literally having talked to the Chief

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
542

of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force know that they are absolutely committed to making sure the ABL Program progresses.

The second reason is we have very good relationships with all of

the Services who are involved in missile defense, and I clearly do

have an opportunity to voice concerns if I see that there is some

inequity or something going on where money might be in jeopardy.

So I don’t feel that we will be isolated. I feel very confident that

we’ll have an opportunity to raise any concerns.

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

Senator DOMENICI. Now, let me raise another issue that has

bothered me because I am not sure whether the management and

future of it is being looked at from the standpoint of your ballistic

missile needs. Let us just take the largest inland test site that we

have in America that America has any control over which is White

Sands. Are you aware that in the current Army’s budget that missile range is going to be restrained in terms of personnel and capacity because the Army does not have enough money to continue

to man it in the manner it did before? Again, since that has something to do with testing the kind of weapons you are talking about,

are we sure that one hand is not restraining something because of

budgets while you are going to have a demand that you cannot

meet your goals in 5 years because the ranges are not up to it?

General LYLES. Senator, we are, I think, fairly familiar with the

problems and challenges they have budgetary wise for all their

ranges, and not just the Army. I think all the services do. So I am

familiar with that. One thing that we try to make sure—again, we

have a very strong linkage with the range community; and from

time to time in specific areas, we’ve actually provided additional

funding to help them in various places.

Some of the manpower, and operation and maintenance things

are not necessarily our responsibility; but we do get a chance to

raise concern if we see that cutbacks or reductions in those areas

might jeopardize our opportunities to have successful flight tests.

So again, we do get a vote in the process.

Senator DOMENICI. So being a little more precise, you have certain ideas about the kinds of tests you are going to have to have

over the next 5 or 6 years?

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. You have talked about them here. Are you

sure that you will not be 3 years down the line and come up here

and say, well, we do not have the testing capacity at White Sands

or one of the others because we cut back at a point in time when

we let somebody work on them without the impact potential of our

missile defense program? Are you sure that is not going to happen?

General LYLES. Senator, my answer today to that question is yes;

but since I like to be thorough and always completely honest, I’d

like to, if you could, since I have been asked that specific question

to go back and look at the situation as it stands and then if you

like I can report back to you or the committee and tell you what

I think about that. Today, my answer is yes; but I want to be thorough.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, can we ask him to do that and

report back to you and the committee on his findings?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
543

Senator STEVENS. Sure.

[The information follow:]

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE [WSMR]

Recent cuts in the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) budget have resulted in

a reduction in the civilian work force (approximately one-seventh of the total remaining civilian work force) as well as military Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

and other military field support personnel. Personnel cuts have been fairly consistent with reductions in work load. WSMR is carefully planning budget cuts to reduce

overhead cost and posture themselves to be more competitive in the future. WSMR’s

plan is to maintain a core capability in all areas and establish contracts that can

supplement the core and provide a surge capability to cover periods of increased activity.

At this point, WSMR will be able to support any planned BMDO tests. BMDO

testing at WSMR will be reduced in the years ahead with THAAD moving toward

the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase at Kwajalein, PAC–

3 entering the production phase and Navy programs conducting their testing at the

Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF).

If additional funding cuts occur in the future, we will re-assess our test infrastructure requirements.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

General LYLES. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Of

course, I apologize for being late. As you know, there was a very

important confirmation hearing this morning. I am not certain

whether these questions have been asked, General.

General LYLES. That’s fine, sir.

THAAD UOES

Senator INOUYE. But last year we had our seventh test of the

THAAD; and once again, it missed the target. Do you agree with

me that we should not begin to purchase these missiles in the absence of multiple successful tests?

General LYLES. Senator——

Senator INOUYE. I ask this because I have been told that when

we get the first successful one they are going to start purchasing.

Is that the policy?

General LYLES. It’s not exactly, Senator Inouye. The plan is to

procure after one intercept or to turn on the contractor to procure

what we call user operational evaluation systems missiles. They

would be procured or actually bought with research and development dollars. They’re primarily for test purposes. That’s the original purpose of those particular missiles. But as the name of that

project or that initiative implies, user operational evaluation system, we intend to allow the users, the soldiers in the field to work

with those THAAD missiles, work with the other components of the

THAAD system, get familiar with it, maybe even identify some

problems with it. And our plan was to procure 40 of those advanced

missiles, if you will.

As I stated in earlier comments and stated in my opening statement, we’ve tried to make sure we lay out and do that in a smart

manner. Our contract says, yes, after one intercept we will turn the

contractor on to procure those 40 missiles, but we’ve laid out a

schedule so that there’s lots of other testing, ground testing, software testing, hardware-in-the-loop testing to give us confidence

that we know exactly how the THAAD Program is proceeding.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
544

We have three major reviews that are planned before we fully obligate dollars to this particular initiative. And if we stick to the

schedule, we will actually have two more flight tests before we will

actually fully commit and obligate all of our dollars. So from a contractual standpoint, you’re right, Senator, the plan is to turn on the

contractor to procure those 40 missiles. But from a good stewardship of the dollars for the taxpayer and for our program, we’ve laid

out a series of reviews and other activities before we formally and

finally commit all the money to it.

Senator INOUYE. So you believe that BMDO should exercise a

greater oversight role considering some of the problems we have

had with the Army and the contractor?

General LYLES. We do have responsibility for the oversight role

today. I will not fool you or tell you that we don’t have some issues

sometimes where we need to have tighter controls, but I am working toward that objective with the full support of my bosses.

Senator INOUYE. We have been told time and again that flight

testing is very expensive so we have gone into computer testing. Do

you have confidence in relying on computer testing?

General LYLES. Senator Inouye, the test philosophy I talked

about in one of the charts that I left during my opening statement,

there’s a sort of hierarchy of testing that we’d like to do for all programs, not just missile defense programs. And it really is to wring

out the design, understand what the design is, do that in a very,

very robust manner starting with modeling and simulation computer testing, subsystem testing, component testing, all the things

that you want to do in a smart manner to understand things so you

don’t try to answer all the questions in a single flight test.

MODELING AND SIMULATION

And so we are relying and actually need to do more reliance on

modeling and simulation and computer testing. To answer your

question specifically, that’s the way we all need to do things. We

need to make sure the models are very reliable and robust and accurate. There’s a lot that needs to be done to make sure that’s true.

But I think you’re going to see more and more reliance—again, not

just in ballistic missile defense, but in other programs—of doing

more robust modeling and simulation in computer testing and then

saving flight tests to verify that your models are right. And they

answer those kinds of questions.

Senator INOUYE. I ask this because we have been advised that

THAAD has undergone about 10,000 computer intercept tests and

all of them succeeded. In the computer, you have succeeded 10,000

times. In real flight testing, not one. Something is wrong there.

General LYLES. Yes, sir, there is. And I can tell you specifically

in terms of THAAD because we have wrung that system completely

over the last year. It’s one thing to have successful modeling and

simulation computer runs to show that you can do it. There are two

things that are required there, to make sure the models are accurate and that they are reflecting truth if you will. I think that’s the

case with THAAD. I feel very confident about THAAD.

But if you look at the four intercept failures we had, those four

failures, each different, a different failure mechanism, all were

pointed back to one key entity—two of them I guess you’d say. One

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
545

is reliability and good reliability and a lack of understanding about

the design margins. They were not failures in the design. We think

we feel very confident from all the things we’ve looked at in the

past year, that the design is sound.

But our reliability program and what we knew about the design

margins on the various components was not very—not where I’d

like it to be, and that’s where we have focused our efforts over the

last year, to make sure we understand and qualified all the components, all the subsystem, that we understand the design margins.

That’s the kind of smart thing you do in developing a program, and

we’ve had to go back to put emphasis on that in the last year.

NAVY AREA WIDE

Senator INOUYE. General, I have been advised that the testing

for the Navy’s area wide defense will begin at the Pacific missile

range sometime in the last quarter of 1998. But we have been told

that facility and instrumentation upgrades would be necessary.

How much do you have in your budget for this purpose?

General LYLES. We are working with the Navy to define all of

that now, Senator Inouye. I’m trying to find my notes to see if I

can give you an accurate answer. I think it is to the tune of a couple of million dollars, but let me provide that answer to you for the

record to make sure it’s completely accurate, but we are working

with the Navy on that.

Senator INOUYE. I would appreciate that.

[The information follows:]

PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY [PMRF]

The fiscal year 1999 Presidents Budget includes $34.867 million (fiscal year 1997

and fiscal year 1998 funds) for Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Upgrades.

Congress added $4.692 million in fiscal year 1997 and $4.852 million in fiscal year

1998 to Navy research, development and test (RDT&E) funds for Optical Sensors

and other PMRF upgrades. These funds were reprogrammed to BMDO RDT&E Defense-Wide in April 1998. The revised amounts total $8.882 million in fiscal year

1997 and $35.529 million in fiscal year 1998 funds for a total of $44.411 million in

the BMDO budget for upgrades at PMRF. Necessary upgrades will be complete in

order to meet Navy Area testing requirements in fourth quarter 1998 (first quarter

fiscal year 1999.) All remaining efforts are scheduled to be completed by fourth

quarter fiscal year 1999 and in place for system testing in first quarter fiscal year

2000. Further upgrades are not planned at this time, and funding for such is not

included in the fiscal year 1999 Budget.

ARROW THIRD BATTERY

Senator INOUYE. In previous statements, you have noted that our

Nation derives a lot of benefits from its participation in the Arrow

Program. The Israelis have identified a need for a third battery because the two batteries will not cover that State. What is your view

on the need for a third battery?

General LYLES. Senator, we participated with the Israelis, and

they worked very closely with us to analyze ways that we could

help them and actually help ourselves to address the potential

emerging medium-range threat in the Middle East, particularly

from Iran. Our analysis done with them shows that there is benefit

of having a third battery. There’s some additional more robust coverage, overlaps in coverage, of having a third battery. And so from

that standpoint, I think as even stated by the Secretary of Defense,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
546

we understand there is a benefit from having a third battery. The

issue is how to procure that third battery.

And at least in our program within BMDO, we are not allowed

from policy standpoint of buying hardware for them. We help jointly develop a capability, but our responsibility is not to buy hardware for them, and there are other means that are being addressed

to figure out how to do that.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the

question asked by my colleague from Arkansas on the so-called

Cochran-Inouye missile bill. I would just like to state that I was

most honored to be called upon by the Senator from Mississippi to

join him in this endeavor, and he has spent much time in drafting

this.

But we all know that this science is still at its infancy, though

we have been involved in it for several decades. There are changes

all the time. And obviously, we would have to work out legislative

intent and definitions as we move along in the legislative process.

I hope that you will work with us as we progress in its consideration in the Congress.

General LYLES. Yes, sir, we will.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much.

General LYLES. Thank you, Senator.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Senator Hutchison.

PAC–3

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you

calling this hearing because this is a great concern of Congress.

Both the deployment opportunities for the intercontinental or the

national missile system as well as the development of the theater

missiles. I would like to ask you a couple of questions starting with

the Patriot 3. I think that Senator Bumpers was correct. Many of

us got the wake up call in Desert Storm about the lack of ability

to defend our troops in the field from Scud missiles and other types

of incoming missiles. The Patriot 3 by all accounts is testing well.

I would like to ask you when it will be ready to be fielded for actual

use?

General LYLES. Senator Hutchison, our plan is to have the PAC–

3 in the inventory by the end of fiscal year 1999. That’s our current

schedule for PAC–3. We’re on track with that. Assuming we have

successful intercept tests starting with our test this summer, we

think we can stick to that schedule.

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, let me ask you if there is anything

that you could do or anything that we would need to do to allow

you to be able to make that not longer, but shorter?

General LYLES. I don’t think in terms of that particular program,

the PAC–3. It has progressed very, very well, just as you said, Senator.

Senator HUTCHISON. And the testing that you are doing you feel

is enough?

General LYLES. The testing so far. We haven’t started the actual

intercept test. That’s the—our first one of those is going to be this

summer. And I think we’re going to be very successful with that,

but we haven’t started that series of tests yet. I hesitate to say

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
547

there’s anything we could do to try to accelerate that program any

further.

What provides us some comfort, however, is the answer I gave

to Senator Bumpers that the capability we have in the field

today—the Patriots in the field today can and actually have been

proven—are capable of countering the current threat. Now, where

we need PAC–3, of course, is particularly hit-to-kill lethality capability to counter weapons of mass destruction. So we do not have

a window of vulnerability right now, but I don’t think we can actually accelerate PAC–3. It has really been very successful, and I

hate to try to tinker with it right now.

Senator HUTCHISON. OK. Because we know that the original Patriot was not meant to hit missiles. It was meant to hit planes.

General LYLES. Exactly.

Senator HUTCHISON. Therefore, the accuracy rate was not what

we thought it would be, but that would have been a severe change

in position.

General LYLES. Yes, ma’am.

NMD THREE-PLUS-THREE

Senator HUTCHISON. All right. The next question that I have is

on—it is along the same line, but in a different direction from Senator Bumpers, and that is the three-plus-three.

General LYLES. Yes.

Senator HUTCHISON. I got the impression he thought that that

was perhaps too long. I think it is too short. And I would like to

ask you if there is any more R&D that we could be doing that

would make the three-plus-three shorter in opportunity because I

do not think the ABM Treaty—the ABM Treaty is being used as

an excuse not to deploy, but I do not think that is going to be a

valid excuse. So I think we have got to go forward full force to do

what is right for our country and the ability to protect our shores.

So, therefore, from that line, is there anything that we could be

doing if we did not have artificial barriers like the throwing up of

the ABM Treaty to make the three-plus-three shorter?

General LYLES. Senator, I don’t think so. To be perfectly honest

with you, as I stated many times before Congress and others, we

have a very, very high risk program today in terms of schedule constraints. We are compressing our normal development cycles, but

doing it rightfully so because of the concern about the threat just

like you stated.

But I don’t think there’s any way we could try to accelerate that

program any more than what we are currently doing. We have a

minimal number of flight tests that are planned for the program.

Three-plus-three, as you know, is envisioned that based on literally

two no more than three intercept tests, total intercept tests, integrated systems tests, that we will look at the program in terms of

its capability, look at the threat and might have to deploy that capability—again, depending on the threat—just based on three tests.

That is unprecedented for any of our programs in the Department of Defense. I would hate in terms of getting an effective program, an effective capability, to try to skip anything, rush anything. I just don’t think there’s anything more we can do.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
548

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I really was not in any disagreement

with Senator Inouye about making sure that before we go into production we have it down right.

General LYLES. Yes, ma’am.

Senator HUTCHISON. But I just want to make sure we are doing

everything in the research and development phase in as short a period as we can to make sure that we have it right with whatever

testing is necessary to determine that and then be able to go into

full production at the earliest time.

General LYLES. Yes, Senator. Given, again, the high risk associated with this compressed schedule we are doing everything. The

one thing I keep getting reminded by the program manager, General Cosumano, is that even if we wanted to do some additional

testing we have some what we call long lead times to actually buy

hardware, put it together to support some of our supports. It takes

24 months to actually build up the kill vehicle on the top of the

intercept missiles. And we don’t think there’s any more we could

do to try to compress the schedule because of things like that, in

addition to the high risk associated with it. But we are aggressively

pressing on as fast as we can.

ARROW TECHNOLOGY

Senator HUTCHISON. The next question is regarding the Arrow.

By sharing in the development of the Arrow, to the extent that you

can say here, what are you learning and what is that going to do

for our national missile defense or the THAAD? Are we learning

things that are relevant for the development of our own missiles?

General LYLES. Yes, ma’am. And it is literally a two-way street.

It’s a shared development between us and the Israeli Government.

We are learning things primarily that apply to our theater programs. In a couple of specific areas, the seeker, the mechanism

that actually has to discriminate and determine what is the target

in the threat environment, the seeker technology we’re planning for

the THAAD Program is identical to the seeker that is already in

the Arrow system.

So it’s a new technology for us to some extent here for our missile defense program. NSB is the scientific name for the specific

seeker. They are using it, testing it, working with it today in the

Arrow Program. We are applying the same technology to the seeker

for the THAAD Program. So we’re learning from them because

they’ve had a lot more experience. There is shared technology work

in terms of the algorithms we have to develop to seek, discriminate,

and hit the specific target and so it really is sort of a shared development for us.

Senator HUTCHISON. Do you think it has a chance to help us

work out the problems with the THAAD?

General LYLES. It does primarily from that one component, the

seeker. Not some of the others because of the uniqueness in the

system. The Arrow system is an endo-atmospheric system designed

to kill the threat below 100 kilometers. THAAD is intended to be

both endo and exo, to kill both slightly below and above 100 kilometers. So we’re operating in two different regimes, but there are

some lessons learned primarily on how do we use, how do we work

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
549

with this particular NSB seeker? That’s the primary area where

they’ve been able to help us.

And by the way, we have had THAAD people going to Israel and

Israelis coming down to Huntsville to make sure that we are sharing in the technology from that standpoint.

Senator HUTCHISON. All right. Thank you very much, General.

General LYLES. Yes, ma’am.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran.

BMDO COSTS

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. General Lyles, one of the questions that has come up is the total cost

of the BMDO office and whether or not there are ways to achieve

economies and use more program dollars for actual research and

development of systems rather than on overhead and bureaucracy

within BMDO. Have you taken a look at that and tried to find

ways to cut down on the costs of the bureaucracy?

General LYLES. Senator Cochran, we—not only have I taken a

look at it, but more specifically, my deputy, Adm. Dick West, who

is sitting here in the audience, started looking at this issue before

I came on board to BMDO. And I can tell you, Senator, we have

literally scrubbed our program, scrubbed our office within the

Washington community, but more importantly we put some mandates on our program officers out in the field to reduce their overhead. We have—that is a success story, and I’d love to come back

and show you exactly what we’ve done.

Senator COCHRAN. It would be good if we could have some specifics. There is a question about whether you need congressional liaison, for example. When OSD already has that and each service has

that, do you need that? That is an example.

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. But the specifics would be helpful in understanding your budget needs for the next——

General LYLES. I’d love to come back and show you, Senator,

what we’ve done, also what I’ve mandated for the field. I think

that’s also critically important.

PROGRAM DEADLINES

Senator COCHRAN. There have been some questions already

asked by other Senators about some of the specific programs and

the progress being made to meet this Three-Plus-Three Program

deadline. Let me ask you a question just looking at the logic of the

current policy. Do you recall in your experience any other program

for the development and deployment of a weapon system where we

set up these deadlines like three-plus-three?

General LYLES. I cannot in all honesty recall any specific ones,

Senator.

Senator COCHRAN. No; a lot has been made of the Welch report

saying that what this has amounted to really is a rush to failure.

Do you agree with that report? What is your reaction to it?

General LYLES. Well, again, Senator Cochran, while I agree with

the key points made by General Welch and the other members of

that study team about how we should do testing and we should do

hierarchal testing, we also recognize that for our missile defense

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
550

programs we have some threats that we’re very concerned about or

emerging threats and so we have a hedge strategy in some cases

where we recognize we’re taking some high risk from normal practices to ensure that we can develop a capability as quick as possible.

The onus is on me. The onus is on all of us to go back and ensure

as I stated earlier that we haven’t deviated so much from that philosophy that we are going to have guaranteed failures. So we’re

going to go back and relook at our test programs.

LESSONS LEARNED

Senator COCHRAN. One thing that we observed is that there have

been so-called unsuccessful intercept attempts in the THAAD Program. People talk about whether it is a success or unsuccessful,

whether you hit it or you do not hit it, oversimplifying, I think, in

trying to reduce complex information and data to a one sentence

erroneous assumption. Has BMDO learned anything useful from

these so-called unsuccessful tests that people criticize?

General LYLES. Yes, sir; we—actually, we always learn from unsuccessful tests. And there’ve even been statements made by people

as notable as Dr. Gansler, our Under Secretary for Acquisition and

Technology, that you learn more from unsuccessful tests than you

do from successful tests. And that’s literally true for the most part.

We have learned a lot. We’ve learned a lot about our process for

setting up the programs and reviewing the programs. We’ve

learned a lot about making sure we stick to good, sound systems,

engineering practices, for all of our programs.

We’ve learned some technical things; but in all honesty, I think

the primary thing we’ve learned from the THAAD Program because

those were different failure mechanisms and mostly all attributed

to poor reliability or quality control is that we need to make sure

we don’t lose emphasis on that. So we have learned a lot, and we

are applying those lessons learned to all of the other programs.

MANAGING PROGRAM RISKS

Senator COCHRAN. One thing that you said recently to the Armed

Services Committee was that you would like to have more flexibility in the management of the missile defense program and that

some of the risk in the program—when we were talking about rush

to failure and that kind of thing—is due in large part to the schedule compression of current policy. Let me ask you, as a professional

acquisition officer, if the National Missile Defense Program were to

be put on a more normal schedule, like other programs for development and deployment, would this be helpful in terms of managing

the risk and making a more rational program for the national missile defense system?

General LYLES. Senator, to answer your specific question as an

acquisition expert and as a techie, a technology guy, you always

want more time to do more testing, et cetera. So the answer to the

question generically is you can certainly reduce more risk, have

more confidence in the program when you have more time. This

program is laid out as a hedge strategy though with a recognition

that we need to take the risk because of the emerging threats out

there. So we have to balance those two.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
551

And one of the reasons for bringing a prime contractor on board

is not just to have Government people looking at this, but to have

industry, the top notch industry we have in our country, to take

a look at this issue where are those specific risks and what kind

of testing and schedules do we need to do to make sure we mitigate

and reduce those risks so we can have a successful program.

Senator COCHRAN. Would you say if the NMD Program were restructured to require deployment as soon as the technology is

ready, the system you are developing now and would put in the

field could be accurately described as old or obsolete technology?

General LYLES. No, sir; I would not say it’s old or obsolete. Everything we’re doing in this area is sort of leading edge in many

respects. So I could not use those adjectives.

THREAT AND COUNTERMEASURES

Senator COCHRAN. There is a program that we funded that simulates a country’s capability to develop their own cruise missile from

scratch. We are learning interesting things about what other countries, who are not considered to be threats in the missile technology

area, are capable of doing. Is this a valuable learning experience

for us in determining what the threat might be to our own country

from missile technology development?

General LYLES. Yes, sir, Senator. As a matter of fact, I made a

comment in my opening verbal statement that the threat and countermeasures program, which you have been very, very strongly

supportive of, has been very helpful to us and will continue to be

so to make sure we understand what are the capabilities out there.

The specific program you mention, as you know, we’re trying to

evaluate what happened in the flight test attempt to see if there

was some error in accomplishing that program or whether or not

that was some indication of how difficult the problem is. So we owe

you and others an answer as to what that flight test failure indicated.

Senator COCHRAN. There is also a recent report about how outside assistance has helped accelerate the development of missile capabilities in other countries. One example was Iran receiving assistance from Russia in the development of the medium-range missile there; another is Pakistan, where we saw assistance from an

outside country accelerate the missile development program. We directed in our bill last year, an assessment of the feasibility of other

countries’ abilities to construct long-range ballistic missiles.

What can you tell us about whether you have had an opportunity

to examine ways to assess what new breakthroughs are possible in

ballistic missile development and that other countries may be capable of from such outside assistance?

General LYLES. Senator Cochran, for that specific threat and

countermeasures program, as you know, we just started in earnest

to address that. We’ve laid out a sort of two phase approach in

doing that. Starting with doing the kind of things any rogue nation

or any nation might have to do and that’s the initial design stuff,

the design work and how can they actually do that.

Our team that’s involved in that particular effort is now starting

to do that, emulating a Third World country, if you will, to see how

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
552

tough that job is. And we’re very hopeful we’re going to get some

answers as we proceed through that two phase program.

NAVY THEATER WIDE/THAAD

Senator COCHRAN. My final question is that the CNO told us the

other day that he viewed the Navy theater wide and THAAD programs as complementary to each other from an operational military perspective. Do you share that view and can you explain why

it is important to procure both of these upper tier theater missile

defense programs?

General LYLES. Yes, sir, I do share that. Our analyses, operational evaluation analyses done sometime before I came on board

and done a couple of different iterations since I’ve been at BMDO,

show that we need our entire family of systems, upper tier and

lower tier. When you think of THAAD specifically and Navy upper

tier, you need to think in terms of specific scenarios. As an example, this is just one example, if you have a mature theater with assets on hand, et cetera, like THAAD for Navy upper tier, you can

use that to counter the threat. But as we know, there are probably

going to be scenarios where we have a developing theater where we

don’t have Patriots or THAAD’s in theater, and the assets and capabilities provided by the Navy component that can literally steam

and get ashore in the threat area in matters of days and give you

the capability to protect incoming forces with their systems is just

absolutely invaluable.

So they are very, very much complementary. And I think we

stick to the premise we have to have them both.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have

a few more questions, but I think in the interest of time I will submit those for the record.

General LYLES. Thank you, Senator.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, and Senator Dorgan

was called to the floor. He also wants to submit his questions.

Senator Shelby.

THAAD STATUS

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions

that I would like to submit for the record. Other than that, I just

want to welcome General Lyles. We worked together on a lot of occasions on this, and I may have missed this and this question may

have already been asked and answered, General, because I was

late getting here. But THAAD, where are we with THAAD at the

moment?

General LYLES. Senator Shelby, we’ve been working diligently.

Senator SHELBY. If you have answered that, I will get it——

General LYLES. No; I don’t mind. We’ve been working diligently

for the last year to address the flight test failures and other anomalies we’ve had under the program. Primarily addressing the quality and reliability, systems integration, systems engineering testing

that admittedly was not done robustly enough previously.

The four failures we had were all random different types of failures that all could be pinpointed to one key thing, poor reliability

and quality work. We didn’t understand the robustness of the design. So our focus has been one, to verify that the design is sound,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
553

both we and Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor, have done

that. And also to go back and do all the testing so we know exactly

what we have, and we’re now leading up to have our next intercept

attempt that I feel confident we’ll be ready for in the middle part

of May, next month.

Senator SHELBY. General, why put so much emphasis on one test

here, on one test there? Whereas if you tested, if you had 10 tests,

you know if you hit 6 out of 10, you know you would adjust accordingly, but to just put all the emphasis on one test, especially where

the technology is so promising is that sort of a shallow approach

to that?

General LYLES. No, sir, it isn’t, Senator Shelby.

Senator SHELBY. It does not seem logical.

General LYLES. It’s not a shallow approach, but we have a series

of tests, of course. But the reason we’re putting so much emphasis

is because we’ve had the four anomalies and four failures. And normally, in this stage of an acquisition program, a DEMVAL, demonstration validation, you expect to have failures.

Senator SHELBY. Sure, you do.

General LYLES. But our missile defense programs are so important——

Senator SHELBY. But you do not destroy the system because of

that. You improve it and you learn.

General LYLES. Yes, sir; they are so important. The Congress has

been so good about giving us resources. We need to make sure we

understand and we’ve laid out the program. We’re doing the right

things, and we are leading to successful tests. So we are putting

a lot of emphasis and have over the last year to make sure we understand everything about THAAD before we proceed to that next

test.

Senator SHELBY. But, General, just one test, though. And it is all

public, and let us say if it is successful, great; but what if it fails?

But that does not mean the technology and I know it will be to

some people in the press, oh gosh the technology is wrong, the

wrong approach. You know what I am getting at.

General LYLES. I don’t think that at all. I could certainly tell you

my leadership doesn’t think that. Dr. Gansler recently answered

some questions from Congress about that subject.

Senator SHELBY. But why not more tests?

General LYLES. We have a whole series of other tests. So it’s not

just this one test. We have a whole series of tests. This one test

has a couple of specific milestones associated with it that we’ve

talked about a little bit and that’s making the decision to proceed

to procure these user operational evaluation systems. But there are

still lots more tests that are required for the THAAD Program, and

that’s one reason why the first capability won’t be into the field

until the year 2006 because of all the tests that we really do have

on the program.

Senator SHELBY. But you feel good about the basic technology of

THAAD, do you not?

General LYLES. Oh, yes, sir. I do.

Senator SHELBY. OK.

General LYLES. I really do, and I feel very confident that the contractor, the prime contractor, has put a lot of attention to making

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
554

sure we address the things we should have addressed previously,

but a lot of attention to making sure that we are ready to proceed

with the program. So I feel confident about the entire team.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General LYLES. Thank you, Senator.

OUT-YEAR BUDGETS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. General, I do not want to seem too

negative, but the BMDO budget through 2003 does not include the

$3 to $5 billion estimated to build or deploy even a single site national missile defense installation. It does not. Neither BMDO or

the Army had budgeted the $1.9 billion required to proceed with

the next phase of development of the medium extended air defense

system, MEADS, which is scheduled to start in 2000.

Congress asked BMDO to accelerate the Navy theater wide missile defense and build and launch a scale model space-based laser

satellite estimated to cost $4 billion. We had the feeling that if we

went through the base closing rounds that we would find some of

that money, but as a practical matter if you look at the budget this

year compared to last year, the request is less than we had available last year.

We are now scheduled to spend more money on nation building

in Bosnia and the deployments in Iraq and NATO expansion. And

I have just been told that the bill between now and 2003 for environmental clean up on existing and active military bases is $14 billion. Now, you tell me, General, do you think you are going to be

able to find the money to develop a national defense system, develop MEADS, and accelerate the theater wide system and spacebased laser in this climate?

General LYLES. Senator, with the exception of the issue about the

deployment dollars for national missile defense, my challenge—one

of my challenges for the 2000 POM that we are actively working

right now is to figure out how to one, accelerate Navy upper tier,

how to fund some form of MEADS Program and how to continue

with the space-based laser development that we’ve laid out.

We have about $100 million or so DOD money for the spacebased laser. In terms of progressing toward a demonstrator, that

perhaps is not enough to do it as aggressively as some would like

us to do, but we still want to stay on that path. For the Navy upper

tier, we have the challenge of refining and getting as much as we

possibly can into our budget so we can get that capability by 2006;

or if we can figure out how to get it into the budget, we’re trying

to see if we can get it by 2005.

And for the MEADS Program, because of its importance both in

terms of requirements and international cooperation, we’re working

with our partners and working internal to the building to see how

we can either squeeze it into my current portfolio, the budget that

we have for BMDO or get additional money to support it. So we

have a challenge, just like you’ve stated, Senator, to try to make

all that happen in this 2000 POM we’re pulling together. But that’s

the challenge we’re trying to work.

Senator STEVENS. Well, are you looking at alternative ways to

meet the MEADS requirement?

General LYLES. Yes, sir, we are.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
555

Senator STEVENS. What options do you have there?

General LYLES. We’ve laid out a series of potential options that

initially have been reviewed within the building by our comptroller

community, but we have obviously been looking at it from an acquisition standpoint. They looked—they include a cost constrained

program where we try to do and meet the requirements but do it

for less than the dollars that you just stated. Working again, with

our partners.

They look at an evolutionary approach where perhaps we don’t

develop every part of the MEADS Program initially. We develop

most of it, but we defer development of some components. And

we’re looking at a few sort of out of the box things that can allow

us to meet the requirements, but may not actually be able to be

called a MEADS Program. So we are examining all the options to

see how we can get a viable MEADS Program into our budget. But

also we still want to try to protect the international cooperation.

CONCLUSION

Senator STEVENS. We are coming into a NATO debate this next

week, the leader told us yesterday. And I have always supported

NATO, but as one Senator, I have decided that I cannot see supporting this NATO expansion unless we get some change in our

contributions to NATO. I do not think most people realize that we

are still contributing at the level we did in 1950.

Before those nations had restored their economic capability and

this article I call to your attention, Foreign Affairs Quarterly, about

the costs of NATO expansion. Across the board, we see these—well,

they are really not competing, but the other requirements coming

into this defense bill. We are paying the cost of peacekeeping, out

of this committee. We are paying the cost of environmental clean

up, even on lands that are going out of Defense ownership, the

moneys are coming out of the Defense budget.

And I personally see such a great strain on this budget that we

will be prevented from achieving the objective that the Nation demands. Senator Bumpers was mentioning the concept of failure. I

think it was Rickover who said, failure is no option. But also, the

inability to provide the systems is no option either.

General LYLES. True.

Senator STEVENS. I hope that somehow that we can find some

way to assure that you will get the money you need. Again, we

opened the hearing by congratulating you. I think you are so far

a magician. You have kept all these balls in the air at the same

time. I do not know how you do it. You know, a friend of mine said,

there is only one way to carry 10 tons of birds in a 5-ton truck; you

have to keep a lot of them in the air.

You get these systems in the air somehow or other, and we applaud what you are doing. Again, I think all the questions you have

heard reflect a sort of frustration with finding some solution here

in matching our capability with our people’s feelings as to what we

have already. Each one of us, we travel around the country—I am

sure you do the same thing, run into the feeling among the populous at large that we already have these systems why do we spend

so much money on them.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
556

I gave the comment to the American Chamber of Commerce in

Paris about defense and that was the first question, why are you

spending so much money, we have already got these systems. And

it is amazing to me that we just cannot find the money to meet this

demand. We hope that you have continued success and we are all

going to keep our fingers crossed on this next test of yours.

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Somehow or other we have to get something

to come along to get one of them to succeed and then I think we

will have a different attitude toward it to allow us the funds that

you need to complete your project.

General LYLES. Yes, sir.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator STEVENS. Well, I have got some other questions I will

submit. I do not know if anyone else had any questions.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM [MEADS]

Question. General Lyles, has BMDO looked at pairing an advanced airborne radar

sensor with a new or existing missile defense interceptor?

Answer. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) has conducted an

independent review of the MEADS program to address affordability. We have examined, with the Army, several alternative architectures, to include the use of new and

existing interceptors, that will support the requirements of our warfighters and

international partners. To date, no change in the MEADS program description has

resulted from this review.

Inherent in the required capabilities of MEADS is the ability to incorporate all

sensor data available on the battlefield, to include airborne radars. However, to substitute an airborne sensor for the organic sensor suites in MEADS would, most likely, jeopardize international participation in the program. Both Italy and Germany

have an operational requirement for MEADS and it is highly unlikely that either

country would be interested in pursuing a system that would require external sensors in order to function.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD] BASING

Question. General Lyles, what process will define near term threat and therefore

drive the NMD deployment site?

Answer. Clearly, the ultimate decision to deploy a national missile defense system

will most likely be made by the most senior DOD officials in consultation with the

Executive and Congressional branches of the government. A key factor influencing

this decision will undoubtedly be the source and nature of the threat facing the nation. Several agencies and processes contribute to this assessment. Intelligence community documents such as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) will contribute

as well as the Departments Strategic Threat Assessment Report generated by the

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). As far as the program is concerned, key milestones such as the fiscal year 2000 Deployment Readiness Review and subsequent

annual reviews of the program by the Department will routinely assess the status

of the threat for the purpose of developing a recommendation to the Secretary regarding deployment. This process is no different than that followed in determining

the threat for any DOD acquisition program.

Question. General Lyles, is the Defense Department committed to the most effective NMD deployment, even if that dictates relocating our current ABM Treaty designated site?

Answer. The ‘‘3 plus 3’’ program has always been planned so that it complies fully

with ABM Treaty constraints during the development phase, but we have been careful to point out that some potential deployments might require modification to the

Treaty. We have accordingly designed the program to allow a system deployment

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
557

at a site, to be chosen after a threat is identified, which would optimize its capability to defend the entire country.

Question. General Lyles, has the Defense Department undertaken discussions or

planning to lay the groundwork for changing the Nation’s single missile defense site

designated under the ABM Treaty?

Answer. Our NMD development program is treaty compliant and we have not settled on a deployment architecture. In fact, we will not settle on a deployment architecture until a specific threat is identified. We continually assess deployment locations throughout the United States as part of our planning to enable greatest flexibility in responding to various threats.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD] COST AND SCHEDULE

Question. General Lyles, as urgent as the THAAD requirement is, we currently

plan to equip the first THAAD unit in 2006. Can you realistically develop and deploy an NMD system by 2003?

Answer. Yes, but with a high risk and a limited capability. The NMD Joint Program Office (JPO) has always believed that achieving an initial operating capability

(IOC) by 2003 will require a highly successful and extremely well coordinated development phase over the next few years. However, there are no insurmountable technical issues and the new Lead System Integrator contractor, Boeing, has developed

several architectures that could be deployed to reach IOC in 2003.

Question. General Lyles, are two intercept tests, one by each kill vehicle concept,

a sufficient basis for an NMD procurement and deployment decision?

Answer. We currently have three intercept flight tests planned before the Deployment Readiness Review (DRR) including an Integrated System Test. However, the

NMD Joint Program Office in conjunction with the Lead System Integrator are exploring the possibility of having a test in fiscal year 2000 prior to a DRR; due to

its proximity to the DRR, the data from this flight may not be available at decision

time.

THREAT DEVELOPMENT

Question. General Lyles, Iran’s progress on developing longer range ballistic missiles clearly demonstrates that determined opponents can acquire theater ballistic

missile capability. Do you believe that adversaries will also seek to add penetration

aids, jammers, and maneuvering capability to their missiles in the near future?

Answer. We believe that some of our more capable adversaries have already incorporated ballistic missile defense countermeasures into their missiles. Our less capable adversaries will direct their efforts toward countermeasures in the future after

they have established a baseline missile attack capability. For the most part, we

foresee these countermeasures appearing on short range ballistic missiles 10 or

more years ahead but somewhat sooner in the case of medium range missiles.

Question. General Lyles, would penetration aids, jammers, and maneuvering reentry vehicles significantly reduce the capability of THAAD, PAC–3, and the Navy

Area Defense system?

Answer. Penetration aids, jammers, and maneuvering reentry vehicles are examples of potential countermeasures that could degrade the performance of theater air

and missile defense (TAMD) systems. The TAMD systems are being developed with

these and other countermeasures in mind; the ability to react to intentional or unintentional, sophisticated or primitive countermeasures are explicit requirements for

the THAAD, PAC–3, Navy Area, and Navy Theater Wide Defense systems. The

TAMD Family of Systems provides capabilities across a broad spectrum of threat

vehicles and environments. The aggregate of the individual TAMD systems ensures

a robust response to countermeasure attempts to degrade our ability to kill TAMD

targets. The different sensors and intercept regimes (i.e., endoatmospheric,

endoatmospheric/exoatmospheric, and exoatmospheric) make it increasingly difficult

for enemy systems to effectively counter all elements of a multi-tiered defense.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD]

Question. General Lyles, I understand that the more thorough THAAD ground

testing has identified several new hardware problems. Can you describe these and

comment on whether these issues are resolved?

Answer. Over the past several months, the Project Office and the prime contractor

have implemented a more rigorous ground test approach, as recommended by the

independent review teams chartered after the Flight Test 07 failure. The program

has conducted a complete reassessment of the acceptance test procedures and the

environmental stress screening of the missile components and increased the ground

test shock and vibration testing for several components to more thoroughly test the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
558

packages. This increased discipline and more rigorous approach to ground testing

has significantly increased confidence in the contractor’s overall quality control and

flight test preparation processes going into the next flight test.

This disciplined test approach has successfully identified and corrected problems

in hardware, such as the communications transponder (CT), booster thrust vector

control (TVC) firmware, and seeker inertial measurement unit (IMU), that may not

otherwise have been discovered prior to flight.

While conducting the pre-flight ground testing in late December/early January,

LMMS discovered anomalies associated with the CT and TVC firmware and had to

change out these components. The CT is a device used to receive and transmit mission critical in-flight information with the THAAD radar. The firmware in the TVC,

a subassembly of the missile booster, determines the steering commands to be executed during flight. In the case of the TVC, although LMMS was able to replace

the FT08 booster with one that was already disassembled for re-ATP (acceptance

test procedure) and re-ESS (environmental stress screening), they incurred a four

week delay to assemble and retest the new package.

The IMU drift measurement problem was detected by LMMS during a pedigree

review and was presented at the critical technical review as a concern. While the

drift measurements were within acceptance test procedure specifications, as a precaution LMMS returned the IMU to Lockheed Martin Infrared Imaging Systems

(LMRIS) to preclude any potential problems that could occur in flight. All three of

these problems have been corrected.

PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY-3 [PAC–3]

Question. General Lyles, can you describe the challenges which are delaying the

PAC–3 intercept test?

Answer. We have demonstrated many major design features of the PAC–3 missile

in the first two control test vehicle firings. We have demonstrated launch operations, a responsive airframe, and correct operations of most major subsystems of

the missile. We are now engaged in the final major step leading to the first intercept

with the PAC–3 missile—the integration of the flight seeker and its software into

the missile. This integration has presented significant challenges which have resulted in more software iterations than initially planned to resolve interface problems. We must also complete the integration of three hardware-in-the-loop facilities

which enable us to integrate and checkout the flight hardware and software. The

combined integration efforts are a complex technical challenge that resulted in moving the date for the first intercept flight test to the fourth quarter of this fiscal year.

To assure ourselves that we are not missing any technical problems, a government

missile flight readiness review team has conducted an intensive review of the engineering development program with the contractor. This team has extensive experience with managing missile and software-intensive development programs. Their

conclusion is that the difficulties currently being encountered are not unusual for

this kind of program. While progress is being made, it will probably require more

time and resources than originally thought. We will continue with our event-driven

philosophy and not proceed with the first intercept mission, DT–3, until these technical challenges are resolved, and the ground tests indicate we are ready. Based on

the team’s review we are confident that DT–3 can occur in the fourth quarter.

Question. General Lyles, with the Welch panel recommendations in mind, do you

believe the current PAC–3 program includes adequate flight testing?

Answer. The principal observation of the Welch report on PAC–3 was that the

flight test program and key milestones schedules are compressed. An integrated review of the program in March 1998 by BMDO, the program office, and the missile

contractor resulted in the adoption of a flight test schedule that balanced programmatic and technical risks, such as those identified in the Welch Report; cost

and urgency of the need for PAC–3. Actions have been initiated to provide the additional resources from within the program’s budget to fund this schedule. The PATRIOT Program Manager has also developed contingency plans to enable repetition

of test flights if a failure occurs. This plan would minimize the schedule impact if

a flight test needs to be repeated, but would require additional funding to replace

the hardware consumed.

The PAC–3 program faces a challenging mission to confirm its ability to consistently achieve hit-to-kill against an array of threat-representative targets. The Welch

report echoes our view that the urgency of the PAC–3 program is not driving it to

take high risk approaches to testing. The PAC–3 system differs somewhat from

other TMD programs in that it employs more mature technologies which evolved

from the ERINT and PATRIOT growth programs (QRP, Configurations 1, 2, and 3).

PATRIOT is a mature program with well-established methodologies and a proven

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
559

history of success. The Welch panel indicated that the PATRIOT program has a legacy of disciplined design and engineering processes. We believe that the current

flight test program has been carefully planned and follows a disciplined approach

that enables the program to manage the risks incurred by the compressed flight test

program.

Another key finding of the Welch report was that the technical demands of hitto-kill require a rigorous ground test program, using high fidelity end-to-end system

simulations and analysis to reduce known areas of uncertainty prior to flight. This

ground testing should also include hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) testing of critical

flight hardware. The PATRIOT test program employs three HWIL facilities; one at

LMVS to conduct closed loop flight operations with the missile hardware and software; a second, at Raytheon, that allows evaluation of ground system hardware/software interfaces with missile subsystems (hardware and software); and a third Government facility at AMCOM, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, that gives increased fidelity of missile guidance accuracy with a high fidelity representation of the target in

combination with natural and induced electronic countermeasures (ECM) flight environments. Over 1,000 flight simulations are run before each flight to ensure that

any technical issues and other uncertainties are identified and resolved. The PATRIOT program also requires a series of three flight readiness reviews prior to each

flight to ensure that the missile and system integration pre-mission analysis and

flight test procedures indicate readiness for flight testing.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD] TEST PROGRAM

Question. General Lyles, much has been made of the Welch report’s phrase, ‘‘rush

to failure,’’ particularly with regard to the THAAD program. In testimony before the

Senate Armed Services Committee last month, however, General Welch said he had

‘‘little doubt that we do have hit-to-kill technology in hand’’ even if it had not yet

been demonstrated through flight testing. Do you agree with General Welch’s assessment?

Answer. Yes, I do agree with General Welch’s assessment of the maturity of hitto-kill (HTK) technology. The HTK concept, although technically challenging, has

been successfully demonstrated in other missile defense programs. The PATRIOT

Advanced Capability 3 (PAC–3) [formerly the Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT)]

program is the most mature of the three BMDO HTK programs under development.

Using HTK, ERINT successfully intercepted ballistic missile targets in fiscal year

1994 and PAC–3 is scheduled to begin additional HTK missions later this year.

The problems that THAAD has experienced in its attempts to achieve HTK intercept have, in general, involved missile reliability and systems engineering. Following FT–07, I chartered an Independent Review Team (IRT) to assess the mission

critical functions and design margins, as well as to review the overall system concept. Though the review made a number of recommendations to improve the system

reliability and to reduce flight test risk, the IRT concluded that the THAAD system

concept and missile design are sound. Additionally, the IRT concluded that there

were no fundamental design limitations that might preclude successful THAAD

intercepts and none of the THAAD test failures to date challenge the feasibility of

hit-to-kill.

SPACE-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE

Question. General Lyles, you were quoted last month in Jane’s Defence Weekly

as saying the ‘‘best way’’ to defend against future missile attacks is by using spacebased laser weapons. Can you explain—from a technical standpoint—why that is,

what advantages and disadvantages there are to such weapons?

Answer. An operational Space-Based Laser (SBL) system provides the potential

for being the ‘‘best way’’ to defend against future ballistic missile attacks for two

basic reasons: Early, boost-phase, destruction (prior to RV and Penaid deployment)

and Global availability.

The SBL is an advanced technology, next generation concept designed to destroy

ballistic missiles during the boost-phase. A significant advantage of being a boostphase intercept system is that the engagements generally take place over the enemy

territory rather than near the defended asset. The potential for dumping nuclear,

biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction back onto the adversary’s territory may provide a deterrence to even launching such systems. Secondly, the SBL

will be immune to the many countermeasures that are conjectured to reduce the effectiveness of midcourse and terminal engagement systems.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
560

An operational SBL system provides continuous, global coverage of ballistic missile threats. It is immediately available, i.e., it does not require transport of military

resources or material to trouble spots around the world.

An SBL system is envisioned to augment current ground systems as part of a

tiered defensive architecture. A boost-phase system does not remove the need for

midcourse and terminal systems; rather, it greatly improves the effectiveness and

robustness of the defense as a whole. For example, in the early stages of a theater

conflict, the SBL can help defend our access to points of entry allowing the Airborne

Laser (ABL) and terminal phase systems to set up and operate in theater. Use of

the easily refuelable ABL for boost phase intercept shots where possible would preserve the magazine of the SBL for other missions. For National Missile Defense

(NMD), the SBL would similarly provide the first tier of defense for the groundbased NMD system.

A perceived disadvantage to the current chemical SBL system concept is its finite

magazine depth (number of times that the laser can fire) before refueling is required.

AIRBORNE LASER [ABL]

Question. General Lyles, the GAO has recently written a critical report on the Airborne Laser program. Do you share GAO’s dim view of this program?

Answer. No. The Government Accounting Office’s (GAO) primary concerns were

with atmospheric turbulence. Recent testing addressed these concerns and they no

longer appear relevant. In the early summer of 1997, the GAO took issue with the

Air Force’s non-optical method of measuring atmospheric turbulence (it measures

air temperature variations which are translated into optical turbulence values). The

GAO expressed concern that non-optical method might not be as accurate as required and suggested that the more complex and more expensive optical technique

of passing a laser beam between two aircraft would be preferable. Since ABL’s turbulence design specification is based on non-optical measurements, the GAO warned

that the ABL specification may not be correct and the expected turbulence could be

understated. The GAO’s concerns with turbulence were cleared up in late August

1997 when the Air Force demonstrated correlation and equivalency between the

non-optical and optical methods. OSD conducted an independent analysis and

agrees that the methodologies correlate. Using the validated non-optical method, the

Air Force has collected over five times the amount of turbulence data available at

the time of the GAO investigation in Northeast and Southwest Asia. The results of

this in-theater data collection validate ABL’s design specification—over 80 percent

of the measured optical turbulence levels are equal to or more benign than ABL’s

design specification.

LONG-RANGE AIR LAUNCHED TARGET [LRALT]

Question. General Lyles, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Ambassador David Smith suggested that BMDO was adding unnecessary requirements to the Request for Proposals for the Long-Range Air Launched

Target in order to avoid possible complaints from Russia.

a. Has the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the LRALT been issued?

b. Does the RFP direct the designers to include a wing?

c. Is the wing necessary to meet the LRALT’s performance requirements?

d. Is the LRALT compliant with the START Treaty even without a wing?

e. If the LRALT is compliant without the wing, why is the wing being required?

f. What is the total cost of this requirement?

Answer. a. Yes, the RFP was released on April 16, 1998 and we expect to receive

proposals from industry on May 15, 1998.

b. Yes, the RFP states that the LRALT vehicle shall sustain flight over some portion of its boost phase by incorporating a wing that produces a vertical component

of lift greater than the weight of the vehicle for at least 10 seconds.

c. Our engineering assessments are that a wing would probably not be necessary

to meet the LRALT’s performance requirements as currently defined. The addition

of a wing, however, would in some circumstances enhance the performance of this

target vehicle, which in turn would provide a greater margin to meet possible future

requirements.

d. BMDO does not have the authority to determine whether LRALT or any other

system is treaty compliant. To date, no final determination has been made as to the

START Treaty compliance of the LRALT vehicle since the system’s design is not settled. Preliminary review, however, indicated that an unwinged LRALT raised

START Treaty compliance issues that pose unacceptable risk of delaying the program. The Department decided that adding a wing which provides aerodynamic lift

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
561

would help avoid concerns involving START Treaty provisions dealing with air-tosurface ballistic missiles.

e. Same as d above.

f. We have estimated the LRALT total cost for design, development, and a dem- onstration flight test to be approximately $45 million. The additional cost of incorporating a wing onto the LRALT vehicle is estimated to be $5 to $10 million. Subsequent flights to support the theater missile defense (TMD) test programs will be

bought on a per use basis.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

ADVANCED RESEARCH CENTER [ARC]

Question. a. What is the current budget for the ARC? What is BMDO’s future

funding profile for this facility and on what did you base these numbers?

b. In reference to your letter dated April 1 that stated that BMDO would conduct

a requirements review to determine the ARC’s budget, why would BMDO cut the

future funding for the ARC before they initiate the requirements review process?

c. Will the Army officials who manage the ARC participate in the requirements

review process, and if so, at what stage of the process? If not, why not?

Answer. a. In the fiscal year 1999 President’s Budget Submit, the ARC was funded as follows: $17,341,000 in fiscal year 1998 (included $7,000,000 Appropriation

plus-up); $7,756,000 in fiscal year 1999, $7,119,000 in fiscal year 2000; and

$21,819,000 for fiscal year 2001–03. Based on recent ARC requirements discussions,

fiscal year 1998 planned funding was revised to $17,100,000. Current fiscal year

2001 through fiscal year 2005 ARC funding is shown as zero within BMDO’s financial planning database pending the outcome of BMDO’s more comprehensive total

infrastructure requirements review to be conducted this summer.

b. The requirements review will be conducted in the summer of 1998. Until the

review is completed, BMDO will not finalize the budget for the ARC or any other

infrastructure facility.

c. Yes. The Army officials who manage the ARC will be full participants in the

review process.

KINETIC KILL VEHICLE HARDWARE IN THE LOOP SIMULATOR [KHILS]

Question. a. Why did you direct, and I am quoting from your April 1 memorandum, that ‘‘all interceptor development programs funded wholly or in part by

BMDO * * * to use the*** Kinetic Kill Vehicle Hardware In The Loop (HWIL)

Simulator facility at Eglin Air Force Base?

b. Doesn’t the effect of your policy take away work that has been conducted in

Huntsville? If so, what is the basis for that?

c. I am told that IDA conducted a study that identified KHILS as the only Hardware-In-The-Loop facility required by BMDO for infrared radiation Hardware-InThe-Loop testing. Did any of the members of the IDA study team have any direct

Hardware-In-The-Loop infrared (IR) missile testing experience?

d. Since the BMDO’s charter is not to duplicate existing Service facilities, why did

BMDO develop KHILS and why are you duplicating other existing test facilities,

such as Arnold Engineering Development Center, especially considering your

present funding challenges?

Answer. a. The KHILS test facility was begun by then Strategic Defense Initiative

Organization (SDIO) in the 1980’s under Air Force management to take advantage

of the technical expertise of the Air Force gained from the Advanced Medium Range

Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) HWIL experience. The facility has been designed to

perform dynamic, closed loop HWIL experiments using realistic IR scene generation

and projection techniques. Thus it simultaneously tests the IR seeker, electronics,

and controls under simulated flight conditions. The kill vehicle may then be tested

under a wide variety of conditions and scenarios. Through the years the KHILS facility has become DOD’s center of excellence for these measurements. As the ballistic missile defense (BMD) Acquisition Executive, I have several concerns about the

management and use of key test and engineering capabilities for our BMD interceptors in development. First, my objective is to avoid investments in facilities that fail

to provide lasting value to the DOD test and evaluation infrastructure. This policy

provides firm guidance aimed at preventing duplication of IR HWIL facilities within

the DOD. Second, I am ensuring that every program has access to the technical expertise, equipment, and support it needs for accomplishing its test and engineering

milestones successfully. In my judgment, KHILS provides the ‘‘best technology and

best practices’’ applicable to all our IR interceptor programs. My policy memo allows

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
562

for waiver procedures to avoid creation of program bottlenecks, and, as required,

BMDO will provide mature technologies to other facilities to ensure the best practices are baselined among BMD programs. Third, the experience, the lessons

learned, and the data developed from one interceptor program’s test events can be

utilized, compared, and applied by other programs, thus accelerating their development cycle. By directing them all to use KHILS as a common facility, I am giving

our overall program another important means for advancing in an integrated, costeffective way.

b. At this time it is not clear what impact this policy will have on other Service

facilities which could provide IR HWIL support to BMDO programs. The primary

purpose of this policy is to baseline the best technologies and contain costs by preventing duplication of IR HWIL facilities. If a BMDO program has requirements

which cannot be accommodated at the KHILS facility, the policy provides guidelines

for our programs to request exceptions to the policy based on program unique technical, cost, and schedule considerations. Requests for waivers will be validated by

the BMDO System Architecture Engineering Board. This review process will determine the level and distribution of our HWIL workload, however, I do not anticipate

a significant adjustment in the level of HWIL work being conducted in Huntsville.

c. The IDA study did not identify KHILS as the only Hardware-in-the-Loop facility required by BMDO. The study concluded that, ‘‘Both Army Aviation and Missile

Command (AMCOM) and KHILS would probably yield valuable data on seeker performance, particularly given the absence, to date, of any high fidelity HWIL simulations of the endgame.’’ while admitting that, ‘‘A definitive assessment of the ability

of KHILS and AMCOM to test the THAAD seeker is limited by a lack of experimental data.’’ The study did express a preference for the resistive array technology

used in the KHILS over the Laser Diode Array Projection (LDAP) technology used

by AMCOM. We should note that since the study, Lockheed Martin is negotiating

to purchase a resistive array for work on THAAD at Sunnyvale, while the Navy’s

Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) has acquired a resistive array for its theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD) programs.

The members of the IDA study team have several years experience with the

KHILS, AMCOM, Johns Hopkins University (JHU)/APL, and Arnold Engineering

and Development Center (AEDC) facilities. They have extensive knowledge of BMD

interceptor and surveillance systems, and I consider them well qualified to address

IR HWIL testing.

d. When the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization began development of Kinetic Kill Interceptor Systems in the 1980’s, they found it required high fidelity, fast

framing, infrared imaging seekers to provide the precision performance data necessary to perform hit to kill intercepts. As these imaging systems were developed

and matured, the complexity of functions assigned to these kinetic kill weapon systems amplified the need for a new generation of robust hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL)

simulation technologies and facilities, specifically designed to address hypervelocity,

hit to kill intercepts with infrared seekers.

The Munitions Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory was selected as

the single IR HWIL development and test organization, and the Kinetic Kill Vehicle

HWIL Simulator (KHILS) facility was developed to accomplish this role. Designation of a single facility allowed us to control repetitive development and learning

curve costs associated with each of our interceptor programs. In this role, KHILS

has continually advanced the state of infrared HWIL technology. Their work in the

areas of real-time infrared scene generation and projection technology has been exemplary. Due to the work at KHILS, we have the technology in hand to perform

realistic, robust HWIL testing of our infrared interceptor systems.

The KHILS facility and those at the Arnold Engineering Development Center are

not duplicative. The KHILS facility is used to address closed-loop HWIL testing of

BMDO interceptor systems with infrared sensors, and develop technologies associated with the generation and projection of infrared scenes. The BMDO sponsored

facilities at AEDC are used to performed open loop calibration and characterization

of space based infrared sensor systems.

ATMOSPHERIC INTERCEPTOR TECHNOLOGY [AIT]

Question. a. I was pleased by your decision to make the AIT program your number

one support technology program. You are currently using SMDC to execute the program. Do you intend to continue utilizing SMDC to execute all AIT development activities in the future?

b. You directed the AIT to focus on developing technologies for low endo atmospheric interceptors. Do you intend to use AIT to develop high endo atmospheric

interceptors in the out years?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
563

c. It is my understanding that the Discriminating Interceptor Technology Program

is being executed by BMDO. Why is there not a Service Execution Agent for this

program?

Answer. a. Executing agents for AIT development activities currently include

SMDC and Navy China Lake. Executing agents are selected based on their capabilities, related experience in the technologies being developed, and ability to develop

and implement transition paths to enable infusion of the technology into the system

program for which it is intended. We expect that SMDC will continue to be a principal executing agent for AIT development activities.

b. AIT will focus on developing component and subsystem technologies for those

missile and air defense interceptors which fly within the atmosphere: principally

PAC–3, Navy Area Defense, MEADS, and THAAD. All of these systems, with the

exception of THAAD must operate as missile and air defense interceptors with mission altitudes extending down almost to the surface. The most pressing technology

requirements encompass the low endo-atmospheric battle space. The new direction

for AIT is to ensure the technologies developed are applicable to these principal

technology customers. For these reasons, I have focused AIT to develop those technologies needed for all of our current and future atmospheric interceptors. AIT development thrusts will be coordinated with other technology programs to provide leverage and avoid duplication of effort.

c. The Discriminating Interceptor Technology Program (DITP) is centered about

the requirements of the Services and the major defense acquisition programs

(MDAP’s) to counter the anticipated advanced missile threat and associated counter

measures. DITP is focused on the regime where the physics of the problem are not

significantly influenced by atmospheric properties. This is in contrast to our AIT

program, which must, for example, consider aerodynamic lift and drag as well as

other effects. BMDO provides Program Integration of DITP activities. Current Executing Agents for DITP include the Army, Air Force, Navy and BMDO to maximize

leveraging opportunities, avoid duplication, and to exploit of the unique experience

and qualification provided by the various Service agents. We expect that DITP will

continue to be executed as a tri-Service program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DALE BUMPERS

TARGETS AND COUNTERMEASURES

Question. To what extent, if any, will each of our hit-to-kill ballistic missile defense systems be flight tested against realistic targets that emulate the countermeasures and penetration aids that could reasonably be incorporated on threat missiles, including early release submunitions?

Will such intercept tests, if any, be part of a complete integrated systems test?

Answer. THAAD: Prior to Milestone II, the THAAD test program includes radar

discrimination testing against threat representative targets and targets with countermeasures. During Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), the test

program includes intercepts against threat representative targets with countermeasures.

NTW: Prior to Milestone II, the NTW test program includes flight testing against

basic threat representative targets. During EMD, the test program includes intercepts against advanced threat representative targets.

PAC–3: The PAC–3 test program, currently in the EMD phase, includes flight

testing against threat representative targets and targets with countermeasures. The

test program also includes testing that will validate the radar ability to perform

classification, discrimination, and identification of threat representative targets and

targets with countermeasures.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD]

Question. Is NMD being designed to cope with the stressful flight characteristics

and capabilities of Russia’s new SS–27? Will NMD be flight tested against a target

that will emulate the flight characteristics and penetration capabilities of the SS–

27?

Answer. The NMD system is being designed to cope with sophisticated missile

systems. However, our primary focus for near term development and testing for a

potential 2003 deployment is on less sophisticated threats, such as those that may

be developed by a ‘‘rogue’’ adversary, with some added penetration aids. Over time,

as the NMD system matures past its initial capability, the planned NMD development strategy is to evolve the system capability to address more stressing threats.

This planned evolution includes the additional sensing and battle management upU:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
564

grades necessary to successfully negate sophisticated missiles, warheads, and penetration aids.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD]—NAVY THEATER WIDE DEFENSE

[NTW]

Question. I understand that THAAD and Navy Theater Wide are optimized for

exoatmospheric intercepts of longer range (1,000–2,000 kilometers) theater ballistic

missiles.

How effective will each system be against short range Scud-type missiles that

spend very little time at high altitude?

Answer. NTW is an upper tier defensive system designed to provide protection

against medium to long range TBM’s in the exoatmosphere that has no capability

against the short range Scud-type missiles. THAAD is designed to provide protection against short to long range (in excess of the range specified in your question)

TBM’s in both the endo and exoatmosphere and has the capability to engage the

short range Scud-type missiles. Both THAAD and NTW are employed in concert

with lower tier systems to provide defense in depth against short and long range

threats.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

NAVY THEATER WIDE PROGRAM [NTW]

Question. General Lyles, regarding the Navy Theater Wide Program, would you

please comment on the relative amount of funding going toward system and radar

technology versus missile technology?

Answer. To date, the majority of the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) program funds

have been used for development of the Standard Missile (SM) interceptor. Of the

subsystems that comprise the NTW system, we believe the interceptor to be the

most challenging. Although it leverages off the SM legacy, it integrates an IR Seeker and is the first SM variant to prosecute the threat in the Exoatmosphere. The

Aegis Weapon system and radar technology, while challenging, leverage off the existing Aegis Weapon system and more importantly the Navy Area Defense Theater

Ballistic Missile Defense program. Recently however, a large portion of NTW risk

reduction activity funds have been targeted toward both the NTW Aegis Weapons

System Computer Programs and radar technology.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON DORGAN

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD]

Question. If NMD were a program with a normal development timetable, what

would its schedule look like? When would it be ready to deploy? By how many years,

roughly speaking, does the ‘‘3∂3’’ schedule reduce the time normally needed to develop this program?

Answer. The Department has directed that the current NMD program be a ‘‘3∂3’’

program, with the potential requirement to meet a deployment date of 2003, consistent with Public Law 105–85. A normal MDAP NMD acquisition program was considered as part of the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review’’ (QDR) analyses that were prepared last year. Such a program would most likely conduct program definition and

risk reduction activities through 2003. At that time it would most likely reach the

equivalent of a MS II decision, from which an Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase could be initiated. An initial operational capability under these assumptions could be reached by 2006 at the earliest.

The benefits of such a schedule change were perceived by the QDR as greater

schedule realism based on historical experiences. However, they also noted the potential that the threat might emerge before a deliberate program reached maturity,

a concern also expressed by both the Congress and the Department. It should be

noted that while we are executing ‘‘3∂3’’, we have not discarded the normal departmental requirements to have metrics as criteria for passing to the next phase or

manufacturing milestones such as design reviews, the DRR (Deployment Readiness

Review) and IST’s (Integrated System Tests).

The QDR reached the conclusion that a high risk 3∂3 program was justified

based on the potential need for an NMD deployment. Following that decision, the

NMD Program has been focused on meeting the 3∂3 goals, and accordingly, we

have not pursued the definition of a more deliberate program any further.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
565

WELCH REPORT

Question. Why did the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization sponsor the creation

of the Welch independent review panel?

Answer. The Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), the OSD

Director for Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), and the OSD Director for

Test, Systems Engineering and Evaluation (DTSE&E) co-sponsored the independent

task force which reviewed best technologies and practices for successful flight testing. The purpose of the task force was to independently review current and planned

pre-flight testing practices for hit-to-kill interceptor programs, assess their adequacy, and identify innovations that are needed to provide a high level of confidence

that each flight will be successful. BMDO believes that it is the mark of a good organization to benchmark itself against other similar activities past and present. We

believe in continuous process improvement.

Question. To quote two of the Welch panel’s ‘‘key judgments’’ in its report, ‘‘The

strategy of accepting a high level of risk to shorten schedule time has been counterproductive.*** [2] There are high schedule risks and inadequate test assets and

testing planned in the 3∂3 program. In the judgment of the study group, successful

execution of the 3∂3 formulation on the planned schedule is highly unlikely. The

program will benefit from the earliest possible restructuring to reduce risk.’’ What

is BMDO doing to restructure the NMD program to reduce the risks of schedule

slippage and program failure?

Answer. I have asked all Program Executive Officers and Program Managers to

review the findings and recommendations of the Welch report and to conduct an assessment of the programs. The goal is to determine how the concerns raised in the

report are being implemented, if applicable. Further, I have told everyone I will invite the Welch panel to review the NMD program later in the summer after the LSI

has established a program baseline and test and evaluation plan.

Question. The Welch report points out that while the ‘‘3∂3’’ plan started in October 1996, we still don’t have a Lead Systems Integrator contract. Would it be reasonable to restart the ‘‘3∂3’’ time frame when that contract is awarded later this

Spring?

Answer. The Department has directed that the current NMD program with the

‘‘3∂3’’ schedule, including the potential requirement to meet a deployment date of

2003, remain consistent with Congressional mandate (Public Law 105–85). The

Lead Systems Integrator contract will be consistent with this schedule.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD] SITING

Question. Has the Joint NMD Program Office been inspecting sites in Alaska to

evaluate them as possible sites for deployment of a national missile defense system?

How many sites have been inspected?

Answer. The National Missile Defense Joint Program Office has performed preliminary fact finding trips to existing Department of Defense (DOD) controlled sites

in Alaska for potential use in deployment of a National Missile Defense System.

Nineteen DOD sites in Alaska have been visited. These visits were used to support

the LSI source selection process. The data collected, when coupled with our extensive North Dakota site data base, are important to allow us to carry out reasonable

deployment planning without having to have a deployment decision prior to 2000.

Question. Last year, in response to a similar question that I asked on this subject,

BMDO stated for the record that ‘‘before BMDO takes any action that could reasonably raise an issue of ABM Treaty compliance, we must seek clearance from the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.’’ Did BMDO seek this

clearance before it examined the impermissible sites?

Answer. The BMDO National Missile Defense Joint Program Office is performing

analyses and planning to support a Deployment Readiness Review in 2000 and potential deployment of a National Missile Defense system within three years of such

a decision. BMDO will seek the proper approval from OSD when it becomes necessary. No such clearance is necessary at present to collect data in order to be able

to lay out potential deployment sites for OSD review.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE [NMD]

Question. Is it technologically possible to have an effective national missile defense against limited attacks? Would you deploy such a system now? If not, why

not?

Answer. Although much work needs to be done, we see no engineering or technological impediments to deploying a national missile defense system that is effective

against limited attacks. The NMD JPO has always believed that achieving an IOC

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
566

by 2003 will require a highly successful and extremely well coordinated development

phase over the next few years. However, there are no insurmountable technical

issues and the Lead System Integrator (LSI) contractor, Boeing, has proposed a program approach to achieve an IOC in 2003. It would be extremely difficult to make

a deployment decision now given the elements haven’t yet been sufficiently developed, integrated, and tested in a fashion commensurate with making a prudent decision.

Question. Does this mean that when considering whether to deploy NMD, the

Congress and the Administration should consider other issues besides whether it is

‘‘technologically possible’’ to have an ‘‘effective’’ system?

Answer. What the Administration should consider before deployment is beyond

the charter of BMDO. From a programmatic perspective, however, I assume the successful demonstration of the system’s capability will be key.

Question. In your prepared statement, you mention BMDO’s plans for the first

intercept test for the NMD program.

a. When will that test occur, in your view?

b. Do you know which vehicle BMDO will use to launch the exoatmospheric kill

vehicle (EKV) from Kwajalein Missile range?

c. How many NMD intercept tests will there be before we reach the decision point,

in the year 2000, on whether or not to deploy NMD?

Answer. a. The date for IFT–3 is currently under review, based on current test

status and LSI testing approach.

b. The first intercept Flight Test (IFT–3) will use the Payload Launch Vehicle

(PLV).

c. Currently there are four intercept tests scheduled before the DRR. IFT–3 and

IFT–4 are designed to be intercept tests of the two competing EKV designs. IFT–

5 and IFT–5A are Integrated System Tests that will test system integration in addition to an intercept of the winning EKV design. However, the government and Boeing are in the process of reviewing the outlined NMD Test and Engineering Master

Plan and schedule based upon the LSI award.

Question. What is the status of the Air Force’s Minuteman option for national

missile defense at this point?

Answer. There is only one Department of Defense national missile defense program, the ‘‘3∂3’’ program which is managed by the NMD JPO. While developing

the NMD program, a number of alternative options were studied. After review of

these options, it was decided to retain some Minuteman test resources and the

booster as potential system components. A booster for the NMD 3∂3 program has

not been selected at this point. Currently, the Minuteman booster is under consideration as is a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) booster. The selection will be made

by the Government within 90 days of the Lead Systems Integrator contract award.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD]

Question. Does the next THAAD test, in early May, have as one of its goals the

interception of the target? If the interceptor misses the target, how can this subcommittee justify continued funding of the THAAD program?

Answer. Yes, an intercept is one of the flight test goals. Even in the event of an

intercept failure, the requirement for a land based upper-tier Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system will still exist. The Department has invested over $3.2 billion

in the program to meet a critical warfighter need for this capability and despite previous missile intercept failures, all other elements (radar, battle management and

launcher) of the system are working.

ARROW

Question. Defense Secretary Cohen visited Israel this week and met with Israeli

Defense Minister Mordechai. Press reports quoted the secretary as saying after the

meeting that ‘‘we agree that Israel needs a third Arrow battery to improve its defenses against missile attack*** [W]e are committed to the research and development level of funding.’’ In light of this statement by the Secretary, how would you

suggest that we act in order to secure the funding needed to help Israel as it works

to obtain a third Arrow battery?

Answer. The Government of Israel estimates that a Third Arrow Battery (which

includes radar, launch control center, fire control center, launchers, and interceptors) will cost about $170 million. The Department of Defense agrees with Israel’s

assessment that a third Arrow Battery is a valid requirement for Israel’s defense.

However, due to budgetary restrictions and a lack of funding for critical U.S. ballistic missile defense programs, the Department is not prepared to ask Congress for

any additional funding to cover a third Arrow Battery. If Congress appropriates an

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
567

additional $45 million in fiscal year 1998, BMDO could use this to fund a greater

share of the development, manufacture, and testing of the Arrow user operational

evaluation system under the Arrow Deployability Program (ADP), this would then

free-up $45 million in Israeli national funds that could be applied toward the procurement of a third Green Pine radar (for the third Arrow battery) in fiscal year

1998.

Question. In 1996 the U.S. and Israel signed a cooperation agreement on the

Arrow program anti-ballistic missile system. The U.S. share of the program was to

be $48 million, or $12 million a year over four years. This agreement was to lead

to higher interoperability between U.S. and Israeli systems. Last year, Congress

added $12 million to meet the U.S. commitment under the agreement. Could you

please tell us what progress we have made in implementing this agreement? Do you

support the Congress adding $12 million in fiscal year 1999 to meet our commitment? Will the Administration be including this sum in its future budget requests?

Answer. The Arrow Deployability Program (ADP) international agreement was

amended in February, 1998, specifically to implement Arrow Weapon System (AWS)

interoperability with U.S. systems and to enhance the effectiveness of the AWS. The

U.S. added $48 million to the ADP agreement over four years ($12 million per year),

subject to the availability of funds, and Israel added $12 million over four years ($4

million per year). A Joint U.S. and Israeli implementation team was immediately

formed and a program was developed to implement functions and equipment to

allow the AWS to interoperate with U.S. theater missile defense (TMD). The first

supporting hardware was delivered and installed in Israel in late April, 1998, and

Israel has begun procurement of necessary the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) equipment capable of exchanging data with U.S. TMD systems.

If funding is continued, the software development and the hardware integration now

underway will culminate in fiscal year 2001 with the demonstration and validation

of AWS interoperabilty with the U.S. AEGIS and Patriot TMD systems.

BMDO supports Arrow interoperability with U.S. TMD systems. The $12 million

in fiscal year 1999 funding is needed to fund U.S. obligations under the amended

ADP international agreement. Due to budgetary restrictions and a lack of funding

for critical U.S. ballistic missile defense programs, the Department is not prepared

to include the needed funding in future budget requests.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. Do you have any further questions, gentlemen?

Thank you very much, General.

General LYLES. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Senator Inouye,

Senator Shelby for your strong support. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
U:\02HEAR\1999\02AP22.000
(569)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:22 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, and Inouye.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

STATEMENT OF ADM. JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER

IN CHIEF

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Good morning, Admiral. We are delighted to

have you here, our Commander in Chief of the Pacific.

Congress has passed the $2.9 billion supplemental for this year.

Several members of our committee went with us to the Middle

East, and we have been meeting with military officials and others

since we got back, because of our questions about morale, and readiness, and force levels.

I know you have some problems about your missions, and deployments, and we want to know how you are impacted by these deployments. Some of them are under your command. I know that

the aircraft carriers that have been dispatched to the Persian Gulf

are under your command.

So let me say, in the interest of time, I will put my full statement here in the record, and we will print your statement fully in

the record. We hope there will be others here, but I have to tell

you, in our absence they scheduled a vote here soon, so we should

listen to your statement, and then we will come back and have

questions. Senator Inouye.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Good morning, the subcommittee today will hear from Admiral Prueher, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.

The Congress recently passed the $2.9 billion defense supplemental bill for fiscal

year 1998. That amount was provided to the Department of Defense for costs resulting from ongoing contingency operations in Southwest Asia and Bosnia.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
570

As you may know, several members of the committee just returned yesterday from

a visit to our forces in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bosnia, and to NATO headquarters.

In each country, we met with American military personnel, State Department officials, and allied leaders.

The delegation set out to assess the existing level of allied support, and to measure the effects of deployments on troop morale, readiness and the viability of modifying existing force levels.

Admiral, today we want to know whether these other missions and deployments

are impacting the readiness of forces under your command or the quality of life of

your people.

Admiral Prueher, your full statement will be included in the record.

I ask that you summarize the issues that you would like us to focus on during

today’s hearing, and then I believe all of us will have some questions that we would

like to ask you.

Before we proceed, I would like to call upon the ranking member, Senator Inouye,

for any comments that he would like to make.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to join you in welcoming

the Admiral to the committee. As you know, Admiral, we look upon

the Pacific as an important place, not only because we represent

States in the Pacific rim, but because we recognize the growing importance of this region. So I, together with the chairman, look forward to your views.

Admiral PRUEHER. Thank you, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir.

Admiral PRUEHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

welcome back to all of you. Senator Inouye, it is a treat to be here

with you today, and I thank you for the opportunity to represent

the men and women of the Pacific Command, and also present a

view from the Pacific and an update on what we are doing there.

In addition, I thank this committee especially for their steadfast

support to the members of the armed services for our piece of national security, and more specifically, for passing the supplemental,

which will be of great benefit to all of us.

What I would like to do this morning, and I will do it as quickly

as I can, is present an assessment of the Pacific theater, provide

a little bit of a logic train, which both of you all have heard before,

for the framework for our priorities, and what we are working on,

talk for a moment about readiness, and then be happy to take your

questions.

The fundamentals and what we are doing in the Pacific are constant, but we adjust the activities to meet the circumstances. As

both of you all know so well, the Pacific Command AOR is of great

importance to the United States, with 56 percent of the population

in the world there, 35 percent of the population of the world in

India and China alone, and 65 percent of the world’s population,

when one considers the Pacific rim in total.

The six largest armed forces in the world are in the Pacific region, and 35 percent of the U.S. trade is there. It is peaceful, but

we always are reminded of the fact that since 1950 the number of

people who have been lost in the armed services in the Pacific have

been higher than the rest of the world combined.

Our mission for the Pacific Command is for a secure, and stable,

and prosperous Asia Pacific region as part of our national military

strategy. Our foundation of what we do is based upon two premU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
571

ises. One is the confluence of trying to work the political, the military, and the economic issues together, to work them in consonance, and not get one far out ahead of the other.

The second premise is that military security underwrites the stable conditions which allow for economic and political prosperity to

occur.

As Secretary of State Albright has said, the economic system

rests on political order, which in turn, rests on military security,

and this leads to our strategy in the Pacific, which flows from the

national military strategy of shape, respond, and prepare, with

which you are familiar, but ours is one of preventive defense, which

is what we do day to day.

It consists of exercises, what we modestly call high-level meetings with other nations, it’s ship visits, it’s what we do day to day.

It consists of meetings, such as what we did last night with the National Defense University about the Asia Pacific. It consists of

classes of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies which is off

to a good start, with Gen. Hank Stackpole. But this is what we do

day to day to build relationships and to prepare and train our

forces to respond to crises.

The second part of our strategy is crisis response, and there are

examples of this. We respond with credible and ready forces, carrier battle groups, Marine ARG/MEUS, the newly flagged 172d Infantry Brigade, the crisis response force that would come from

Alaska for airborne response, and with our Air Force squadrons.

This crisis response has been demonstrated most recently in the

last couple years with response to the China-Taiwan missile crisis,

and then also the political infighting that occurred in Cambodia

about 7 to 9 months ago, where we responded with special operations forces.

The third part of our strategy, of course, is the ability to fight

and win a major conflict, and what we have done for 45-plus years

of being with our Republic of Korea allies in Korea, has averted a

war in Korea, and also created conditions in which that situation

can be resolved.

FIVE KEY ISSUES

So with that strategy, I would like to briefly mention the five

things that have priority for us, and they’re on our plate right now.

They are the preservation of the security relationship with

Japan, building the foundations for a mil-to-mil relationship with

China, and I’ll talk about these a little more in a moment, creating

the conditions for a noncataclysmic resolution or reconciliation in

Korea, building a mil-to-mil relationship with India, and then also

reacting to the East Asian economic crisis and the impact of that

on the nations in the region, and then I would like to go into a little bit more detail on those factors.

First, as we talk a lot about China we must not forget that our

pivotal and key security relationship in the Pacific region is that

which we have with Japan. Japan is working on the defense guidelines, which will allow for their future security role in Asia, and

help to define that.

Secretary Albright, when she was in Japan last week, signed an

acquisition and cross-servicing agreement, which allows for us to

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
572

use Japanese facilities as we work on the defense of Japan and

other things in the region.

We are concerned with Okinawa, of course, and the host nation

support, in which Japan has provided $4.53 billion of support for

United States troops and their stay in Japan. Together with Ambassador Foley, who is doing such a great job there, we are working this relationship very hard and keeping it a high priority.

Second on our plate is building the mil-to-mil relationship with

China, the foundations of that relationship, and it is a part of the

overall relationship our Nation has with China.

Militarily, we have come a long way from 2 years ago when our

communications were close to zero. We are working on building a

level of understanding with the PLA and the Chinese people, on

what the United States and our Pacific forces are doing militarily.

President Jiang Zemin, when he was in Honolulu, talked about

the importance of gaining understanding as a precursor to building

trust between our nations, and that is what we are working on.

The issue of China and Taiwan is very important. I think the

Chinese PLA leadership understands that Taiwan is—well, we understand it as a core sovereignty issue to China, and they also understand that the United States is committed to a peaceful resolution of the China-Taiwan issues.

We are understanding also of the critical nature of 1.32 billion

people and what that means to China for economic modernization,

for food, clothing, shelter, energy, and jobs. With that number of

people it is a daunting governance challenge, as people involved in

governing our Nation will understand, of creating that for those

many people.

So economic modernization transcends military modernization for

the Chinese. But we deal with them from a position of military

strength, and we deal with them from a position of respect for their

interests as well as our interests in the region. As I say, we are

working on the foundations, this is a long-haul relationship we are

in with the PLA and with the Government of China.

Korea, the third item, we are foremost trying to create the conditions for a peaceful reconciliation to occur in Korea. The new Kim

Dae Jung government is making great strides at communications

between the Republic of Korea and the DPRK in North Korea. General Tilelli there is doing a great job with our forces.

It is the only nation in the world where we have a four-star officer assigned to represent a single nation, represent us with a single

nation, and our solid relationship that we work with the Republic

of Korea armed forces needs to see reconciliation through to a finish. It is on the horizon, but we need to follow through on that.

India, we’re working a burgeoning military-to-military relationship with India, the second largest country in the world, and the

largest democracy in the world, and this is a challenge, because

they had been aligned with the Soviet Union during the cold war,

and have been largely inward looking.

It is important for us to recognize that though we usually talk

about India-Pakistan, the Indians look to China as their main security challenge, and they also look east to Asia for their economic

growth.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
573

The last item then that we are looking at day to day for this next

year is the East Asian economic crisis and the impact that has had.

It is important for us to realize that this economic crisis is, in fact,

a security crisis, because they are tied to closely together.

Our military role, our U.S. military role with the other militaries

of the other regions, is to create time and space to allow for a solution for this economic crisis to occur. So we are adjusting the size,

the shaping, and the timing of the events we do with the other nations to accommodate this crisis.

It is important for the Asian nations and for the East Asian nations to see that the United States is with them and is working

with them in both good times and bad, as Secretary Cohen has

mentioned.

The economic crisis hit hardest South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. South Korea is dealing with this, along with the IMF, as is

Thailand, in a very constructive way. I would like to address a couple of comments more specifically to Indonesia, which is having a

very—that nation is having a very hard time right now.

Indonesia, as we have talked about before the committee before,

has over 17,000 islands, 6,000 of which are occupied. It is the

fourth largest nation, in terms of population, in the world, 208 million people, and has the largest Moslem population of any nation

in the world.

In addition to having a geo-strategic location along the Strait of

Malacca, through which about 400 ships a week pass to go up to

North Asia, it is a nation that is the linchpin of ASEAN and the

Southeast Asian nations, because of its size, and because of its influence there, and, therefore, it is very important to the United

States.

They are currently challenged both politically and economically,

and also this presents a real challenge for the military in Indonesia, for ABRI. The student unrest, the drought, the dramatic decline of the rupiah, have given a lot of turbulence in Indonesia.

This puts the ABRI in a sensitive and very challenging position.

We talk regularly with Ambassador Roy there, with the country

team. I talked Thursday, before we came, Thursday of last week,

with General Wiranto, who is the head of ABRI, and he recognizes

the sensitivity and the challenge of his position, and trying to react

moderately to the turbulence, and react in a responsible way.

I am convinced that they are working very hard to act in a responsible way, but it is a challenge, and my opinion is that contact

with Indonesia versus isolation is the key to trying to help them

through this crisis.

PACIFIC COMMAND READINESS

I would like to shift gears now to talk briefly about readiness, because that is something that is very much on everyone’s mind, and

from a CINC’s point of view, I would like to say a few words about

it.

Foremost, from a commander in chief, of one of our regions in the

world, what we need to have fundamentally is the right forces, at

the right time, in the right place, to fight the right fight. So that’s

the fundamentals of it.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
574

What capabilities do we have to do this? There are seven. First

is combat-capable equipment. Second are qualified people. Third is

adequate maintenance and logistics support for this equipment.

The fourth is training. The fifth are tactics to capitalize on the

training and the people. The sixth is the ability to move forces to

the right place, and the ability to command them. Then the seventh is the infrastructure to support these forces.

We look at these seven items on three different levels. One is the

tactical level or the unit level. The second is aggregated to a battle

group level or an expeditionary force level. The third is the strategic level.

So this accounts for a lot of the items that a unit will be having

tactical problems, the tank will not fire, the ship will not shoot, or

something like that, and yet, that can be accommodated at the

strategic level, and still have the overall forces be satisfactory.

The bottom line of all of this is that when we look at the Pacific

forces, overall we are ready, our forces are adequate. We have some

shortfalls, which we have documented in the written statement for

the record, which increase the time and the risk of responding to

crises. Our forward deployed forces, the readiness is very good. As

we look at the forces that are back in the United States that are

the rotational forces, their readiness has declined, and we are looking—if you think of a bucket, that there is a bucket in the curve

for the rotational forces, that bucket is deeper.

We have used the parts, we have used the people, and we have

used some of those assets, and so that bucket is, in fact, a deeper

bucket, as we get ready to deploy the forces.

It is becoming more challenging to deploy forces ready, but our

forward deployed forces are currently ready. I can talk about that

more in questions and answers, if there are questions about it.

Senator STEVENS. Could I interrupt you?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. We are just back from the Persian Gulf, and

we found that the Air Force and the Army, and even the army from

Bosnia, when they returned from a deployment, they are sent to

sort of retraining area so they can restore their combat skills.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Do your people, when they are in a stationary

type of deployment, like off Iraq, for a fairly long period, do they

have to come back and go through retraining, too? Are you saying

that you have the same problem they do?

Admiral PRUEHER. That problem exists for the forces that deploy

from the Pacific, also. The real difference is between the traditional

rotational forces of—the Marine Corps and the Navy have deployed

on rotations for a long time, and so that is a normal circumstance

for the Navy and Marine forces, they come——

Senator STEVENS. Normally, do they go through retraining?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir, they do.

Senator STEVENS. So there is no added training necessary when

they come back from like the gulf deployment.

Admiral PRUEHER. The rotational forces normally, when they

come back, they go to a lower readiness level, and then that readiness level comes back up as they reach another scheduled deployment.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
575

The forces that deploy out of phase are the ones that—primarily

they would be the Army and the Air Force units that come there,

they come, their readiness declines, because they’re not getting the

training while they’re deployed, their readiness would decline, and

then they’d come back and have to retrain to get back up to a higher level of——

Senator STEVENS. We discussed that with them, but I’m talking

about your forces now. One of the things that the Air Force pilots

complained about is that if they’re in Kuwait they can’t go outside

the cleared air space, if they’re in Saudi——

Admiral PRUEHER. That’s correct.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. They very seldom go outside—but

in any event, they do not have ranges, and they do not have the

same type of training they would get if they were in the United

States or even in Korea.

Are you limited in your training opportunities when deployed, as

compared to other deployments in the gulf region?

Admiral PRUEHER. The answer is yes, sir, we do. The air units

that deploy from Kadena are forward deployed PACAF forces that

were deployed from Kadena, they would——

Senator STEVENS. I’m talking about Navy now, not——

Admiral PRUEHER. OK.

Senator STEVENS. We have the PACAF——

Admiral PRUEHER. I’m thinking joint, and you’re thinking Navy,

sir. OK.

Senator STEVENS. Well, the joint we ran into, there’s no question

about it——

Admiral PRUEHER. The naval force is the—the Indy carrier battle

group that is out there, and the Marine—the amphibious ready

group [ARG] and the Marine expeditionary unit [MEU], when they

are out there and on station, they have the same issues which you

are discussing.

Senator STEVENS. Right now you have two carrier groups out

there, right?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir; one from our AOR, and one from the

European AOR. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Admiral, I have to interrupt you. Do you have

any questions on that question? OK. I’m sorry, sir. We’ll come back,

if you will just give us a——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. Recess here.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Senator STEVENS. My apologies, Admiral. I’m not sure you had

finished your statement, sir.

Admiral PRUEHER. I had a little bit more. I would like to take

one more shot on the readiness degradation while deployed.

Senator STEVENS. All right.

Admiral PRUEHER. For naval forces, the Navy and Marine Corps,

which do rotational deployments, it is part of the plan that when

they return from a deployment that the readiness would degrade

prior to the increase in readiness, prior to the next deployment.

For the Army and the Air Force forces, which do not normally

do just regular rotations, but the description that you saw in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
576

Southwest Asia is one that happens irrespective from where they

deploy, that occurs, and that happens with our forces, too.

For rotational forces, that is a planned decrease in readiness,

and for the others that are globally sourced, the readiness will degrade if they do not have training opportunities, which is the case

in Southwest Asia, while they are deployed that readiness will degrade and then they will have to bring that up when they return.

Senator, I have a couple of stray shots of things that I hope will

perhaps precipitate some questions and answers, and these are

miscellaneous things that, in lieu of talking here, this morning

there are just a couple of things; one is the strategic importance

of Guam, which we support; another is the Ford Island Development Authority, which allows for increased housing and quality of

life in the Honolulu area, which we support.

The base realignment and closure, which Secretary Cohen has

pushed so hard, is something that I realize there are a lot of factors, that we need to do in order to capitalize, so that we can try

to recover some funds for modernization and readiness. The other

is the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea ratification, which we

support, and the congressional delegation visits to the AOR, which

are so important.

I recognize because of the role of the Congress in our Nation’s

Government how important these are for congressional delegations

to go to the regions, just as you all have been to Southwest Asia,

and to Bosnia, and to NATO, there is no substitute for seeing

things firsthand, and it is very important, though the distances are

for delegations to come to the Pacific region and to the Asia Pacific

region to see firsthand what is going on out there, so that they can

see with their own eyes, and we would really support that, sir.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be present. Again,

in the military world we are paid to be pessimists, I am optimistic

about the future of the Asia Pacific region, though, and our work

in it.

PREPARED STATEMENT

It is important for all of us in the political, economic, and the

military part to work in a very forehanded way and preventive way

to avert crises, and to pick the important issues, and last, I thank

both of you and the members of the committee for the professional

and the personal support to our U.S. military. Thank you, sir. I am

ready for your questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADM. JOSEPH W. PRUEHER

Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, on behalf of the men and women

of the United States Pacific Command, thank you for this opportunity to present

my perspective on security in the Asia-Pacific region.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Financial crisis.—As this Committee is fully aware, Asia is in the midst of a serious financial crisis. Some might even say it is a broader economic crisis. It is important that this financial crisis also be understood in security terms. We have seen

early signs of instability in Indonesia and have concerns about the situation in other

countries as well. As President Clinton said in his State of the Union address, a

secure, stable Asia is in America’s interest. Our military presence and our militaryU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
577

to-military contacts throughout the region undergird overall security and stability

in the region.

Security alliance with Japan.—Our alliance with Japan continues to be the most

important U.S. security relationship in the region. The signing of the revised Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation in 1997 enhances this relationship. Japanese host-nation support for U.S. forces is a critical part of U.S. military presence

in Asia and meets Congressional goals for burden-sharing.

China.—China’s growing economic and military power is a major issue for regional leaders. The past year brought improvements in U.S.-China relations. Carrying out the policies of the Secretary of Defense and, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Pacific Command worked successfully to improve our military-to-military relationship with the People’s Liberation Army. Our

goal is to lay a foundation for a relationship based on mutual understanding, trust,

and increased openness. Along with the U.S., China will play an enormous role in

determining if the next century is one of conflict or cooperation. On the subject of

Taiwan, we recognize from China’s perspective this is a core sovereignty issue, while

China recognizes that the United States is committed to the peaceful resolution of

Taiwan issues. I am personally optimistic for the growth of the U.S.-China relationship; however, we must continue to deal with China from a position of strength,

combined with respect, and not have unrealistic expectations. This is a long-haul

process.

Korean peninsula.—The Korean peninsula remains a volatile flashpoint. U.S. and

South Korean troops would be in harm’s way in the first hour of a conflict but are

key to rapid conflict resolution. Our 37,000 troops stationed on the Peninsula and

our alliance with the Republic of Korea have deterred North Korea from offensive

action for 45 years. U.S. forces on the Peninsula, coupled with our reinforcement

capabilities and ROK forces, are adequate for this task. The goal is eventually to

facilitate a non-cataclysmic end to this situation. We must stay the course of deterring conflict, providing food aid, engaging in four-party talks, and supporting the

Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, particularly in light of North

Korea’s continued economic deterioration.

Readiness and OPTEMPO.—U.S. Pacific Command’s forward-deployed forces are

ready to execute assigned missions, but significant deficiencies exist under a ‘‘two

major theater wars’’ scenario. In 1997, U.S. Pacific Command Navy, Air Force,

Army, and Marine Corps components all reported shortages of personnel in some

units. Although components have overcome these problems in the short term, readiness for deployed forces is increasingly achieved at the expense of non-deployed

forces. Currently, some forces required for long-term commitments in the Asia-Pacific area of responsibility are positioned in the Persian Gulf. Any reduction in personnel, equipment, or funding would significantly erode our capabilities in the Pacific. With some minor exceptions, we have been able to manage the operational

tempo (OPTEMPO) for forces under U.S. Pacific Command, because we are accountable for and can trade off between training and operations. There are no firm indicators that the forces are ‘‘wearing out.’’

1997 IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Five developments stand out for their impact on U.S. security interests in Asia

in 1997:

—The Asian financial crisis was the most significant development this past year.

It began in July with the sharp decline of the Thai baht. The currencies of other

nations followed suit shortly thereafter. Serious debt servicing problems in several Southeast Asian nations and South Korea brought on economic uncertainty

and concern about potential instability.

—The food crisis in North Korea reached new levels and continued to draw international attention, resulting in unprecedented interventions by non-governmental organizations. The aid that North Korea received did not address the

underlying causes of the food shortage. The crisis will likely occur again in 1998

and in the years ahead and increases the potential for future instability on the

Peninsula.

—Factional fighting erupted in Cambodia in July 1997, reversing earlier democratic trends. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) postponed

indefinitely Cambodia’s entry into ASEAN and is trying to conduct negotiations

to resolve the situation. The outcome remains uncertain.

—In September, the United States and Japan agreed to a complete revision of the

Cold War-era Defense Guidelines. The revised agreement builds upon our existing security relationship and includes enhancements in bilateral planning and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
578

Japan’s rear area support. The revised Guidelines significantly improve our

ability to meet regional security challenges.

—At the October summit in Washington, DC, China and the United States committed to forging a ‘‘constructive strategic partnership.’’ On the military side,

DOD concluded a Military Maritime Consultative Agreement, our first bilateral

military agreement with China.

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND STRATEGY IN ACTION

Theater Strategy

In support of the President’s National Security Strategy, Pacific Command is

striving to achieve a stable, prosperous, and democratic Asia-Pacific community in

which the United States is a player, partner, and beneficiary.

Our military strategy derives from two fundamental premises. The first is a notion of confluence, that the political, economic and military aspects of security are

interdependent, and cannot be advanced separately. Second, security, especially

military security, undergirds the stable conditions that are prerequisite for economic

growth and prosperity.

U.S. Pacific Command’s strategy consists of three levels of activities and operations: Peacetime engagement; crisis response; and fight and win a major regional

conflict.

If we are engaged in the region in peacetime and our actions backed by credible,

combat-ready forces, our strategy is able to respond to crises, prevent wars, and enhance stability.

In 1997, this strategy meant that U.S. Pacific Command forces were extensively

involved in sustaining the military component of American engagement in Asia, as

part of the Administration’s overall engagement program in Asia.

In spite of Asia’s current economic difficulties, the investments our nation is making in Asia’s security and stability have yielded tangible benefits to the United

States.

Responses to Asia’s Financial Crisis

East Asia’s serious financial crisis has implications for security and stability in

the region. The near-term security impact will include slowdowns in the modernization of Southeast Asian militaries, reductions and cancellations in scope of some

training exercises, possible reductions in funding of the Korean Peninsula Energy

Development Organization, and pressure to reduce host nation support.

Beyond these immediate effects, we are watchful for early signs of instability including civil disturbances, labor disputes, increased ethnic rivalries, and some increase in anti-American rhetoric.

The U.S. government is responding to the financial crisis in a number of ways.

U.S. Pacific Command is taking steps to maintain the visibility of American military

presence and contacts with our military counterparts, especially in Southeast Asia.

We have realigned our engagement programs and are directing resources to the

maximum extent to lower-cost, higher-impact activities.

Security Alliance with Japan

Japan remains our foremost security partnership in Asia. With the support of the

Hashimoto government, we have made great strides to bolster this relationship over

the past year.

The new Defense Guidelines signed in September strengthened our alliance and

enabled the U.S. and Japan to engage in bilateral planning for crises in areas surrounding Japan. The new Guidelines agreement is essential to maintenance of peace

and security in the region.

Japan continues to host about 54,000 U.S. military personnel. In spite of the fiscal

constraints of a slowing economy and a reduced defense budget, Japan’s generous

host nation support continues to meet Congressional goals for burden-sharing.

Funding reductions in Japan’s voluntary Facilities Improvement Program have had

some impact; however, the impact has been minimal as construction projects have

been carefully prioritized through close coordination of U.S. Forces Japan and the

Government of Japan. At the bottom line, the Government of Japan continues to

provide exceptional facilities and support for U.S. military personnel and their dependents.

U.S. Pacific Command continues to work closely with the Government of Japan

in implementing the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Final Report

and minimizing the impact of U.S. military presence on the people of Okinawa.

While we have made significant progress in most areas, the return of Marine Corps

Air Station Futenma is a difficult and exceptionally complex challenge. We remain

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
579

flexible as to the type of replacement facility, as long as it maintains the critical

military functions and capabilities of Futenma.

Military-to-Military Relations with China

China’s regional and global influence will likely grow as its economy grows and

the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) fields a more modern force. Owing to its nonconvertible currency, China has been largely insulated thus far from the direct effects of the region’s financial crisis. Although China’s growing power is high on the

list of concerns of regional leaders, China is not a direct threat to the United States

today. The PLA can project military power only to a limited extent beyond China’s

borders but has the potential to attain a regional power projection capability in the

period beyond 2015—and then only with many correct decisions and full funding.

The tension between China and Taiwan has lessened in the past two years. From

China’s perspective Taiwan is a core sovereignty issue. The U.S. is committed to

‘‘one China’’ as defined in the three joint communiques. On the other hand, China

recognizes that the United States is also committed to the peaceful resolution of Taiwan issues. It is in no one’s interest to bring the issue back to crisis levels.

It is important to further develop the U.S.-China relationship in a realistic way.

China has an important role in peaceful resolution of regional issues including not

only Taiwan, but also the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula. Proper, balanced management of U.S.-China-Japan relations will be key to regional peace and

security. We need to continue to encourage steps in the evolution of bilateral and

multilateral relations, together with dialogue and mechanisms to address the issues

effectively.

Conducted in conjunction with OSD efforts, U.S. Pacific Command’s military-tomilitary contacts with the PLA are an important part of overall U.S. engagement

with China. Contacts in 1997 included hosting visits by the Chief of PLA General

Staff, General Fu Quanyou, and the Deputy Chief of PLA General Staff, Lieutenant

General Wu Quanxu. The PLA hosted visits to China by the Commander-in-Chief,

U.S. Pacific Command and the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. The U.S.

Navy conducted a ship visit to Qingdao while the PLA Navy conducted its first-ever

ship deployment to the United States. Although falling short of the level of openness

we seek to establish, the PLA did show us a nuclear-powered submarine as well as

the flight test center at Cangzhou. Pacific Command opportunities for dialogue with

President Jiang Zemin and all senior PLA leadership have been excellent. Secretary

of Defense Cohen included me also on his January 1998 trip to China in which we

toured Beijing’s air defense center and met with President Jiang Zemin.

U.S. Pacific Command’s goals in building this relationship with the PLA are twofold: to build understanding and trust, and to increase openness. Laying this foundation for the future enhances our understanding of China’s military intentions and

capabilities while giving us the opportunity to increase Chinese appreciation for

U.S. forces stationed in the region. We are building this relationship from a position

of both strength and mutual respect. It will take continuous work over a long haul.

For this reason, it is important to include younger generations of officers in future

military-to-military contacts to capitalize on long-term working relationships, a

point on which the PLA leaders agree.

Deterrence on the Korean Peninsula

The Korean peninsula remains a volatile flashpoint where U.S. troops and citizens

would be in harm’s way on the first hour of a conflict.

The North Korean economy has continued to deteriorate. North Korea is now dependent on international aid to feed its people. The regime has agreed to engage

in four-party talks aimed at formally ending the Korean War and appears to be honoring the terms of the Agreed Framework. This past year also yielded an agreement

with North Korea to accelerate the recovery of unaccounted-for American servicemen from the Korean War.

Meanwhile, the Republic of Korea (ROK) is coping simultaneously with the Asia

financial crisis and the transition to new political leadership. Kim Dae Jung, the

new President, has already voiced support for U.S. military presence in Korea into

the foreseeable future. Ensuring that ROK military preparedness is not seriously

weakened by ROK economic difficulties is the next challenge. Despite the economic

problems, the ROK has pledged to maintain host nation support at previously

agreed-to levels. Secretary Cohen’s recent visit moved this cause forward.

While we remain hopeful that four-party talks will reduce tensions on the peninsula, military prudence dictates maintaining U.S. forces in Korea and our security

alliance with the ROK to deter any hostile moves by the North.

In my view, reconciliation is in everyone’s best interest as a first step in the longterm process of resolving the situation on the peninsula. Economic, political, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
580

cultural differences built up during fifty years of separation and mistrust will not

be overcome easily. The United States and China have key roles to play, but the

two Koreas will ultimately determine the pace of the process.

Lastly, our forces in Korea require the continued use of anti-personnel landmines

(APL’s). APL’s are critical in current plans to deter or halt an attack, to reduce casualties, and to reduce the risk of humanitarian disaster that would result from combat in and around Seoul. Until the situation on the peninsula is resolved or new

technologies are developed, APL’s should remain an integral part of U.S. forces on

the peninsula as specified in the President’s policy directive on this issue.

Joint Task Force Bevel Edge in Thailand

Thailand is an important treaty ally and security partner. Thailand is important

both for its location in Southeast Asia and as a strategic bridge to the Persian Gulf.

Thailand is one of the nations in Southeast Asia most affected by the financial crisis.

U.S. Pacific Command maintains close relations with the Thai military. This relationship yielded tangible benefits in July 1997 when fighting erupted between rival

political factions in Cambodia. U.S. Pacific Command temporarily staged a small

special operations force package, Joint Task Force Bevel Edge, in Thailand in preparation for a possible evacuation of American citizens from Cambodia. Approval for

this deployment was simplified and expedited because of the strength of our working relationship with the Thai military. This is a good example of the yield from

our engagement program.

Challenges in Indonesia

The United States has a special interest in a stable Indonesia. With the world’s

fourth largest population and a location astride shipping lanes linking Asia to the

Arabian Gulf, Indonesia is strategically important. Events in Indonesia affect the

rest of the region. Indonesia’s importance to the United States is especially significant in light of China’s growing power and Indonesia’s key role in the Association

of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).

Indonesia has been hit especially hard by the financial crisis. The U.S. Government has urged the Indonesians to adhere to the economic reforms they have agreed

to undertake with IMF. It remains uncertain whether Indonesia is willing to adhere

to the prescriptive remedies required by the IMF in order to receive financial guarantees necessary to stabilize their economy. In the interim, public dissatisfaction

and student demonstrations continue to grow over economic and political issues.

These demonstrations have put great pressure upon the Indonesian Armed Forces

(ABRI) to maintain order while at the same time showing restraint. My view is that

ABRI leadership is trying hard to act in responsible ways.

1997 also brought drought and major forest fires to parts of Indonesia and Malaysia, leaving large swaths of Southeast Asia blanketed in smoke and haze, and giving

rise to incidents of infectious disease. Deployment of Air National Guard C–130’s

from Wyoming to Indonesia to fight these fires made a significant contribution towards controlling the fires. Similarly, U.S. Navy medical personnel in Jakarta continue to work with Indonesian public health authorities to help control outbreaks

of Dengue fever. Both have brought the United States an enormous amount of good

will.

Engagement Dividends in Singapore

Singapore is another Southeast Asian nation with which the United States is comprehensively engaged. Singapore is a strong proponent of U.S. military presence in

the region. Among the many ties that the Department of Defense and other U.S.

government agencies maintain with Singapore, forces assigned to U.S. Pacific Command train regularly with Singapore’s defense forces. I met with Singapore’s senior

defense officials on several occasions in 1997, further cementing the bilateral relationship.

American military engagement with Singapore paid off in January 1998 when

Singapore announced its intention to give the U.S. Navy access to the pier being

built at Changi Naval Base. This pier will accommodate our Navy’s largest aircraft

carriers. Access to this pier will help sustain American military presence in the region.

A New Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines

The Republic of the Philippines is a treaty partner and occupies a geographically

important position in the region. The recently negotiated Visiting Forces Agreement

(VFA) is critical to continued engagement with the Philippine armed forces. We anticipate the Philippine Senate will ratify the agreement later this year.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
581

Notwithstanding current limitations, we strive to maintain contacts with the Philippine military. An example of this is the Philippine Army joining U.S. Army Pacific

in co-hosting the annual Pacific Armies Management Seminar (PAMS) in Manila in

March 1998. Forty-one countries attended, including China, Vietnam, and India.

Defense Cooperation with Australia

Australia remains a staunch ally, friend, and vocal supporter of U.S. presence in

Asia. Pacific Command has an excellent military-to-military relationship with the

Australian defense establishment. Australia is modernizing and reducing her forces,

implemented defense efficiencies, and remains dedicated to maintaining interoperability with U.S. forces.

Modest Contacts with India

India is an emerging regional power with great potential in the coming century.

India has been successful in liberalizing its economy over the last five years and

has begun to expand ties with East and Southeast Asia.

Though frequently overlooked because of our tendency to focus on the India-Pakistan situation, India also looks towards China as a principal security concern for

the future. These concerns have been made clear during recent security discussions

with Indian officials. For now, however, India and the Indian military are focused

inwardly. U.S. Pacific Command maintains modest levels of contact with the Indian

military.

Cooperation on the ‘‘Full Accounting’’ Mission

Cooperation from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in support of Joint Task Force

Full Accounting’s mission continues to be good. Indeed, the increased contact

brought about by the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) issue has

helped pave the way for further engagement with Vietnam and Laos.

LOOKING AHEAD

I would like to highlight several policy issues affecting the future of security and

stability in the Asia-Pacific.

First, despite Asia’s economic turmoil, the fundamentals of U.S. security policy remain sound. U.S. economic, diplomatic, and security interests overlap and require

an integrated approach to policy in the region. Stable conditions resulting from security will be the foundation upon which Asia’s economic recovery will be built.

Second, U.S. forward-deployed forces in Asia remain the linchpin of regional security and stability. U.S. Pacific Command participated extensively in the Quadrennial Defense Review, which reaffirmed the importance of maintaining about 100,000

military personnel in Asia. The United States should continue to maintain about

100,000 personnel—but more importantly, the capabilities that this number represents—forward deployed. This number is a gauge by which nations in Asia measure U.S. commitment.

Third, it is important that the Department of Defense continue to build its military-to-military relationship with China. This relationship provides a means of dialogue between our nations and gives U.S. military leaders insights not otherwise

available.

Fourth, on the Korean peninsula, the aim is to bring about a non-cataclysmic resolution. Neither a lashout nor a total collapse of the North is in U.S. or ROK interests; either would negatively affect security and stability on the Peninsula and in

the region. Food aid and four party-talks are two ways to engage North Korea to

achieve the peaceful end-state we are after. At the same time, we must encourage

the ROK to maintain current levels of military preparedness and host nation support at agreed-upon levels.

Fifth, as the nations of Southeast Asia struggle through the current financial crisis, it is manifestly in U.S. strategic interests to remain engaged with them. Assuring them of U.S. interest in Southeast Asia’s security and stability ultimately serves

long-term U.S. economic, diplomatic and security interests. From a military perspective, International Military Education and Training (IMET)—especially for Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines—is one of our nation’s most important means of influencing future leaders. I appreciate the dilemmas at stake in this

issue, but, especially in light of Asia’s current financial crisis, restricting IMET limits our ability to achieve our nation’s goals—a secure, prosperous, and democratic

Asia-Pacific region.

Sixth, I would like to highlight the strategic importance of Guam. Guam was and

is a strategic bridge supporting the deployment of forces to the Persian Gulf for

military operations against Iraq and would be essential to combat operations on the

Korean peninsula. As this Committee decides how much military infrastructure our

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
582

nation must maintain, it is important that Guam be understood as a vital bridge

linking CONUS-based forces and U.S. strategic interests in Asia.

Seventh, an increase in Congressional delegations hosted by U.S. Pacific Command on their way to and from Asia was a welcome trend in 1997, an indication

that Congress recognizes the region is important to the United States. I urge members of Congress to visit Asia and see for themselves the range of economic, diplomatic, and security interests the United States has in the region. My Asian counterparts and their civilian bosses share this view.

Eighth, we urge your support for ratification of the U.N. Convention on Law of

the Sea. Maintaining freedom of navigation is critical to regional security and economic development. Some Asia-Pacific nations assert excessive maritime claims that

challenge this freedom. Participation in the Law of the Sea Convention will allow

us to participate in negotiations to resolve these claims, add credibility to our stated

policies and interpretations, and preserve navigation rights vital to executing our

missions.

Ninth, I urge your support for the Overseas Humanitarian Disaster and Civic Aid

(OHDACA) program, which promotes our engagement strategies and disaster response. Last year these funds helped to underwrite costs of providing care to Iraqi

Kurdish refugees on Guam, to fight fires in Indonesia, to conduct demining training

in Southeast Asia, and to respond to disasters in Vietnam and China. This well-leveraged program provides important flexibility in crisis response.

Finally, a comment on ‘‘prudent risk.’’ In the ideal world, CINC’s would both be

all wise and would have enough resources to deal with every conceivable contingency that might arise. Of course, we don’t live in that ideal world and our nation’s

resources are not that large, but they are mostly sufficient. Although the world is

not free of danger and conflict, there is evidence of a ‘‘strategic pause’’ following the

end of the Cold War. In this environment, CINC’s must be willing to weigh their

instincts to avoid risk against the associated costs and accept some prudent level

of risk. The nation and our national leaders must also accept ‘‘prudent risk.’’

RESOURCING THE STRATEGY

Our nation’s security strategy in the Asia-Pacific region yielded tangible results

in the past year. The coordinated efforts of many people throughout the Department

of Defense and other U.S. government agencies made this strategy effective. Due to

the economic turmoil in the region, it is essential that we sustain this strategy of

preventive defense in the year ahead.

Trained and equipped combat-ready forces make the strategy credible. Adequate

resources are essential to sustaining these forces and the effectiveness of the strategy.

Force Disposition Today

The forces assigned to U.S. Pacific Command are adequate to execute assigned

missions today and are arrayed in two major zones spanning the Pacific and Indian

Oceans:

—Approximately 100,000 personnel are forward-deployed in Asia, principally in

Japan, Korea, Guam, and Diego Garcia. These forces include the 7th Fleet, 8th

U.S. Army, III Marine Expeditionary Force, 5th Air Force, 7th Air Force, 13th

Air Force, the 1st Battalion of the 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) and

other joint special operations forces, maritime pre-positioned ships, and Army

and Air Force prepositioned stocks.

—Approximately 200,000 personnel are stationed in Hawaii, Alaska, and the West

Coast of the United States. These forces include the 25th Infantry Division, 3rd

Fleet, I Marine Expeditionary Force, 1st Brigade of the 6th Infantry Division,

11th Air Force, I Corps Headquarters, and designated units and individuals of

the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Reserve, and Army and Air National Guard.

Readiness and OPTEMPO

Although U.S. forces deployed in the Pacific are ready to conduct assigned missions, I would like to bring some readiness issues to the Committee’s attention.

U.S. Pacific Command has reported significant deficiencies in six of the eight

measured functional areas for a ‘‘two major theater wars’’ scenario: (1) command,

control, communications, and computer systems; (2) logistics and sustainment; (3)

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (4) mobility; (5) infrastructure; and

(6) special operations. We have addressed specific deficiencies in these areas

through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Senior Readiness Oversight Council. Although the Department has shifted considerable funds into readiness accounts, further investment will be required to overcome these deficiencies.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
583

From the perspective of the U.S. Pacific Command Army, Navy, Air Force, and

Marine Corps components, personnel shortages are the principal readiness concern,

though pockets of lower levels of readiness exist due to equipment shortage and

availability.

—U.S. Pacific Fleet reported that personnel shortages have affected forward-deployed naval force readiness. Though command attention has caused recent improvements, in the near term (May 1998), 93 of 839 Chief Petty Officer billets

will be ‘‘gapped.’’ Pacific Fleet is currently short over 1,900 sailors in key technical ratings. In addition, there are backlogs in aircraft engines and aircraft intermediate and depot level maintenance, particularly for the S–3B.

—U.S. Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) reported an Air Force-wide decline in pilot retention, a serious manning problem which cannot be corrected in the near term.

PACAF aircraft maintenance statistics indicate the beginning of a decline in

aircraft mission capable rates. The PACAF F–16 cannibalization rate is 12.8

percent, compared to 6.6 percent in fiscal year 1995, due to lack of spare parts.

—U.S. Army Pacific (ARPAC) reported shortfalls in infantrymen and ‘‘low-density/

high-demand’’ specialties such as engineers, communications specialists, intelligence analysts, and mechanics, though these shortfalls will be corrected by the

end of the fiscal year. Slower modernization of some lower-profile equipment,

such as 21⁄2-ton trucks, is causing increased maintenance difficulties, though

this will be corrected in fiscal year 1999 with the delivery of new vehicles.

—U.S. Marine Forces Pacific (MARFORPAC) reported shortages of personnel in

each major reporting unit, primarily in communications, intelligence, air traffic

control, air support, infantry, landing support specialists, and vehicle mechanics.

Although components have mitigated the impact of these problems in the short

term, readiness for deployed forces is being achieved at the expense of non-deployed

forces.

Maintaining adequate readiness requires predictable funding and investments

both to bolster deficient areas and operate to meet our commitments. In the near

term, timely passage of supplemental appropriations for unfunded contingency requirements, such as in Bosnia and the Arabian Gulf, is critical to sustain readiness.

Without this relief, OSD has decided that Services will have to absorb costs from

operations and maintenance accounts to the detriment of readiness.

OPTEMPO has not been a major problem in U.S. Pacific Command. With minor

exceptions, U.S. Pacific Command’s components are staying within OPTEMPO goals

established by service headquarters. Units that have exceeded or are forecasted to

exceed goals include two MARFORPAC infantry battalions and a Marine F–18

squadron, PACAF’s F–15E squadron and one F–16C squadron, and two ARPAC battalions. There are no firm indications that the force is ‘‘wearing out.’’ However, people are working hard and there is no sign of let-up in the workload.

Improvements to Warfighting Capability

U.S. Pacific Command’s resource priorities were submitted to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council earlier this fiscal year. We have given the highest priority

to the readiness of personnel and equipment; second, to near-term force improvements and upgrades to existing systems; third, to joint, multi-service, and multi-national systems which enhance warfighting capability and interoperability with our

friends and allies; and fourth, to new, long-term recapitalization.

I would like to highlight two new capabilities that are important to U.S. Pacific

Command’s long-term warfighting capabilities.

—Theater missile defense.—With North Korea developing long-range ballistic missiles, the differences between theater missile defense and national missile defense are blurring. Nations such as China and India are actively developing new

ballistic missiles. There is a need to keep Pacific geographic and geopolitical

considerations in mind as we develop missile defenses.

—Chemical and biological defenses.—North Korea is assessed to have the capability to manufacture, deploy, and employ chemical and possibly biological weapons. It is prudent to assume that North Korea would use chemical weapons in

any conflict on the Korean peninsula. In conjunction with U.S. Forces Korea,

U.S. Pacific Command has generated a list of near-term fixes to close the gap

in our capability to defend against chemical and biological attacks.

Quadrennial Defense Review and National Defense Panel

U.S. Pacific Command endorses the Quadrennial Defense Review modernization

strategy, which attempts to balance near-term readiness and future capabilities.

The command also supports the National Defense Panel’s conclusion that breadth

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
584

of capability will be as important as depth for long-term readiness and modernization and that reductions in infrastructure are necessary to help fund modernization.

Investments in People

Investments in people and training are as important as new technologies. Adequate funding for compensation, medical, retirement, housing and other quality-oflife programs is necessary to attract and retain the skilled personnel upon which

our forces depend.

Readiness to respond rapidly in support of military contingency operations should

be the principal guide as the military health system is reformed.

Training and force protection are quality-of-life concerns as well as readiness

issues. U.S. Pacific Command has developed plans of action to reduce vulnerability

to terrorism and is steadily working requirements through the Services.

Service military construction plans provide appropriately for warfighting infrastructure and improvements to quality-of-life.

Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies

The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) is rapidly becoming a key

part of U.S. Pacific Command’s engagement strategy. In January 1998, APCSS

hosted a timely conference on economics and security in Asia, bringing together experts from business, academia, and the U.S. military to discuss the origins of Asia’s

financial crisis and the implications for security and stability. Similar conferences

have examined peacekeeping, humanitarian support, and environmental issues.

The conference program complements the Center’s primary academic organization—the College of Security Studies—that draws together future military and civilian leaders from around the region to explore national perspectives on regional security issues. The Asia-Pacific Center is an excellent investment in regional security.

New Headquarters

A new headquarters building for U.S. Pacific Command staff is required. The

headquarters facility the staff is in today is a 45-year old hospital building that has

deteriorated beyond the point of maintainability. The engineering estimate is for

$75 million for repair alone. To meet the demands of 21st century operations this

command must have a modern, efficient facility, one that our taxpayers can be

proud of, and one they can afford. Funding is in the FYDP for this headquarters

building.

CONCLUSION

Last year I concluded that while not conflict-free, the Asia-Pacific region was at

peace. This year the region is closer to the margins of general peace. The financial

crisis could lead to broader economic and security problems.

As military professionals, we are paid to be pessimists and expected to keep our

powder dry. However, this charter does not keep us from being optimists about the

future of the Asia-Pacific region. I am convinced that by working in a forehanded

way and respecting legitimate views, and by maintaining a position of strength, we

can best contribute to peace, stability, and prosperity.

The continued support of Congress and the American people in these endeavors

is vital and appreciated. With your support and the cooperation of our friends and

allies, the United States will continue to successfully advance our national interests

in the Asia-Pacific region.

ANNEXES

ANNEX A. JOINT TASK FORCE FULL ACCOUNTING

Joint Task Force Full Accounting’s (JTF-FA) mission is to achieve the fullest possible accounting of Americans still unaccounted for as a result of the conflict in

Southeast Asia. During 1997, JTF-FA completed 250 field investigations and 48 excavations, and repatriated 31 sets of remains associated with unaccounted-for Americans. In 1998 to date, there have been over 21 remains repatriations.

During fiscal year 1998, JTF-FA will conduct eleven Joint Field Activities (JFA’s),

five each in Vietnam and Laos, and one in Cambodia, to investigate, excavate, and

recover remains, forensic evidence, or other information on unaccounted-for individuals. These field activities usually last about 30 days and involve as many as 100

U.S. personnel in Vietnam and 40 U.S. personnel in Laos. In Cambodia, the number

of U.S. personnel varies depending on the mission.

While JTF-FA funding lines run out this fiscal year, the task does not. Funding

for JFA’s is needed throughout the FYDP. In particular, an additional $5.54 million

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
585

is required in fiscal year 1999 to complete all ten scheduled JFA’s. The Department

of the Navy has this issue as a high priority for funding.

As of the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the number of unaccounted-for individuals

JTF-FA is investigating stood at 364—275 in Vietnam and 89 in Laos. These numbers may change if scheduled field activities turn up additional information. There

are 143 excavations or recovery operations to complete; these may yield information

on up to 278 unaccounted-for individuals—94 in Vietnam, 170 in Laos, and 14 in

Cambodia.

Cooperation from host nations continues to be good. Laos and Vietnam completed

two very successful periods of unilateral investigations between August 1997 and

January 1998. The Laotian government recovered remains possibly associated with

an unaccounted-for American during one of these unilateral investigations. Vietnam

continues to cooperate on the President’s four key measures of progress: resolving

discrepancy cases and live sightings, recovering and repatriating remains, implementing trilateral investigations with Laos, and providing POW/MIA documents.

Trilateral operations also continue to achieve good results. Vietnamese witnesses

have provided outstanding assistance to JTF-FA in Laos and Cambodia. Lao cooperation with JTF-FA is improving and the Lao government recently agreed to provide oral history questionnaires to senior level officials to determine whether they

may have any relevant information on the unaccounted-for personnel.

ANNEX B. U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND COUNTERDRUG EFFORTS

U.S. Pacific Command is committed to supporting the President’s National Drug

Control Strategy. U.S. Pacific Command’s counterdrug efforts include: interdicting

the flow of cocaine north from South America to Mexico’s west coast, providing

training to Thai and Malaysian counterdrug units, and providing helicopter support

to Operation Wipeout, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s marijuana eradication

effort in Hawaii.

Eastern Pacific

Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) West, U.S. Pacific Command’s sole

counterdrug agent, targets shipments of cocaine moving north by sea from South

America to the western coast of Mexico. Pacific Command forces seized 2.4 metric

tons of cocaine during a fiscal year 1997 bust involving go-fast boats.

Currently, U.S. Pacific Command maintains an aperiodic ship presence in the

Eastern Pacific. JIATF West analysis indicates an increased ship presence, with

supporting maritime patrol aircraft, is needed to fully cover the cocaine arrival

zones off the west coast of Mexico.

Southeast Asia

Thailand receives the bulk of U.S. Pacific Command’s counterdrug support. JIATF

West conducts eight BAKER TEPID exercises annually in Thailand. These exercises

provide training to Thai counterdrug forces in small unit tactics, leadership, marksmanship, jungle navigation, and combat lifesaving. JIATF West also completed construction of the third and final counterdrug command center in southern Thailand,

enabling Thai forces to more efficiently coordinate their counterdrug efforts. Additionally, JIATF West routinely deploys intelligence analysts to provide analytical

support to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in Bangkok.

Although Malaysia has a robust counterdrug capability, it is acknowledged as a

transit country for heroin destined for the United Sates. In August 1997, JIATF

West conducted the first BAKER MINT counterdrug training exercise with Malaysia. U.S. Pacific Command forces provided valuable combat lifesaving training to

Malaysian counterdrug personnel.

There is great potential for counterdrug cooperation with Vietnam. A counterdrug

Letter of Agreement with Vietnam was negotiated in 1997 and is expected to be

signed in 1998. The U.S. Country Team believes that Vietnamese support for an increased U.S. role in counterdrug operations is strong.

Operation Wipeout

U.S. Army Pacific provides helicopter support to Operation Wipeout, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s marijuana eradication effort in Hawaii. To date in fiscal year

1998, U.S. Army Pacific has assisted in the eradication of over 22,000 marijuana

plants.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
586

ANNEX C. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Our top military construction requirements remain warfighting infrastructure and

quality of life projects. Military construction and infrastructure are key components

of Pacific Command’s readiness. Much of the infrastructure is old and needs replacement—this is a necessary investment. The fiscal year 1999 U.S. Pacific Command

Military Construction program contains 47 projects worth about $550 million (Figure 1).

The Host Nation Funded Construction (HNFC) program is an excellent example

of burden-sharing by Japan and Korea. The ‘‘Host Nation Support’’ line item in the

fiscal year 1999 budget is specifically fenced for planning and design funds (P&D),

which are the U.S. investment in this program—only 1.5 percent of the approximately $1 billion spent by the host nations. The return on this investment is more

than 60 to 1. The Army’s role as the executive agent for construction in Japan and

Korea is critical to provide quality facilities. The P&D funds which are in the Army

budget are critical because the Governments of Japan and Korea do not pay for U.S.

Government oversight which ensures the facilities meet U.S. operational requirements and quality and safety standards.

The majority of the P&D funds appropriated support the HNFC program in the

Pacific. Cuts in the HNFC P&D funds jeopardized the U.S. government’s ability to

sustain its surveillance and design responsibilities in this vital program. The Army

completed one-time cost savings measures that cannot be continued for a second

year and still oversee the equivalent construction work of past years. It is imperative that sufficient Host Nation Support funds be provided ($20.45 million in the

Army budget and $18.45 million for the Pacific theater). Not doing so risks allowing

the Japanese and Korean governments to reduce their contribution because we will

be unable to obligate all the funds they provide.

In addition to the construction provided by the Republic of Korea (ROK), Congress

has funded essential facilities in Korea over the past 3 years. New barracks, dining

facilities, and support facilities have made a significant difference to the soldiers

and airmen stationed in Korea. We still need military construction dollars in excess

of the $113 million annual contribution by the ROK. We request your support for

$59 million in fiscal year 1999 for 6 barracks projects.

Throughout the Pacific we continue to correct the housing problem that our military families have endured for so long. The completion of replacement housing is

encouraging to our Service members and families. This is a significant factor in the

satisfaction and retention of our career personnel. Much of the construction budget

for fiscal year 1999 is dedicated to improving the family housing and barracks in

Alaska, Hawaii, Korea, and California.

Our en route infrastructure is reaching the end of its service life, particularly our

aging Petroleum-Oil-Lubricants (POL) system. Many facilities that were constructed

during the 1940–1950 time frame are in need of major repair or replacement. Real

property maintenance accounts for essential facility repairs are ‘‘must pay’’ costs

that continue to escalate. Readiness is degraded by hollow infrastructure when our

facilities fall into disrepair, or when we shift funds to perform expensive incremental or emergency maintenance on those facilities.

FIGURE 1 TO ANNEX C.—Fiscal year 1999 U.S. Pacific Command military

construction and family housing

Dollars in

millions

Warfighting Infrastructure:

Consolidated Munitions Facility, Eielson AFB, AK ..................................... $4.4

Replace Hydrant Fuel System, Elmendorf AFB, AK ................................... 19.5

Special Warfare Unit Facility, NAVACTS Guam ........................................ 5.5

Waterfront Consolidation Facilities, NAVACTS Guam ............................... 4.8

Repair Airfield Pavement, Hickam AFB, HI ................................................ 5.9

Central Receiving Facility, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI ...................... 9.7

Elec Distribution System Upgrade, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI ........ 18.2

Engineering Management Building, Naval Shipyard Pearl Harbor, HI .... 11.4

Fire Station, NAVCAMS EASTPAC, Honolulu, HI ..................................... 2.0

Sewer Outfall Extension, PWC Pearl Harbor, HI ........................................ 22.9

Steam Condensate Return System, PWC Pearl Harbor, HI ....................... 6.1

Power Plant—Roi Namur Island, Kwajalein ................................................ 12.6

Multipurpose Missile Test Facility, Kwajalein ............................................ 4.6

Airframes Facility Mods (F/A–18), NAS Lemoore, CA ................................ 1.5

Hangar 4 Mods (F/A–18 E/F), NAS Lemoore, CA ........................................ 5.4

Training Facility Addition, NAS Lemoore, CA ............................................ 4.3

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
587

FIGURE 1 TO ANNEX C.—Fiscal year 1999 U.S. Pacific Command military

construction and family housing—Continued

Dollars in

millions

Weapons Assembly Facility Improvements, NAS Lemoore, CA ................. 9.4

Submarine Support Facility, NSB San Diego, CA ....................................... 11.4

SOF Amphibious Operations Facility, NAB Coronado, CA ......................... 3.6

Missile Magazines, NAWCWD China Lake, CA .......................................... 3.2

Central Vehicle Wash Facility, Ft. Lewis, WA ............................................. 4.7

Close Combat Tactical Trainer Building, Ft. Lewis, WA ............................ 7.6

Consolidated Fuel Facility, Ft. Lewis, WA ................................................... 4.0

Tank Trail Erosion Mitigation—Yakima, WA .............................................. 2.0

Security Facility Upgrades, Bremerton, WA ................................................ 2.8

Hospital Addition/Alteration, Bremerton, WA ............................................. 28.0

Clinic/Warm Warehouse Replacement, McChord AFB, WA ....................... 20.0

Disease Vector Ecology Center Replacement, NSB Bangor, WA ................ 5.7

Quality of Life:

Replace Military Family Housing Phase 3 (46 Units), Eielson AFB,

AK ................................................................................................................. 12.9

Elementary School Addition and Renovation, NAVACTS, Guam .............. 8.6

High School Addition and Renovation, NAVACTS, Guam .......................... 4.5

Replace Military Family Housing (64 Units), Schofield Barracks, HI ....... 14.7

Whole Barracks Complex Renewal, Schofield Barracks, HI ....................... 47.5

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters, Kaneohe, HI .................................................... 27.4

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Modernization, NSB Pearl Harbor, HI .......... 8.1

Replace Military Family Housing Phase (150 Units), Naval Complex

Oahu, HI ...................................................................................................... 29.1

Whole Barracks Complex Renewal, Camp Casey, Korea ............................ 13.4

Whole Barracks Complex Renewal, Camp Castle, Korea ........................... 18.2

Whole Barracks Complex Renewal, Camp Humphreys, Korea .................. 8.5

Whole Barracks Complex Renewal, Camp Stanley, Korea ......................... 5.8

Dormitory, Kunsan AB, Korea ...................................................................... 6.0

Dormitory, Osan AB, Korea ........................................................................... 7.5

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters, MCB Camp Pendleton, CA ............................ 15.8

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters, MCB Camp Pendleton, CA ............................ 12.4

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters, MCAS Miramar, CA ....................................... 29.6

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters, San Clemente, CA .......................................... 8.4

Replace Military Family Housing Phase (162 Units), NAS Lemoore,

CA ................................................................................................................. 30.4

ANNEX D. SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The U.S. Pacific Command strongly endorses a strong and responsible Security

Assistance program. We use each element of the Security Assistance Program to

support our regional strategy and to maximize the return on our investment. The

U.S. Pacific Command’s fiscal year 1997 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) were over

$2.6 billion. Asia’s financial crisis, decreases in defense budgets and foreign competition are likely to reduce sales in fiscal year 1998. Foreign Military Financing (FMF)

is small in the Pacific Area of Responsibility. In fiscal year 1997 only two countries

received funds, consisting of grants for demining: Cambodia ($1 million) and Laos

($1 million).

The International Military Education and Training program (IMET) is one of our

most cost-effective programs to promote peace, security, democracy and interoperability. IMET can pay immediate dividends, but the long-term returns have even

more importance, promoting long-term professional association with future military

and political leaders. Many key regional leaders are IMET graduates and are strong

supporters of U.S. involvement in the region. To ensure our regional objectives are

achieved, we must continue the strong IMET programs that we have been providing

to friendly countries in the region.

ANNEX E. ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES

Accomplishments.—The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS), established in September 1995, continues to play an important role in the U.S. Pacific

Command’s theater strategy. The APCSS provides the opportunity and the environment to foster understanding and cooperative approaches to security in the AsiaU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
588

Pacific region. To date, the APCSS has held four 12-week classes in the College of

Security Studies with 126 future military and civilian leaders from 31 Asia-Pacific

countries. The APCSS has also conducted 12 conferences with 1,102 current military

and civilian leaders from 50 countries. These multilateral approaches provide superb venues for interaction between key leaders from the Asia-Pacific nations.

Facilities.—The APCSS is temporarily located in commercial facilities in Honolulu, Hawaii. Efforts are in progress to renovate an existing government building

for use by the Center. This would provide a more cost-effective permanent facility

for the Center within proximity to billeting and messing accommodations for

attendees.

Legislative Policy Issues.—Passage of the Waiver of Charges provision in the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Appropriations Act was crucial to attracting participants to

the Center. It acts as an incentive for countries to participate by waiving tuition,

or ‘‘platform,’’ charges, as well as authorizing attendance costs of participants from

approved Title 10 countries to be waived; this mirrors legislation granted to George

C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Identical legislation was submitted as part of the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Bill to secure permanent authorization.

This provision imposes no increase in DOD budgetary requirements, since costs are

paid with appropriations already available to the APCSS.

ANNEX F. COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, AND COMPUTERS (C4)

The vast expanses of the U.S. Pacific Command’s area of responsibility stress theater C4 infrastructure. The fielding of updated equipment at all organizational levels needs to continue, to include space assets. We also continue to build an information assurance capability, including: alternative paths, common joint hardware, security management tools, and training. Finally, we are pursuing improved capability

to provide exchange of information with our coalition partners.

Pacific Command is pursuing C4 interoperability throughout the theater under an

umbrella effort called PACNET. This past year theater components adopted common

automation software. By June 1998 Pacific Command’s Joint Task Force commanders will also migrate to this standard. In the future, Pacific Command will integrate

commercial and military communications systems.

We are concerned about spectrum reallocation and potential charges for spectrum

use in the United States. Other countries are often influenced by our policy. This

has already led to reallocations and potential charges for exercises in Australia and

Singapore. Further, systems that have been developed with old frequency allocations in mind may have to be retrofitted at a yet to be determined cost. Limitations

imposed on the use of the Patriot surface-to-air missile system and the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System in Korea and Japan are examples of why we

need a national spectrum strategy. This strategy should consider our national defense requirements and strive to convince other nations to align usage of their spectrum as closely as possible with ours for critical military systems.

Senator STEVENS. Well, we do thank you very much, and I regret

that others are not here this morning. The two of us visit you so

often it is almost—we ought to have this visit in our office, but it

is good to have a record so others might see it if they desire to do

so.

You did mention China a little, and you mentioned the Indonesia

situation a little. In view of what happened the day before yesterday, the riots in Indonesia, have you changed your planning as far

as the presence of our forces in that region?

Admiral PRUEHER. No, sir, we haven’t changed our planning. We

are doing a lot of work with Indonesia, both the Treasury Department and we are staying in communications with them.

We have only periodic forces, and those numbers are very small

that are in Indonesia, but our planning and the ships in the area

have not changed as a result of the recent riots in Indonesia. Demonstrations in Indonesia is a better word for it.

We stay abreast, we monitored that with the country team, we

monitored that with the ABRI, with the Indonesian military, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
589

stay in touch with them, but we have not redeployed any forces as

a result of what’s gone on there, sir.

IMPACT OF PERSIAN GULF DEPLOYMENTS

Senator STEVENS. The deployments to the Persian Gulf region,

have they strained our security in the Pacific as a whole?

Admiral PRUEHER. As you know so well we have deployed the

Indy carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf region, as well as a

ARG, MEU, and a marine expeditionary unit, as well as some additional prepositioning ships. We have also gone from five to seven

prepositioning ships in the gulf.

What has occurred are opportunity costs for interacting with the

other nations in the western Pacific that we would normally do

with the ships, the Indy carrier battle group, and with the marine

amphibious ready group, as well as the marine expeditionary unit.

The other part that has been stressed is our ability to respond

to a crisis in Korea, and we have backfilled that by deploying some

F–15’s from Alaska, a squadron of F–15’s from Alaska to Korea,

and we have deployed also two AC–130 gun ships, but our ability

to respond to a crisis in Korea, should it come up, is stressed.

However, in the realm of prudent risk and what we think is the

likelihood of a conflict in Korea, it seems like a prudent risk to take

right now in order to respond to what’s going on, our Nation’s response in the Middle East, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Iran is still within your area, is it not?

Admiral PRUEHER. No, sir, Iran is in the Central Command AOR.

Senator STEVENS. I thought you went to the eastern side of the

gulf.

Admiral PRUEHER. We go to the eastern coast of Africa. There is

a right-angled chunk out of the gulf that belongs to CENTCOM

that goes from Somalia East and then north to the intersection between India and Pakistan.

Senator STEVENS. I have two last questions.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. One is, we earmarked a portion of the NunnLugar money to see to it that the Navy, under your command,

would have an opportunity to work with the Russian forces and

their Far East to bring about a reduction in nuclear problems

there——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. With regard to the powerplants

and some of the decommissioned vessels, and also to a certain extent, in the overall nuclear area. How is that working now?

Admiral PRUEHER. Senator, I think it is working well. The cooperative threat reduction to which the committee put $35 million

against is being run from the cooperative threat reduction office in

OSD and the Joint Chiefs. CINCPAC, as our nuclear agent, has

been working with them.

The status of that is the State Department approvals have been

acquired. There are contracts being announced that would go to

both Russia and the Far East, and United States contractors in the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
590

Far East, and this is awaiting SECDEF approval to spend the

money.

We expect that money to be obligated within the next 2 months,

and it is all scheduled to be spent in the Russian far east for the

purposes of that you described, to try to take care of the nuclear

powerplants and the decommissioning of Russian ships.

So it is tracking well right now. We are watching it very carefully, and I think it’s on track for the purposes that the committee

put the money.

Senator STEVENS. A year ago it did not seem that the Russians

were able to put a high priority on those activities, in view of the

problems of pay, and relocation of their forces, and downsizing of

their systems, and we were very worried about the number of nuclear units, particularly on some of the decommissioned submarines.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. We made that money available last October.

It’s not been released yet, right?

Admiral PRUEHER. No, sir; it hasn’t been released yet, but I

think it will get spent well and spent for the correct purposes, but

it has not been released yet, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Have we at least had an opportunity to inventory the size of the problem?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I am getting ready to markup another bill, and

we do not have any indication from your Department that any additional moneys are necessary. They have not spent what we have

made available so far.

Admiral PRUEHER. The OSD, and we owe the committee a response, and I will get back as soon as we are through here to make

sure that response gets to the committee quickly, in time to use it

for the next markup, sir.

The problem is a real one, the Russians are unable to respond

to it, or appear to be unable to respond to it, the help is needed,

and I believe it is working in the right way. If it is different than

that I will get back to you, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Now, the admiral we met at Vladivostak was

transferred to Moscow, and he has a really elevated position——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. As I understand it.

Admiral PRUEHER. That’s Admiral Kuriatov, who was the Pacific

Fleet Commander, who is now the chief of staff of the Russian

Navy.

Senator STEVENS. He was quite interested in this when we discussed the prospect with him. Have we followed through with him

at all?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir, we have. We have been in contact

with him through CINCPAC and also through the CNO’s office,

and I will provide the details of that to you, sir, to make you more

comfortable with the contacts, and make me more comfortable with

the contacts.

Senator STEVENS. I was very uncomfortable with the sight of

submarines sinking in their berths.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
591

Senator STEVENS. Those were nuclear submarines.

Admiral PRUEHER. It is a real problem, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I will get back to some more provincial things

later. Senator Inouye.

PACIFIC FORCE REDUCTIONS

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About 10 years ago

we decided that the cold war had ended, and the Soviet threat had

disappeared, and accordingly we began reducing our force levels

throughout the world.

Then about 6 years ago, soon after we closed Subic, the chairman

and I took a strange trip throughout your area of responsibility, at

the suggestion of Defense and State, to meet with the chiefs of

state and the chief military officers of countries like Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Republic of Vietnam, Philippines,

People’s Republic of China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, and the

question we asked was a very simple one, do you want the United

States to remain in this area or do you want us to leave. The answer in every capital was a clear and unmitigated, please do not

leave.

Senator STEVENS. Even Beijing.

Senator INOUYE. Beijing and the Republic of Vietnam. Some cited

the situation of Spratly, where six nations are now claiming these

small islands because they have found oil, and each nation with

forces numbering up to a battalion.

Others cited the possibility of a massive arms race, involving the

Japanese, and the Chinese, and the Koreans, and there were many,

many reasons there. But yet we have reduced our Pacific forces by

approximately 20 percent since that time, numbering over 25,000,

and there is a possibility of further reductions in the force level.

Now, what are your thoughts on that?

Admiral PRUEHER. Senator, I think if you surveyed the same

countries again you would find the same answer, that the nations

there universally, and I think the PRC might demur on their answer a little bit right now, but the nations want the U.S. presence,

and they want forward deployment, to see the commitment of the

United States to the Asia Pacific region, and the security in that

region.

Our forward deployed forces, which number about 100,000, and

they are represented by the capabilities of the 7th Fleet, the 3d

Marine Expeditionary Force, the 5th and 7th Air Forces, the first

of the 1st Special Forces Group, and the 8th United States Army

in Korea, are manifestations, probably the most visible manifestations of United States commitment to security in the Asia Pacific

region. They bring a great balance to the region and a sense of security that has allowed the region to prosper overall. They want

that.

Further, we have recently been through the quadrennial defense

review, and reaffirmed there, and reaffirmed by the President’s

Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the commitment to

keep about 100,000 troops in the Asia Pacific region.

We need them there to do this preventive defense that we talked

about earlier, if we’re going to be forehanded and farsighted, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
592

be able to handle problems while they are modest, instead of allowing them to grow.

Our presence is desired. I think our forces are doing it in a good

way, as Ambassadors, as well as enforcers, not only for the United

States, but working as partners with the nations in the region.

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING [IMET]

Senator INOUYE. Admiral, I am glad that you pointed out in the

opening remarks that six of the seven largest armed forces in the

world are located in your area of responsibility, in the Pacific, and

that some of the more troublesome areas are in your area of command, such as Korea, and the possibility of problems in Southeast

Asia, the present problems in Indonesia. What are your thoughts

on IMET?

Admiral PRUEHER. Thank you for asking that, sir. The IMET

program, which is the international military education and training, is a fund by which we are able to work with the militaries of

other nations, it is administered by the State Department, but it

works with the militaries of other nations, where they can get exposed to democracies and democratic principles.

In my opinion, it is one of the highest payoff, most highly leveraged, for relatively small amounts of money, the amounts of money

are in the categories of $400,000, sometimes $4.16 million, in the

case of Thailand, which is the largest one in our AOR. They have

huge payoffs with training and working with the military in these

nations.

I would like to give an example using Thailand because we have

had IMET training with Thailand for quite a while. In Thailand,

they have been a good ally for us, they have allowed basing for us,

no questions asked, when we wanted to fly B–52’s through there,

to work in the Middle East. We have trained with the Thais, we

have good political and military relationships with the Thais.

General Mongkong is the supreme commander of the Royal Thai

armed forces, and he, about 9 months ago, when the government

was falling, the prime minister of Thailand was being disenfranchised in Thailand, General Mongkong, who is a very powerful person, had the opportunity and a lot of pressure from outside, to do

a military take over, to declare perhaps marshal law, and to run

the country with the military.

Owing to the fact that he had been IMET trained, among other

things, as well as the fact that he is a Thai patriot, he resisted

these pressures and supported free elections in Thailand, in which

Prime Minister Tron Luc Pi was elected, and now Thailand, as we

discussed earlier, is working very hard to come out of their economic crisis.

They have military security in Thailand, and they are a staunch

United States ally. That is one example of one of the payoffs of

IMET.

One of the costs of IMET, I think, is in Indonesia, where in 1992,

IMET was canceled with Indonesia by the Congress, and in my

view, if we disapprove of what is going on in a nation, that is the

wrong answer. We need to try to educate that country, the military

of that country in democratic principles. I think we should be contacting them, not isolating them, and in 1996, Congress repassed

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
593

expanded IMET for Indonesia, and in 1998, Indonesia has accepted

it. So that is back on a better track than it was. IMET is a very

valuable tool.

Senator INOUYE. As you noted in your response, this program is

under the jurisdiction of the State Department.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. The chairman has suggested that we should

consider placing this under the DOD account. I realize this is a policy matter, and if you do not wish to respond, I understand. Do you

think that is a good idea?

Admiral PRUEHER. My opinion is that it would work well under

DOD account, also, sir, and it works all right the way it is. I think

it might be more cleanly administered if it were a DOD account,

sir.

FORD ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

Senator INOUYE. Finally, may I just note my pleasure in receiving the word of your support of the Ford Island development, because I say so not only as a Senator from Hawaii, but as a member

of the Milcon Subcommittee and this committee.

As you know, the dollars available for military construction is

dwindling, and this, I believe, may be the model for things to come

in the United States, where the private sector can be involved

in——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE [continuing]. Military construction. So I commend you and your command, and I look forward to it becoming

a real thing.

Admiral PRUEHER. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, welcome.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator Cochran.

NORTH KOREAN THREAT

Senator COCHRAN. I am glad to see you again. One of the troubling areas in your region is the North Korean situation, there’s an

indication of instability there, in terms of the economy, and food

shortages, and all the rest, and in spite of those difficult economic

challenges, we see the North Korean military continue to, according to reports, develop offensive capabilities like the Nodong missile, and even to the extent that it may be deployed now, or fielded,

rather than just under development.

What can you tell us in this hearing about the nature of the

threat to United States forces and our ships in the region, because

of North Korea’s continued upgrading of its ballistic missile capability?

Admiral PRUEHER. Senator, the Scud missiles that North Korea

exports and develops, as well as the Nodong missile create a real

potential threat to our forces, as well as those of our allies in South

Korea.

These missiles, I am trying to stay at the unclassified level here,

do not pose—it would be only a random threat to a ship, but if one

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
594

draws a circle with the radius of the range of those missiles, they

do create a problem for our forces in South Korea.

So as we try to work toward reconciliation in North Korea, which

I am encouraged about the transition of the Kim Dae Jung government in South Korea, the continued investment of North Korea in

exercises and of developing this missile capability stays a high concern of ours that we watch very closely.

MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator COCHRAN. Do you have adequate capability to defend the

assets in your area of operations against ballistic missile attack?

Admiral PRUEHER. The fear of missiles to defend against is a key

issue that we need to work. The defense that we have is not as adequate as we would—it is not as robust as we would like. We have

some capability to defend. We would rather have more.

We keep a close eye on both the likelihood of a ballistic missile

attack and the ability to defend. I am comfortable right today with

that risk reward ratio; however, the incentive to launch a ballistic

missile attack could come up in a hurry, in which case we would

have an inadequate ability to respond to it, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. One specific statement that you made in your

testimony is, and I quote, ‘‘With North Korea developing long-range

ballistic missiles, the differences between theater missile defense

and national missile defense are blurring,’’ and you say that ‘‘we

need to keep Pacific geographic and geo-political considerations in

mind.’’ What exactly do you mean by that?

Admiral PRUEHER. Good question, sir. The national missile defense is important to all of us. The physics of creating a national

missile defense are inhibited by the Ballistic Missile Treaty, and

the political ideas, I think, of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are

to put some restraint on what Russia and the United States do in

the missile defense area.

I think we have made great strides in theater ballistic missile defense. The altitudes of theater ballistic missiles and the speeds of

theater ballistic missiles are less than those of the strategic missiles. So they are not completely separate issues.

There are politics entwined in this, there are laws of physics entwined in this. I think the proper course for us to do at this point

is to work on theater ballistic missile defense to the maximum extent that we can, and there is a lot of tradeoff, and there is a lot

of benefit we can get that will be applicable in national missile defense if we become able to really work hard on that one, sir.

AMPHIBIOUS READY GROUPS

Senator COCHRAN. One of the pressures on your assignment is to

make sure you have the amphibious mobility in a huge geographical area——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator COCHRAN [continuing]. To deal with threats as they may

arise. From an operational point of view, how valuable are the amphibious ready groups to ensuring this capability?

Admiral PRUEHER. They are of tremendous value, sir. Our AOR,

because of its size, and because of the largely maritime nature, the

ability to move position, carrier battle groups, as well as amphibU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
595

ious groups to the right place at the right time, and, again, try to

outguess the situation on the part of the commanders in the region,

is very important. This ability to respond is critical.

Senator COCHRAN. How would a reduction in the number of amphibious ready groups affect your warfighting plans?

Admiral PRUEHER. It would have a negative impact on it, sir. We

have those amphibious ready groups deployed worldwide, some

east coast, some west coast, and then, of course, we have one that

is home ported in Japan. In our AOR we need all that we have,

and I think it would be said by the other CINC’s as well.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much.

Admiral PRUEHER. Thank you, Senator Cochran.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Hello, Admiral, it is nice to see you.

Admiral PRUEHER. Hi, Senator, it is good to see you again.

Senator DOMENICI. We did have a rather exciting trip that preceded our visit with you at your command, and I remember it vividly, and the exciting part was North Korea. A few things have

happened since then, but probably the most important thing have

been the big changes in South Korea——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. Which may have a longer and

more lasting effect on the North Korean relationship than things

we were doing before this new president.

First, I want to compliment you, while I did not get a chance to

read your statement, I find your analysis of things to be good and

so credible, and in conformity of that, I will read it. I just made

a note to take it with me so that when I have time I can read it.

But my staff did point out some areas in it that I want to commend

you on.

First of all, I want to commend you for the frankness that you

have exhibited today, particularly on pages 24 and 26, regarding

readiness. We are having a lot more difficulties with others in the

military to get such frank discussions of readiness and quality of

life.

I am going to submit to you, and I hope it is not too burdensome,

but five questions with reference to readiness and the quality of

life.

In all, with the subquestions, there might be 14 or 15, but I

think with what we are beginning to learn from our trip to the

Middle East about morale and the constant return to an area 10,

15, 8 times, or 9, by military men and women, who may soon decide that they do not know what they are in there for, some of

these have to do with quality of life, I hope if you do not have information about the quality of life that you will tell us you do not. I

think these are important. I am going to leave them in the record,

you can answer them.

Admiral PRUEHER. Thank you, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I might complain to you

through this committee about the previous request that we have

made of all three of the military branches with reference to quality

of life, readiness, and the like, and only one has bothered to answer

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
596

the questions at all, and that was the Marines, and they only answered with reference to the exit polling that they took.

I would surely like to ask your staff, the committee staff again,

to go back and repeat those questions and see if they cannot give

us their in-depth quality of life and exit poll.

Senator STEVENS. That will be done. With those answers, I will

have another hearing.

PACIFIC ECONOMICS CRISIS

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Let me talk a minute

about economics. When my friend asked for your views on IMET,

I do not hear too well out of this ear, and I thought he said IMF,

and I was very excited, because I thought you had commented

about IMF, and perhaps you were going to elaborate on it.

I guess whether you want to give us your view on IMF refurbishment or not, but you have already said that the job of your area

of responsibility is made much more difficult by some of the fragile

economic situations in the countries that 5 years ago were in pretty

good shape, and were growing and prospering, that is correct, is it

not?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir, that is.

Senator DOMENICI. I do not know if you want to answer in public, but maybe I will just put the question to you, you are good with

words, and you use them appropriately.

If I were to make a statement that in the Asian area there is a

chance that there will be some serious revolutions or major civil

strife because of the economic chaos that is coming now and the

foreboding lifestyles, would you agree with that statement?

Admiral PRUEHER. Not necessarily, Senator. I think that just the

economic situation has increased the stresses and strains on the

governments.

What I would like to say is that I think that the military security

part, if we were to exacerbate the financial strains that are going

on now with military insecurities, also, then we might have some

bonafide unrest in the countries that could occur.

What we were trying to do with the East Asian nations, to the

extent that we can influence it, is to continue to work with them

to try to create a bedrock of military security where we can, so that

the economic crises can be dealt with without having the additional

stress of military instability.

Our biggest concern is in Indonesia, where those stresses are the

largest, where there is political stress, there is economic stress, and

the military in Indonesia, I think, is trying as hard as they can,

I have talked to General Wiranto, their head, and both their minister of defense and their—he has two jobs, minister of defense and

the head of the ABRI, they are doing the best they can to work in

a responsible way, but it is a very challenging and sensitive situation in which they find themselves, and we watch that situation

very closely, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. So are you saying—well, you did not agree

with my statement, which I did not necessarily expect you to, but

your job is made more difficult, because of the situations that are

currently occurring, and which might happen in some of these

countries.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
597

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir. It has changed. With 7 to 9 percent

economic growth, a lot of the ills can be accommodated. Without

that economic growth, the strains become greater.

WRAP-UP

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I will submit some other questions in writing, and just take 1 minute to wrap-up.

And this does not have necessarily anything to do with you, but

the more I observe the difficulty that this Appropriations Committee is having in meeting the needs of the military, and where we

are almost every year getting one or two major emergency requests, be it for Bosnia, which is at $1.91 billion for next year, it

is not in the regular budget, it was asked for on top of it, and

where we have had similar situations already in the Middle East,

where big expenditures were not in the budget, and we were asked

to pay for them on an emergency basis, that is breaking the budget, but not breaking it—I have come to the conclusion, and I expect

no response from you, that the approach of the administration is

a way to get around asking for more money for defense, and frankly, I think that is the case.

I think defense needs more money, and I think these constant

emergency requests are an indication that the White House, and

those who work there, do not want to face up to the fact that we

probably need a few billion dollars more for defense.

And frankly, I do not know that we will get emergency designations every time they ask, and that means that defense is going to

get hurt more, so you are going to have to run around trying to

find that money, and I do not think that is fair to this committee,

and I think it is an easy way out, to not have to bite some tough

bullets.

And, again, I am going to stay on this point until I get it out

there and get some people over there understanding that we just

cannot keep taking money out for deployments around the world,

and still have a ready military and military men and women who

want to stay in this great armed services of the United States.

Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. We do not expect a response to

that, Admiral.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I said we did not. Needless to say, when it

comes to the Budget Committee chairman, it is welcomed by my

colleague from Hawaii and I, and we will be pleased to work with

him somehow to break this impasse. We clearly need some more

money this year.

I went to that ceremony on the new designation of the 172d Brigade. We were delighted to see that, and the concept that is involved there. I want to congratulate you on that.

It does find a solution to what I called the problem of the Orphan

Brigade in Alaska, and we are glad that it now has a definite assignment. Can you tell us what—you mentioned the scenario of the

recent problems, in terms of the straits in China.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
598

CRISIS RESPONSE FORCE

Are there any other scenarios that you envision using that brigade to be part of your crisis response force?

Admiral PRUEHER. Well, sir, in response to Senator Cochran’s

query about the marine amphibious ready group and the marine

expeditionary units, I think this brigade is an air-deployable brigade that responds to similar types of events, where an example

would be what occurred about 8 months ago in Cambodia, where

we responded with 530 people, they happened to be the special operations forces, and nine aircraft, that is the type of thing where

a brigade like that, properly trained, might be a response team,

something of a modest size that could get there quickly and could

react to a noncombative evacuation, or events like that. It is a

great utility tool to have in the CINC’s toolbox to be able to respond, sir.

Senator STEVENS. You have the forces in Hawaii. Is this the only

other army force at your ready command?

Admiral PRUEHER. The second tier under us are, of course, the

8th United States Army in Korea, that really work for General

Tilelli there, and they are dedicated to the situation in Korea.

It is the ICOR in Fort Lewis, General Crocker’s group, is under

USPACOM command, but that is largely a headquarters where all

the forces are Reserve and Guard units under ICOR. So this and

the 25th Infantry Division are the Army units, the multipurpose

Army unit that we would have under our command, sir.

OKINAWA UPDATE

Senator STEVENS. There is a situation now in Okinawa, I read

a story about the status on our recent trip, which discussed the

particular problems of relocating, what is that, the Futenma——

Admiral PRUEHER. Futenma. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. Air strip. Is that worked out yet?

Admiral PRUEHER. It is not worked out yet, sir. The Government

of Japan is working a lot with the local politics in Okinawa to work

on a replacement capability for the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station there.

The plan most under discussion is a sea base facility which could

be either a pontoon type of arrangement, a large air field, or a

landfill, called a sea-based facility, off of Camp Schwab, is most frequently talked about, but this is being worked out with the Government of Japan and the Okinawans.

Senator STEVENS. I understand that that is to be at Japanese expense, right?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir, it is.

Senator STEVENS. Is the current situation of Japan’s financial

condition delaying this at all?

Admiral PRUEHER. I do not think it is delayed because of the financial situation in Japan. It is a substantial expense. I think the

investment in the Okinawa area is something they are working

out, but largely it ends up trying to reconcile the local politics in

Okinawa, vis-a-vis these facilities.

It is interesting that a couple of mayoral prefecture elections that

were recently held, the candidate that supported United States

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
599

presence in Okinawa was the candidate that won, which is a little

bit of a change of tack in Okinawa with what we have seen in the

last 2 or 3 years, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Inouye, when he was chairman of the

subcommittee, held some hearings that I attended in Okinawa, if

you recall, and that is a longstanding dispute.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir; our United States military there in

Okinawa, with our marines there, as well as Kadena Air Base, as

well as our Army special forces unit there, it has large footprint in

Okinawa.

So of the 26 items that were addressed under SACO, which is

the Special Action Committee on Okinawa, that Dr. Perry set up,

quite a few of those items have been completed and have been resolved. There are a few outstanding ones, the most difficult of

which is the Futenma Air Base relocation, and that one is still

working, and I think will take a few more years to work out, sir,

but it is a longstanding issue.

I have to tip my hat to Gen. John Baker, who is the Air Force

leader at Kadena. He has done a great job there, and Gen. Frank

Libutti has taken over the III Marine Expeditionary Force [MEF],

and marines there are doing a great job of working with the community.

I think what you find there is pro-American, but if it is like it

is at home, people do not like to live in the landing pattern, so the

basing is an issue we have to work out, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Like my State, those homes were put in after

the field was put there, and it still is a problem.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

NORTHERN EDGE EXERCISE

Senator STEVENS. Northern Edge, my staff tells me that the next

exercise will be a joint training and experimentation test bed for

emerging doctrine, advanced technologies, and innovative concepts.

Is that correct?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir; the last Northern Edge that we did

with General McCloud in Alaska, and I think you got a good debrief on that, where they included information, assurance operations in there, and about 96,000 people were involved in that joint

exercise in Alaska.

The ones coming up, we have forecast them to have Japanese

participation, Australian participation in that exercise, as well as

a joint exercise, and an experimentation test bed for communications and information assurance.

Senator STEVENS. Will forces under your command be involved——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. Naval forces?

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir; the plan is for the 3d Fleet flagship

to go up there and be a participant in Northern Edge. We have not

really gelled exactly how that is going to turn out, but there will

be naval forces involved in it, too.

Senator STEVENS. Do you have any further questions, Senator

Inouye?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
600

Senator INOUYE. Just one, and I would like to submit the rest.

I understand the joint surveillance and target attack radar system

[J-STARS] aircraft was used in exercises in your command at the

end of last year——

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE [continuing]. And that included using the aircraft in support of amphibious landing exercises in Korea.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

J-STARS

Senator INOUYE. How would you assess the utility of J-STARS?

I ask this, because it may become a matter of some discussion in

this committee.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir; J-STARS is a very useful platform,

designed, of course, originally to look at moving targets, and to assess what is going on on the battlefield. It has become even more

important as a battle space management aircraft to also help coordinate what goes on in the battlefield. It worked well in Korea,

the aircraft is—we pushed it to deploy, we deployed it to Bosnia,

we deployed it to the Korean Peninsula, it worked very well there,

sir, and is a great utility to us.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to submit

the rest of my questions.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir; I have a couple of questions I did not

ask, also.

Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Admiral, it is always a pleasure to see you. I

remember so well when we saw you just before we went down to

the Antarctic and the book you gave me.

Admiral PRUEHER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I hope you have another book as equally interesting as the one that I read so faithfully on that trip. It is a wonderful, wonderful story. We will be contacting you about that problem of the $35 million, and whether there is going to be any incremental amount that will be necessary.

It is highly important that we not just concentrate funds on

areas west of the Urals—east of the Urals, particularly along the

northern coast, and there along the Pacific Coast, the Bering Sea

Coast, there seems to be an accumulation of retired or decommissioned nuclear-powered vessels in Russia, and we certainly do not

want to see a resumption of dumping at sea of nuclear systems

that are still capable of contamination in that great body of water.

One-half the fisheries of the world are in that area of the North

Pacific.

I appreciate your courtesy of being here. We apologize again for

the delays, and it is good to see you.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Admiral PRUEHER. It is good to see you, too, Senator, and I will

followup with the response to that.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
601

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

IMET

Question. Admiral Prueher, please discuss our military training with Indonesia.

What kind of an IMET program do we currently have with Indonesia?

Answer. Each of U.S. Pacific Command’s service components train with Indonesia.

Training is coordinated annually during the Bilateral Defense Discussions (BDD),

an annual meeting that lays the foundation for shaping our military-to-military relationship. Training events with Indonesia are on a relatively small scale and focus

at the tactical level. Exercises normally occur on an annual or biennial basis with

several iterations of an exercise throughout the year.

Due to Indonesia’s uncertain political environment, all U.S. military training with

the Indonesia Armed Forces (ABRI) in Indonesia was put on hold as of May 7, 1998.

We anticipate that until the political environment in Indonesia stabilizes, future

U.S. military activities with ABRI in Indonesia will be determined on a case-by-case

basis by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Congress suspended the International Military Education and Training (IMET) in

1992 due to the 1991 Dili incident in East Timor. Subsequently, Indonesia was approved for Expanded IMET (E-IMET) in 1996. E-IMET provides training in the

proper management of defense resources, improves systems of military justice in accordance with internationally recognized principles of human rights, and fosters

greater respect and understanding of the principles of civilian control of the military.

For fiscal year 1998, Indonesia was granted $400,000 for E-IMET training. Indonesia has agreed to participate and has requested training in English, medical services, information management, Law of War workshops, and civil-military affairs.

ABRI has also requested a slot at the National Defense University.

Question. What benefits are derived from having an IMET relationship with Indonesian Armed Forces?

Answer. IMET’s greatest benefit can be found in its ability to influence relations

with Indonesia Armed Forces (ABRI) on important issues such as human rights and

the role of a professional military under the rule of law. When ABRI trains with

our troops and attends our courses we are able to directly expose ABRI’s upcoming

leadership to the democratic principles we hold dear. Our troops provide a model

for how a military functions under the rule of law, and the academic courses we

offer reinforce this same message.

In my opinion, ABRI’s commendable moderating influence in the recent Indonesian transition from the Suharto regime can be traced, at least in part, to the exposure of ABRI leaders to IMET programs.

Question. If we don’t stay engaged with Indonesia, what will be the likely outcome?

Answer. Indonesia is a leading nation in Southeast Asia. Its size and location

make it a pivotal country in maintaining regional stability and prosperity. Indonesia

is the world’s fourth most populous country and largest Muslim country. She sits

astride the region’s key straits—Malacca, Lombok and Sunda—which serve as Asia’s

primary trade routes for the movement of goods and energy supplies.

Indonesia has historically exerted a moderating influence on regional issues. Generally supportive of U.S. interests, Indonesia is a leading member of the Association

of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a driving force behind the creation of the

ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Indonesia is also a founding member of the NonAligned Movement (NAM) and a member in the Asia-Pacific Economic Council

(APEC).

Indonesia is currently in the midst of a major political and economic transformation. The outcome of this transformation will determine Indonesia’s stance in

international relations and many issues important to the United States. Failing to

engage Indonesia during these critical times would mean losing the opportunity to

influence the country’s transformation.

One key to influencing Indonesia is to engage the Indonesia Armed Forces (ABRI).

ABRI is Indonesia’s leading and most developed national institution and is now

playing a decisive role in maintaining stability in Indonesia while directing the pace

of political reform. If United States expects to see its positions take hold in Indonesia, it will be done most effectively by influencing ABRI.

IMET is an important long-term tool to building the relationships the United

States needs to bring influence on ABRI’s emerging leadership. Besides building relationships, IMET exposes ABRI to how the U.S. military functions in a democracy,

under the rule of law. IMET is an important tool as are carefully scripted contacts

between the United States and ABRI forces.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
602

Without engagement, and particularly with ABRI, the advance of U.S. interests

both in Indonesia and in the larger region will be jeopardized.

CHINA

Question. Admiral Prueher, do you view China as a threat?

Answer. To answer this question we must first ask, a threat to whom? Its neighbors certainly view China’s large army and inventory of ballistic missiles as a potential threat. Ballistic missiles are of particular concern because of their ability to hold

population centers and military installations at risk.

China is not a threat in terms of force projection. They do not currently have the

ability to move large numbers of troops and firepower across great distances. They

cannot match the U.S. ability to fight far beyond its shores, and so are not a threat

in that sense.

We expect the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to try to attain a force projection

capability in 15–20 years, assuming an adequate degree of funding. Other challenges, such as doctrine development and the ‘‘professionalization’’ of their military

must also be watched closely. I expect China’s PLA will become more and more professional. Their growth in capability will depend on good decision-making and continued economic growth.

Question. What is your plan for military-to-military relations with China?

Answer. Our military-to-military contacts with the People’s Republic of China

(PRC) are an important part of the overall U.S.-China relationship. Our militaryto-military goals are two-fold: build trust and understanding from a position of U.S.

strength, and increase openness. These are long-term goals that will take years to

accomplish. As a result, we are actively seeking to include younger generations of

military officers in the process, but the pace of our engagement does not need to

be hurried.

Our military-to-military game plan for 1998 includes four areas of emphasis:

counterpart and other high-level contacts, increased PLA participation in multinational conferences, implementation of confidence building measures, and promoting functional and professional exchanges.

A number of counterpart visits and other high-level contacts are already planned

for this year. They include visits to the United States by GEN Zhang Wannian (Senior Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the PLA’s senior-most

uniformed representative), GEN Wang Ke (Director of the General Staff Department), LTG Kui Fulin and LTG Qian Shugen (both Deputy Chiefs of the General

Staff Department), and VADM Shi Yunsheng (Commander of the PLA Navy). From

the United States, SECDEF Cohen, Under Secretary Slocombe, Gen Ryan, and I

have all visited China this year.

We encourage PLA participation in multinational conferences and seminars. So

far this year, the PLA has participated in the Pacific Area Senior Officer Logistics

Seminar (PASOLS), Pacific Armies Management Seminar (PAMS), the Asia-Pacific

Military Medicine Conference, the South Asia Peacekeeping Conference, and the

Conference on Military Aspects of Environmental Security. We continue to invite

the PLA to attend the Asia Pacific Center’s Strategic Studies College, though they

have yet to accept.

Confidence building measures (CBM) are another important part of our gameplan.

Our CBM’s include two U.S. Navy ship visits to the PRC in 1998 and implementation of the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement, a formal framework to reduce the chance of miscalculation when our naval and/or air operations occur in

close proximity. We will hold the first annual meeting in July 1998.

Functional and professional exchanges hold the greatest potential for progress in

1998. For the first time, the PLA has agreed to send observers to Rim of the Pacific

(RIMPAC) Exercise, Cooperative Cope Thunder, and Hong Kong Search and Rescue

Exercise (SAREX). They are also actively participating in the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance (PK/HA)-

sponsored humanitarian/disaster relief initiative. These venues, as well as the multilateral conferences, provide the best means of achieving our long-range goal of involving the younger generation of PLA officers.

Question. Have you had much success in your efforts with China to expand those

military contacts and exchanges?

Answer. Yes. We have had some success in each of the four areas that define Defense Department military-to-military relationship with the People’s Liberation

Army (PLA). In all cases, the relationship has expanded at a measured pace with

a focus on moving contacts to lower levels.

Our counterpart visits and other senior-officer contacts are the basis upon which

we build all other relationships. This component was re-instituted with vigor in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
603

1996 with Minister of Defense General Chi Haotian’s visit to the United States. In

1997, a total of sixteen senior officer delegations visited each country, evenly split

each way. The 1998 program is more modest with five PLA delegations to the U.S.

and six U.S. delegations to the People’s Republic of China.

PLA participation in multinational conferences has made significant progress

since 1996. Last year the PLA attended half (11 of 22) of the conferences held by

U.S. Pacific Command component commands. This year the PLA will easily surpass

that number. More importantly, the PLA attendees are actively participating this

year through more open discussions and presentations. We will continue to push for

even greater participation in 1999.

Confidence building measures continue with our U.S. Navy port visits to Hong

Kong and official ship visits to mainland ports. Last year’s visit to Qingdao was a

great success, as was the first PLA Navy ship visit to Hawaii and West Coast ports.

We have planned three U.S. ship visits for 1998. We are encouraging the PLA Navy

to visit the United States again in 1999.

Perhaps our greatest area for progress has been the Functional Exchanges. Foremost are the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) talks scheduled

for mid-July. This series of discussions is designed to prevent miscalculation at sea.

Other major topics include the Humanitarian Initiative, military aspects of Environmental Security, and the Defense Consultative Talks.

ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS

Question. Admiral Prueher, what impact has the ongoing economic/currency crisis

in Asia had on regional security?

Answer. Maintaining regional security in the face of the ongoing crisis is key to

the region’s long-term development. Our analysis focused on the hardest hit countries: Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and South Korea. The immediate

concern was that the financial crisis would lead to a security crisis. With the exception of Indonesia, the security situation throughout the region remains stable. However, the full impact of the financial ills are just now beginning to take effect.

Indonesia remains particularly vulnerable to a resurgence of rioting and civil disturbances as shortages of food, fuel, and credit grip the country. We are watching

this situation closely and are conducting appropriate planning to protect U.S. interests should a crisis arise.

Over the longer term, government austerity programs will reduce the region’s

ability to provide for its self-defense. Regional security cooperation in fora such as

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum will suffer as

ASEAN members focus inward on their economic programs. The potential for regional friction increases the importance of sustaining U.S. military presence and engagement programs.

U.S. Pacific Command is working closely with each country to ensure we remain

engaged and emerge from this crisis with an even closer relationship.

Question. What planning are you doing for a possible non-combatant evacuation

operation (NEO) or refugee contingencies as a result of this crisis?

Answer. We have been assessing similar scenarios for some time, and have taken

measured steps to ensure we are ready. Whenever a possible crisis has the potential

to endanger American citizens, both the embassies and U.S. Pacific Command

(USCINCPAC) review existing contingency plans and update intelligence to maximize our preparedness. Likewise, when a possible humanitarian emergency appears

to loom on the horizon, we conduct a coordinated assessment of what help the

United States could and should bring to bear, and how USPACOM could lend support.

[Deleted.]

Please be assured, we have forces ready and capable to respond to both such

emergencies, and watch for signs they may be needed with an unwavering eye.

Question. Will the crisis have an impact on how these countries modernize their

Armed Forces, as well as their ability to share the cost of U.S. presence in Japan

and Korea?

Answer. The financial crisis has had a significant impact on the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) defense modernization program, as the country has scaled back or postponed many of its modernization projects. Those major programs affected include:

procurement of airborne warning and control system (AWACS); construction of three

1,500 ton submarines; purchase of coastal radar systems; and purchase of 155 mm

self-propelled guns. With regard to burdensharing, the ROK appears committed to

the current special measures agreement but is working with Washington to shift

some of its contributions from dollars to won to compensate for a reduced dollar/

won exchange rate.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
604

So far, the current Asian financial crisis has had little, if any, effect on Japan’s

defense modernization program. However, since the early 1990’s, Japan’s own economic problems have slowed the rate of growth of the military budget. Because of

a government-wide austerity program initiated last summer, the Japan Self-Defense

Force faced unprecedented budget cuts—over $8 billion from the remaining three

years of its current five-year plan (1996–2000). There is concern as to the potential

impact of a prolonged economic slump on long-term Japan Self-Defense Force capabilities. All signs indicate however that Japan, a major purchaser of U.S. equipment,

will meet its remaining contract commitments and overall host nation support obligations.

The financial crisis has also caused Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to delay or curtail force modernization programs. To date, Thailand is the

only one of these countries to request the termination of a major foreign military

sale program, the purchase of F/A–18 aircraft.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS

Question. We have all followed the Asian financial crisis closely, given its potential negative impact on the U.S. and global economy. However, the crisis is also generating considerable social unrest in the affected nations as domestic prices surge

and unemployment rises in the wake of their currencies’ collapse. Some analysts

have warned that this unrest could lead to greater ethnic strife and even possible

civil war unless conditions improve in the near future.

In your estimate, how much of a security threat does Asia’s financial crisis pose

in this crucial region? Do you think there is any possibility of civil war in any affected Asian nation?

Answer. With the notable exception of Indonesia, the financial troubles sweeping

key Southeast Asian nations have ushered in a period of stringent defense austerity

and will likely erode defense capabilities, but internal security mechanisms should

remain intact and largely unaffected. Rising inflation and unemployment have increased discontent and domestic political strains, but serious unrest is generally unlikely in most of the regional states.

Expected leadership changes should remain largely constitutional and devoid of

civil violence or military intervention in view of the existing political systems in

most of the affected states. Although at this point a civil war is unlikely, Indonesia

appears headed toward a downward spiral of economic turmoil that probably will

bring further leadership, political, and social change.

Question. What can Congress do to help improve the situation—could approval of

IMF funding play an important role in boosting confidence in the region?

Answer. Approval of International Monetary fund (IMF) support can play an important role in boosting confidence in the region. Regional leaders, including key

military figures, realize a drawdown of international support to the current crisis

places regional growth and stability at risk. Without IMF support, economic and social conditions may deteriorate, military attention may be drawn to internal problems, and regional security cooperation could suffer.

My recent visits to countries in the region have indicated that relevant defense

establishments recognize the dire short-term need for IMF programs and realize the

importance of structural Asian Financial Crisis reforms to long-term prosperity.

Across the board, the militaries recognize the need to allow government and financial institutions to solve the current economic crisis. This professional willingness to ‘‘stay in the barracks’’ and take the IMF medicine represents a positive

trend in regional political development, and reinforces investor confidence in Asia’s

long-term growth potential.

Question. Is there any threat that the ongoing crisis could result in a broader regional conflict?

Answer. Currently, I do not believe that there is a serious risk of a broader conflict stemming from the regional economic downturn for either South Korea or the

nations of Southeast Asia. However, the financial crisis has made these nations feel

less secure than before, which has increased the general desire for a strong U.S.

presence in the region. If the countries in the region could find Asian-centered solutions to their mutual economic suffering, they could actually enhance security ties

among their nations. The uncertain outlook in Indonesia has raised concern among

its immediate neighbors. Singapore and Malaysia fear widespread economic disruption and refugee outflows because of the political and social turmoil. Both nations

have responded with financial support and public backing for Jakarta’s policies. It

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
605

is important for the Congress to be aware of the support and endorsement by Asian

nations for U.S. underwriting of regional security.

READINESS

Question. What do your latest data show about retention of basic infantrymen,

mechanics, cooks, and pilots? Is it getting better or worse? Is it better or worse for

married personnel? With families? What are the socio-economic profiles of the people leaving? Staying? Or, do you not have these kinds of data? Would it help?

Answer. U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) does not have a database to provide

the answers to these questions. Service headquarters collect, track, and analyze retention data, sharing the results with USPACOM and the other Combatant Commanders. Retention is based on a number of complex factors. Office of the Secretary

of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, and the Services are now conducting more detailed analyses of retention trends, including examination of potentially significant

demographic groups and influencing factors. We look forward to seeing the results

of these examinations which should lead to a better understanding of what drives

retention and what array of compensation, benefits, and quality of life programs are

necessary to achieve and maintain desired levels of retention of the right personnel.

Question. What are the specific complaints of people leaving your command? What

are the reasons for staying of the people who stay? Or, do you not get these kinds

of data?

Answer. The Services track the reasons for retention and non-retention of personnel. We work closely with the Services to monitor retention and identify any areas

with the potential to negatively impact U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) readiness. At this time, USPACOM does not have any unique issues. The advent of the

recent decline in retention rates with the Services has caused Under Secretary of

Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the Joint Staff, and the Services to begin more

in-depth examination of retention trends and projections. We await the results of

the efforts and will engage with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the

Joint Staff, and the Services to ensure that readiness within USPACOM continues

to be met.

Additionally, the Services believe that the reduced incentive of the 1986 Military

Retirement Reform Act’s retirement compensation may be a partial cause of the reduced retention the Services are experiencing. The OSD, the Joint Staff, and the

Services are currently studying the impact of the military retirement systems on retention.

Question. Which of your ‘‘quality of life’’ programs are working? Which are not?

Which generate the best pay-off in terms of retention? Please provide the data and

analysis to substantiate your answer, or are you using judgement or anecdotal evidence to assess the degrees of success or failure?

Answer. Though we focus heavily on quality of life issues for the well being and

the readiness of our forces, we work with the Service Chiefs who are responsible

for budgeting and evaluation of the programs. Our experiences in U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) are not unique. The Services report that anecdotal evidence suggests educational benefits, medical and dental health care, fitness and recreational

activities, commissaries, and exchanges are quality of life programs that have a

positive influence on retention. Retirement may be a program that is not working

in terms of its influence on retention. We, along with the Services suspect that the

1986 Military Retirement Reform Act retirement system is contributing to reduced

retention. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the Services

are currently studying the impact of the reduced military retirement system’s impact on service members’ career retention decisions. In the view of many in our area

of responsibility, with the exception of Korea and Hawaii, building of new housing

for first-term enlisted is approaching a point of diminishing return for quality of life

and retention.

Question. Do you collect or receive data about family and substance abuse in your

command?

Answer. The methods for collection of family and substance abuse within the Pacific Theater vary by Service. The Department of Defense is in the process of developing a comprehensive database for Family Advocacy (child abuse and neglect and

spouse abuse) cases. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) for

Family Policy, Support, and Services (OFPS&S), the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), and the Military Services Family Advocacy Program, are implementing

Central Registries which have common guidelines, requirements, and procedures for

data collection, analysis, and distribution. The military Services have submitted relevant data to DOD. Retrieval of U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) specific data

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
606

is not yet possible. Commencing in fiscal year 1998, the DMDC will make such data

retrieval possible.

Substance abuse data is collected by each of the Component Services within

USPACOM. The Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps collect the data within the theater, provide it to a Central Registry within their respective services, and receive

a summary of the results for their forces. Our Navy component, Pacific Fleet

(PACFLT), however, collects, compiles, and analyzes substance abuse data for

PACFLT forces, as well as forwarding it to a Central Registry. Urinalysis results

comprise the primary data collected.

Question. What changes have been occurring in spouse, child, and substance

abuse for the past two years? Please differentiate between officers and enlisted,

length of service, and among major military specialties and PERSTEMPO rates.

Answer. Specific data on spouse, child, and substance abuse is maintained by each

Service. Differences in how each Service defines and uses the data reported make

it difficult to aggregate DOD-wide. We understand that Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Family Policy, Support, and Services), the Defense Manpower

Data Center, and the Services are finalizing a common comprehensive database that

will provide DOD-wide data on Family Advocacy by more specific demographic subgroupings to include geographical areas such as U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM).

Within our area of responsibility, there has not been any statistically significant

change in our data on these abuses. Though a single incident is one too many, the

rate for our population remains small and cannot be correlated to any particular

causal factor.

Question. What is the role of the current high personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO)

in any changes in family or substance abuse? Please provide copies of any analysis

you have of the relationship.

Answer. Analysis of the potential correlation between PERSTEMPO rates and

changes in family or substance abuse has not been accomplished. Additionally,

PERSTEMPO varies for the different Services. For the Navy and Marine Corps, it

has not increased because rotational deployment patterns have remained constant.

However, the increase in the rotational assignments within the Army and Air Force

has increased the amount of family separation our soldiers and airmen are experiencing since the drawdown.

Question. Do you have confidence that the Armed Services of DOD generate adequate data and analysis about readiness and quality of life issues?

Answer. The Armed Services make diligent and reliable efforts to support the decision-makers at all levels, from theater to the Department of Defense and the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, by providing timely data and analysis about readiness and quality

of life issues. In my view, our readiness data does not yet present an actionable picture.

Let me point out, however, that understanding and measuring readiness, and to

a certain extent quality of life, is complex and difficult, particularly when information is aggregated at the theater and national levels. This aggregation process sometimes obscures pockets of lower readiness in the force, which we often hear or read

about as anecdotes.

Our readiness reporting systems are evolving as information technology improvements are adapted to the challenge of measuring and understanding readiness. Our

senior military leadership is committed to improving those systems to provide a

clearer picture of readiness.

Areas where I believe we can make the greatest strides are: (1) refining readiness

benchmarks, (2) better distinguishing between subjective and objective assessments

(both are needed) (3) improving predictive tools, and (4) developing tools to link tactical readiness indicators to supply, maintenance, manpower, and training events.

Finally, at the theater level, we need to find the right tools to merge service and

joint reporting systems to give us greater fidelity in total theater readiness.

Similarly, quantifying the impact of quality of life programs is complex and challenging. Differences in Service programs and resource requirements complicate comparison between Services. Through close coordination with U.S. Pacific Command

Component and Sub-Unified Commanders, those quality of life issues most critical

to the well being and readiness of our service personnel and their families are being

monitored, examined, and addressed.

Question. Do you have confidence that the information and analysis you receive

is accurate and valid?

Answer. The readiness information and analysis I receive is accurate and valid,

though generated by an imperfect system, and therefore lacks sufficient depth and

breadth to meet the needs of all decision makers.

Our current ‘‘readiness system’’ is in fact two separate systems, designed at different times for different purposes. The Status of Resources and Training System

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
607

(SORTS) measures and reports on unit level sufficiency of people, training, equipment and supplies. It is an objective system.

The Joint Monthly Readiness Review (JMRR), a subjective system, assesses military capabilities in terms of broad functional areas, such as logistics, mobility, intelligence and communications. Because one is subjective and the other objective, it is

difficult to get the whole readiness picture, except when they are tempered and augmented by commander’s judgment.

Among the most common reasons for questioning the products of our readiness

system are the many anecdotes we hear. These typically highlight a significant unit

level deficiency in a warfare capability which, when viewed at the theater or higher

levels, is within historic norms. These ‘‘pockets of ‘unreadiness’ ’’ are obscured because of the way we aggregate data at each successively higher level. What may be

obvious to an individual commander loses visibility when the vantage point is four

levels higher.

The effects of aggregation are but one aspect of readiness assessment in need of

remedy. The Joint Staff, along with the staffs of the unified CINC’s, are currently

addressing such issues as common terminology and common measures of service

PERSTEMPO.

Accurately measuring and assessing readiness is a difficult task. Our system is

not perfect, but many are trying to improve it. I have attached a paper that offers

additional thoughts on the topic for your use.

MAY 15, 1998.

UNDERSTANDING READINESS ***

Introduction

High on the nation’s defense agenda is the question of military readiness. It has

been the subject of Administration and Congressional attention as well as extensive

media coverage. But, what is readiness and how is it measured? This article steps

outside the Pentagon’s framework for thinking about readiness and provides a plain

English perspective.

What is readiness and how is it measured?

Readiness can be defined as the nation’s ability to have the right forces in the

right place at the right time to fight the right war. It consists of seven things; in

principle, measuring readiness in each of these areas is a straightforward task:

Qualified people.—For each unit, we count the number of specialists on hand-pilots, infantrymen, mechanics, etc.—and compare those numbers to the numbers

each unit needs.

Combat-capable hardware and technology.—We compare the capabilities of U.S.

military hardware—ships, tanks, aircraft, etc.—to those of potential adversaries.

Appropriate levels of maintenance, supplies, and spare parts.—We track the extent

to which hardware is in a ‘‘ready to go’’ maintenance status. In simple terms, are

the ships ready for sea, can the aircraft fly, can the tanks shoot, and are adequate

supplies and spare parts on hand?

Training.—We track the amounts and types of training our forces have received.

Tactics, techniques, and procedures.—We ask ourselves, ‘‘do we have tactics, techniques, and procedures that fully exploit the capabilities of our hardware and our

people?’’

Transportation and communication.—We ask ourselves if we can move our forces

in a timely manner to wherever they might be needed and if we can communicate

with them once they are deployed.

Infrastructure.—We track the extent to which our bases, hangars, maintenance

depots, fuel farms, training ranges, etc. are in an ‘‘up’’ status, lest we erode our ability to do maintenance, train our forces, and keep our forces supplied.

Readiness exists on multiple levels

Readiness exists at tactical, operational, and strategic levels within our forces.

At the tactical level, the question is: are our smallest military units—squadrons,

battalions, ships—ready to fight? Tactical readiness is the responsibility of the

Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The armed services give their squadrons,

battalions, ships, etc., the people, hardware, training opportunities, and funds to attain readiness standards that the services define for these units.

There are two forms of operational readiness: ‘‘service’’ and ‘‘joint.’’

—Service operational readiness is the ability of the individual tactical units to

form larger, operational-level fighting units such as wings, battle groups, brigades and divisions, Air Expeditionary Forces, Marine Expeditionary Units, etc.

The services are responsible for providing the funds and training environments

for this form of readiness.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
608

—Joint operational readiness reflects the ability of operational-level fighting units

of the individual services to ‘‘integrate and synchronize,’’ i.e., to operate in cohesive, coordinated ways with the fighting units of other services (as well as with

forces of other nations). This form of readiness is the responsibility of the unified Commanders-in-Chief (CINC’s).

Estimating the service operational readiness of units involves ‘‘aggregating’’ the

readiness data of tactical units. The complexity in joint operational readiness comes

when we try not only to aggregate the readiness data of tactical units from a single

service but also aggregate the readiness data of operational units from two or more

services. It is possible for our forces as a whole to be in a high state of readiness,

even though some individual units are not at peak readiness.

Strategic readiness combines tactical and operational readiness with all of the additional intelligence, logistics, command-and-control, and transportation systems

needed to form a joint warfighting force. It also comprises the readiness of the

CINC’s staffs and other federal agencies and departments necessary to put the right

forces in the right place at the right time to fight the right war.

In general, strategic readiness is measured against a large-scale scenario, such as

the nation’s ability to fight and win two major theater wars. The Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff is the catalyst who defines the benchmarks for strategic readiness.

To measure strategic readiness, tactical and operational readiness data must be

aggregated even further and combined with other data. At this stage, the data for

the force as a whole will often obscure the readiness of individual units, even if they

are experiencing significant readiness shortfalls.

Why is measuring readiness difficult?

There are five reasons why measuring readiness is easier said than done.

—Readiness depends on the ‘‘benchmarks’’ against which we measure our forces,

such as whether they can fight two major theater wars nearly simultaneously.

Different benchmarks will yield different results.

—Many aspects of our readiness measuring system rely on subjective judgments.

—An automated system that links tactical readiness data to joint operational and

strategic readiness data does not exist.

—There is no simple equation for ‘‘aggregating’’ readiness data from one level up

to the next level.

—We also factor in ‘‘prudent risk,’’ e.g., the chances of a crisis occurring.

What are the implications?

The discussion above is perhaps a start to what may be a better way of understanding and measuring readiness. Clearly it needs further development, but this

view has the potential to provide much more useful measurement of military readiness.

READINESS

Question. Do you have confidence that complete, accurate, and valid information

is routinely made available to decision-makers in the Office of Secretary of Defense

and the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the military services and by the civilian bureaucracy?

Answer. A system that provides complete, accurate and valid information implies

a perfect system. We do not have a perfect readiness reporting system but we have

a good one and it is getting better.

A great deal of data relating to readiness is available. The challenge is to select

the correct data such that it provides meaningful information. The Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that he wants ‘‘to make certain that in this increasingly constrained resource environment our Joint Readiness Reporting Systems

accurately reflect our posture.’’ We have taken the Chairman’s ‘‘focus item’’ to heart,

and continue to make improvements.

We currently assess readiness through the vehicles of the Status of Resources and

Training System (SORTS) and the Joint Monthly Readiness Review (JMRR), briefly

described in the previous answer. These systems, though individually useful, were

not designed to work together, and their merger produces a whole no greater than

the sum of the parts.

Recognizing these limitations, I believe complete, accurate and valid information

is routinely made available to decision makers, though our efforts to improve its

quality continue.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
609

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER

Question. Admiral Prueher, I understand the Authorization Committees are likely

to eliminate your requested authority to reimburse poorer countries who send students to the Asia-Pacific Center. Can you explain the importance of receiving legislative authority for this?

Answer. Public Law 105–56, Section 8094 contains language that allows the Center to waive reimbursement for the cost of conferences, seminars, and courses of instruction for participants of foreign countries when the Secretary of Defense determines such participation is in national security interests and these costs are paid

with appropriations already available to the Center. This authority is due to expire

September 30, 1998. Permanent authorization is being sought.

This authority is crucial to the Center’s ability to attract participants from both

developing and developed countries in the region. Since it permits waiving class-related tuition or ‘‘platform’’ charges for all participants, it acts as a strong incentive

for not only developing, but also developed countries to attend. Participation by nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan is clearly in the best interests of

the United States since they typically exercise a leadership role in the region. This

authority also allows waiving reimbursement for personal expenses of approved developing countries, and therefore enhances the authority granted by 10 U.S.C. 1051.

Identical language was previously enacted for the Center in the Fiscal Year 1997

Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act at Public Law 104–208, Section

8121. The provision mirrors legislation previously granted to the George C. Marshall

European Center for Security Studies in Public Law 103–337, Section 1306(b). Enactment of the provision imposes no increase in DOD budgetary requirements.

Question. Admiral, how is the Asia-Pacific Center aiding you in carrying out your

cooperative engagement strategy?

Answer. The Asia-Pacific Center directly contributes to the U.S. Pacific Command

(USCINCPAC) strategy by fostering understanding and cooperation through the

study of security-related issues among military and civilian representatives of the

United States and other Asia-Pacific nations. The Academic Department provides a

focal point where military and civilian officials gather to exchange ideas, explore

pressing issues, and achieve a greater understanding of the challenges that shape

the security environment of the Asia-Pacific region.

The Center is presently conducting its fifth class in the College of Security Studies. During the twelve-week program in the College, the participants build human

relationships and mutual understanding that will strengthen the foundation for security cooperation in the face of significant regional challenges. These challenges include: the tremendous diversity of cultures, political systems, and standards of living; historical animosities that continue to strain international relations;

transnational security issues such as organized crime, terrorism, the drug trade, severe environmental degradation, and migration; the growing tension between the

forces of globalization and ethnic nationalism, now dramatized by the economic crisis in Asia; and the absence of formal security arrangements to coordinate national

security strategies and policies.

The Conference Division has conducted conferences and seminars with participants coming from all countries in the region. These conferences and seminars have

addressed regional security issues ranging from Emerging Democracies to Environmental Issues. The conferences are designed to take on the emerging issues in the

Asia-Pacific region and incorporate them into the USCINCPAC preventive defense

strategy as well as the College of Security Studies curriculum. The program is extremely useful and responsive to USCINCPAC’s emerging needs.

Question. Admiral Prueher, can you update the subcommittee on the reconstruction of the new Asia-Pacific Center?

Answer. Renovation of an existing Government facility on Fort DeRussy to accommodate the Asia-Pacific Center is proceeding on schedule, thanks to the February

25, 1998 restoration of fiscal year 1998 Military Construction (MILCON) funding in

the Navy’s budget. This restoration allows us to proceed to run the center most economically and avoid further rental of workspace.

Restoration of MILCON funding ensures continuation and full funding of the

planning and design (P&D) effort. This effort began September 30, 1997 when the

basic architectural and engineering contract was awarded. As of May 18, 1998, 35

percent of the design effort was completed; the final design phase will commence

July 1998.

The Asia-Pacific Center is expected to assume responsibility for the Government

facility from the Army by June 1, 1998.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
610

The demolition contract for removal of all non-load-bearing interior walls within

the existing Government facility is expected to be awarded no later than September

15, 1998, with demolition completed by January 28, 1999. The contract for renovation, which will overlap demolition, should be awarded December 14, 1998.

While total renovation is not expected to be completed until August 2000, the renovation effort will be phased, allowing employees to vacate the current facility and

relocate to the newly renovated Government facility a floor at a time. Under this

phased approach, we will begin relocating into the building with executive and administrative support staffs in April 2000.

Question. The Marshall Center has received unfavorable reports about its financial accountability. What steps will you take to ensure that you do not experience

the same problems?

Answer. We have already taken many steps to ensure financial accountability in

Asia-Pacific Center operations. Most notable is the explicit incorporation of recommendations and lessons learned from Marshall Center audit reports during the

initial Asia-Pacific Center implementation plan development. This planning spanned

more than a year and involved active participation and oversight by senior U.S. Pacific Command (USCINCPAC) staff. It is, in fact, this close relationship between

USCINCPAC and the Asia-Pacific Center, both geographically and operationally,

that has fostered effective communications and an atmosphere of transparency and

mutual support. This is an advantage not as readily attainable by the Marshall

Center because of its distance from Headquarters, European Command. Additionally, we are working in close concert with the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy

for management of the center.

U.S. Pacific Command retained oversight and decision-making authority for all

major purchases through September 1997, at which time the Center became its own

operating budget holder. However, even with this reduction in USCINCPAC oversight, the Asia-Pacific Center must still submit all purchases above $2,500 through

the Navy’s Federal Industrial Supply Center at Pearl Harbor for review and processing.

In contrast to the Marshall Center, the Asia-Pacific Center’s scope of operations

is narrower, since it relies on contracted versus government space for participant

accommodations and conferencing facilities. This reduces government overhead and

simplifies management’s responsibilities.

As a further safeguard, the Center implemented early on an aggressive Internal

Management Control program that emphasizes continuous management training in

vulnerability assessment and risk reduction. Management-level awareness has been

raised significantly as a result of this systematic process review.

SITUATION IN NORTH KOREA

Question. Admiral Prueher, the conditions in North Korea remain grim because

of food shortages, economic isolation, and other factors. Can you tell us what the

current status is and what concerns this presents for you as Commander in Chief,

U.S. Pacific Command (USCINCPAC)?

Answer. The conditions in North Korea are severe. The combination of flood,

drought, inadequate medical supplies and government mismanagement is causing

large-scale human suffering.

The World Food Program (WFP) estimates that North Korea must rely on foreign

food for most needs until the fall. Its current annual appeal for assistance calls for

650,000 metric tons of food aid. This will provide subsistence level support to an

estimated 7.5 million of North Korea’s most vulnerable—about one-third of the population—consisting of children and those cared for in hospitals and institutions. The

aid deliveries are being timed to meet anticipated needs in spring and early summer.

My immediate concern is the instability that may stem from these conditions. It

is difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy how this instability may play out.

There is a wide range of possible outcomes—anything from no change in status to

a military response, including an attack on the Republic of Korea (ROK). While economic conditions are eroding North Korean military capabilities, they remain formidable and have the ability to inflict heavy casualties on ROK and U.S. forces. We

must be prepared to respond in this worst case scenario.

LANDMINES

Question. Admiral, I am told the Administration is examining a new policy regarding landmines. Can you comment from a military point of view on the continued

requirement for landmines—especially in Korea?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
611

Answer. No where else today do U.S. forces face such a credible threat as on the

Korean Peninsula. Mines are integral to blunting a North Korean attack and buying

time for the deployment of U.S. forces for reinforcement and counterattack. Without

the ability to integrate anti-personnel landmines in planned barriers as well as

hasty protective minefields, Combined Forces Command’s plan for the defense of

South Korea is at greater risk for ground forces’ casualties. As a force multiplier,

mines offset shortages in troops and material, buy time for the defender, and allow

reduced force structure under the armistice. Additionally, the use of mines in Korea

is instrumental in protecting the population of Seoul.

NORTH KOREAN BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT

Question. Admiral Prueher, recently I cosponsored a bill with Senator Cochran in

favor of deploying a national missile defense primarily because of my concern with

developments in North Korea. Are you concerned that North Korean ballistic missiles could someday soon reach Honolulu or Anchorage?

Answer. [Deleted.]

Question. Admiral, considering the difficulties with the North Korean economic

situation, how serious a threat does the future development of an indigenously designed, intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM) appear to be?

Answer. [Deleted.]

Despite the country’s economic difficulties, long-range missiles are a high priority

for the government and development of the systems will continue until they are

operational. The North has openly stated its intention to continue its missile development program, both for national defense and for much needed foreign exchange.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will

stand in recess.

Admiral PRUEHER. Thanks very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Wednesday, May 6, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY06.000
(613)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 2:02 p.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Domenici, and Inouye.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF SANDRA C. RAYMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL OSTEOPOROSIS FOUNDATION

ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES K. SCOTT, II, COMMANDER, DEPARTMENT

OF THE NAVY

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Let me welcome all of the witnesses. There are

a large number of organizations who have requested the opportunity to appear before us this year. And we do appreciate your interest in the bill.

To ensure that all of you who have asked to speak get a chance

to speak today, we have to ask that you limit your comments to 4

minutes. But we do have your statements, and I want you to know

we really do go through them. Your statements will each be printed

in the record in their entirety.

I think many witnesses today will raise concerns about defense

health, the total health program of the Department of Defense

[DOD]. Senator Inouye and I are working to make sure that all active and retired military personnel and their dependents receive

the best medical care we can possibly make available. The subcommittee will markup the 1999 defense appropriations bill on

Tuesday, June 2nd, and your comments today will be considered as

we seek to allocate the funds that are available to us this year for

so many competing priorities for the year 1999.

Now, let me thank you very much for coming and tell you that

Senator Inouye is at another meeting. He will come here at 3:15,

and I will leave to go to another meeting. But we are going to each

chair half of the session today.

Senator Domenici, do you have any comments, sir?

Senator DOMENICI. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. We are glad to see you here.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
614

The first witness is Sandra Raymond, to be followed by Chief

Master Sergeant Krebs. I assume someone has the schedule out

there, so you all know what your schedule is.

Fine, thank you very much. Good afternoon, Ms. Raymond.

Ms. RAYMOND. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank

you and your colleagues for including a $10 million appropriation

for bone disease research in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill.

And I will be very brief.

I want to say that the grants that you made possible through

your appropriation have examined the issues which are directly relevant and affect the very readiness of military personnel, DOD’s

most precious asset. The outcomes of the DOD bone research program may well change the way in which our fighting force is fed,

is trained and receives health care services. This is work that has

to be done by DOD.

It never has been done by any other branch of government in the

past, and it will not be done in the future by any other branch of

government. Because, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, many of the

young people who come to military service are sedentary prior to

entering the service. Their bodies, especially their bones, are not

used to the kinds of intensive physical exercise demanded of them

during boot camp. And consequently, they sustain numerous injuries.

Stress fractures are the most prevalent of the injuries that they

suffer. Both men and women in the military suffer from stress fractures. The minimum time away is 6 to 8 weeks. But fractures are

slow to heal, and it can take up to 3 months. The bottom line is

that stress fractures do not always heal. Untreated and repeated

stress fractures can lead to a complete fracture.

This type of injury contributes to a high rate of attrition during

training. For example, the attrition rate in 1 year was 44 percent

of female Marine candidates at Quantico. But one training intervention of 22,000 marines showed that as much as $4.5 million

could be saved by reducing stress fractures in the military. And

that was only 22,000 marines.

It has been clearly demonstrated that young women are not getting enough calcium and are not getting enough exercise. Their

bones are thinning at a much earlier age than we previously

thought. And now, in recent studies, we have learned that most

military women do not consume enough food to meet their nutritional requirements. They do not consume enough calcium.

These deficiencies that occur, either before entering the military

or after entering the military, put these women at high risk for

these fractures certainly during combat and throughout life. Strenuous training can also cause bone loss and fractures because their

estrogen levels diminish with excessive training. And estrogen is

known to be the key ingredient of the calcium that is absorbed into

the bones. So the loss of estrogen causes these stress fractures, as

well.

So how the military addresses these questions regarding bone

health is solely dependent on the bone health research program at

DOD. Therefore, it is urgent that you continue to build a bone disease research program. And we ask you to appropriate $20 million

in the fiscal year 1999 budget.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
615

PREPARED STATEMENT

Now, I want to turn the microphone over to Commander Scott,

who is going to tell you firsthand how bone disease has interrupted

his exemplary military service and how costly this has been to him,

to his family and to DOD.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANDRA C. RAYMOND

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases, we want to thank you for giving

us the opportunity to discuss bone disease research funding in fiscal year 1999. My

name is Sandra Raymond, Executive Director of the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) and I am accompanied by Commander Charles Scott with the Department of Navy. Commander Scott currently suffers from multiple myeloma, a complex cancer of the bone marrow which invades and destroys bone. He joins me today

to speak from a patient’s perspective. We are appearing before your Subcommittee

with the hope of realizing one common goal of improving bone health by reducing

the incidence of osteoporosis, Paget’s disease of bone, Osteogenesis Imperfecta, multiple myeloma, and other bone diseases. We believe we make a convincing case for

why the continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) osteoporosis and related

bone diseases program is critical to our national security. We also believe that we

need research support for the special health related problems of the military which

are not addressed by the National Institutes of Health budget, such as stress fractures and juvenile osteoporosis.

First, on behalf of the entire bone community, we want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues on the Subcommittee for the $10 million you appropriated

for bone research in the fiscal year 1997 DOD appropriations bill. It was truly appreciated and has been put to good use. Out of the $10 million appropriated, $9.7

million was awarded to fund grants. The remainder was allocated to the Small Business Innovative Research fund grants. We believe that the scientific community has

reached an exciting threshold. The timing of this program and the availability of

additional funds for bone research are fortuitous. The genes that would predict bone

density are being discovered but we do not know what those genes do, how they do

it or how genetic tests could be used to predict and prevent diseases. The Department of Defense resource could lead to these exciting discoveries which, in turn,

would aid in prevention of bone diseases.

There are many important diseases which deserve attention and funding under

the Department of Defense budget, but we want to make Congress particularly

aware of the bone diseases which frequently do not get the attention they deserve.

We also want to educate Members on the newest revelations surrounding the correlations between bone disease and cancer and more recently, depression. What we

can do to prevent and treat these diseases that affect our military population are

questions we believe need to be addressed now.

The Military Health Services System serves 8.4 million, including active and retired military personnel and their dependents. In fiscal year 1995, program costs

rose to $15.3 billion. The economic burden of health care costs from this range of

chronic diseases is staggering. For example, the combined annual cost to society of

medical care and lost wages for osteoporosis alone is estimated at $13 billion. Despite these overwhelming figures, osteoporosis and related bone diseases are preventable if measures are taken before an individual reaches the mid-30’s—which encompasses the time period that many men and women spend in the military. Skeletal development in average healthy individuals is maximal at age 25 in women and

30 to 35 in men.

The increasing number of women in the military presents new health challenges,

some of which are directly related to osteoporosis. In fact, a high percentage of

women in the military are African American and very little information exists regarding this group of women who suffer from eating disorders as well as other

health problems. Once bone is lost, it can never be fully replaced, so prevention is

of the utmost importance. It is essential that young men and women in the military

build up their bone mass to maximum capacity in order to be well equipped

throughout their life span. Understanding the correlation between bone loss and excessive exercise, amenorrhea, depression, and smoking in military personnel will

only serve to strengthen the overall readiness of the defense system as well as generate significant cost savings through reduction of stress fractures.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
616

The DOD is developing its own focus on bone research with relevance to the military age population. This special focus is welcomed by the bone community as it is

not duplicating the important work being funded by the National Institutes of

Health. Much of our current knowledge of bone diseases has been derived from

studying postmenopausal white women. Our understanding of bone metabolism

would be greatly strengthened by this new DOD research emphasis. The DOD Bone

Research Program aims to enhance military readiness by improving bone health of

young men and women.

One important goal of the DOD program is to enhance military readiness by reducing the incidence of fractures which incur costs and lost time, during physically

intensive training. Bone fractures are a major problem for the military population.

One training intervention research project among 22,000 recruits in the U.S. Marine

Corp in San Diego showed that as much as $4.5 million could be saved by reducing

stress fractures. We need research in determining approaches to making these fractures less common. This is a problem for both sexes, but it is particularly important

for women. This is relevant now because there are more women in the military and

women have lower bone mass than men which makes them more susceptible to fractures. Research should be direct to finding ways of increasing bone mass to prevent

fractures.

Military training programs require recruits to perform at a much higher physical

stress level than is required by civilian life. Some civilians who become soldiers have

stress fractures of the lower limbs only when performing their new duties. Those

soldiers apparently suffer from ‘‘situational osteoporosis’’ in that their new bones are

not strong enough to sustain their new intended use.

Stress fractures are a problem in 10–15 percent of women recruits during the 8

weeks of basic training. With the increasing number of women in the military, the

bone health of female recruits becomes a concern of growing proportions if they are

to serve at maximum capacity and strength. According to the Army, the minimum

time away from significant duty for a male or female soldier who develops a stress

fracture is 6–8 weeks. Full recovery time for those with stress fractures generally

takes as long as 12 weeks. Stress fractures are among the most frequent injuries

that take men and women in the Army off duty.

The leadership of the Army’s osteoporosis and related bone diseases research

project is aware that achieving bone strength takes more than measuring the bone

density of potential recruits and screening out the ones with low bone mass. To advance the understanding of overall bone health or military men and women, we

must develop the ability to predict susceptibility to stress fractures through studying and environmental influences.

To achieve peak bone mass as a young adult and retain the inner structural

strength that bone provides, bone weakness must be attacked from several fronts.

Important research questions must be answered. For example, how do different biochemical forces such as weight-bearing and muscle development impact bone cells?

How can we detect the microscopic bone damage that builds up during training and

leads to stress fractures? What is the clinical physiological impact of physical fitness

and diet on peak bone mass? To what degree do environmental factors such as

smoking, carbonated beverages and alcohol intake relate to the achievement and retention of peak bone mass? What are the predictors of fracture risk such as genetics,

physical characteristics and hormonal factors? What are the best prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies for the young population?

The military also has an exceptional opportunity to conduct longitudinal studies

of bone physiology in young people because it retains individuals from ages 18

through 22. This is an opportunity which should be fully utilized through cooperation between military and civilian scientists. Nonetheless, while the military is primarily focused on this age group, it is also concerned about the health of its military

families and retirees who will also benefit from the basic and clinical research performed under the guidance of the DOD. And now I’d like to introduce Commander

Charles Scott who will explain how multiple myeloma, a bone disease, has affected

his capacity to serve.

My name is Commander Charles Scott. I am a Naval Aviator, Experimental Test

Pilot, Aeronautical Engineer and Persian Gulf Veteran. In December 1996, after suffering a broken back, I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma which is a complex

cancer of the bone marrow that invades and destroys bone. As a result of this disease I have sever osteoporosis. Each year 14,000 new cases of myeloma are diagnosed. The occurrence of myeloma has increased dramatically in the past decade.

Some experts believe that the increase in incidence of multiple myeloma may be related to toxic exposure, viral links, and chemical pollutants. The average life expectancy from the time of diagnosis is three and one half years; there is no known cure.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
617

I demonstrate the tangible cost of bone disease to the military. The Navy has paid

over nine million dollars to train me in the highly technical fields in which I am

qualified. This investment by the tax payers of this country is in jeopardy due to

my bone disease and cancer. We are asking for $20 million for bone disease research. If the research resulting from the DOD Bone Health and Military Medical

Readiness Research Program could help me recover my health and put me back into

a flying status, nearly one half of the $20 million we are requesting from you today

could be recovered.

By understanding the mechanisms of bone destruction in myeloma, we can learn

how the dynamic equilibrium of bone damage and bone healing actually works. In

myeloma patients, bone damage is dramatically increased but perhaps more importantly bone repair is almost completely blocked. Myeloma bone disease cripples

50,000 Americans in the prime of their lives. All Americans will benefit from increased knowledge of what can make bones heal and become stronger. Research focusing on the reduction of tumor burden, causative factors and better treatments

will benefit everyone suffering the debilitating effects of bone disease and myeloma.

Reduction in military readiness, our ability to fight and win wars, runs the gambit from the new recruit who fails to complete basic training due to a bone fracture

to the seasoned veteran like me whose career is cut short by a disabling bone disease. In conclusion, it may well be that what we learn from DOD research will greatly

contribute to bringing bone diseases under control because osteoporosis and other

related bone diseases such as Paget’s disease, osteogenesis imperfecta and multiple

myeloma are serious threats to public health affecting an estimated 30 million

Americans. These diseases cause loss of independence, disability, pain and, in some

cases, death. Bone diseases affect women, men, and children of all ages. From infancy to the oldest old, these diseases profoundly alter the quality of life for millions

of Americans. The military life asks much more of its people in a physical sense

than does civilian life and it must, therefore, invest in discovering the means to

achieve top fitness. We urge you to continue your strong support for bone disease

research and ask that you provide $20 million in funding for DOD’s program in fiscal year 1999.

Mr. Chairman, the total defense which this nation seeks, involves a great deal

more than building airplanes, ships, guns and bombs. We cannot be a strong Nation

without strong bones. By discovering how we can build bone mass to peak capacity

in our young recruits, we will not only build strong military, we will build a strong

nation ready to withstand the stresses of an extended life span. And so we must

recruit not only men, women, and materials but also knowledge and science in the

service of national strength.

Thank you. We will be happy to answer any questions.

Commander SCOTT. Thank you. My name is Commander Charles

Scott. I am a Naval aviator, experimental test pilot, aeronautical

engineer, and Persian Gulf veteran.

In December 1996, after suffering a broken back, I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, which is a complex cancer of the

bone marrow that invades and destroys bone. As a result of this

disease, I have severe osteoporosis. Each year, 14,000 new cases of

myeloma are diagnosed. The occurrence of myeloma has increased

dramatically in the past decade.

Some experts believe that the increased incidence of myeloma

may be related to toxic exposure, a viral link or chemical pollutants. The average life expectancy from the time of diagnosis is 31⁄2

years. There is no known cure.

I demonstrate the tangible cost of bone disease to the military. The Navy has paid over $9 million to train me in the highly technical fields in which I am qualified. This investment by the taxpayers of this country is in jeopardy due to my bone disease and

cancer.

We are asking for $20 million for bone disease research. If the

research resulting from the Department of Defense Bone Health

and Military Medical Readiness Research Program could help me

recover my health and put me back into a flying status, nearly oneU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
618

half of the amount we are requesting from you today could be recovered.

By understanding the mechanisms of bone destruction in

myeloma, we can learn how the dynamic equilibrium of bone damage and bone healing actually works. In myeloma patients, bone

damage is dramatically increased. But, perhaps more importantly,

bone repair is almost completely blocked.

Myeloma bone disease cripples 50,000 Americans in the prime of

their lives. All Americans will benefit from the increased knowledge of what can make bones heal and become stronger.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Commander Scott. We

appreciate your statement. And we will try to do our best.

Ms. RAYMOND. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. There is a decreased amount available, in

terms of outlays this year, but we will do our best. Thank you very

much.

Ms. RAYMOND. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Now, Sergeant Joshua Krebs, representing the

Air Force Sergeants Association.

Senator Inouye said he has come just because he is afraid I

might be lonesome. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Sergeant.

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA W. KREBS, CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT, USAF

(RETIRED), MANAGER, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION

Sergeant KREBS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished committee members, on behalf

of the members of the Air Force Sergeants Association [AFSA],

thank you for this opportunity to present our views on funding for

quality-of-life issues for fiscal year 1999.

The most essential element in defending this great Nation is

quality people. We understand that budgetary considerations drive

many decisions, but we ask that you protect and, where possible,

expand quality-of-life benefits so important to our military members.

We urge you to provide a raise in military base pay that, as a

minimum, keeps pace with the employment cost index. Several

years ago, the Congress authorized the Department of Defense to

extend the Women and Infant Children [WIC] and Food Stamp programs to members serving overseas. Due to bureaucratic infighting

between the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture over responsibility for funding of these programs, this benefit is still not available to the junior enlisted members who need

it.

AFSA asks that this committee include funding for these programs in the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Last year, the Senate took the lead in getting a medicare subvention demonstration project, where the Health Care Financing

Administration will reimburse DOD for health care for medicare

eligibles, enacted into law. This project will start to return the

often disenfranchised medicare eligible military retirees to the military health system. But even if fully implemented, subvention will

only care for those retirees living near bases.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
619

This year, we urge the Senate to take the lead in providing an

additional health care option for those over 65. AFSA members ask

you to enact, as a minimum, a demonstration project to allow over65 retirees to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Continued funding for community support activities has never

been more important. As more and more enlisted families see both

family members working, access to quality child care, such as provided by child development centers, is vital. Family support center

programs provide development preparation for the entire family,

family support during separations, and expert guidance when deployed members return with their families.

These and other family programs are critical components of

maintaining readiness and managing the stresses of high

PERSTEMPO for active and Reserve members and their families.

Mr. Chairman, we have touched on a few of the areas that need

your attention. AFSA appreciates the difficulties that you face, and

we thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts on these

important issues. We trust that you will do what is right for enlisted members, current and future, active and retired, and their

families.

Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Any questions, gentlemen?

[No response.]

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSHUA W. KREBS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, on behalf of the members

of the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), thank you for this opportunity to

present our views on funding for quality-of-life issues that affect active, reserve component and retired enlisted members and their families. AFSA represents enlisted

members of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard—active, retired, and their family members.

The most essential element in defending this great nation is quality people. At

a time when the nature of military service is changing, when the operations tempo

is extremely taxing on the quality of lives of military members and their families,

and when the administration forecasts further personnel cuts—while maintaining

worldwide operations—we must make sure the needs of our current and past military members are met. Mr. Chairman, we understand that budgetary considerations

drive many decisions, but we ask that you protect, and where possible expand, quality-of-life benefits so important to all military members.

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

Military base pay is tied to the Employment Cost Index (ECI). Yet to save money,

current law limits pay raises to the ECI minus one-half of one percent. Again this

year the administration has requested the full amount required by law—further

eroding the value of military compensation. Sir, we urge you to provide funding for

a raise in military base pay that, as a minimum, keeps pace with the ECI. Those

wearing a uniform, whether be it on active duty, or in the reserve or guard, deserve

no less.

Military members are frequently reassigned at the discretion of the government.

Yet, despite the recent improvements in reimbursement rates, they still pay 26 to

33 cents of every dollar out of their own pockets for the cost of these moves. The

situation for our most junior members is even more severe. We need to pay these

members a temporary lodging expense (TLE) for their first permanent assignment

move starting next year. These members incur the same expenses as do members

on their second or subsequent move, yet they do not receive the same compensation.

For example, an airman with a spouse and one child moving to Montgomery, Alabama, on his first move may experience temporary living expenses of $75 to $100

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
620

per day (for which there is currently no provision for reimbursement). Over a 10-

day period, this could amount to $1,000—nearly five weeks of the airman’s basic

pay. TLE, which reimburses up to $110 per day for up to 10 days, would fully reimburse this airman and free his pay for other necessities.

The commissary is consistently rated as a top non-pay compensation benefit, yet

every few years, some group challenges the commissary benefit. Enlisted people

count on the savings from commissary purchases, up to 29 percent over commercial

stores, to extend already-stretched income—partially offsetting lagging pay raises,

inflation, and out-of-pocket housing and moving costs. To many young enlisted families, elimination of the commissary subsidy would have the same impact as a nine

percent pay cut. We need to send a strong message to all current enlisted members

that this vital benefit will be preserved. This important benefit should also be extended to the guard and reserve on a full-time basis. These members are on call

24 hours a day, 365 days a year to defend our country. Yet, we limit their opportunities to use the commissary—this is unfair and should stop!

Several years ago the Congress authorized the Department of Defense to extend

the Women and Infant Children (WIC) and food stamp programs to members serving overseas. Due to bureaucratic infighting between the Department of Defense

and the Department of Agriculture over responsibility for funding of these programs, this benefit is still not available to the junior-enlisted members who need

it. AFSA asks that this committee including funding for these programs in the fiscal

year 1999 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.

HEALTH CARE

Last year, the Senate took the lead in getting a Medicare Subvention Demonstration Project (where the Health Care Financing Administration will reimburse DOD

for health care for Medicare-eligibles) enacted into law. This project will start to return the often-disenfranchised Medicare-eligible military retirees to the military

health service system. But even if fully implemented, subvention will only care for

those retirees living within TRICARE catchment areas (near bases). This year, we

again urge the Senate to take the lead in providing an additional health care option

for those over-65. Include in this year’s Department of Defense Authorization Bill,

as a minimum, a demonstration project to allow over-65 retirees, as an option, to

enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Many served our great

nation in World War II and Korea. Frankly, many retirees feel that they ‘‘kept the

faith,’’ while the government has not.

For many years, health care concerns were strictly a retiree issue, but not anymore. As ‘‘small hospitals’’ are downsized to large clinics, active duty members must

bear increased costs for health care for their dependents and must increasingly rely

on DOD’s TRICARE networks to provide health care. Not many years ago, it was

very unusual for an active duty member to have to pay for health care for his or

her dependents. This is a major quality-of-life issue for current military members

and causes an unexpected financial burden for junior enlisted members. This same

situation does not exist everywhere. For instance, if you are stationed in San Antonio, Texas, or Washington, D.C., this same level of care would be available at a military hospital. As military members move from location to location throughout the

country, some are learning the hard way that there is not a consistent health care

benefit for all beneficiaries.

When today’s military members see what is happening to their health care, and

then hear the ‘‘horror stories’’ about what has happened to the health care promise

made to their predecessors, they surely must question what will be available for

them in the future. This nation needs to provide a uniform, comprehensive health

care benefit for all military members and their dependents, whether on active duty

or retired.

In addition to expanding the health care options for Medicare-eligibles, TRICARE

must be improved for all beneficiaries. As a minimum we ask that you:

—Establish improved payment levels and procedures to physicians so that they

will participate in TRICARE.

—Provide viable options to TRICARE Prime. Start by restoring TRICARE Standard to the level it was originally intended—to cover 80 percent of medical costs

for active duty dependents and 75 percent of the costs for retired members

under age 65, and their dependents.

—Restore TRICARE Standard as a second payer when members have other insurance. Currently, TRICARE Standard will only reimburse the member if the

other insurance reimburses at a lower rate than Standard.

—Provide health coverage, including access to the National Mail Order Pharmacy

Program, to all military retirees and their dependents, regardless of age.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
621

—Improve customer education. The rules are confusing. Let people know, in the

simplest of terms, how and where they can get medical care

COMMUNITY SUPPORT

AFSA asks for your continued support for community support activities. As more

and more enlisted families see both family members working, access to quality child

care such as provided by child development centers becomes increasingly important.

Other base facilities like libraries and physical fitness centers provide a sense of

community to a base and also deserve continued funding.

As the nation’s military moves from a forward-based force to a contingency-based

force that deploys from bases in the United States, support programs to help military members and their families become increasingly important. These centers coordinate the efforts of in-house and base-level services in Family Readiness Programs. These programs provide deployment preparation for the entire family, family

support during separations, and expert guidance when deployed members reunite

with their families. These and other family programs are critical components of

maintaining readiness and managing the stresses of high PERSTEMPO for active

and Reserve members and their families. The importance of the Family Support

Centers cannot be overstated, and they deserve full funding.

RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND BENEFITS

The military retirement system has changed three times—each time decreasing

the value of the benefit. It was last changed in 1986 and now only provides retirement pay based on 40 percent of the high three years’ monthly average of base pay,

as compared to the previous 50 percent at 20 years of service. What effect do the

1986 changes in retired pay have on current enlisted retention? The current midcareer retention figures seem to indicate that the affected members are starting to

‘‘vote with their feet.’’ It is time to relook this devaluation of the military retirement

system and the effect it has on current retention and future readiness.

As we travel throughout the country and talk to guard and reserve members,

many ask if their increased contributions to the defense of this great nation are appreciated. The current guard and reserve retirement system has been in place for

many years and served us well. But, as the guard and reserve forces continue to

play an increasingly important role in our nation’s defense, AFSA believes it is time

to reevaluate the need for guardsmen and reservists to wait until age 60 to draw

retirement benefits. Perhaps a graduated retirement age, tied to active service as

a guard or reserve member is more appropriate in today’s environment.

Mr. Chairman, we need to eliminate the dollar-for-dollar offset of military retired

pay when a retiree is receiving VA disability pay. Please keep in mind that veterans, including career civil servants who served less that a full career, receive their

full VA benefit, while those military members who served to retirement see a dollarfor-dollar loss of retirement pay for each dollar of VA compensation received. This

situation uniquely targets military retirees, despite the fact that retired pay and

disability compensation are paid for entirely different reasons. Many have questioned the cost of totally eliminating the offset ($1.6 billion annually) and claim that concurrent receipt would benefit mainly officers because officers

have more retired pay to offset. This doesn’t pass the logic test, as each unfairly

sacrifices an equivalent percentage of retired pay. Others question the need for additional compensation for retirees with low disability ratings. Both positions beg questions of equity, fairness, and the honest intent of disability compensation and that

of retired pay.

Although this nation’s ultimate goal should be the total elimination of the unfair

offset between military retired pay and VA disability compensation, we need to, as

a minimum, provide some ‘‘dual’’ compensation for those with the most severe disability ratings. These disabilities damaged the human body during service to the nation and, in many cases, left the individual retired military member unable to work.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, we have touched on a few of the areas that need your attention.

AFSA appreciates the difficult task that you face, and we thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts on these important issues.

We are very concerned that the Air Force continues to experience retention problems among those most experienced (more than ten years of service) personnel. Although not at a critical stage yet, we as a nation must remember the hollow force

days of the late 1970’s and make sure we never return to those days. The continued

strength of the Air Force, and all services, will depend on the ability to recruit,

train, and retain quality people. We can achieve those goals by providing a reasonU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
622

able quality-of-life for our members and their families as they serve our nation. Simply put, in order to keep a fit, fighting force for the twenty-first century, we as a

nation must dedicate the resources to pay for it.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to express AFSA’s concerns. As you face the

tough issues, we trust that you will do what is right for enlisted military members—

current and future, active and retired and their families. They deserve no less. As

always, AFSA is ready to assist you on matters of mutual concern.

STATEMENT OF DAVID JOHNSON, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERATION OF BEHAVIORAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE

SCIENCES

Senator STEVENS. Dr. David Johnson, Executive Director, Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences.

Thank you, Doctor.

Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, normally I speak to the subcommittee about the

basic or 6.1 behavioral research budget, but I am going to spend

most of my time today on a proposed cut to applied advanced development, or 6.2 and 6.3, research—cuts that would destroy the behavioral research program at the Air Force.

Most applied and advanced development work on manpower, personnel and training is managed by the Armstrong Lab at Brooks

Air Force Base in San Antonio. Behavioral research and development [R&D] is funded this year at $11 million. The 1999 budget

request would reduce funding to $3 million. That will kill the program.

If 6.2 and 6.3 research—that is, the development of research in

products—goes by the wayside, the 6.1 program will quickly follow

suit, since it will be left as the front end of a pipeline leading nowhere. If the Air Force abandons human performance research,

what will it lose?

It will lose its ability to adapt personnel to new skill requirements, to maintain readiness in the face of an increasingly diverse

personnel pool, to maintain strength and quality while continuing

to downsize, to incorporate usability planning into new systems designs, and to meet the increasing demand for distributed training.

It will even lose its ability to adapt its personnel to the changing

nature of warfare. That is pretty fundamental, and it is a lot to

lose.

We are strongly urging the subcommittee to stop the devastation

of the Air Force manpower, personnel and training R&D program.

We ask the subcommittee to recommend explicitly a funding level

of $11 million for the behavioral research programs of the Armstrong Lab. We ask you, in addition, to support the administration’s request for $12.567 million for 6.1 behavioral research at the

Air Force.

Let me turn briefly to the behavioral research budgets of the

Army and Navy. Both of these budgets are also under stress. I

want to thank the subcommittee for its role last year in saving the

Army Research Institute [ARI]. Congress appropriated $21 million

for those programs for fiscal year 1998. After being taxed to pay

for unbudgeted activities, I understand ARI finally received only

$18 million in this appropriation. The request for next year, $16.7

million, is a large cut from the appropriated fiscal year 1998

amount.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
623

We ask the subcommittee to maintain ARI at $21 million, its appropriated fiscal year 1998 level. We also ask that the subcommittee support the administration request of $39.69 million for the 6.1,

6.2 and 6.3 behavioral and bioengineering programs at Office of

Naval Research [ONR].

In closing, however, it is important to mention that the ONR,

ARI and Air Force Office of Scientific Research [AFOSR] budgets

have been severely impacted by withholding of significant amounts

of funds to help pay for unbudgeted, non-research costs, such as

the cost of supporting recent efforts in the Persian Gulf. Those unanticipated cuts, amounting to 15 percent in the current fiscal year

for behavioral research at ONR, wreak havoc with research programs. We hope that the subcommittee will continue working to

improve our means of responding to unplanned, costly events like

the Persian Gulf and Bosnia.

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your

comments, and we will once again take a good look at them.

Dr. JOHNSON. I appreciate that.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID JOHNSON, PH.D.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Johnson. I am

Executive Director of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive

Sciences, an organization of 17 scientific societies and some 150 university graduate

departments. The scientists of the Federation carry out behavioral research, including research of value to the Armed Services. I am here today to talk about the behavioral research budget requests for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Anticipated Air Force Cuts Are Devastating to Research

Usually when I appear before this Subcommittee, I discuss the 6.1 and 6.2 or

basic and applied behavioral research budgets rather than the advanced development, or 6.3, research budget. I speak for university-based scientists, and most of

the military work they do is of the 6.1 variety with some occasional 6.2 work as

well. But today, in addition to discussing the basic research budget, I also want to

say a few words about a very serious problem that is occurring with the applied and

advanced development budgets for Air Force behavioral research. Most of this research is managed through that portion of the Air Force Research Laboratory that

was known as the Armstrong Laboratory before the most recent reorganization of

air force research. The activities to which I refer are managed at Brooks Air Force

Base in San Antonio.

As you know, the military research budget is structured like a pipeline. It begins

with basic research at one end and ends with the production of products at the other

end. The Armstrong Lab is responsible for developing the products that flow from

manpower, personnel, and training research in the Air Force. Those products are

relevant to an astonishing array of Air Force needs from weapons design, to improvements in simulator technology, to improving crew survivability in combat, to

faster, more powerful, and less expensive training regimens—and these examples

just scratch the surface of the kinds of products that come out of the Armstrong

Lab.

The fiscal 1999 request for Air Force research would reduce the appropriation for

applications and advanced development flowing from behavioral research from $11

million to $3 million. At $11 million, the program pays for itself many times over

both in dollars and in lives saved. A cut to $3 million will kill the program. The

product development side of the behavioral research pipeline for the Air Force will

be eliminated. It is a short step from that to eliminating the whole pipeline.

This fatal cut is short-sighted in the extreme. The work being done at the Armstrong Lab is the only research being done anywhere today that will provide the

knowledge base needed to address tomorrow’s formidable Air Force manpower, perU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
624

sonnel and training problems. We know there will be new skill requirements, that

force diversity will increase, that downsizing will continue, that the demand for distributed training will increase, that there will be new system design requirements,

and that the very nature of warfare will continue to change. This cut will assure

that the people of the Air Force will not be prepared for these changes.

Virtually every technique the Air Force uses to select, classify and train its personnel, to design its tasks, and to evaluate its performance can be traced directly

to work either done by or supported by the military—much of it by the Air Force.

Failure to sustain this investment will have a profound Air Force-wide impact on

force capability and readiness down the road.

This cut is analogous to choosing to stick with the F–15 and the B–52 because

they worked in the past. No one in the military would make such a choice with respect to hardware. But that is the choice that is being made about people if this

cut is upheld.

Behavioral research and its products are at a particular disadvantage in the current decision-making atmosphere about military research because decisions about

these programs are being made on the basis of short-term needs identified by each

of the major commands. This atmosphere for decision making favors hardware development as a priority since those are the easily identifiable needs.

The fact that behavioral research can determine whether personnel will be able

to use that hardware is not obvious until something goes wrong. For example, the

military and the Federal Aviation Administration have been partners in developing

the next generation of terminals for air traffic control. Insufficient attention was

paid to human factors in the early decisions about those terminals. It took air traffic

controllers complaining that they couldn’t use the terminals to alert officials that

there are serious problems with the hardware and software. The effect has been

that very costly retrofits are now underway to make the terminals usable by air

traffic controllers. And regardless of the retrofits, the terminals will not be as usable

as they would have been had human factors been integrated early in the process

because the architecture of the terminals limits the range of ‘‘fixes’’ that are feasible. The unplanned expenditures these fixes have necessitated so far—and there

is still a long way to go—could have fully funded the behavioral programs at the

Armstrong Lab. This is the kind of problem that can be expected to occur again and

again if the programs in question are eliminated.

Unfortunately from a political point of view, the benefits of the products of behavioral research are Air Force-wide, not command specific. That means that no particular major command has a sense of ownership for behavioral research and its applications, whereas there is likely to be a strong advocate for any hardware development that will fit the immediate needs of a major command. The effect of that lack

of a sense of ownership is obvious in the cut that is now contemplated. It is appropriate for Congress to take positive action on this problem in order to prevent the

making of a mistake that will not easily be made right. Once the personnel who

staff the Armstrong Lab are disbanded, the capability to do this work will simply

be lost.

We strongly recommend that this Subcommittee do all in its power to see that

funds are restored. The behavioral research programs are distributed among several

subfunctions. Thus, in order to assure restoration of the funds, specific language directing that the funds be restored is needed. And in order to accomplish the restoration, 6.2 research at Armstrong would need to be funded at $50,476,000 versus the

$40,929,000 requested, and 6.3 research would need to be funded at $6,928,000 versus the $6,636,000 being requested. Those amounts would place the programs at

their fiscal year 1997 funding levels without any accounting for inflation. The total

restoration would be $9,839,000.

Before turning to the Army and Navy budgets, let me say that we support the

administration request for 6.1 Air Force behavioral research. The requested amount

is $12,567,000. Let me repeat, however, that without the 6.2 and 6.3 programs, the

basic research budget will soon be in jeopardy.

I would add that one immediate blow to basic research would come from the cuts

at Armstrong. As part of its mission to improve manpower, personnel, and training,

Armstrong has collected scientific data on all new personnel in the Air Force for

many years. That data base is unique in the world for basic research in cognition.

There is no other cognitive science database anywhere as complete as the one at

Armstrong. As such, this database has been a treasure trove for basic researchers

striving to understand how the human brain organizes and uses information. If that

database is lost because of the cuts that are contemplated, the blow to the pace at

which our understanding of human thought processes is growing will be severe.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
625

Proposed Cuts At the Army Research Institute Would Also Cause Serious Damage

In turning to the proposed budget for the Army Research Institute, let me thank

the members of the Subcommittee for their role in seeing that there is any budget

at all for basic behavioral research at the Army. As the budget request for fiscal

1998 was being built, it appeared that the Army Research Institute would be eliminated. That initial direction was modified, and as the request came to this Subcommittee, a crippling cut, much like that now contemplated at the Air Force was

requested. In the end, Congress decreased the level of cut and saved the program.

While I understand that ARI finally received only $18 million of the $21 million appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1998, it was, nevertheless, congressional action that saved the program.

The total behavioral research request for ARI for fiscal year 1999 is $16.17 million, another substantial cut from its currently appropriated amount. That combined

figure represents requests of $2.47 million for 6.1, $8.60 million for 6.2, $3.02 million for 6.3 and $2.08 million for 6.5. We have long argued before this Subcommittee

that behavioral research funding for the Army is much too low given that the Army

is the most personnel intensive of the armed services. The request for fiscal year

1999 continues the pattern of cuts for ARI that we have seen in previous years.

And once again, we ask the Subcommittee to recommend funding for ARI at the

fiscal year 1998 appropriated level of $21 million. That figure would represent appropriations of $2.5 million for 6.1, $9 million for 6.2, $4.3 million for 6.3, and $5.2

million for 6.5. Among its other research duties, ARI is the only research body in

the armed services carrying out research on leadership, on sexual harassment, and

on special training needs of soldiers for peace-keeping missions. The figure we are

recommending that you support for 6.1 research represents a cut of 50 percent in

unadjusted dollars from ARI’s 1986 appropriation for basic research. If inflation is

taken into account, it becomes clear that ARI has more than done its share of

downsizing.

Taxing Naval Research For the Cost of Unanticipated Events is Wreaking Havoc

In commenting on the budget request for behavioral research at the Office of

Naval Research, I want to raise an issue that has hit this budget especially hard

in recent years, but that has also had significant effects on the research budgets

of the Army and Air Force as well. It is characteristic of research budgets that they

are paid out slowly over the course of a fiscal year. On the civilian side, this has

made research budgets vulnerable when there are rescissions. On the military side,

the research budgets have been vulnerable to unplanned taxation to pay for unanticipated events like Bosnia and now the Persian Gulf. It takes no special insight

to see that inability to rely on a budget wreaks havoc with program planning. Funds

are committed for work, and then those funds have to be cut back or even taken

away. Good research cannot be sustained under conditions as uncertain as those

that have been occurring recently.

We support efforts to develop a fund for unanticipated events so that the research

budgets no longer have to be raided to help pay for them. During the current fiscal

year, for example, the ONR biobehavioral research budget has been reduced by 15

percent from its expected amount by the withholding of funds to pay for non-budgeted, non-research activities. Given that the anticipated budget would have represented essentially a freeze at the 1997 level, a 15 percent loss on top of that is

very difficult to absorb.

We are asking that the Subcommittee support the administration’s requested

budget for ONR. The request would maintain the budget at the fiscal 1997 level.

For 6.1 research in bioengineering and behavioral research, the requested amount

is $14.20 million. For 6.2 research, the figure is $16.55 million, and for 6.3, the request is for $18.94 million.

The Navy’s research program in these areas is especially well tuned to two top

naval priorities: To reduce the number of sailors needed to fully staff ships, and to

embed training in the work site so that training and skills upgrading can go on on

board ship at any time with the actual equipment used on the job. The crew size

reduction research will greatly reduce personnel costs while the embedded training

research will assure that U.S. sailors will be the best trained in the world. Impeding

the progress of this research with unreliable and inappropriately low budgets has

two undesirable effects. It assures that costs that could be saved will not be saved,

and it unnecessarily limits the quality and quantity of training sailors receive. The

moral is clear enough: To save money and increase readiness simultaneously, fund

research.

I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present our views.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
626

STATEMENT OF HAROLD P. VAN COTT, PH.D., PRESIDENT, HUMAN

FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY; ON BEHALF OF THE

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Senator STEVENS. Dr. Van Cott, please.

Dr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I

am Dr. Harold Van Cott. I am President of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society and former staff of the National Research

Council’s Committee on Human Factors. I am speaking today on

behalf of the American Psychological Association [APA], a professional and scientific organization of 155,000 members and associates, many of whom conduct behavioral research relevant to the

military.

The contribution of psychological research ranges from improvements in the selection and assignment of personnel to the training

and maintenance of skills, to the design of man-machine interfaces,

to the efficient and safe operation of complex systems. Our military

is facing a host of new challenges. Our forces are downsizing.

Women are playing an increasingly prominent role. And an entirely

new function—peacekeeping—has been added to the mission.

The sophistication of weapons and information technology has

dramatically changed the skills required of our service personnel.

What has not changed is that success in military operations still

depends on people, at entry level, at every level. The Air Force

alone loses the equivalent of one fighter squadron a year through

accidents, around 80 percent of which involve human error. And it

is not because we do not have the world’s best and most highly

trained aviators. It is simply because we have allowed hardware

and software to get too far ahead of the people-ware, the humans.

Similarly, teams and leaders are facing new demands that we

are only beginning to understand. The situation will not improve

without serious investment in behavioral and social research. And

currently that investment is appalling.

Consider that personnel and training costs account for one-third

of DOD’s budget. Yet DOD invests less than 1 percent of its science

and technology budget in personnel and training research. Put another way, for every $4 we spend on equipment, we spend $1 to

make it better. For every $4 we spend on people, we invest about

3 cents.

At a time when Federal support for non-defense research and development is growing, APA has real concerns about declining Federal support for defense research. With the help of this subcommittee, the decline in spending on basic 6.1 research has been shored

up, albeit at the expense of the applied end of the research pipeline, mainly development spending.

APA urges the subcommittee to support, at a minimum, the increase to $209.4 million for all basic research in the fiscal year

1999 DOD request for the Air Force. This money supports the Air

Force Office of Scientific Research, which funds basic research both

in the Air Force laboratories and, through grants, to academic institutions and other contractors. APA supports the $12.57 million

request for basic research at AFOSR.

We are very concerned, however, about significant cuts that are

anticipated for development work at Brooks Air Force Base. The

fiscal year 1999 request for the Air Force would reduce the funds

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
627

for applications in advanced development that come from behavioral research from $11 million to $3 million. The entire product

development side of the behavioral research pipeline for the Air

Force would be eliminated. Without product development, the basic

research will no doubt soon be eliminated, too.

What does the Air Force get from its modest investment in behavioral research? To cite only one example, basic cognitive research is being done that allows the Air Force and other services

to incrementally fine-tune tests on which the services base multiple

decisions: which recruits have aptitudes for complex technical

work, who is most likely to be happy in a new job and not drop

out, who can develop new skills.

The Air Force—indeed, none of the services—can work with

fewer people, with changing and complex technical jobs, without

tools like this. The tests and the training techniques are the products. Failure to sustain this investment from basic to applied, to

advance development research, will have severe impacts on the future. In fact, the customer is really the Air Force of tomorrow. That

future Air Force is not one of the voices you hear in the clamor

over short-term budget decisions, but Congress must ensure that

its voice is heard.

PREPARED STATEMENT

APA urges the subcommittee to include specific language in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation that would restore $9.84 million to

the 6.2 and 6.3 research funding at the Armstrong Lab.

Last year’s anticipated cut of 33 percent would have crippled

APA’s research capabilities. We are once again asking for your

help.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD P. VAN COTT, PH.D.

My name is Dr. Harold Van Cott; I am President of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society, and former staff of the National Research Council’s Committee

on Human Factors. I am speaking here on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA). APA is a professional and scientific organization of 151,000 members and associates, many of whom conduct behavioral research relevant to the military. This statement addresses two main issues of relevance to the Subcommittee:

the continuing need to invest in psychological research in the Department of Defense; and the particular need to sustain support for the human systems programs

in the Air Force.

DOD’s support of psychological research dates from WWII when the efficient testing and classification of new recruits was critical to the rapid buildup of U.S. forces

after Pearl Harbor. Today, the contribution of psychological research ranges from

improvements in the selection and assignment of personnel, to the training and

maintenance of skills, to the design of the human-machine interface, to the efficient

and safe operation of complex systems.

Our military is facing a host of new challenges. Our forces are downsizing; women

are playing an increasingly prominent role; and an entirely new function—peacekeeping—has been added to the mission. The sophistication of weapons and information technology has dramatically changed the skills required of our service personnel. What hasn’t changed is that success in military operations still depends on

people—at every level, in every unit. The Air Force alone loses the equivalent of 1

fighter squadron a year through accidents, around 80 percent of which involve

human error. And it’s not because we don’t have the world’s best and most highly

trained aviators. It’s simply because we’ve allowed hardware and software to get too

far ahead of the ‘‘humanware.’’ Similarly, teams and leaders are facing new demands that we’re only beginning to understand.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
628

The situation will not improve without serious investment in behavioral and social research, and currently that investment is appalling. Consider that personnel

and training costs account for one-third of DOD’s total budget. Yet DOD invests less

than 1 percent of its Science and Technology budget in personnel and training research. Put another way, for every $4 we spend on equipment, we spend $1 to make

it better. For every $4 we spend on people, we invest about 3 cents!

THE RDT&E BUDGET

Maintenance of DOD’s technology base must include 6.1 (basic), 6.2 (exploratory

development) and 6.3A (advanced development) research on manpower, personnel

selection, training, human factors, cognitive science, and other areas of behavioral

research. Although less widely publicized than advances in military hardware, these

contributions have been critical to sustaining our combat superiority. They have

been possible only because the services have maintained closely coupled 6.1, 6.2, and

6.3A research programs on key human resources, training, and human factors

issues. With systems growing more sophisticated and demands on the human operator more complex, we can ill afford to cut back on the research that is necessary

to preserve our ‘‘combat edge.’’ With the support of this Subcommittee, U.S. leadership in these crucial areas of behavioral research—in the service laboratories and

in the nation’s universities—will be assured.

We want to highlight the 6.1 portion of the RDT&E budget, and those programs

in the Army, Navy and Air Force that support psychological research. This research

fuels equally valuable 6.2 and 6.3A programs which are managed and conducted by

the service laboratories.

BASIC RESEARCH (6.1)

At a time when federal support for non-defense research and development is

growing, APA has real concerns about declining federal support for defense research. With the help of this Subcommittee, the decline in spending on basic, 6.1

research has been shored up, albeit at the expense of the applied end of the research

pipeline, mainly development spending. We are pleased that the fiscal year 1999

budget would allow for significant growth in the 6.1 budgets in all three services.

The 6.1 budget funds basic research to support our national defense needs—current and future. Right now we see the fruits of research conducted in the late 1970’s

through the 1980’s, when support for DOD research was expanding. It is not possible to maintain this growth rate, but it is important to maintain DOD’s capacity

to respond to future needs. More than ever, careful and prudent planning for future

defense needs must be done. DOD supports research that other federal agencies or

industry cannot fund, but that is essential to maintaining the world-class status of

our military.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force each support basic psychological research to meet

their particular needs. The services cooperate to eliminate unnecessary duplication

of research efforts and actively share research results.

Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)

APA urges the Subcommittee to support, at a minimum, the increase to $209.4

million for basic research in the fiscal year 1999 DOD request for the Air Force.

This money supports AFOSR, which funds basic research both in the Air Force laboratories and through grants to academic institutions and other contractors. The Air

Force laboratories compete for these funds through the submission of research proposals that are evaluated in competition with proposals from the civilian sector.

This ensures that the best and most relevant research is funded. APA supports the

$12.57 million request for basic behavioral research at AFOSR.

We are very concerned, however, about significant cuts that are anticipated for

development work, mostly in the Armstrong Lab at Brooks Air Force Base. The fiscal year 1999 request from the Air Force would reduce the funds for applications

and advanced development that comes from behavioral research, from $11 million

to $3 million. The entire product development side of the behavioral research pipeline for the Air Force will be eliminated. Without product development, the basic

research will no doubt soon be eliminated too.

What does the Air Force get from its modest investment in behavioral research?

To cite only one example, basic cognitive research is being done that allows the Air

Force (and other services) to incrementally fine-tune tests on which the the services

base multiple decisions: which recruits have aptitude for cooperative group work;

which should be trained in which program; who has the skills, or could develop the

skills, to do a new kind of job. The Air Force, indeed none of the services, can work

with fewer people, with changing and complex technical jobs, without tools like this.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
629

Almost every technique the Air Force uses to select, classify and train its personnel,

to design their tasks, and to evaluate their performance can be traced directly to

work with done by or supported by the military, most of it by the Air Force. The

tests and the training techniques are the products. Failure to sustain this investment, from basic to applied to advanced development research, will have severe impacts in the future: in fact, the customer is really the Air Force of tomorrow. That

future Air Force is not one of the voices you hear in the clamor over short-term

budget decisions, but Congress must ensure that its voice is heard. The proposed

cuts will ensure that the programs and personnel who sustain this work will be

gone inside a year, and those resources could not be reassembled.

APA urges the Subcommittee to include specific language in the fiscal year 1999

appropriation that would restore $9.84 million to the 6.2 and 6.3 funding at the

Armstrong Lab. This would maintain the programs at their 1997 levels.

Office of Naval Research (ONR)

The Navy’s current investment in basic research is $338.7 million. APA supports

the fiscal year 1999 request for an increase to $362 million. This increase would

help restore previous funding cuts and sustain vital ONR research programs.

The Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (CNS) in ONR was particularly hard

hit by the fiscal year 1996 and 1997 reductions in the Navy’s 6.1 budget. Its budget,

like other research programs under the RDT&E portion of DOD’s budget, has been

tapped to help pay for overseas campaigns in Bosnia. APA urges the Subcommittee

to support the administration’s request for ONR. The request would preserve the

budget at the fiscal year 1997 level. For 6.1 research in bioengineering and behavioral research, the request is $14.2 million. For 6.2 research, the request is $16.55

million, and for 6.3, $18.94 million.

CNS supports research to increase the understanding of complex cognitive skills

in humans; aid in the development and improvement of machine vision; improve

human factors engineering in new technologies; and advance the design of robotics

systems. An example of CNS-supported research is the division’s long-term investment in artificial intelligence research. This research has led to many useful products, including software that enables the use of ‘‘embedded training.’’

Many of the Navy’s operational tasks, such as recognizing and responding to

threats, require complex interactions with sophisticated, computer-based systems.

Embedded training allows shipboard personnel to develop and refine critical skills

by practicing simulated exercises on their own workstations. Once developed, embedded training software can be loaded onto specified computer systems and delivered wherever and however it is needed.

Embedded training is particularly valuable for the Navy because naval personnel

are often required to maintain high proficiency and readiness levels during lengthy,

uneventful deployments at sea—far from land-based training facilities.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI)

APA is grateful for this Subcommittee’s leadership in restoring funds to the Army

Research Institute in fiscal year 1998. Last year’s anticipated cut of 33 percent

would have crippled ARI’s research capabilities. We are once again asking for your

help. Despite ARI’s strong record in funding research essential to the training and

performance of Army personnel, the Institute’s funding continues to erode. The fiscal year 1999 request is $16.17 million, a substantial cut from its currently appropriated amount of $21.4 million. We urge the Subcommittee to continue support for

ARI’s work.

About half of the Army’s budget, some $45 billion, is spent on personnel. But less

than $18 million is now spent on research to help those personnel work more effectively. It appears shortsighted to invest such a disproportionately small amount in

the Army’s human resources. ARI works to build the ultimate smart weapon: the

American soldier. And its efforts deserve your support.

The ARI was established to conduct personnel and behavioral research on such

topics as minority and general recruitment; personnel testing and evaluation; training and retraining; and leadership. Reliable data about these issues is critical, as

you know from today’s headlines. While the Army seeks to solve the problem of sexual harassment within its ranks and establish workplace ethics and procedures that

bring out the best from a diverse workforce, good data collected for the Army from

scientists who understand how the Army works, will help the Army plan and execute reasonable policies.

ARI is the focal point and principal source of expertise for all the military services

in leadership research, an area critical to the success of the military. Research that

helps our armed forces identify, nurture, and train leaders is critical to their success.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
630

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is sometimes easy to overlook the important contributions of behavioral research to the missions of the Army, Navy and Air Force because the results usually

do not translate directly into new weapons systems or hardware. Yet behavioral research has provided and will continue to provide the foundation for tremendous savings through increased personnel efficiency and productivity. This work is vital to

the military for identifying critically needed improvements in human resources development, training, and human error reduction.

Increasingly sophisticated weapons systems place more, not fewer, demands on

human operators. We must ensure that military personnel are as well prepared as

their machines to meet the challenge. This is not possible without a sustained investment in human-oriented research.

STATEMENT OF SYDNEY T. HICKEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION [NMFA]

Senator STEVENS. The next witness is Sydney Hickey, Associate

Director of Government Relations, the National Military Family

Association.

Ms. HICKEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

the National Military Family Association appreciates this opportunity to express its views.

Contrary to much of the testimony heard this year, NMFA must

report that information from our representatives at military installations around the world indicate that the morale of military families is not high.

To both NMFA field representatives and headquarters staff, military families talk about continuing deployments; long work days

and weeks when the service member is at home station; depressed

pay raises; a medical system that does not work for many; uncertainty about a future drawdown of forces; the effects of outsourcing

and privatization, such as reduced services under the new parent

support program; reduced funding at the installation level forcing

cutbacks in services, such as library closures; a new formula for the

basic allowance for subsistence which robs Peter to pay Paul; housing allowances that continue to fall far short of housing costs; increased WIC voucher redemption at commissaries; no WIC program

overseas; continuing delay in bringing military household goods

shipments in line with the civilian industry that fellow Federal employees enjoy; schools for their children that are facing significant

budget difficulties both in the DOD system and in the public system; military housing constantly in need of repairs—repairs that

never seem to get done.

Mr. Chairman, military families are a flexible and resilient group

of people. But they see no light at the end of the tunnel. They also

do not trust. They see their parents and grandparents, who served

valiantly at low pay during World War II, Korea and Vietnam, now

denied their promised employer-provided health care. They see a

leadership who asks for subvention to provide such health care to

this population; however, they know that while the DOD health

care system may benefit from subvention, 70 percent to 80 percent

of elderly beneficiaries will not.

Even active duty families with long-term or chronic illnesses find

themselves having to fight the health care system for their promised benefits. Beneficiaries who do not live near an installation

with a military hospital are denied the opportunity to enroll in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
631

Tricare Prime, and fight continuing claims hassles to receive any

reimbursement for their health care.

Perhaps as important, the children in these military families,

who, statistics would indicate would normally make up approximately half of our future force, hear the concerns of their parents.

If the service members of today and those of tomorrow are to be

expected, if necessary, to lay their lives on the line for their country, they must have the faith that promises made will be promises

kept. Trust and loyalty, Mr. Chairman, are two-way streets.

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

We are back from a trip overseas, where we came to the same

conclusion. The problem of morale and what we can do about it will

be our number one issue that we discuss in this subcommittee this

year.

Thank you very much.

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SYDNEY T. HICKEY

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the National

Military Family Association is, as always, most grateful for your continued strong

support of those we serve, the men and women in uniform and their families.

THE STATE OF THE MILITARY FAMILY OF TODAY AND TOMORROW

As the National Military Family Association (NMFA) reports on the state of today’s military family, we believe it important to reflect on how the current state will

affect the military family of the future. In the mid 1980’s the Families in Blue study

showed that approximately 50 percent of the members of the Air Force at that time

had been members of a military family in their youth. Unfortunately that same

question has not been asked in subsequent studies of military personnel. However,

a 1997 Department of Defense (DOD) study of military youth showed these children

had a much higher propensity to join the Armed Forces than did their civilian peers.

In 1996, the Navy found that 52 percent of the new recruits Naval Training Center,

Great Lakes, IL were the offspring of people who had served in the military. Anecdotal information indicates that the same is true of the spouses of current military

members.

NMFA submits, therefore, that pluses and minuses found in the quality of life of

current military families has a direct affect on the future military family. Secretary

of Defense Cohen stated in Congressional testimony on February 5, 1998, ‘‘Our approach mandates sufficient forces and capabilities to meet today’s requirement,

while at the same time investing wisely and with vision for the future.’’ NMFA believes sufficient funding for quality of life must be invested to meet the needs of today’s military families, realizing that the investment is for tomorrow as well as

today. Secretary Cohen calls for preparing for ‘‘an uncertain future.’’ The Army’s

Posture Statement for fiscal year 1999 states, ‘‘Soldiers are, as always, our credentials and our legacy. It takes time and resources to build a trained and ready force

with the technological edge necessary for decisive victory today and in the future.’’

NMFA believes the ‘‘time and resources’’ needed to build a force for ‘‘an uncertain

future’’ should begin with the birth of each military child.

NMFA requests that as we report on the ‘‘State of the Military Family Today,’’

the effects of this current state on the military family of the future be scrutinized

as carefully as would proposals for research and development and procurement.

The Military Family Today

NMFA has been struck by the emphasis of all services on core values. While each

service defines these values in slightly different ways the underlining meaning appears the same. The Army lists its core values as, ‘‘Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless

Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage.’’ While military family members

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
632

may not serve in uniform, NMFA believes these core values are also extremely important in their lives. Families believe that the values of loyalty, respect, selfless

service and trust is a two way street.

Basic Pay

The administration’s request for fiscal year 1999 calls for a 3.1 percent pay raise.

The request again this year is 0.5 percent below the Employment Cost Index (ECI).

This brings the pay gap to more than 13 percent. From Secretary Cohen’s February

5 testimony, ‘‘* * * the fiscal year 1999 budget includes strong funding for military

pay * * *. The budget supports military pay raises up to the maximum percentage

established by law.’’

Military families are asking why someone doesn’t ask for raises at least at the

ECI level.

Basic Allowance for Housing

NMFA strongly supports the concept of the new Basic Allowance for Housing

(BAH), but is concerned that without a significant plus-up in funding families will

continue to pay 19 to 20 percent of their costs out of pocket. The Army’s Posture

Statement acknowledges that the gap in fiscal year 1997 was 19.4 percent and

states that, ‘‘* * * soldiers have the assurance that out of pocket costs for housing

will not increase beyond present levels (under the new BAH).’’

Military families are asking why someone doesn’t request that their out-of-pocket

expenses return to the Congressionally directed level of 15 percent.

Basic Allowance for Subsistence

NMFA supports the overhaul of the Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) which

will more closely reflect the costs of food. We do not support the funding mechanism

to institute the change. Capping raises for those currently in receipt of BAS to provide for those who were not, is literally ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’’

Military families are asking why they are the ones paying for this increased benefit for single service members.

What’s Left Over at the End of the Month?

Sergeant Major of the Army Robert E. Hall, in testimony of March 5, refers to

a private first class (E–3), married with two children and living off-post, as having

$17 in discretionary income at the end of the month. A New York Times article of

July 20, 1997, states that Navy members E–5 and below do not receive enough in

housing allowance to cover the rental costs of a one or two bedroom apartment in

San Diego, CA. A Master Chief Petty Officer (highest Navy enlisted rank) does not

receive enough in housing allowance to cover the rental costs of a three bedroom

apartment. It is no wonder that then Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy John

Hagan referred to the, ‘‘significant increase in the population of geographic bachelors in the past several years,’’ in testimony on March 5, 1998.

Redemption of Women’s, Infants’ and Children’s (WIC) nutrition program vouchers at Commissaries continued a steady climb by increasing 8.75 percent from 1996

to 1997. Voucher redemption is now close to $22 million annually. Families overseas

are still not able to take advantage of the program although DOD was given the

authority to pay for it in Public Law 105–85. Undoubtedly the voucher redemption

would be much higher if overseas families could participate in the program.

A study done by the Military Family Institute (MFI) of Marywood University, PA

cited 123,000 Letters of Indebtedness being processed on an annual basis by the

Navy for its uniformed personnel. According to the same study, 35,000 Navy members had their wages garnished in 1995. Certainly better financial counseling (as we

will discuss later) could improve these statistics, but financial counseling is not the

answer for a family with $17 a month in disposable income.

Military families are asking why Service leaders continue to support pay raises

below the ECI, housing allowances that demand more out of pocket then they can

afford, and a decrease in BAS that leads to a decrease in compensation.

Time Away from Home

NMFA uses ‘‘time away from home’’ to describe both increased deployments and

longer work days and weeks. The Army has had a 300 percent increase in deployment since 1989. The Commander in Chief, United States Atlantic Command Admiral Harold W. Gehman, Jr., USN, stated in testimony on March 4, 1998,

‘‘* * * because we have downsized our military forces at the same time we are

using them more frequently, maintaining our readiness is more difficult than during

the Cold War. Increased operations tempo and personnel tempo is * * * causing retention problems in certain military specialties.’’ The Commander in Chief, United

States Pacific Command Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN, in testimony the same

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
633

day stated, ‘‘* * * people are working hard and there is no sign of let-up in this

workload.’’ And, ‘‘* * * readiness for deployed forces is increasingly achieved at the

expense of non-deployed forces.’’ And ‘‘* * * personnel shortages are the principal

readiness concerns * * *.’’ The Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, United States Air

Force Lieutenant General Michael D. McGinty has also stated in Congressional testimony, ‘‘High operational tempo causes frequent family separations and long work

hours both for those deployed and those at home station. Families left behind feel

the strain as well. All of these factors are wearing on our troops.’’

Navy family advocacy personnel report more and more attendees at their Stress/

Anger Management Classes are complaining of long work hours and increased family separation. Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Eric W. Benken stated in testimony on March 5, ‘‘Never in our 51-year history have we asked our blue suiters

to do so much.’’

The Service Chiefs have all supported the budget request for an additional 23,512

reduction in active duty personnel.

Military families are asking how much more is supposed to be done with less.

Family Support

Army Quality of Life Programs.—The Army Posture Statement for fiscal year

1999 states, ‘‘The heart of Army family quality of life programs is the Army Family

Action Plan (AFAP), one of our most effective change management processes.’’ Yet

funding for annual national AFAP conferences has been cut, so they only occur

every two years.

The Army Posture Statement cites education benefits as a top reason for soldiers

to enlist and stay on active duty and states that post libraries support educational

programs. Yet many post libraries have reduced services and operating hours and

some have closed.

New Parent Support Program.—The New Parent Support Program has received

rave reviews from both professionals and military families. In fiscal year 1997 funding for the program (thanks to Congressional direction) was $20 million. In fiscal

year 1998 the funding for the program is $4 million and the budget request for fiscal

year 1999 and outyears is $10 million/year. The military married community is

young and often lives thousands of miles away from their extended family. The New

Parent Support program is intended to assist these young families as they become

first-time parents. It is well recognized as a tested prevention and quality of life enhancement program. The $10 million in funding will only provide services for less

than a year to those families deemed ‘‘at risk,’’ essentially stripping much of the prevention aspect from the program.

Navy Family Service.—A private firm headquartered in Woodbridge, VA will be

providing family support services to Navy families in San Diego, CA. NMFA remains concerned that stripping local commanders of direct control over family services will lead to inadequate support in crisis situations. We also can foresee a repeat

of the New Parent Support Program situation. When budgets are cut, or are too

tight, the contract will just not be funded. Even if the total contract is not cut,

NMFA is concerned that budget constraints will decrease the funding available and

the contractor will be forced to provide less and less service to fewer and fewer Navy

families.

Child Care.—The availability of child care in the Services has increased dramatically over the last several years. The quality of child care in military Child Development Centers (CDC) is second to none, thanks to the Military Child Care Act passed

by Congress. NMFA is pleased to note that the services are either currently subsidizing Family Home Care or in the process of initiating such action. This is a cost

effective alternative to Center care, if it is affordable for military families. NMFA

is concerned that some of the initiatives with the civilian community may eventually

drive up costs at on-installation centers more than either the Services or families

can afford. The Navy has taken the lead on exploring civilian alternatives to oninstallation child care. The program consists of ‘‘buying down’’ the cost of child care

in the civilian sector to the level charged at installation facilities. However, the

Navy is finding that paying for such care for infants and those under the age of

three is extremely costly. NMFA is concerned that care for the less expensive older

children will be ‘‘bought down’’ in the civilian market, leaving the installation CDC’s

to absorb the cost of the infants and toddlers. If this were to occur the costs at the

CDC would soar. Since the parents of infants and toddlers are more likely to be

lower ranking military members, they could not absorb any part of such a cost increase.

Youth Activities.—NMFA has been extremely pleased to note the Services are taking more of an interest in youth activities and programs. Before and after school

programs are springing up at installations around the world. Youth centers are agU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
634

gressively exploring ways to proactively encourage youth participation in wholesome

and personal growth oriented programs. However, families find an uneven application of these new programs among installations and Services.

NMFA particularly applauds the work done in the DOD Model Community Programs and even more those communities, such as Naval Air Station, Lemoore, CA,

and the Air Force Academy that plan to continue their activities even though funding for the Model Community Program ends this month. It is fitting that Lemoore

was chosen to receive the first 1998 National Performance Review Hammer Award.

Libraries.—NMFA believes the recent spate of on-installation library closures,

sends the wrong message. What is the message sent when we fully fund physical

fitness centers and close libraries?

Partnerships.—NMFA is also pleased to see some innovative partnering activity

at some installations. Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey has entered into a superlative partnership with the local recreation department and local schools. The civilian community has gained the use of sports fields and other sports related facilities,

and the installation has received significant assistance with maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The installation commander retains control over the area

and could, if necessary, restrict access.

Commissaries.—The recent Congressional Budget Office report on the Commissaries which suggests ways to make the benefit more cost effective for the nation, proposes dividing up $50 million to the active forces and doing away with the

subsidized benefit. Simple arithmetic will show that families would loose significantly under this proposal and one more promise to retirees would be broken. Military families have also been aware of a proposal from within the Pentagon itself

to place Commissaries within the MWR category. Shortfalls in Commissary funding

could then be made up with nonappropriated funds—the members’ own money.

While recent testimony strongly suggests that neither of these proposals is being seriously considered at the moment within DOD or the Congress, families are concerned.

Household Goods Reengineering.—NMFA is extremely pleased with the current

apparent results of the Household Goods Reengineering Demonstration at Hunter

Army Airfield, GA. Reports to date indicate overwhelming customer satisfaction,

compared to overwhelming customer dissatisfaction with normal DOD moves. The

claim rate for damage of property also appears to be significantly reduced. NMFA

anxiously looks forward to the long delayed reengineering project to be run on the

East Coast. We will be watching the Navy demonstration in Puget Sound. While

customer choice is to be applauded, we hope that sufficient safe guards for the military family will be provided. Most new military families are too young and inexperienced to adequately negotiate permanent change of station moves and the attendant

problems without assistance. Giving a credit card to the family and sending them

out on their own may save the government money, but it will be at the expense of

the family.

Financial Counseling.—The MFI study of personal financial management among

Navy personnel raises some serious questions. The study shows that indebtedness

is by no means limited to junior personnel. While it can certainly be argued that

the pay of junior personnel could easily contribute to financial insolvency, the problem is much more widespread. NMFA agrees with most of MFI’s recommendations,

specifically the implementation of an effective, proactive Personal Financial Management Program that continues throughout the service member’s career.

Service members are deploying frequently and working long days and weeks when

not deployed. They have little, if any, time to investigate the new tax laws on their

own, or to investigate savings options available to them.

Knowledgeable financial counselors can provide service members with up to date

information regarding their financial options and encourage goal-oriented savings

habits. For instance, NMFA wonders how many military families with children

under the age of 17 are aware that they could, this very day, increase their take

home pay based on the new Child Tax Credit.

Military families are asking why it is when budgets get tight the things they

value the most come under attack.

Education of Military Children

Military families list education as one of their most important Quality of Life concerns. Even when their children are settled into what seems to be a good educational program, parents remain anxious. Military parents often say, ‘‘We think our

child is doing OK now in his current school and would be prepared to enter the next

grade here.’’ But they worry, ‘‘How do I know he’ll have the skills he needs in the

school at our next assignment in Okinawa or Heidelberg, in San Diego, CA or Fairfax County, VA?’’

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
635

School Volunteers.—Military families applaud the services’ initiatives to get their

service members and civilian employees into the schools as volunteer mentors, tutors, and as special program help. Mission permitting, Army personnel interested

in volunteering in local schools may be excused from duty for up to one hour per

week. Civilian employees may be excused for up to 59 minutes per week without

being charged for leave. The Navy’s ‘‘Personal Excellence Program’’ enables sailors

to visit schools on a daily basis to assist in whatever activities are needed.

Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA).—NMFA and military families applaud DOD’s decision last year to establish Domestic Dependent Elementary

and Secondary Schools (DDESS) on Guam in response to their concerns and those

voiced by the Services. Schools started late, students will have to make-up days lost

due to Typhoon Paka, there’s no lunchroom, and classes are held in renovated aircraft hangars and other temporary quarters, but enthusiasm continues to run high.

Unaccompanied tours to Guam are down as more service members feel secure

enough about the quality of the education available to bring their children to Guam.

NMFA applauds the planned expansion of the Sure Start program for four-year

olds in 27 overseas schools over the next two years, allowing Department of Defense

Dependents Schools (DODDS) to serve approximately 500 more children. We support other DODEA initiatives to target resources to the schools and children most

in need through the new Framework for School Improvement Support.

NMFA supports DODEA’s efforts to hold itself accountable for improving student

achievement and reaching the goals in its Strategic Plan. Families are pleased that

raising parent and community involvement in decision-making are part of that plan.

Parents’ anxiety level goes up when DODEA plans for this input and involvement

are not implemented in a timely manner. Their anxiety level goes up when DODEA

postpones the Parent Report Card, the one established means of soliciting parent

input on the quality of schools. DODEA’s plan to expand this biennial survey to include all stakeholders—parents, school staff, military commanders, and students—

in DODDS and DDESS is worthy. However, no comprehensive survey of parents has

been made since Spring, 1995. Unless a survey is done this spring—and no date has

been set—the families who began their three-year overseas tour in the summer of

1995 will rotate out this summer without ever being asked their opinion of the

schools their children attended.

Parents’ anxiety level goes up when they worry if their on-base DDESS schools

will be transferred to the neighboring civilian districts whether as the result of privatization or of the findings of the long-awaited transfer study ordered by Congress

in 1995. The anxiety goes up when they hear the news that private developers are

to build new family housing, but that no one has asked what impact this housing—

and the children who live there—will have on the local school system.

Parents’ anxiety level goes up when their school officials talk of budget cuts. Press

reports this winter about DODEA budget cuts due to an underutilization of

workyears and a failure to pay bills on time, have raised parent concerns in both

DODDS and DDESS. Will their children’s schools have enough resources to finish

this school year and obtain the books and supplies needed for the start of the next

year?

DOD IMPACT AID SUPPLEMENT FOR HEAVILY-IMPACTED DISTRICTS

In civilian school districts (which educate most military children), military families’ anxiety increases when their school officials or the local press talks of budget

cuts necessitated by DOD’s failure to pay the Supplemental funding for heavily-impacted districts for fiscal year 1998. For these districts, Department of Defense Supplemental funding in six of the last eight years has provided necessary funds for

construction, extra teachers, or technology. These funds supplement Impact Aid and

enable heavily-impacted districts to approach the level of educational opportunity

available in neighboring, non-impacted school districts even though they do not have

access to the same kind of tax base.

SERVING THE MILITARY CHILD

Because our families worry about their children’s ability to transfer from one

school system to another, NMFA is pleased to note that civilian districts serving

military children are beginning to talk to each other about how to make this transition easier and to serve these children and their families better. After sponsoring

a conference on ‘‘Supporting the Military Child’’ at Fort Hood (TX) in June 1997,

the Killeen School Board voted to fund start-up costs for a new Military Child Education Coalition. Information about this coalition will be provided to participants at

a national conference on ‘‘Serving the Military Child,’’ to be held October 1998 in

Arlington, VA. Although the organization of the conference is being spearheaded by

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
636

the Groton (CT) school districts, all branches of the Armed Services and school districts from several states are represented on the planning committee. The conference has already attracted support from the Departments of Defense, Education,

and Transportation and Members of Congress. General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated that he will participate in the opening session of the conference.

Military families are saying that it’s about time people started talking to each

other about quality education for our children.

Military Communities

In an article in the Colorado Spring Gazette-Telegraph on January 12, Chaplain

Herb Kitchens of Fort Carson is quoted as saying, ‘‘I’d never been here before, but

when I drove on the post, I had a sense of feeling at home. The Commissary and

PX are the same wherever you go, the chapel is the same, the gymnasium is the

same.’’ In the same article military family members sitting around a table in the

Army Community Service center spoke of the escalating need for the community

when deployments occur, and of the camaraderie that is key in meeting the ever

changing demands of military life. One Staff Sergeant said, ‘‘most of the time your

immediate family’s not here, so you have a structured family outside of the immediate family which is the military community.’’

Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, United

States Marine Corps, Lieutenant General Carol A. Mutter’s March 3rd Congressional testimony stated, ‘‘Our installations by their very nature are self-contained

communities, communities in which Marines and their families live, work, go to

school, shop and recreate.’’

PRIVATIZATION

Privatization of family housing may increase the number of available housing

units at the expense of the military community. NMFA understands the need to find

an alternative to military construction dollars to more quickly replace the high number of substandard military quarters. However, the entire community, both civilian

and military, needs to be involved as privatization decisions are made. Projects built

on land not federally owned will create significant hardships on the local education

authorities. Military children who live on federal land bring approximately $2,000

per child to their school districts. Military children who live on private land bring

$200 to their districts. Even where new housing is to be located can impact local

schools. If a significant influx of new students are expected because housing has

been built in a certain school district, even a $2,000 per year Impact Aid payment

will not build necessary new schools or provide additional transportation to existing

schools.

Will the private construction of new military housing significantly affect the local

real estate market, and/or community transportation services and roads? None of

these items should be a barrier to privatization, but they can be a barrier to good

community relations if the entire community is not involved in privatization discussions.

If military housing is built off the installation will services such as community

pools, libraries and other recreational and support services be expected to be provided by the civilian community? NMFA senses in some privatization initiatives the

intent to have military families rely solely on the civilian sector in which they reside

for support services. Installations would essentially be turned into ‘‘places of work’’

rather than the focal point for military communities.

Military communities are not just brick and mortar. The military community is

people—families who band together to support each other, and the individuals who

serve the service members and their families. The focal point of the military community is the installation. The place where service members and their families gather.

The place that ‘‘looks like home’’ whether it may be.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION/REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

The Army Posture Statement reports, ‘‘Nothing contributes more to our soldiers’

quality of life than the conditions in which they live.’’ Yet the Army budget request

is underfunded by $450 million for family housing.

Secretary Cohen’s February 5 testimony states, ‘‘When adjusted for today’s lower

troop strengths, fiscal year 1999 O&M funding is well above levels during the

1980’s.’’ However, in the 1980’s approximately 20 percent less of the force was married with family members. Commander, United States Forces Korea General John

H. Tilelli, Jr. stated in testimony on March 4, ‘‘my base operations program (real

property maintenance, security, communications, transportation, and food services)

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
637

are strained. These funding levels only support bare minimum repairs to facilities.

This situation does not allow me to resolve long-standing quality-of-life issues to the

extent that our service members deserve and I am concerned that this underfunding

will eventually affect readiness.’’

CMSAF Benken stated in testimony, ‘‘Our people do not expect to live in luxury—

they simply want the peace of mind that comes with knowing their family is comfortable and safe, especially when they are deployed.’’

Military families are asking if the condition of their on-installation housing and

some of the privatization initiatives are a way to encourage them to live off base.

Military families are asking if the focal point, the place they gather to form their

community, will exist in the future.

Health Care

Tricare Prime.—As this Committee knows, health care for military families has

been a strong focus for NMFA for over a decade. We have seen progress in access

to care for families enrolled in Tricare Prime and who live in areas with a Military

Treatment Facility (MTF). However, Tricare has done little for families who reside

in an area without an MTF. Active duty families remotely assigned or those stationed at installations with small troop clinics have seen more problems under

Tricare than under CHAMPUS. Either Tricare Prime is not offered where they live,

or it is and their access to providers is limited and their costs may have increased.

For those reliant on the civilian part of Tricare Prime, provider directories are most

often incorrect. Families call those listed in the directory only to be told: the doctor

is not a Prime provider and never has been; the doctor is no longer a Prime provider; or the doctor is not taking any new Prime patients.

In the Region 11 demonstration of Tricare Prime Remote, families are often

charged balance billing by specialists because providers will not join the Prime network. These families have the restrictions of Prime with no guarantee on what their

out of pocket costs will be.

DOD’s Press Releases announced portability of Prime for active duty families

some six months before contractors were able to fully implement it. Portability for

retiree Prime enrollees was, according to DOD Press Releases, started on December

1, 1997. Yet some Tricare contractors are just now beginning to implement the program. Multiple copayments for single visits continue as does balance billing for

Prime enrollees forced to receive inpatient care from non-Prime providers. Prime patients referred by their Primary Care Manager to non Prime specialists are paying

balance billing copayment—significantly higher than $12 a visit.

Retirees who do not live near a military treatment facility, or near a concentration

of active duty families, are not offered Prime. Prime enrollment for overseas retirees

in Europe appears to be on an indefinite hold and will not be available in the Pacific.

Tricare Prime Patients Pay Lion’s Share of Cost.—Exhibit A shows that Tricare

Prime patients are paying more for their mental health visits than those in Tricare

Standard. In fact, these military family members are paying between 44 percent

and 55 percent of the entire bill. NMFA does not believe it was Congress’s intent

that savings in the military health system were to be paid by the beneficiary! Unfortunately, NMFA does not know how prevalent this fee structure is. We implore this

Committee to investigate to ascertain if this phenomena is occurring throughout all

of the Regions and for other kinds of care.

Tricare Standard.—Those who have chosen to stay with CHAMPUS (Tricare

Standard) are subject to preauthorization for a number of outpatient procedures.

Unfortunately, they are totally unaware of the requirement. Unlike true health insurance plans which provide booklets to inform their patients of their plan’s benefits

and restrictions, the military health care system provides no such information.

CHAMPUS (Tricare Standard) booklets are printed at erratic times and years apart.

The booklets are not updated. Booklets are not mailed to beneficiaries. In fact, not

enough are even printed for the eligible population!

Dual Medicare-military Eligible Beneficiaries.—Retirees who are Medicare eligible

because of age are locked out of the military system altogether. DOD received permission to institute a demonstration of Tricare Senior Prime (Medicare Subvention)

starting in January of 1998. It is not yet implemented and DOD has been unable

to give a fixed date for implementation. In the meantime World War II, Korean War

and Vietnam retirees and survivors are dying daily. Even full Subvention, if authorized, will be unable to care for more than 30 percent of the eligible population.

The other new program for dual Medicare-military eligibiles, called ‘‘Partners Program,’’ will essentially offer enrollment in a Medicare at risk HMO. The Department

has not yet outlined what advantages, if any, enrollment under the ‘‘Partners Program’’ would have over simply enrolling in the Medicare at risk HMO.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
638

Tricare—Another Federal Civilian Health Care Program.—As more MTF’s become

clinics and no longer inpatient facilities, families will find themselves seeking more

and more of their care from civilian providers. Tricare is rapidly becoming another

federal civilian health care program. However, unlike plans for federal civilians

Tricare offers limited choices for military beneficiaries. Medicare eligibles will be offered an HMO or no employer provided coverage. Retirees who do not live near a

military hospital are offered only a modified fee for service program with inpatient

copayments so high that they must pay for a supplemental policy. A situation not

faced by federal civilian retirees. Active duty families do not know what their

choices or out of pocket expenses will be from one duty station to the next.

NMFA Health Care Proposal.—NMFA continues to believe that its proposal which

follows is the most cost effective program. It still ensures medical readiness, but also

offers military beneficiaries the same scope of choices as civilian employees and retirees.

NMFA’s Proposal consists of two elements: The Military Health Plan and optional

enrollment in a plan within the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

(FEHBP). (The Proposal does not include health care for active duty members.

NMFA believes that their health care is a readiness issue. We also believe that, as

under current law, their health care should be provided free of cost to the individual

no matter where it is received.) —The Military Health Plan.—The Military Health Plan would closely resemble

what is now Tricare Prime. It would be an enrollment-based Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) type plan centered in military hospitals. When needed, military hospitals could contract with a Tricare Support Contract-like entity

to provide full service health care for all enrolled beneficiaries. All military

beneficiaries, including those eligible for Medicare due to age, would be allowed

to enroll. NMFA envisions that these military hospitals would be full service

community or teaching hospitals able to provide most necessary care. Practitioners would have access to a full age range of beneficiaries in order to keep

their skills current. Unless the quality of care or service was noticeably inferior

to other options, NMFA believes the vast majority of military eligible beneficiaries who reside near such a military facility will enroll in the Military

Health Plan.

—The FEHBP Option.—Military beneficiaries who do not live near a military hospital, or who do not wish to enroll in The Military Plan, would have the option

of enrolling in a plan within the FEHBP. Active duty service members would

be provided a Health Care Allowance (similar to the housing allowance) for

their families. Service members whose families enroll in The Military Health

Plan would lose their Health Care Allowance, just as they lose their housing

allowance when living in government quarters.

The Health Care Allowance for active duty service members should pay the

beneficiary portion of a moderate cost HMO within the FEHBP. Service members whose families choose to buy a more expensive plan would be responsible

for the cost differential. NMFA believes it imperative to provide total premium

protection for active duty families. Service members, particularly those deployed, should not have to be concerned about adequate, affordable health care

for their families.

All other beneficiaries would pay the beneficiary share of the premium as do

Federal Civilians. DOD would absorb the government share of the premium for

all military beneficiaries as it does for all of its civilian employees.

NMFA must admit to extreme frustration that the dialogue on this proposal

centers solely on money. We believe that somewhere in the discussion should

be the simple question of what kind of health care benefit this country should

offer to military members and their families.

Military families are asking the same question. Military families are also asking why DOD agrees it has an obligation to keep promises made regarding

health care, but continually drags its feet on doing so.

Retirement

The majority of the active duty force today is offered a retirement program vastly

inferior to the one enjoyed by those who are currently retired. These active duty

members will receive 40 percent of their basic pay upon twenty years of service vice

50 percent and will have their cost of living allowances capped. This new retirement

system was instituted shortly after significant raises in active duty pay. However,

the pay raises have not continued. The effect of this decrease in retired pay has

been masked by the mammoth reduction in forces. As the Services begin to turn

from ‘‘push you out’’ to ‘‘recruit and keep you’’ the significance of the retired pay

reduction should begin to materialize. Recent testimony in the Senate by military

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
639

recruiters indicates that the reduced retirement plan is significantly affecting their

ability to compete with private industry for quality accessions. Second term retention rates in some services would suggest that something is causing military members with substantial years invested in the system to rethink their career decisions.

Is it the new retirement system? Is it the broken health care promises? Is it the

threat to prevent retirees from exercising their commissary benefit?

Military families are not asking if the promises will be kept. Based on current

evidence they do not believe that they will.

CONCLUSION

This country is extremely fortunate that many bright and dedicated individuals

and their families are willing to serve their country. They are enduring many sacrifices to do so. Their children listen around the kitchen table as discussions of ‘‘do

we stay or do we go’’ occur. They hear and experience the frustration of diminished

quality of life and continuing threats to valued benefits. These children hear of the

broken promises, they hear the distrust about the availability of benefits for their

parents.

As Admiral Prueher stated in his March 4 testimony, ‘‘Investments in people and

training are as important as new technology. Adequate funding for compensation,

medical, retirement, housing and other quality-of-life programs is necessary to attract and retain the skilled personnel upon which our forces depend.’’

NMFA suggests that ‘‘adequate’’ is in the eye of the beholder. Increased time

away from home aggravated by personnel cuts, decreased family support, fewer

choices and increased costs for medical care, compensation caps, attacks on the

foundation of the military community, substandard housing, and concern about their

children’s education, may make many military families decide to vote with their

feet. Perhaps as importantly, it may cause the potential military family of the future

to decide that loyalty, trust and respect are one sided. They may decide the military

community of their great-grandfathers and grandfathers did not exist for their

mothers and fathers and would not for them.

STATEMENTS OF:

FATHER WILLIAM L. GEORGE, S.J., ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT,

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

FATHER LEO J. O’DONOVAN, S.J., GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

Senator STEVENS. Father Collins and Father George, please.

Father GEORGE. Father Collins sent me, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. We will have to deal with what the Lord gives

us, Father. [Laughter.]

Father GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Senator Domenici, and staff, thank you for the privilege and the opportunity to

testify.

I would like to ask you, as you consider your appropriations for

this year, to give special consideration to advanced technologies in

medicine that would help the young men and women in the service

prevent some of their diseases, cure them more quickly, and get

them back to their duty as quickly as possible. A couple of areas

I would like to mention are diabetes and hypertension, in which we

are cooperating with Walter Reed in deploying some telemedicine

systems in homes, where you can monitor the patients more clearly

and some of the diseases that can crop up with diabetes.

The other would be that there are such advances in robotics and

communications and computing that there is the capacity to develop a really good surgery for the spine. And one of the first persons who spoke here spoke on back injury. Well, if you can get in

there quickly with minimally invasive stuff, instead of being a

month out of work, you can get that person back in, in 3 or 4 days,

perhaps, if you get it in time. That also could be effective in prostate and kidney types of surgeries, as well.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
640

And, finally, we as a University, cooperate and are working with

the Lovelace Institute. And what we are working on is a way to

prepare the lungs of soldiers in the field, men and women, that if

they were up against a biological or a chemical type of event, that

it would protect their lungs, and then, second, methods that would

actually regenerate the tissue in the lungs, where the oxygen exchanges.

And so I would like to ask your committee to look into that as

carefully as possible. And I know you do. But thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Mr. Cortese reminds me that we did follow your request last year

and it was vetoed.

Father GEORGE. By one of our alumni. I mean, yes, that is pretty

hard to believe. [Laughter.]

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. Well, we will see if we can try again. Thank

you very much, Father.

Father GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. God bless you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FATHER WILLIAM L. GEORGE, S.J.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are Father William L. George,

S.J. and Father T. Byron Collins, S.J. Assistants to the President of Georgetown

University, the Reverend Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J. We appreciate the opportunity to

submit this testimony to the subcommittee on Georgetown’s cost reducing advanced

medical technologies.

Advance technologies have made dramatic changes in health care. Georgetown

University and Walter Reed Army Medical Center have been focusing cost reducing

medical advanced technologies that at the same time improve the quality of care.

We request $20 million for fiscal year 1999 to be added as a continuation to the

existing research contract DAMD–17–94–V–4015 to further develop and deploy

these technological innovations. Two of the high cost areas in health care are management of chronically ill patients and major surgical procedures requiring hospital

stays. We propose to target these two important areas that share common technological infrastructure.

Diabetes and hypertension are two of the major chronic illnesses that consume

billions of dollars of health care cost. As the population ages, we expect a dramatic

increase in the number of chronically ill patients. These patients, though they are

a small percentage of the entire patient population, account for the majority of

health care costs. For diabetes patients, if the glucose level can be tightly controlled

by various means, they can lead a more productive and healthier life with a reduced

risk of further medical complications. Currently we are installing, in collaboration

with Walter Reed Army Medical Center, telemedicine systems at a number of diabetes patients’ homes to monitor their glucose levels. We propose to expand the technical capabilities to reach a greater number of patients. This home-based telemedicine system will also be used for patient education, patient support activities, and

computer assisted medical intervention to avoid medical complications that can be

very costly.

Advances in imaging, robotics, communication and computing have made it possible to operate on a patient without making a large open incision. The application

of such a technique, known as minimally invasive therapy, has begun to revolutionize the traditional therapies and surgeries. For example, the hospital stay will be

reduced from 7–9 days to 1–2 days in the case of spine surgery patients, thus reducing the morbidity and mortality rates and the cost of care. This new surgical program will include surgeries in the spine, prostate and kidney. For our men and

women in uniform, this new technique will allow rapid return to duty. GUMC has

been developing this project with multiple investigators at Walter Reed Army Medical Center over the past two years. Requested funds will allow us to expand current

limited capabilities for routine patient care.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
641

STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. QUICKEL, JR., M.D., PRESIDENT, JOSLIN

DIABETES CENTER, BOSTON, MA

Senator STEVENS. Dr. Kenneth Quickel, from the Joslin Diabetes

Center. Good afternoon, sir.

Dr. QUICKEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

we at Joslin certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today,

and we are eager to report to you our current progress with the

demonstration project that was funded last year.

The Joslin Diabetes demonstration project will institute pilot programs of detection, prevention and care in two regions. First, in

Hawaii, through Tripler Army Hospital; and the second, in New

England, through the Veterans Administration System. The objectives involving and technology transfer from Joslin’s knowledge

base, utilizing telemedicine strategies in the Department of Defense and the VA system, to provide state-of-the-art care to people

with diabetes.

We would like to thank you for the funding in the 1998 Defense

Appropriations Act for the diabetes research project, and we would

like to express our appreciation for the support and leadership on

diabetes issues that Senator Inouye and his staff have provided,

largely focused on the Stroup Clinic and Hospital in Hawaii, where

we are coordinating this project.

I would like to focus on two principal areas. First, to give you a

very brief status report; and, second, to talk a little bit about the

second year. The two objectives of the project were to screen for diabetes among Department of Defense and VA patient populations,

and then to use innovative technologies to do that screening, which

involves nothing more than shining a light in the eye. The second

objective was to use the knowledge and the early diagnosis to implement improved diabetes care technologies.

The project has now been assigned program element number

63002 and project number 941. But September 30, 1998, we will

have accomplished several things. The first is we will have completed the preliminary studies and setup of equipment and personnel in the New England. And we will be beginning to actually

apply those strategies to the care of people with diabetes. The second is that we will have implemented phase one in Tripler Medical

Hospital and be prepared to move on to the second phase at that

point.

Now, when this project was funded nearly a year ago, and since

that time, we have spent about $1.5 million of Joslin Diabetes Center funds without any of the funds yet coming out. We have continued to push the project forward. We were not aware that at each

stage of the Department of Defense review a percentage of the

funds would be appropriated elsewhere. The bare-bones budget

that we submitted last year has been therefore reduced to an insufficient level.

Mr. Chairman, in order to implement this project properly and

conduct the project in a manner that we intended, we will require

an appropriation of $6.4 million for this project in 1999. We believe

that with that appropriation, which is strongly supported by all

parties, we can move this forward to benefit the lives of people

with diabetes.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
642

Senator STEVENS. Let me make sure I understand this, Doctor,

because I am naive, too; right? We gave you $2 million last year?

Dr. QUICKEL. No, the appropriation last year was $4 million.

Senator STEVENS. $4 million.

Dr. QUICKEL. Yes.

Senator STEVENS. But you have not been given any of that yet?

Dr. QUICKEL. We have not seen any money yet.

Senator STEVENS. And you have spent $2 million almost?

Dr. QUICKEL. We have spent almost $2 million of our own funding, because we felt that to stop the forward momentum of this

would be damaging to the project itself out of some confidence that

the funding was going to come.

Senator STEVENS. And at each stage of this review, which is a

peer review I take it—is that right?

Dr. QUICKEL. Mostly.

Senator STEVENS. They are taking money out of it. And there is

an overhead charge and a management charge.

Dr. QUICKEL. Well, yes, there is payment for overhead charges,

expenses of conducting the process.

Senator STEVENS. And you have got a half-a-million-dollar bill

from VA for their participation?

Dr. QUICKEL. Yes.

Senator STEVENS. Cannot you do this all yourself?

Dr. QUICKEL. We have done it all ourselves to this point. And we

have done it basically based on philanthropy and National Institute

of Health [NIH] funding. And we are at a point now where it needs

to be converted to a practical strategy that can be actually applied

in the field. And because of the military’s and the VA’s interest in

telemedicine, it is a perfect match, of taking something to them

that they can use, and they bring something to the table that we

need, in terms of the expertise in telemedicine.

Senator STEVENS. But if your request goes up 55 percent every

year, you are not going to be involved in this very long, because

we cannot afford that.

Dr. QUICKEL. I understand.

Senator STEVENS. So I suggest you get together with your colleagues in the VA and the DOD and tell them to keep their mitts

off your money. We will tell them, too.

Dr. QUICKEL. Yes, we appreciate your help with that.

Senator STEVENS. I do not think there should be that kind of assessment. So unless they come to us and tell us to the contrary,

we are going to find an arbitrary figure and limit the amount they

can charge for oversight of these. We cannot afford to finance it.

Dr. QUICKEL. Yes.

Senator STEVENS. And it sounds to me like they built up a unit

in government to keep pace with what you are doing outside of government.

Dr. QUICKEL. Right.

Senator STEVENS. And we turn to you because we thought you

had special expertise.

Dr. QUICKEL. Sure.

Senator STEVENS. We cannot stand that duplicated buildup. We

will work with you to see what we can do. I am going to direct the

staff to contact you and your VA and military counterparts, and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
643

tell us how we can limit them from invading this money. We want

you to give us your advice, and we selected you because we thought

you had that expertise. We did not intend for that money to be siphoned off by any unit of the government. So we will try to do our

best. But we cannot raise you $6.4 million this year, with a budget

that is less than we had last year. All right?

PREPARED STATEMENT

Dr. QUICKEL. I appreciate that. So far, all of the money that has

been spent is ours. And we are hoping to get this thing back on

screen so we can continue to move forward. We appreciate your

time and interest.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. QUICKEL, JR.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston appreciate the opportunity to appear before you again this year. We

are extremely eager to report to you the progress on the two region, two year diabetes pilot demonstration project Joslin proposed to you last Spring.

The Joslin diabetes demonstration project will institute pilot programs of detection, prevention and care in two regions: (1) Hawaii, through Tripler Army Medical

Center; and (2) New England through VA’s VISN–1. The objectives involve a training and technology transfer exercise of Joslin’s expertise utilizing telemedicine infrastructures, personnel and employee/patient bases of the Departments of Defense and

Veterans Affairs.

We at Joslin would like to thank you for the funding in the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Appropriations Act for the diabetes research project we are participating in

with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs in New

England and Hawaii. We would like to express our appreciation for the support and

leadership on diabetes issues to Senator Inouye and his staff, and to the majority

and minority professional staff of the Committee for their advice and counsel on the

legislative process and DOD interface.

My testimony focuses on two aspects of the project: (1) A status report on the current year; and (2) A request for second year funding.

STATUS REPORT: FIRST YEAR ACTIVITIES

As you recall, the two objectives of the project are (1) Screening for diabetes

among DOD’s and VA’s patient populations in New England and Hawaii, using an

innovative technology which requires nothing more than shining a light in the eye;

and (2) Implementing improved diabetes prevention and care protocols for the

DOD’s and VA’s patient populations in New England and Hawaii.

We were delayed in implementation somewhat this year due to DOD’s deliberations on where to place this project programmatically. While the funding flow was

being cleared, we have continued to invest resources and develop elements of the

program at Joslin. We have now settled those issues and are linked with TATRC,

the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center at Fort Dietrick, Maryland.

Significant progress has been made towards establishing initial pilot studies to

study patients with diabetes. We have reached understanding, with the support of

DOD and VA personnel, on implementation of the work plan we brought to the

Committee last year. We are in active discussions on implementation with both Departments.

Shortly, we will begin:

—Three Phase I pilot projects to provide information on the expected magnitude

of the proposed interventions and to evaluate the feasibility of the application

of these protocols at multiple sites. After the Phase 1 pilot study, we will move

to a Phase 2 large-scale study on both the Joslin Vision Network (JVN) and the

Diabetes Intensive Treatment Program (DOIT).

—The process of developing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies for both the JVN

and the DOIT Program at the DOD.

—The process of organization and distribution of the remote access diabetic detection units at multiple sites.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
644

By September 30, 1998, we will have accomplished the following, despite the delay

in our start date: Completion of Phase 1 studies in the New England area for the

VA; Implementation of Phase 2 studies in the New England area for the VA; Implementation of Phase 1 studies at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii; Deployment

of three remote examination sites in New England; Initiation of the deployment of

three remote examination sites in Hawaii; and Further maturation of the technology

at Joslin.

SECOND YEAR PLAN AND FUNDING NEEDS

In Year 2 we will have accomplished the following objectives:

—Provide DOD and VA diabetes patients cost-effective access to the benefits of

annual retinal examination, diagnosis, and treatment as necessary to reduce

the risk of vision loss;

—Develop the utilization of a quick, efficient and easily acceptable method of

screening for diabetes at remote sites;

—Demonstrate efficient and effective methods to improve the metabolic control for

patients with diabetes.

Anticipating early implementation in November of 1997, Joslin began procuring

the necessary equipment to carry out the project. To date, Joslin has expended approximately $2 million, without any reimbursement from Federal funds. This has

been a particular challenge for a nonprofit institution whose annual shortfall is

made up through gifts from foundations and private donors.

Joslin was a little naive in the preparation of the budget we prepared for the current fiscal year. We were not aware that at each stage of DOD review and decisionmaking, a percentage of the funds available would be deducted for program management and administrative overhead. Nor did we anticipate several unforeseen expenses required by the Department of Defense. We are also now faced with a budget

from the VA for $500,000 for the two-year period for their participation in this

project. As a result, the bare bones budget we submitted last year has been reduced

to an insufficient level. DOD have officials recognized and appreciated Joslin’s plight

in this regard. The DOD program managers have indicated that they will support

a second year budget of $6.4 million to assure that this important initiative can proceed.

In total, assessments by DOD and VA are projected at $2,000,000 from the funds

we had originally budgeted for this two year project.

The supporting detail for the second year request is in the final stages of preparation. We are grateful that we have the programmatic support of DOD in our efforts.

We are also very fortunate that DOD understands the budget and funding issues,

and will support the second year effort at $6.4 million.

Mr. Chairman, in order to implement this project properly, and conduct the

project in the manner and under the terms established by DOD and the VA, we will

require an appropriation of $6.4 million in fiscal year 1999.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my brief statement. We are pleased to be a part

of this project with the Department of Defense and appreciate your Committee’s

support.

I would be pleased to answer any question from you or any other Members of the

Subcommittee.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask one

question about diabetes.

Senator STEVENS. Please.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you know, Doctor, whether in the military

at large there is a system of screening for diabetes among all the

members of the armed forces?

Dr. QUICKEL. There is an initial screening at the time people

enter active duty. But of course the families are never screened,

and the dependents are never screened. And then the VA becomes

responsible for a long period thereafter. But there is screening of

active duty military when they first come on line.

And, in fact, they are not permitted to come on line, I do not believe, if they do have diabetes.

Senator DOMENICI. But is there a screening for those who have

been in a long time, do you know?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
645

Dr. QUICKEL. I think it is probably screening that is very similar

to what is done in the civilian world: when you do interact with the

medical system, somebody will get a blood sugar and screen you at

that point in time.

Part of what we are proposing here, though, is a very simple

means of screening that would be applicable—you could do it on

annual basis, with very little expenditure.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Inouye, the reason I asked the question is that you and I know that, in the United States, the population that has the highest propensity for diabetes is the Indian

population, and second behind that is the Hispanic. And it would

be interesting to know if you could take a large group of American

military who had been in for a long time, and find out how many

were Indian, and see if they had the same high level, which might

give us some answer as to how much is environmental and how

much is genetic.

Dr. QUICKEL. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. But he is not the fellow to ask that question.

Dr. QUICKEL. And we are especially interested in Hawaii, because the civilian population of Hawaii, on the average, has the

highest prevalence of diabetes, as a whole population. Although, as

you know, in the Southwest, the American Indians are probably

the highest of all.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Dr. QUICKEL. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. At this time, I do not mean to be rude, but I

would say do not be naive enough to spend your own money again.

[Laughter.]

Let us make sure they give you what we appropriated for you.

Dr. Jerome Odom, the Coalition of EPSCOR States.

STATEMENT OF JEROME ODOM, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, COALITION OF

EPSCoR STATES

Dr. ODOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear in support of the Department of Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive

Research, sometimes known as DEPSCoR. My name is Jerry

Odom, and I am Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs at

the University of South Carolina. However, today, I am appearing

as Chairman of the Coalition of EPSCoR States.

The Coalition supports the Defense Department’s budget request

of $10 million for the Defense EPSCoR program. However, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to appropriate an additional $15

million for this productive program. The Defense EPSCoR program

is funded through the University Research Initiative. EPSCoR is a

research and development program, initiated by the National

Science Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR

helps researchers, institutions and States improve their research

capabilities and quality in order to compete more effectively for

non-EPSCoR research funds.

Based on the positive results of the National Science Foundation

program, Congress established the Defense EPSCoR program in

the 1995 National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Chairman, some

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
646

of the most important scientific breakthroughs and innovative technologies that have changed our modern world have been produced

by university-based scientists and engineers, supported by the Defense Department’s research and development efforts. Universitybased research helped to develop new technologies and new ideas

that have made fundamental contributions to a strong national defense.

I would like to cite just a few examples of some of the research

being conducted in the EPSCoR States that support the Department’s national defense mission. Alabama researchers are working

on thermoelectric materials and devices for cooling small, microelectric components. This work will provide important technological

components for the very small computers and other electronic devices of the future.

The DEPSCoR program funded a unique molecular beam facility

and scanning tunneling microscope at the University of Arkansas.

Researchers believe it is possible to more carefully design semiconductor fabrication and to produce semiconductor structures with

interfaces of the highest quality seen. Based on new concepts developed through this DEPSCoR-sponsored research, the Arkansas researchers expect to develop the fastest transistor ever.

Engineers and scientists at the University of Louisville and the

University of Kentucky have established an Electro-optics Research

Institute to design cutting-edge optical pattern recognition systems.

Mississippi State University’s researchers, working with the

Naval Oceanographic Office, are developing an oceanographic database and the tools needed to support the automated extraction of

information from this database.

University of South Carolina scientists, working in automatic

target recognition, antisubmarine warfare, surface modelling, and

simulation methods, have produced literally hundreds of research

papers and theses. This has been widely recognized as one of the

Navy’s most successful research programs.

Vermont researchers are working on a new technique to fabricate

materials that could ultimately contribute to the construction of a

computer which operates through optical signal communications,

allowing very high-speech communications, approaching the speed

of light.

Another group in Vermont is working on electromagnetic radiation and wave propagation that has applications to ground- and

foliage-penetrating radar.

The Coalition appreciates the subcommittee’s longstanding support for Defense EPSCoR. We recognize the tight fiscal constraints.

But we would urge you to invest an additional $15 million, increasing the funding to $25 million.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being

with us.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME ODOM

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity

to submit this testimony regarding the Department of Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR).

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
647

1 Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

My name is Jerry Odom. I am Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic

Affairs of the University of South Carolina. I am appearing today as Chairman of

the Coalition of EPSCoR States and testifying on behalf of the states 1 that are eligible to participate in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

(EPSCoR).

The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports the Defense Department’s budget re- quest of $10 million for the Defense EPSCoR program, but we respectfully urge the

Subcommittee to appropriate an additional $15 million for this productive program.

The Defense EPSCoR program is funding through the University Research Initiative

(PE 61103D).

EPSCoR is a research and development program initiated by the National Science

Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR is improving our Nation’s

science and technology capability by funding research activities of talented researchers at universities and non-profit organizations in states that historically have not

received significant Federal R&D funding. EPSCoR helps researchers, institutions,

and states improve their research capabilities and quality in order to compete more

effectively for non-EPSCoR research funds. EPSCoR is a catalyst for change and is

widely viewed as a ‘‘model’’ Federal-state partnership.

Based on the positive results of the NSF program, Congress created EPSCoR programs in six additional federal agencies. One of these is the Defense Department.

The individual agency EPSCoR programs help researchers and institutions in participating states improve the quality of their research so they can compete for nonEPSCoR research funds. The federal-wide EPSCoR effort funds only merit-based,

peer reviewed programs that work to enhance the competitiveness of research institutions and increase the probability of long-term growth of competitive funding.

EPSCoR relies heavily on state involvement and participation, including non-federal matching funds. Due to the federal/state partnership upon which EPSCoR relies, EPSCoR is often considered a model program, and is a wise use of taxpayer

funds during these difficult fiscal times.

DEPSCoR contributes to the states’ goals of developing and enhancing their research capabilities, while simultaneously supporting the Defense Department’s research goals. DEPSCoR grants are based on recommendations from the EPSCoR

state committees and the Department’s own evaluation and ranking. It also builds

research competitiveness by fostering collaborations and developing human resources. Research proposals are only funded if they provide the Defense Department

with research in areas important to national defense.

DEPSCoR was originally authorized by Section 257 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1995 (Public Law 103–337), which states that the Defense

EPSCoR program’s objectives are to:

—enhance the capabilities of institutions of higher education in eligible states to

develop, plan, and execute science and engineering research that is competitive

under the peer-review systems used for awarding Federal research assistance;

and

—increase the probability of long-term growth in the competitively awarded financial assistance that universities in eligible states receive from the Federal Government for science and engineering research.

Last year the Defense Department issued an announcement of a competition

under the aegis of the Defense EPSCoR program. A total of 260 projects were received from the 19 states eligible to participate in DEPSCoR. Following review of

the individual projects by the appropriate research office (the Army Research Office,

the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Office of Naval Research, or the Air

Force Office of Scientific Research) 55 projects were selected for funding with $16.4

million made available in fiscal year 1997. The average award was $295,000. Subsequently, the Department announced the selection of 72 additional projects for funding with $18 million made available in fiscal year 1998. The average of those

awards was $250,000.

Mr. Chairman, some of the most important scientific break throughs and innovative technologies that have changed our modern world have been produced by university-based scientists and engineers supported by the Defense Department’s R&D

efforts. University based research helped to develop new technologies and new ideas

that have made fundamental contributions to a strong national defense. Among the

major contributions over the years have been radar, nuclear power, digital computers, lasers, vaccines and new drugs to fight diseases that debilitate service personnel. Not all of the innovative discoveries developed in university laboratories have

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
648

been as profound as these, but each in turn has made small contributions to maintaining America’s technological superiority.

As Secretary Cohen has said: ‘‘How wisely we invest in research today will greatly

influence the readiness of our future forces to succeed when called to protect our

national interest.’’

I would like to site a few examples of some of the research being conducted in

our states that supports the Department’s national defense mission.

—Researchers in Alabama have received funding for work on thermoelectric materials and devices for cooling small microelectronic components, work that will

provide important technological components for the very small computers and

other electronic devices of the future.

—DEPSCoR funded a program in the Physics Department at the University of Arkansas, a unique molecular beam facility. For the first time it will be possible

to control the growth of semiconductor devices, as opposed to growth by chance.

Using new equipment purchased through DEPSCoR, these researchers believe

it is possible to more carefully design semiconductor fabrication. Another piece

of equipment, a scanning tunneling microscope, has enabled them to produce

semiconductor structures with interfaces of the highest quality ever seen. Based

on new concepts developed through DEPSCoR-sponsored research, the Arkansas

researchers expect to develop the fastest transistor ever.

—Engineers and scientists at the University of Louisville and the University of

Kentucky have established an Electro-Optics Research institute to design cutting-edge optical pattern recognition systems.

—Mississippi State University researchers working in partnership with the Naval

Oceanographic Office are developing a knowledge discovery system consisting of

an oceanographic database and the tools needed to support the automated extraction of information from the database. This project will aid scientists at

NAVOCEANO in the identification and characterization of geologically similar

regions of the ocean floor and the development of a prototypical system that

uses acoustic imagery to geologically define the ocean floor.

—Likewise, DEPSCoR-funded scientists in Mississippi are working with the

Navy’s Large Cavitation channel facility to solve problems Navy submarines experience when operating in the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf and other

littoral regions, where uncommanded depth charges during high speed maneuvers could place submarines at risk.

—Clemson University’s electrical and computer engineers have created a focused

research initiative in mobile wireless battlefield communications. The program

is supporting research that is making improvements in soft-decision decoding

of convolution codes that results in higher throughput, lower delay and increased reliability in communication networks on the battlefield. The program

is not only serving DOD needs and meeting private sector interest but has also

achieved a level of recognition that is attracting gifted students and producing

graduates which make an immediate impact as future employees because of

their excellent background in wireless networks at a very competitive time.

—With the aid of DEPSCoR funding to the University of South Carolina’s mathematicians, chemists and engineers are making significant contributions to defense programs in Automatic Target Recognition, Antisubmarine Warfare, Surface Modeling and Simulation Methods. The program involves more than thirty

researchers and ten postdoctoral fellows, has produced literally hundreds of research papers and theses and has been recognized as one of the Navy’s most

successful research programs in recent years.

—University of Vermont researchers are working on new techniques to fabricate

materials that could ultimately contribute to the construction of a computer

which operates through optical signal communications allowing very high-speed

communications, approaching the speed of light. Likewise, others are conducting

research for the Air Force in electromagnetic radiation and wave propagation

with applications to ground and foliage penetrating radar. And a DEPSCoR-supported chemist received the largest grant ever given to St. Michael’s college for

work in development of alternative high energy density hydrocarbon fuels, propellants and explosives.

These are a few examples of the types of activities the EPSCoR Coalition believes

will benefit the Defense Department and should strengthen and expand. This is why

we believe additional funds should be made available for fiscal year 1999.

Given the success of the EPSCoR programs in South Carolina and other states,

it is not surprising that we are very interested in and enthusiastic about the future

of the Defense EPSCoR program. It has been our experience that the EPSCoR programs yield a return far beyond the original investment. EPSCoR allows the states

to accomplish more than is possible through the regular research programs. It has

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
649

helped South Carolina attract and retain young researchers who are able to demonstrate through EPSCoR support of their research, that they have bright futures

in fields of research that are of interest to the Defense Department.

At its core, DEPSCoR, in conjunction with the NSF EPSCoR effort, supports quality peer-reviewed research, but also builds the research infrastructure that improves

our overall competitiveness. It contributes collaboration, strategic thinking and

broad scale planning, and development of a shared research vision by the state.

South Carolina is making good use of Defense EPSCoR in concert with and complementary to the other agency research initiatives.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States, I would like to express the Coalition’s support of the Defense Department’s fiscal year 1999 request

for its basic research program (functions 6.1 and 6.2). Likewise, we believe the University Research Initiative, which provides essential support for researchers and scientists throughout the country, should be funded at the $216.3 million level requested in the budget.

The Coalition appreciates this Subcommittee’s long-standing support for Defense

EPSCoR and we urge to continue that support. The Coalition recognizes the very

tight fiscal constrains this Subcommittee faces in the new era of a balanced federal

budget, but we respectfully request that you provide $25 million for the Defense

EPSCoR program for fiscal year 1999 as the University Research Initiative.

The Defense Department’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research is a wise and worthwhile investment of scarce public resources. It will continue to contribute significantly to efforts to build the scientific and engineering research efforts in support of national defense needs.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR., CHAIRMAN, BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION, INC.

Senator STEVENS. Martin Foil, Chairman of the Brain Injury Association.

Mr. FOIL. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Domenici,

thank you very much for letting me be here this afternoon.

My name is Martin B. Foil, Jr., and I come before you today as

the father of Philip Foil, a young man with a severe brain injury.

I serve as the voluntary Chairman of the Brain Injury Association.

I am also the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Tuscarora

Yarns in Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina.

I receive no compensation from the Brain Injury Association for

the programs I am testifying about here today. Rather, I do contribute considerable amounts of my own money to the Association

primarily because, Mr. Chairman, we want to help improve the

lives of persons with brain injury. And I am here because I care.

I care about the 9 million Americans living with brain injury, and

their families.

The Defense and Veterans Head Injury Project [DVHIP] and the

Violence and Brain Injury Project [VBIP] are collaborative efforts

among the DOD and the Veterans Affairs and the Brain Injury Association. Together we serve not only active duty military personnel, of whom some 7,000 a year suffer brain injury, but we are an

important resource to veterans and the civilian population, as well.

Therefore, our programs are exemplary cases of dual-use funding.

And I am pleased to report to you today that our collaborative

efforts are continuing to pay off. By increasing the return-to-duty

rate of military personnel and improving the efficiency of medical

services provided, DOD does realize significant cost savings. We

have many accomplishments this year, including expanding our patient registry, treatment and referral network. Our Brain Injury

Resource Center, developed by our Association, is now available in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
650

1The Department of Defense proposed $7 million for fiscal year 1999. Thus, we are requesting

an additional $1.5 million to keep our services available to the military and civilian communities.

60 locations across the country, including select DOD hospitals and

VA hospitals, as well as civilian facilities.

Our toll free help line receives 15,000 calls a year, helping not

only military personnel but civilians with brain injury and their

care-givers. We have increased our prevention and educational programs to include Brain Building Basics, a violence prevention and

brain injury awareness program for adults with low literacy skills,

including incarcerated populations. Our Head Smart Schools Program is used in 21 States, the District of Columbia, and educates

over 130,000 children. We have seven Head Smart community programs in the military.

We are embarking on research for neuro-behavioral problems to

help military personnel return to work. We are especially excited

about new functional MRI technology, which helps create diagnostic criteria for mild and moderate brain injury, which are significant problems in the military. This research will be valuable to

maintaining readiness, by discerning who is capable to return to

active duty.

Brain injury is the silent epidemic, the largest killer and cause

of disability among young people. We need to do more. We need to

help our military by continuing to be ready. We need your support,

sirs, for $8.5 million in funding, so that DVHIP and VBIP and our

Association can carry on our unique partnership.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you very much, and God bless you. I am ready to answer

any questions.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

There are no questions.

Mr. FOIL. Thank you very much, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Defense Subcommittee: My name is

Martin B. Foil, Jr. I am the father of Philip Foil, a young man with a severe brain

injury, and I serve as voluntary Chairman of the Brain Injury Association. I am also

the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Tuscarora Yarns in Mt. Pleasant,

North Carolina.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program and the Violence and Brain Injury Project. Both programs are collaborative efforts among the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs and the Brain Injury Association, which address the prevention and treatment

of brain injury in the military and civilian sectors. I respectfully request that you

support level funding of $8.5 million for these programs.1

I urge your support for these programs on behalf of the Brain Injury Association

(BIA). BIA is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting awareness,

understanding and prevention of brain injury. This is done through education, advocacy, research and community support services that lead toward reduced incidence

and improved outcomes of persons with brain injuries.

I receive no personal benefit or monetary gain from the programs I will discuss.

I am providing this testimony simply because I care about the 9 million Americans

living with brain injuries and their families. In compliance with Committee Rules,

enclosed is a copy of my resume along with a statement regarding the funding that

BIA received last year, to conduct its share of these two programs.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
651

2Last year at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, we achieved a 70 percent return to work

rate.

My testimony will summarize some significant accomplishments that the DVHIP

and VBIP achieved in 1997, and what we, through the BIA, expect for the coming

year.

Brain Injury in the United States and the U.S. Military

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported to the Congress that traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in young American

adults. In addition, between 1.5 and 2 million individuals across the United States

sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) each year. The GAO published its findings

in its February 1998 report, entitled ‘‘Traumatic Brain Injury: Programs Supporting

Long-Term Services in Selected States.’’

Each year, approximately 7,000 brain injury patients are admitted to military and

VA hospitals. This number does not include personnel who experienced mild brain

injury, concussions, or those receiving emergency room treatment and early release.

The cost to the military has been estimated at $30 million annually in medical retirement payments.

Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program

The Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP) is a close collaborative

program among the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Brain Injury Association (BIA). It is an integrated, multidisciplinary disease management system focusing on both peacetime and combat traumatic brain injury (TBI). Its activities span the spectrum of brain injury from prevention, education, and advocacy, to clinical care and clinical and laboratory research focused on TBI.

The collaborative efforts of the DVHIP, contribute to our nation’s preparedness by

helping service members return to work, as well as provide critical support to keep

families together during the difficult times after brain injury.2 It is a prime example

of a dual use program.

The DVHIP’s primary objectives are:

—To ensure that DOD and VA patients with brain injury receive specialized evaluation, treatment, and follow-up, while at the same time, conducting integrated

clinical and clinically-linked laboratory research studies that seek to define optimal cost effective treatment for TBI;

—To facilitate treatment of TBI resulting from combat and training operations including identification and follow-up (as in our Vietnam Head Injury Study), as

well as deployment of pharmacologic and other therapies that will minimize the

brain swelling and secondary tissue injury which accounts for most of the morbidity after TBI.

In an ongoing effort to fulfill these primary objectives, the DVHIP has developed

and is in various stages of carrying out six specific activities: (1) Establishment and

maintenance of peacetime and combat TBI patient registries; (2) Establishment of

a regionally distributed, integrated, national DOD/VA TBI referral network; (3) Establishment of standardized patient outcome evaluations which define the short and

long-term neurologic, cognitive, behavioral, and psychosocial consequences of TBI;

(4) Evaluation of the effectiveness and relative cost efficiency of alternative TBI rehabilitation strategies; (5) Conduct pharmacologic trials of both neuroprotectant and

symptomatic agents; and (6) Conduct clinically-linked laboratory projects.

The Brain Injury Association and the DVHIP

In close collaboration with the Brain Injury Association, the DVHIP has developed

extensive educational programs and materials, primary prevention resources, and

community support services. For instance, BIA has developed a Brain Injury Resource CenterTM (BIRC) which provides easy access to a multi-media computer library through a touch-screen monitor and program that allows users to learn about

brain injury at a personalized pace. The BIRC combines still and motion video,

graphics, text and sound to give users access to information vast enough to fill a

small library. The completely interactive multimedia computer system is now availU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
652

3Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, CO; Hines Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, IL; Lyons Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Lyons, NJ; Madigan Army Medical Center, Takoma, WA; Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, TN; Minneapolis VA

Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto VA Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA; Portsmouth

Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA; Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA; San

Diego Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA; Seattle Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle,

WA; Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center, San Antonio, TX; Womack Army Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA. 4 Baptist Hospital of Miami, Miami, FL; Brain Injury Association National Office, Washington,

DC; Brain Injury Association of Illinois; Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte Institute of Rehabilitation, Charlotte, NC; Christ Hospital, Chicago, IL (on loan from Brain Injury Association

of Illinois); Crumley and Associates, Asheboro, NC; Harborview Medical Center, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA; Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Dietzler, Charleston, WV; Inova Center

for Rehabilitation at Mount Vernon Hospital, Alexandria, VA; Jackson Memorial Hospital,

Ryder Trauma Center, Miami, FL; James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL; Kennedy

Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD; Macomb Hospital Partial Day Program, Warren, MI; Mary

Free Bed Hospital, Grand Rapids, MI; Mary Free Bed Hospital, Grand Rapids, MI (on loan from

Simkins and Simkins, Northville, MI); Northwestern Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Nunn &

Greene Law Office, Bloomington, IN; Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Roger C. Peace Rehabilitation Hospital, Greenville, SC; Santa

Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA; Shepherd Center, Atlanta, GA; St. Mary’s Medical

Center, Minneapolis, MN; State of Arizona’s Council on Head and Spinal Cord Injury (3 systems); University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) Hospital, Los Angeles, CA; University of

Maryland Medical Center, Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, MD; University of Pennsylvania

Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA.

able in over 60 locations across the country, including select DOD and VA hospitals.3 Civilian facilities have also purchased the BIRC for use across the nation.4

The Information and Resources Department of BIA acts as a clearinghouse of

community service information and resources. BIA’s toll-free Family Helpline receives more than 15,000 calls each year from individuals whose lives have been affected by brain injury, including military personnel and their families. Three fulltime information specialists are trained to answer questions, offer appropriate information and identify additional resources for all incoming callers. Last year, a

DVHIP Information and Resources Training was held to assist specialists serving

persons whose lives have been affected by brain injury. BIA also developed and distributed a 1997 Information and Resource Training and Reference Manual. In addition, BIA designed a specialized DVHIP Case Manager Resource and Training Manual for use by military personnel and veterans assisting individuals with brain injury.

BIA supports research in areas of brain injury that have a direct effect on returning military personnel to work. As cited in the February 1998, GAO Report to Congress, neurobehavioral problems following TBI are a major factor in successful reentry into the workforce. Working with a major university, BIA and the DVHIP supports a fellowship program and a significant research effort aimed at ameliorating

this large problem. In addition, BIA and the DVHIP will be utilizing the functional

magnetic resonance imaging technology (FMRI) to create diagnostic criteria for mild

and moderate brain injury which are significant problems in the military. This research will be valuable to maintaining readiness by discerning who is capable of returning to active duty.

BIA is currently revising and updating educational brochures which feature background information on brain injury, the DVHIP, and the lead and network DVHIP

sites. The brochures will be provided to military veterans and personnel with brain

injury as well as family members when they are seen at any one of the military

or Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. They will also be provided to

referral sources in both military and civilian sectors in an effort to increase awareness of the DVHIP and to increase accessions to the research protocol.

In the coming year, we look forward to strengthening the DOD/VA registry and

referral network in our 24 sites, and establishing new sites in an effort to identify

and serve more military patients. Our patient evaluation program will be strengthened and a TBI screening instrument will be developed and fielded. Randomized rehabilitation treatment trials and pharmacologic trials will be expanded, as will the

supporting clinically-linked laboratory studies. Four new initiatives are planned to

begin this year: a post-traumatic epilepsy multi-center therapeutic prophylaxis trial;

combat training ‘‘mild’’ TBI performance-outcome and neuroprotection studies; a

smaller epidemiological study of TBI outcome by gender; and the use of new techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) and MRI spectroscopy.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
653

5 1997 Sites receiving HeadSmart Trainings and other violence and injury prevention programs include: Be HeadSmart Military Communities such as Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort

Knox, Kentucky; Fort Campbell, Tennessee; Fort Bliss and Fort Sam Houston, Texas; West

Point, New York; and Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, Ohio.

The Violence and Brain Injury Project

The Violence and Brain Injury Project (VBIP) represents a collaborative effort of

the Brain Injury Association, the Department of Defense and the National Institutes

of Health (NIH). The VBIP brings the expertise of the DOD and NIH along with

the advocacy and community support experience of the Brain Injury Association to

bear on all aspects of the problem of violent behavior, emphasizing a medical/biological approach. It is based on the hypothesis that brain injury is a significant risk

factor for violent behavior.

The Project has three principle components:

(1) The VBIP Core Diagnostic Protocol, initially conducted at the U.S. Disciplinary

Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, includes standardized neurologic, neuropsychological, psychiatric, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), advanced electroencephalographic, clinical and experimental laboratory, and psychosocial evaluations of violent versus non-violent inmates.

(2) The second component involves the integration of the Brain Injury Association’s HeadSmart injury and violence prevention program into the curricula of

DOD dependent schools. The HeadSmart Schools Program is the foremost prevention initiative promoted by the Brain Injury Association. It is a brain injury and violence prevention program for elementary and preschools that teaches about brain

development and the prevention of intentional and unintentional brain injuries. It

provides educators with training and materials to integrate brain injury and violence prevention messages into their regular curriculum. (It is not a set curriculum

in itself).

The program is currently being used in 121 schools in 21 states plus the District

of Columbia. We have trained 487 elementary and preschool educators on the basics

of brain injury and violence prevention—affecting the education of over 130,000 children.5

(3) The third component encompasses several family oriented programs, including

a Parenting and Literacy Skills and Brain Building Basics program for inmates in

local correctional systems. The VBIP recently completed the three-year development

of the Brain Building Basics Program which has also been successfully implemented

with non-incarcerated populations, focusing on persons with low literacy skills.

In addition, VBIP established Changes, Choices, and Challenges (CCC), a violence

prevention program that provides educators with integrated learning units which

are designed to enhance the social, moral, and intellectual development of young

adolescents.

Publications completed by the VBIP include a comprehensive prevention manual,

the Be HeadSmart Community Prevention Manual, a tool designed to provide information and resources to assist in the dissemination of the HeadSmart program;

Brainy Bear’s HeadSmart Habits, a parent-child activity book for violence and brain

injury prevention; and a 1998 HeadSmart Schools Calendar developed from contributions from children at our HeadSmart Schools. The calendars present the comprehensive violence and brain injury prevention messages incorporated in the

HeadSmart program.

We look forward to building upon all three components of the VBIP in the coming

year and expanding our prevention efforts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the work of the DVHIP and VBIP is a significant contribution to

the health and readiness of the United States military. We respectfully request

funding to continue these important programs. An appropriation of $8.5 million

($1.5 million over the DOD’s request) will represent level funding (since fiscal year

1997).

Thank you, and God bless you!

STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

SECURITY-FOREIGN RELATIONS DIVISION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Senator STEVENS. Dennis Duggan, Deputy Director of the National Security-Foreign Relations Division of the American Legion.

We welcome you as a comrade.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
654

Mr. DUGGAN. Thank you, sir. And on behalf of our nearly 3 million members, the American Legion is extremely grateful to you, as

always, and the members of your distinguished subcommittee, for

the opportunity to present its view with regard to this fiscal year

1999 defense budget.

As we are all aware, this budget represents the 14th consecutive

year of decline. As Americans, we do tend to take our secure environment for granted. Yet, as all of us as veterans, we do have a

unique appreciation for a strong national defense.

The fiscal year 1999 defense budget is currently running on the

order of about $150 billion less than defense budgets during the

Reagan years. As we know, the armed forces have incurred more

than their share of spending and manpower cuts in order to

achieve a balanced budget.

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Duggan, some people in the back cannot

hear you. Can you move that microphone toward you, please?

Mr. DUGGAN. How is this?

Senator STEVENS. Fine. Thank you.

Mr. DUGGAN. In our collective view, the United States can and

should afford a higher level of defense spending, especially with regard to manpower and readiness. Our current recruiting and retention trends are beginning to demonstrate that men and women,

young men and women, are seriously questioning the value of military service. Frequent family deployments, diminishing health

care, inadequate pay raises, and substandard housing are all contributing to the trend, we feel.

We do congratulate you and members of your subcommittee for

your tremendous support for a strong national defense and for adequate budgeting. There are just a few points, Mr. Chairman, we

would like to emphasize. First of all, in our view, we believe that

the current military retirement plan is broken and in need of a stabilized, guaranteed and better-paying plan. The so-called retirement formula should be scrapped and a more substantial plan implemented, coupled with significant basic pay and allowance raises.

Without the assurance of a good military retirement plan and

adequate health care, few will make the sacrifice, we believe, to

serve in the armed forces.

Second, the services are now in a compensation war with a

strong economy. Yet there appears to be no strategy for the military to survive in an intense labor market. In our view, the only

way to fix the pay problem is to change the pay raise process, to

link military basic pay raises with full employment costs indices.

We hope that the Senate goes along with the proposed 3.6 percent

pay raise proposed in the House.

And, third, the readiness of the armed forces, as we all believe,

I think, has suffered as a result of many of these changes. And, finally, Mr. Chairman, as we know, the mortality rate of our old,

World War II and Korean War veterans is roughly over 30,000 per

month. We certainly cannot wait an awful lot longer, on the order

of 5 to 7 years, for a real strong health care plan. And we ask your

assistance, as you mentioned, for the closure of the Federal Employees Health Plan Benefits [FEHPB] as another alternative for

military retirees and their dependents.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
655

Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. Thank you very

much.

Senator STEVENS. Any questions, gentlemen?

[No response.]

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. Well, we thank you for the Legion’s normal

and usual good job in reviewing what we are trying to do. We appreciate your advice, and keep in touch with us as we go along.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DUGGAN. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. DUGGAN

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion is pleased to appear before this subcommittee to express its concerns about the fiscal year 1999 defense appropriations. As

Americans, we tend to take our secure environment for granted. Yet as veterans,

we have a unique appreciation for a strong national defense and recognize and accept the high cost associated with that endeavor. The proposed fiscal year 1999 defense budget is roughly $150 billion less than

during the Reagan presidency. Defense spending levels during fiscal year 1998 are

about three percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). A decade ago it was six

percent. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, military personnel and

their families have incurred their fair share of spending cuts to help achieve deficit

reduction. The American Legion believes it is now time for Congress to bolster defense spending with some of the monies from the projected surplus.

The United States can, and should, afford a stronger national defense, especially

with regard to quality of life and modernization. Quality of life and modernization

are directly related to military readiness and have a direct impact on recruitment

and retention. Current recruiting and retention trends are already starting to demonstrate that young men and women are seriously questioning the value of military

service. Frequent family separations, diminishing health care, inadequate pay raises

and substandard housing are contributing to this trend. Servicepersonnel and military retirees are seeing the promises of lifetime health care being broken and other

benefits being reduced or eliminated. The American Legion believes military service

is an awesome responsibility and a privilege that embody the highest form of service

to the nation. Congress should also recognize this commitment by honoring past

promises. Promises made must be promises kept.

READINESS

The administration asserts that the fiscal year 1999 defense budget protects readiness. The same claim was made regarding previous defense budgets as well. However, over-optimistic assumptions about actual funding requirements coupled with

multiple unbudgeted contingency operations have resulted in a series of unit readiness problems. Training goals have not been met; and military readiness ratings

have plunged due to reductions in operations and maintenance accounts as a result

of unprogrammed and continued peacekeeping operations. If the 1998 Defense Supplemental Appropriations bill is not immediately passed, readiness may be reduced

again. Additionally, the Army is having difficulty meeting its recruiting goals and

the quality of recruits has been dropping. Personnel turbulence and the erosion of

quality of life are weakening each of the military services. These kinds of personnel

readiness problems will begin to place our ability to wage high intensity conflict at

risk.

ACTIVE FORCE PERSONNEL ISSUES

The American Legion is concerned that a number of influences, to include the

military drawdown, pose significant and often underestimated retention and readiness risks for the remainder of the decade.

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion and the Armed Forces owe you and your

subcommittee a debt of gratitude for your strong support of military quality of life

issues. Nevertheless your assistance is needed now more than ever. Positive congressional action is needed in this budget and future budgets to overcome old and

new threats to retaining the finest military in the world. Servicemembers and their

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
656

families have endured physical risks to their well-being and livelihood, substandard

living conditions, and forfeiture of personal freedoms that most American civilians

would find unacceptable. Worldwide deployments have increased significantly, and

a smaller force has had to maintain a higher optempo with longer work hours and

increased family separations.

Throughout the drawdown years, military members have been called upon to set

the example for the nation by accepting personal financial sacrifices. Their pay

raises have been capped for years, and their health care system has been overhauled to cut costs, leaving military families with lessened access to proper health

care. We congratulate the Congress for their quality of life enhancements contained

in the Fiscal Year 1997 and Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Acts.

But more must be done now.

Military Retirement.—In our view, the current military retirement plan is broken

and in need of a stabilized, guaranteed, and better paying plan if the Armed Forces

are to retain a quality force. Congressional tinkering with the military retirement

system is likely leading to a decrease in combat readiness and could threaten national security. The American Legion has not adopted a position with regard to a

401(K) plan for servicemembers. Certainly, many servicemembers are opting out

prior to retirement and others are likely to retire at their earliest opportunity.

Essentially, the military has two choices: Revoke the redux-retirement formula to

retain good servicemembers who are often taken for granted and/or substantially increase active duty pay and allowances. Knowing that a secure and adequate retirement, including medical care, awaits a member and family at the end of a long, arduous career makes the hazards of military service bearable. Without that assurance, few will make the sacrifice.

The marked decline in quality of life features for the active force and military retirees, coupled with heightened operational tempos, will continue to adversely impact on both recruiting and retention. If these benefits, like health care, commissaries, adequate pay and quarters all of which were taken for granted in the

past, are funded at significantly reduced rates, or are privatized or eliminated completely, they will only serve to undermine the United States Government’s effort to

honor its obligations to its active and retired warriors.

Full Military Pay Raises.—The Services are now in a ‘‘compensation war’’ with the

private sector, yet have no strategy to survive in the competitive labor market. The

military appears to be undergoing unacceptable retention losses. The armed forces

must have high-quality servicemembers who can apply changing technology to combat capabilities. Since 1982, military raises have lagged a cumulative 12.9 percent

behind private sector wage growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures private

sector wage growth with a tool called the Employment Cost Index (ECI). Before

1994, federal civilian and military raises were supposed to match the ECI. But in

1994, new legislation took effect, capping federal civilian raises at one-half percentage point below the ECI. The difference was used to fund a ‘‘new locality pay’’ additive for federal civilians that varied by geographical location. When the pay raise

standard for federal civilians changed to ‘‘ECI minus one-half percent,’’ service members got stuck with the half-point reduction in their pay raises, even though they

are not eligible for the civilian locality pay.

The only way to fix the problem is to change the pay raise process to link military

basic pay raises to the ECI, the full ECI. The military drawdown continues and the

economy is in full swing. A smaller force with a high operations tempo will be extremely retention-sensitive. Servicemembers have earned and deserve a raise at

least equal to the average American’s for every year not just during an election

year. It is time to put that standard into law.

The administration’s budget describes the proposed fiscal year 1999 3.1 percent

raise, which is one-half percentage point smaller than the private sector wage

growth, as ‘‘the maximum raise allowed by law.’’ Mr. Chairman, 11 pay caps in 15

years are already too many, and continuing this practice is a sure prescription for

eventual retention disaster. Mr. Chairman, The American Legion also strongly believes this subcommittee should exert every effort to adequately compensate those

hundreds of military families from having to rely on monthly food stamps and women’s and infants compensation (WIC).

Housing Allowances.—Two years ago, Congress took on the challenge of restoring

these allowances to be more consistent with their original intent of covering 65 percent of servicemembers’ median housing expenses, by grade and location. Thanks to

this subcommittee, much progress has been made to ensure housing allowance stability for the duration of a servicemember’s tenure at a duty location and to provide

allowances at each location sufficient to obtain adequate quarters for junior personnel. But there is still some distance to go. The military is three years into what was

intended as a five-year program to restore the Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ)

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
657

to the standard originally set by Congress, an amount that would offset 65 percent

of the national median housing cost for each grade.

Members of the Armed Forces and their families should not be expected to live

in unsafe or substandard housing in the United States or overseas. If government

housing is not available on base, servicemembers should have the option of occupying leased government quarters off base. Members should not be sent into high-cost,

high-crime areas to fend for themselves.

Commissaries.—Any effort to reduce or dismantle the integrity of the military

commissary system would be seen as a serious breach of faith with a benefit system

that serves as a mainstay for the active and reserve components, military retirees,

100 percent service-connected disabled veterans, and others. The American Legion

urges the Congress to preserve full federal funding of the military commissary system and to retain this vital non-pay compensation benefit which, we believe, is essential to the morale and readiness of the dedicated men and women who have

served, and continue to serve, the national security interests of the United States.

Furthermore, The American Legion fully supports the full-time usage of commissary

stores by members of the reserve components.

Surveys consistently indicate that the career incentive value of the commissary

benefit is second only to military retirement pay and health care. The commissary

benefit also provides significant additional ‘‘psychological value’’ that reinforces the

sense of reciprocal commitment between the military institution and its members

and plays a clear role in retention decisions. The American Legion opposes any effort by the Department of Defense to relegate military commissaries to the Services

and to preserve the Defense Commissary Agency.

DOD HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY RETIREES

Today, there are approximately 8.5 million beneficiaries in the military health

care program. Military retirees and their dependents make up nearly one-half of

that number, and over 500,000 retirees have lost or will lose their access to military

health care as a result of the closure of approximately 45 percent of military treatment facilities. Access to affordable health care, regardless of age or health care status, represents the number one concern among military retirees. The Sense of the

Congress resolution in the Fiscal Year 1993 National Defense Authorization Act reaffirms the basis of health care promised in law and tradition dating back more

than 100 years. Until recently, military retirees were always led to believe that they

were entitled to free lifetime health care as a major promise made in exchange for

meager pay received and after having served 20 or more years in the most demanding and dangerous of professions.

The American Legion receives letters daily from veterans citing the string of broken promises, and the growing list of benefits under attack. Medicare-eligible military retirees and their dependents are prohibited from enrolling in the TRICARE

program. Nine states have no military treatment facilities, some 39 military hospitals were closed, 17 more downsized to clinics, a 30-percent reduction in medical

personnel, and severe reductions in military medical funding. Certainly alternatives

are needed such as the authorized option of military retiree veterans and their dependents, over and under age 65, to voluntarily enroll in the Federal Employee

Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

Military retirees are the only group of Federal ‘‘employees’’ who lose their health

care benefits when they become 65 and are no longer eligible for CHAMPUS or

TRICARE but become Medicare-eligible. Medicare covers much less than TRICARE,

and must be supplemented by expensive health care supplement insurance which

many military retirees cannot afford. The average military retiree is an E–6 Staff

Sergeant or Petty Officer and not a Lieutenant Colonel. Despite its concerns, The

American Legion supports full-funding of the TRICARE program, and it strongly believes that Medicare-eligible military retirees and their dependents should continue

to have access to and treatment at military treatment facilities. Furthermore, all

military retirees and their dependents should continue to receive free prescriptions

from military medical centers.

The American Legion has had a number of concerns, however, with the DOD

TRICARE Health Care System as it affects military retirees, namely, that military

retirees and their dependents are required to pay annual ‘‘enrollment fees’’ and copayments which are likely to increase over time. In addition, questions remain concerning provider reliability and the viability of Medicare reimbursement for treatment in DOD facilities; and TRICARE Prime health care requires both portability

and reciprocity. Many military retirees do not reside near TRICARE providers. The

American Legion believes that, as a minimum, the following guidelines should be

incorporated or retained as part of the TRICARE package or any reform of military

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
658

health care for active duty families, military retirees and their dependents and military survivors:

—Timely access to military medical treatment for a continuum of quality, comprehensive and equitable health care benefits covering the full array of services

ranging from preventive health care and dental treatment plans to prescription

services for all military retirees, their dependents, and military survivors regardless of age and health care status. Defense dental plans need to cover the

more expensive dental procedures.

—Preservation of the space-available system in military treatment facilities for

TRICARE and Medicare eligible military retirees and their dependents.

—TRICARE coverage should continue for the lifetime of military retirees and not

end at age 65.

—Medicare subvention should be implemented nationwide on a fee-for-service

basis, and Medicare eligible retirees should be allowed to participate in the

TRICARE program.

—No further military medical facilities should be closed or downsized, and adequate military medical personnel, to include graduates of the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, should be retained on active duty to provide

health care for active duty personnel and their dependents, and retired military

personnel and their dependents.

—Authorize military retirees and their dependents the opportunity to voluntarily

enroll in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, regardless of age or

health care status. For this program to be cost effective for the government and

military retirees, we believe it would have to be offered as an option to

TRICARE for service members entering retirement.

—Enrollment fees and cost-sharing in TRICARE plans should be reasonable and

statutorily fixed by law.

—Pharmacy networks and mail-order pharmacy programs should be extended beyond the 40-mile radius of closing military bases and they should operate on

a flat-rate basis rather that one based on percentage of costs.

—There should be no restrictions to preclude military retirees and their dependents from receiving treatment or prescriptions from TRICARE providers outside

40-mile catchment areas.

—The imposition of penalty assessments should be waived for those military retirees who elected not to enroll in Part B of Medicare as they believed they would

receive continuing military health care from DOD facilities which were subsequently identified for closure.

—Implementation of the G.I. Bill of Health: the use of Department of Veterans

Affairs medical centers by nonservice-connected military retirees and their dependents who are CHAMPUS/TRICARE or Medicare eligible should be authorized. As TRICARE and Medicare providers, VA medical centers should be authorized to bill the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services

for medical care provided to these veterans. Unlike military treatment facilities

there are VA medical care facilities in all the states to include Alaska and Hawaii.

—Transferring TRICARE coverage for active duty families and families of military retirees should be facilitated when they transfer or move between

TRICARE regions.

—The American Legion opposes any further efforts to privatize medical care delivered in military treatment facilities.

The American Legion is supportive of a broad array of options to provide medical

care to military retirees and their dependents, particularly those who are age 65

and older. As mentioned, these military beneficiaries should have access to military

treatment facilities with the implementation of Medicare subvention. The major

drawback to Medicare subvention, of course, will be access to military medical treatment facilities (MTF’s). The drawdown of MTF’s, and their usage by active duty personnel, their families, and TRICARE retirees and their dependents, will exacerbate

the existent space problem that would be faced by dual eligible Medicare eligible

military retirees and their dependents. These retirees and their dependents could,

however, be treated by TRICARE civilian providers using TRICARE cost-shared

rates or, hopefully, they will be authorized to participate in FEHBP plans.

Mr. Chairman, the nation has an obligation to do better. We believe there is a

moral obligation for the government to find a way to provide at least the same level

of health coverage to military retirees that it already provides to every other federal

retiree.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
659

OTHER MILITARY RETIREE ISSUES

The American Legion believes strongly that quality of life issues for retired military members and families also are important to sustaining military readiness over

the long term. If the government allows retired members’ quality of life to erode

over time, or if the retirement promises that induced them to serve arduous military

careers are not kept, this will undoubtedly inhibit retention in the current active

duty force.

Accordingly, The American Legion believes Congress and the administration must

place high priority on ensuring that these long-standing commitments are honored.

They include maintaining regular military retiree pay COLA’s and insuring that

military retirement pay systems are not further diminished; deleting Social Security

offsets to the Survivors’ Benefits Plan; authorizing the concurrent receipt of both

military retiree pay and VA disability compensation for the most severely disabled

retirees; and conducting hearings on the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act.

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has conducted

two substantial assessments of the strategy and force structures of the Armed

Forces necessary to meet the national defense requirements of our country. The assessment by the Bush Administration (‘‘Base Force’’ assessment) and the assessment by the Clinton Administration (‘‘Bottom-Up Review’’) were intended to reassess the force structure of the Armed Forces in light of the changing realities of the

post-Cold War world. Both assessments served an important purpose in focusing attention on the need to reevaluate the military posture of the United States; but the

pace of global change necessitates a new, comprehensive assessment of the current

defense strategy for the twenty-first century.

The American Legion, in its adopted mandates, continues to support the force

structure proposed by the Base Force strategy, namely, the need for the United

States to maintain 12 active Army combat divisions, 12 Navy aircraft carrier battle

groups, 15 active Air Force fighter wings and three Marine Corps divisions. The

American Legion believes the ‘‘win-win’’ two-war Bottom-Up Review strategy is not

realistic with the current force structure; especially with the diversion of divisionsized forces in Bosnia and Southwest Asia. With growing worldwide commitments,

and with only 10 Army combat divisions and three Marine divisions, the U.S. has

a ‘‘win-hold’’ strategy at best.

The Quadrennial Defense Review retains the two-war strategy but reduces the

current force structures even further. The National Defense Panel noted that there

is insufficient connectivity between strategy and force structures, operational concepts and procurement decisions. We face an even greater array of challenges today

with even further resources than were available four years ago. Unfortunately, we

are ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’’ by further cutting manpower and bases to pay for

modernization.

The American Legion also believes the U.S. can no longer afford to become the

world peace enforcer by dispatching forces on unbudgeted operations every time the

United Nations passes a resolution to do so. The American Legion believes Congress, as the representatives of the American people, needs to become more involved

in the decision-making process regarding the commitment of United States military

forces. U.S. forces should be committed only when the vital national interests of our

country are at stake and only when such deployments are supported by the will of

the American people.

Our past and current National Military Strategies have not matched increased

military missions, including military operations other than war, with the required

resources. Like the Bottom-Up Review, the QDR provides neither the forces, lift capabilities, nor budgets to fight two nearly simultaneous major theater conflicts and

win. Peacekeeping, peace enforcement and humanitarian operations do not train our

combat forces for war.

The administration’s proposed fiscal year 1999 defense budget supports an active

force of 1.396 million and a reserve force of 877,000, down 23,000 and 9,000 respectively from fiscal year 1998. Additionally, the Quadrennial Defense Review advocates further reducing active endstrengths by 36,000 and those of the reserve components by another 42,000. The currently authorized force structure for each service

is well below the manpower level designed by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff General Colin Powell during the Bush Administration. At the time, the

manpower level of 1.65 million was considered the lowest force level the nation

could maintain and still meet its global requirements. The rapid, deep reductions

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
660

are having a negative impact on the All Volunteer Force which is imperative for a

strong national defense.

In conclusion, the true measure of whether a defense policy adequately protects

our national security interests is not necessarily how much is spent on defense, but

whether the armed forces will have the means to fight and win when conflict arises.

America’s national security well-being cannot be separated from the overall national

well-being. The American people cannot view themselves from a position of relative

weakness in the world. If we fail to lead, our own future will be shaped by others.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes The American Legion statement.

STATEMENT OF CYRUS M. JOLLIVETTE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

Senator STEVENS. Now we have Cyrus Jollivette, from the University of Miami.

Mr. JOLIVETTE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the subcommittee. I am privileged to be here today to represent my

colleagues in the University of Miami.

I submitted a written statement earlier, Mr. Chairman, that I

ask be included in the record.

Senator STEVENS. All of the statements are included in the

record by your appearance.

Mr. JOLIVETTE. Thank you, sir.

In that statement, I mentioned several initiatives. But today I

want to focus on one particularly involving health. Because I want,

first of all, to state how great your interest is in health; it is commendable. And also to say how much my colleagues at the University of Miami appreciate your leadership in supporting various

health initiatives, particularly in the area of cancer.

Cancer is a scourge. It does not spare anyone, based upon their

age, sex, ethnic background, or socioeconomic status. And we know

that eventually basic research will lead to the discovery of the

causes and hopefully cures for this dreaded disease. However, research already exists that has given us tools for prevention and

early detection that will reduce the suffering from cancer until a

cure can be found.

We at the University of Miami have an approach to biomedical

research that is applying the basic scientific knowledge we already

obtained in the populations in clinical settings, which is a key component of the research at the University of Miami. And by applying

this knowledge, we can reduce the morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life for all.

The resources in Miami, the University’s School of Medicine’s

Sylvester Cancer Research Center and the bachelor treatment center and pediatric oncology project and early detection breast cancer

program, in collaboration with Jackson Memorial Hospital, make

this concentration of research staff, education and treatment one of

the most unique resources in the Nation for confronting and fighting cancer, in our opinion.

Ours is a unique patient database, unparalleled in the Nation.

We utilize all of these resources, and we are in national clinical

trials targeted towards minorities. Florida is a bellwether State for

many things, including unfortunately a window to the future for

disease incidence. Florida has been having a significant increase in

some of the most common cancers among minority populations, including prostate and breast cancer. We are developing an evergreater understanding of the potential and critically important

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.000
661

areas of genetic differences, genetic susceptibility, genetic research,

and genetic epidemiology in developing effective cancer prevention

and control programs.

These cutting-edge research technologies also allow us to develop

successful treatment approaches for high-risk and at-risk populations. Working with community-based research and intervention

strategies, University of Miami scientists have developed a broad

array of data on the attitudes of different minority populations toward cancer prevention, protection and treatment. An understanding of these populations places us in the unique position to apply

the tools we have already developed to reduce cancer incidence.

There are several elements in our cancer program set forth in my

statement. And I want to repeat again that the patient treatment

and research base at the University of Miami [UM] Medical Center

provide for the Department of Defense a high-quality clinical and

basic research area, which is strategically located to serve the Nation’s current and future military populations. Since SOUTHCOM

has recently relocated to Miami, it will be relatively easy for the

University of Miami to form a strategic alliance with this group to

rapidly translate and apply our findings to the military.

Working with high-risk populations and cancer survivors, twothirds of whom are African Americans, Hispanic and other ethnically diverse populations, our Miami-based cancer prevention and

control program can be of enormous benefit to the Nation’s defense

forces, which has critical needs and challenges in serving these

populations, who are ever more the face of our military forces.

Mr. Chairman, we know you will have a difficult year, and we

hope that you will be able to assist us in this initiative. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. I noticed in your statement the statistics about breast cancer.

Mr. JOLIVETTE. Yes, the rate of increase in Dade County is over

50 percent. We are having some serious problems.

Senator STEVENS. We have seen examples in other areas of the

country. It would be interesting to find out why. We will do our

best.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JOLIVETTE. Thank you very much, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CYRUS M. JOLLIVETTE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity

to present testimony on behalf of the University of Miami. The University is seeking

your support for four initiatives within your purview: the South Florida Ocean

Measurements Center in coordination with the Navy, Florida Atlantic University,

and NOVA University; support for the University of Southern Mississippi request

for a new fishery-oceanography research ship for research programs in the Southeast U.S., Mississippi, and Texas. Additionally, we ask for your backing for the University’s Cancer Prevention, Control and Treatment Initiatives, and the continuation of funding for the North-South Center.

OCEAN MEASUREMENTS TEST FACILITY

The shallow water environment is an extremely difficult one. Nearly all naval systems are limited in performace by the severity and variability of conditions near the

coast. Weapons systems such as torpedoes and ASW sonar systems were developed

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
662

and optimized for the deep ocean and do not perform well in shallow water. Prediction of near-shore environmental conditions requires knowledge of the interactions between offshore currents, estuaries and atmospheric forcing.

The unique capability of the South Florida Ocean Measurements Center and the

partnership between academic scientists from three Florida universities and the

Navy provides the opportunity to meet the significant need for science and technology development efforts in the near-shore environment. The Navy test range is

a unique location in that it is the nearest approach of the continental shelf to shore

along the entire Atlantic seaboard. University atmospheric and oceanographic scientists, and ocean engineers are increasing their understanding of the near shore

acoustic environment and pursing development of AUV sonar and other related

technologies.

$2.75 million in continued funding is requested for this program in fiscal year

1999. We are convinced that this consistently funded, long-term partnership provides the best benefit to the scientific community and the Navy. By bringing together oceanographic and atmospheric scientists with Navy testing and cable-laying

experience, this funding will continue to provide the Navy with science and technology development where the environment is observed and understood.

OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH VESSEL

The University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

supports the proposal by the University of Southern Mississippi Institute of Marine

Sciences for construction of a Class III (approximately 190-foot) research ship for

the Gulf of Mexico. We agree that a new fisher-oceanography research ship, with

the capability to conduct complex, interdisciplinary research in the shallow water

regions of the Gulf Coast and Intra-America Sea, is vitually needed to support academic research programs.

The ship would be operated by the existing Southeast Consortium for Oceanographic Research (SECOR), as part of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) fleet. Membership in SECOR now includes three of the

ship-operations institutions in the Southeast and Gulf, which are the University of

Miami, University of Texas and Texas A&M. We anticipate that the University of

Southern Mississippi will be added in the very near future.

UNOLS is apprised of and supports the existing SECOR arrangement, which provides dockside facilities in Galveston, Texas, and Miami, Florida, and coordinates

instrumentation use and marine technician support among SECOR members. In

these times of increased competition for funding and increased need for affordable

ship-time from non-ship-operating institutions, we strongly believe that only

through resource sharing can we effectively manage costly ship operations. SECOR

has the resources and is prepared to manage a new Class III ship on behalf of the

Coast Guard research community. Support of this project benefits all academic institutions in the southeastern U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico.

NORTH-SOUTH CENTER

The mission of the North-South Center is to promote better relations and to serve

as a catalyst for change among the United States, Canada, and the nations of Latin

America and the Caribbean. The North-South Center conducts programs of research, public outreach, education, training, and cooperative study. It publishes and

disseminates policy-relevant information on the Americas. Its programs and activities also foster linkages among academic and research institutions, NGO’s, governmental institutions both civilian and military, and philanthropic and private sectors

throughout the Americas.

The North-South Center and Hemispheric Security Issues

The Center has been deeply engaged in promoting and sponsoring research and

dialogue on inter-American security issues, especially since the onset of federal

funding support in 1991. Among other issues, the Center has conducted an extensive research program on drug trafficking in the Hemisphere. It has studied and

promoted dialogue on the crises in Cuba, Panama, and Haiti. It has engaged in research in civil-military relations, conflict resolution, and security cooperation.

Among other issues, it has followed closely the Peru-Ecuador border conflict, in

which the United States has acted as one of the primary ‘‘guarantor’’ powers. The

Center hosted, in December 1996, an international conference attended by 58 scholars and government officials from eight countries in the Americas to assess the impact of that conflict on inter-American relations.

The relocation of the U.S. Southern Command to Miami in late 1997 has afforded

an enhanced role for the Center in security issues. The Center figured prominently

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
663

in discussions on the future of civil-military relations in the Hemisphere at a recent

conference with key Latin American military officials sponsored by the U.S. Southern Command and the U.S. Army War College. In December 1997, the Center

founded the ‘‘Miami Security Roundtable’’ with the cooperation of the University of

Miami School of International Studies, the Latin American and Caribbean Center

of Florida International University, and the U.S. Southern Command headquarters

in Miami. Three meetings of the Roundtable held thus far have brought together,

in an informal setting, thirty or more academic experts and staff members of the

U.S. Southern Command to discuss the latest security issues in the Americas, including drug trafficking and transnational crime. The Center’s Issues report on

inter-American security cooperation has been well-received in academic and professional circles. We are currently preparing a monograph in the Center’s Agenda

paper series entitled ‘‘Building New Security Relationships in the Americas: The

Critical Next Steps’’ for release in mid-May 1998 and a new Issues report on environmental security in the Americas, to be published in June 1998.

To sum up, the Center is committed to advancing the state of security cooperation

in the Americas. It serves as a bridge between government officials dedicated to enhancing regional security and academic and other civil society experts who have devoted their professional lives to analyzing the Hemisphere’s critical security issues.

We believe that Hemispheric cooperation on security issues can multiply the impact

of United States policy initiatives generally and overcome historically profound cultural and political gaps between North and South.

HIGH PRIORITY CANCER PREVENTION, CONTROL AND TREATMENT INITIATIVE

Cancer is the number two cause of death in America. It does not spare anyone

based on their age, sex, ethnic background or socio-economic status. We know that

basic research will eventually lead to the causes and hopefully cures for this dreaded disease. However, research has already given us tools for prevention and early

detection that will reduce the suffering from cancer until cures can be found. The

programs that we have listed as part of our initiative will apply these tools in a

variety of settings for prevention, control, and treatment, especially in multi-ethnic,

diverse, minority populations. This translational approach to biomedical research,

that is, applying the basic scientific knowledge we have already gained to populations in clinical settings, is a key component of the research at the University of

Miami. By applying this knowledge, we can reduce the morbidity, mortality, and improve the quality of life for all our citizens.

Model Cancer Prevention and Control Programs

Introduction

The University of Miami School of Medicine and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer

Center provide the nation with a truly unique and unparalleled resource for focused

basic, applied and clinical cancer research and treatment of multi-ethnic, diverse,

minority cancer patients. The medical center has had a major and continuing role

nationally in all of these areas. Additionally, because of our location, we play a critically important role in national clinical trials targeted toward minorities.

Florida is often called the ‘‘bellweather state’’ or ‘‘window to the future’’ for disease incidence. The state has been having a significant increase in some of the most

common cancers among the minority populations including prostate and breast cancer. We are developing an ever-greater understanding of the potential and critically

important areas of genetic differences, genetic susceptibility, genetic research and

genetic epidemiology in developing effective cancer prevention and control programs.

These cutting-edge research technologies also allow us to develop successful treatments for approaches to high-risk and at-risk populations.

Working with community-based research and intervention strategies, University

of Miami scientists have developed a broad array of data on the attitudes of different minority populations toward cancer prevention, detection and treatment. An

understanding of these populations places us in a unique position to apply the tools

we have already developed to reduce cancer incidence. While the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center has studies in many areas, there are major programs on

early detection, treatment and prevention of prostate and breast cancer. These diseases are highly unpredictable, but tend to occur at younger ages and to be more

aggressive in minority populations. The cancer activities included with this initiative will greatly assist the Department of Defense in accomplishing their mission.

The University of Miami/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Prevention and

Control Program includes six key elements: (1) Early Detection, (2) Primary and

Secondary Prevention Research, (3) Special Populations, (4) Genetic Epidemiology

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
664

and Research, (5) Molecular Epidemiology, and (6) the Courtelis Center for Research

and Treatment in Psycholosocial Oncology.

Each of these elements can contribute effectively to the needs of our nation’s military population. The patient treatment and research base at the University of

Miami Medical Center offers the Department of Defense high quality clinical and

basic research which is strategically located to serve the nation’s current and future

military populations. Since SOUTHCOM has recently relocated to Miami, it will be

relatively easy for the University of Miami/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

to form a strategic alliance with this group to rapidly translate and apply our findings to the military.

Working with high risk populations and cancer survivors, two-thirds of whom are

African-American, Hispanic, and other ethnically diverse populations, this Miamibased program in cancer prevention and control can be of enormous benefit to the

nation’s defense forces—which has critical needs and challenges in serving these

populations. They are evermore the ‘‘face’’ of our military forces. They need the potential of this expanded and targeted clinical research and treatment, and cancer

prevention and control, techniques in order to carry out their mission as guardians

of our liberties.

The Courtelis Center for Research and Treatment

A major component of the Miami-based initiative is the Courtelis Center for Research and Treatment in Psychosocial Oncology. This unique facility is dedicated to

providing cancer patients, including and especially ethnically diverse and minority

populations, with coordinated programs and services critical to effective cancer

treatment and outcomes. The research carried out at the Courtelis Center, including

psychological and social research, treatment, support services, and counseling, are

recognized as being critically important in effective cancer treatment, as well as for

cancer control and prevention. The Center is also engaged in cutting-edge studies

on the role of stress in the development, prevention, and treatment of cancer. They

have focused on the functioning of the immune system affected by chronic stress and

other psycho-social factors on depression of the immune system, and ultimately

their impact on cancer incidence, prevention, and control. These studies are recognized nationally.

These applied clinical research and treatment initiatives should be of enormous

potential and service to our nation’s military as it strives to more effectively support

and maintain its ethnically diverse population.

Federal Funding Objectives/Requests

Accordingly, we see the following federal participation in this coordinated, comprehensive cancer prevention and control initiative.

—$5 million to more fully develop the cancer prevention and control initiatives

especially focusing on the needs of ethnically diverse, minority populations

given the increased incidence of cancer, including prostate and breast cancer,

among minorities;

—to expand the applied cancer research, clinical research, treatment, prevention

and control strategies in six critical areas: (1) Early detection; (2) Primary and

Secondary Prevention Research; (3) Special Populations; (4) Genetic Epidemiology and Research; (5) Molecular Epidemiology; and finally (6) to expand the resources and capabilities of the Courtelis Center for Research and Treatment.

—to coordinate our efforts with SOUTHCOM to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our military forces.

PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY AND THE BATCHELOR CHILDREN’S RESEARCH CENTER

Introduction

The Department of Pediatrics at the University of Miami School of Medicine and

its Batchelor Children’s Research Center comprise one of the largest academic pediatric departments in the United States, with a total faculty and staff of over 700.

It ranks nationally among the top departments of pediatrics as rated by NIH peerreviewed, competitively designated funding awards. In response to the rapidly growing needs in pediatrics, the serious shortage of quality space, and the critical necessity to consolidate and coordinate the vast research resources and facilitate effective

collaboration, the University of Miami School of Medicine and the Department of Pediatrics are now developing one of the major children’s research facilities in the

United States—a $27 million, 100,000 square foot complex for which private funding

has already been secured.

A major component of this initiative will be pediatric oncology—for which at least

one full floor will be dedicated. This will ensure that there is an unparalleled, conU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
665

solidated, coordinated, interdisciplinary research effort on pediatric oncology which

will focus on unique and critically needed research, treatments, and populations.

Indeed, among the major objectives will be the focus on what is a uniquely diverse

multi-ethnic clinical and research patient population in South Florida. The Miami

Batchelor Center has perhaps the largest and most ethnically diverse minority population in the nation—a population which more closely mirrors that of America’s

military population than anywhere else in the country. We work with a pediatric

population that participates in large major national treatment protocols providing

a critically needed, concentrated and effectively organized multi-ethnic, minority

component not found elsewhere. The Batchelor Children’s Research Center treats a

significant percentage of newly-diagnosed pediatric cancer cases in the nation annually, with the majority coming from under-served, minority populations.

As such, the Batchelor Children’s Research Center can offer the Department of

Defense and our nation’s military an extraordinarily promising program of basic, applied and clinical research, training, and treatment, that will be especially critical

and well focused for its current and future needs.

Specific Objectives and Activities

Clinical Capacity in Bone Marrow Transplantation and Potential for Application in Young Adult Populations

The Miami-based project is one of the leading sites in the country for pediatric

bone marrow transplantation including such innovative techniques as Cord Blood

Transplantation. This project works closely with one of the nation’s public hospitals,

Jackson Memorial Medical Center, which has more than 7,000 births per year of

largely minority and ethnically diverse children. The Miami team has the best potential nationally to provide a Transplantation Cord Blood Bank that can more effectively treat cancer in minority populations. The rich supply of stem cells in this

dedicated blood supply will provide the opportunity of collaborating with other institutions and matching successfully recipients for bone marrow transplantation. There

is an absolutely critical need for such an effective blood supply for successful treatment in minority, culturally diverse populations. This precious resource must not

only be enlarged, but more effectively stored, genetically tested and typed, frozen,

and preserved for future treatment needs of these ethnically diverse populations.

Only a few institutions nationally have the potential supply and access for such diverse populations as the Miami team. The Batchelor Children’s Research Center,

the Department of Pediatrics, and Jackson Memorial Medical Center need additional resources to develop the full potential of this clinical research. There is, indeed, future potential for older teenagers and young adults, but much more work

needs to be done to more fully examine these applications. This unique blood transplantation resource and research focus could be especially important to the children

of our nation’s military, also a largely ethnically diverse population, and ultimately,

it is hoped, to the treatment of cancer of young adults in the military.

FEDERAL FUNDING OBJECTIVE/REQUESTS

We seek support for the following elements of this far-reaching initiative:

—Fully-matched federal participation in an expanded basic and clinical research

effort that focuses on the potential application of these cutting-edge blood transplantation treatment technologies in minority, ethnically diverse populations,

and to ultimately more fully explore application to older children and young

adults—$2 million.

—Fully-matched federal participation in the development of the critically needed

laboratory and blood storage facilities needs of the Batchelor Children’s Center—$2 million.

BREAST CANCER EARLY DETECTION PROGRAM

Introduction

Of the 600,000 new cancer cases in females estimated to occur in 1998, 178,700

or 30 percent will be breast cancer. One out of nine women is at risk of developing

this disease and breast cancer remains a leading cause of death in women. The incidence in minority women is increasing at an alarming rate, while that in white

women continues to decline. This trend has occurred nationally, but is particularly

relevant to South Florida with its large numbers of minority populations.

Background

Breast cancer is a problem of major public health importance in Miami-Dade

County where one out of every 8.5 cases of breast cancer in Florida is diagnosed.

Another alarming trend is that late-stage disease, in which there are very few good

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
666

treatments available, is rising at an alarming rate. It increased 32 percent in

Miami-Dade County while decreasing 21 percent in the rest of the state. In 1995,

33 percent of breast cancers in Miami-Dade County white women were diagnosed

after the disease had spread to the regional lymph nodes or distant sites, compared

to 52 percent among black women. The Early Breast Cancer Detection Program

(EDP) is one of the finest demonstrations of an effective partnership between a public and private entity. The University of Miami School of Medicine and the Jackson

Memorial Medical Center have formed an impressive team which has an extremely

high profile in the community in providing services to the primary health care centers, and its partnership with other organizations. It sets the University of Miami

and Jackson Memorial Medical Center apart from other hospitals and medical centers, and it is one of the reasons that these entities received the American Association of Medical College’s Community Service Award. Since the EDP was instituted

in 1987, it has resulted in a significant shift in the stage of breast cancer upon first

presentation as we will describe later.

However, the ability of the current EDP to meet the needs of Miami-Dade County

is deteriorating quickly due to the lack of funds. Furthermore, although the EDP

has two operational mammography vans, funds are only available to operate one of

them. The waiting time for women seen by the EDP at some primary health care

centers has increased to six months. There are more than 150,000 medically underserved women over age 40 in Miami-Dade County who are potentially in need of

the UM/JMMC early detection program services.

Breast cancer screening has been proven to identify early, smaller lesions which

are more treatable and at lower cost and result in a higher quality of life. Medically

under-severed minority women who are not screened for breast cancer are at extremely high risk concerning the rapid progression of this disease.

Breast Cancer in Miami-Dade County

A recent analysis of breast cancer data from the Florida Department of Health

shows that while the percentage of late-stage breast cancer (at time of diagnosis)

has fallen between 1981 and 1995, in Miami-Dade County, the percent decrease is

smallest for Miami-Dade County non-whites. For U.S.-born, non-white women, the

‘‘gap’’ between the percentage of late-stage diagnosis in Miami-Dade County and

elsewhere in Florida widened, but narrowed for non-U.S. born women of all races

and for U.S.-born white women. Late stage disease among non-whites comprises an

increasing percentage of breast cancer—increasing by 32 percent, while decreasing

by 21 percent in the rest of the state. The most frightening statistic is that 33 percent of breast cancers in Miami-Dade County white women were diagnosed as late

stage compared to 52 percent among black women.

Screening in the Early Detection Program

Since 1987, there have been 27,197 women seen through the EDP, and 39,733

mammograms have been performed. However, because of declining financial support

for this program, services have had to be dramatically reduced. For example, in

1996 4,845 women were screened, but this number fell by 28 percent in 1997. The

number of monthly visits in the EDP has fallen from a high of 509 to a low of 156.

This is particularly distressing since it is well known that detection of breast cancer

in its early stages provides more treatment options and potentially curative procedures.

While there has been both a local and national increase in the utilization of mammography as a tool in the diagnosis of breast cancer, we have noted that even in

the past year, many of the women who are screened through the EDP have never

been previously screened. This is especially true for minority women.

Stage of Breast Cancer Diagnosis

EDP data illustrate a shift from later to earlier stage cancers from 1987 to 1997.

The percentage of minimal cancers (less than 1 cm. including Stage 0) detected was

45 percent between 1987–1992 and increased to 67 percent in 1993–1997. In contrast, the percentage of late stage disease cancers (Stage III and Stage IV) decreased from 15 percent in the first time period to 7 percent in the final time period.

Survival

Because of the strong association between stage and survival, the dramatic shift

to earlier stage diagnoses, with the appropriate follow up treatment, should result

in an increased survival of EDP patients. Compared to the Jackson Memorial Hospital staff patients and to patients enrolled at the inception of the EDP program

in 1987–1998, five year survival of EDP patients showed increases from less than

50 percent to 75 percent.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
667

The Early Breast Cancer Detection Program: A Community Partnership

The strength of the early detection program has always been the partnerships

with the community. Beginning with the initial commitment of the Harcourt M. and

Virginia W. Sylvester Foundation, the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center, the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, the primary health care

consortium, the American Cancer Society, and two retired, dedicated South Florida

physicians, the EDP has been able to obtain significant financial support. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of EDP support is decreasing or has already been

terminated.

Population At Risk/In Need

In 1996, there were an estimated 47,500 women in Miami-Dade County receiving

Medicaid assistance, between the ages of 40 and 64. There were an additional

114,00 women in Miami-Dade County receiving Social Security or retirement income. Therefore, there are a total of 161,500 women who could be considered to be

in need of EDP. This large figure is likely to be an underestimate, since there are

at least three other groups of women who are not considered in these calculations;

the ‘‘working poor,’’ (i.e., women not receiving state or federal assistance), women

62–65 who receive Medicare, and non-residents of Miami-Dade County.

Cost of Screening/Cost Effectiveness

Several studies have shown the cost effectiveness of early detection/screening programs for breast cancer. Although studies differ on the actual cost to treat breast

cancer (e.g., due to different locales, choices for treatment, facilities), all analyses

have found that costs increase with later (delayed) stage at diagnosis, with approximately a three- to five-fold higher cost for Stage IV disease compared to Stage 0

disease. For example, several studies have estimated costs for Stage 0 disease as

averaging $20,300 and increasing to $58,900 for State IV disease.

Implications for Practice

There is convincing scientific evidence that mammography and other screening examinations can be an effective means of secondary prevention: nevertheless, a review of the literature leads to an unequivocal conclusion that there are major differences between the numbers of women considered to be at risk (or in need of such

screening services) and the numbers who receive them. The at risk/screened discrepancy is particularly pronounced among minority women, who are more likely to be

economically disadvantaged and who also have higher mortality rates from breast

cancer. The effective implementation of early stage strategies is extremely important in reaching the goal of reduced mortality from cancer in ‘‘under-served, underutilizing’’ populations. Increasing use of breast cancer screening in primary care settings and providing health delivery linkages to ensure follow up procedures are

widely recommended in order to provide opportunities for those who might not otherwise be included in mass screening programs.

The experience of the EDP suggests that it is both feasible and effective to reach

socio-economically disadvantaged minority women, with low or no cost cancer

screening services. This is clearly demonstrated by the number of women utilizing

screening who have had no previous mammogram and by the increase of minimal

cancers and the decrease in late stage cancers detected. Additionally, the data are

among the first to provide information on screening of medically under-served minority women of differing age groups, particularly those 40–49 years of age.

The success of the EDP has been influenced by several factors, including preliminary needs assessment and initial planning, the development of a community based

coalition, recruitment of medically under-served minority women through outreach

strategies, ensuring continuity of care as well as focus on community education.

Mammography provides an example of a proven technology for reducing late stage

and increasing early stage breast cancer detection, and the University of Miami/

Jackson Memorial Medical Center is effectively delivering this technology especially

among the medically under-served.

BUDGETARY REQUEST

We are requesting $1.5 million per year for the next five years to support the

breast cancer early detection program. With these funds we could increase the number of women screened from an average of 15 per day to 50 per day which would

result in screening 12,500 per year.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
668

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. EKARIUS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY

OF NEW JERSEY

ACCOMPANIED BY BETTY GALLO, DEAN & GALLO, THE CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator STEVENS. John Ekarius, Vice President, University of

Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, please. And you are accompanied by Mrs. Dean Gallo.

Mr. EKARIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Gallo and I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and the committee this

afternoon to talk about the important work that is going on in not

only the field of cancer but in the field of infectious diseases, as

well, and to support and laud your leadership in the work of providing DOD research efforts, particularly in biomedical research

and in the areas of applied and basic research for DOD.

Prior to asking Mrs. Gallo, whom you know, Mr. Chairman, from

your efforts in the field of prostate cancer awareness, I would like

to touch on, just a moment, on infectious diseases and the potential

they now pose for a profound threat to national and international

security. Changing national conditions, post-Cold War deployment

of U.S. troops in new geographic areas, and an increasingly global

economy have contributed to a resurgence of infectious microbes.

The rapid and repeated exposure to diseases arising in any part of

the world is now a reality for military men and women, as well as

our citizens at home.

By the year 2000, nearly 600 million people will be travelling

internationally, including military personnel. And to combat the

rise of infectious diseases, the University of Medicine and Dentistry, which is the largest public health sciences university in the

Nation, with campuses in Camden, New Brunswick and Newark,

is working on a collaborative effort in Newark, with the International Center for Public Health at University Heights Science

Park.

Our key tenant there, the Public Health Research Institute, is already working with the U.S. Army, in collaboration, on infectious

disease research, AIDS vaccine research, and providing diagnostic

tools for identifying battlefield pathogens in the field. This strategic

initiative, we believe, is of critical importance. It has been recognized by Senator Lautenberg and members of the committee last

year. And we would ask your support for this effort.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Additionally, the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute

is located and proposed at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, located in New Brunswick, an emerging biomedical research city.

This Institute is New Jersey’s only National Cancer Institute

[NCI]-designated center. And I would ask, Mr. Chairman, for your

forbearance to introduce Mrs. Gallo.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN C. EKARIUS

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully present testimony of the University of Medicine and

Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest public health sciences university in

the nation. The UMDNJ statewide system is located on five academic campuses and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
669

consists of 3 medical schools and schools of dentistry, nursing, health related professions and biomedical sciences. It also comprises a University-owned acute care hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an integrated behavioral health care delivery

system and affiliations with more than 100 health care and educational institutions

statewide. No other institution in the nation possesses resources which match our

scope in higher education, health care delivery, research and community service initiatives with state, federal and local entities.

I appreciate this opportunity to bring to your attention two of the University’s priority projects. The first is an initiative to create an International Center for Public

Health that is consistent with the mission of the Department of Defense and its biomedical research agenda.

The second is an initiative to establish a Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer

Institute within New Jersey’s only NCI-designated clinical cancer center, the Cancer

Institute of New Jersey (CINJ).

An International Center for Public Health at University Heights Science Park

Infectious disease poses a profound threat to national and international security

forces. The deployment of U.S. troops to new geographic areas and an increasingly

global economy have contributed to a resurgence of infectious microbes. The rapid

and repeated exposure to diseases arising in any part of the world is a reality for

our military personnel as well as the average U.S. citizen. By the year 2000, it is

estimated that some 400 to 600 million people will engage in international travel.

Because New Jersey is surrounded by eight international air and seaports, it is especially vulnerable to the spread of global infectious microbes. We have therefore

proposed to create an International Center for Public Health as a direct response

to this looming public health crisis.

The Center is a strategic initiative to create a world-class infectious disease research and treatment complex to be located at University Heights Science Park, a

Federal Enterprise Community neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey.

University Heights Science Park (UHSP) is a collaborative venture of the four institutions of higher education located in Newark—UMDNJ, Rutgers University,

New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), and Essex County College, which trains

technicians in eleven science and technology fields. Its partners include the City of

Newark, Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G), The Prudential Insurance Company, First Union National Bank and Bell Atlantic of New Jersey.

The International Center at Science Park will house three core tenants—the Public Health Research Institute (PHRI), the New Jersey Medical School National Tuberculosis Center at UMDNJ and the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics.

The Public Health Research Institute is a nationally prestigious, 56-year-old biomedical research institute that employs 110 scientists and staff conducting research

programs in infectious diseases, (including tuberculosis and AIDS), drug discovery,

diagnostic development and the molecular pathogenicity of a broad range of infectious diseases. A major focus of PHRI is the development of the next generation of

antibiotics to fight life-threatening, drug-resistant organisms. PHRI will relocate

from Manhattan to Science Park, Newark.

The University’s National TB Center is one of three Model TB Prevention and

Control Centers in the nation funded by the Centers for Disease Prevention Control

(CDC). The TB Center will add an important clinical component to the International

Center for Public Health, since many TB patients also manifest other infectious diseases.

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) will be the primary medical center linkage and academic affiliation for the International Center

for Public Health (ICPH). Relocating our Medical School’s Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics will add a staff of 100 to the Center’s critical mass

of microbiology research.

Since we appeared before this panel last year, a major change in our project has

occurred. In October, 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed

between the State of New Jersey and the International Center. The MOU commits

$60 million of State loan and grant funds toward development of the $78 million

International Center for Public Health. This commitment is now being used to leverage the remaining $18 million from Federal and private sources.

The International Center for Public Health will contribute to DOD’s objectives

through the research of PHRI and the National TB Center, and by participating in

cooperative programs with foreign governments in the development of policies and

initiatives to stem the spread of infectious diseases throughout the world.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
670

We, therefore, respectfully request $9 million from this Committee to support the

construction of an International Center for Public Health at University Heights

Science Park, Newark, New Jersey.

Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute

New Jersey has the tenth highest mortality rate of prostate cancer in the country

and ranks eighth in mortality among African Americans with this disease. Currently there is no available curable treatment for prostate cancer once it recurs.

Because of the devastating problem of prostate cancer in New Jersey and the nation, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ), the only NCI-designated clinical

cancer center in the state, has determined that one of its major goals is to seek a

cure for this disease. To accomplish this goal, the CINJ has initiated the development of the Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute, named after the late U.S. Congressman

from New Jersey, Dean Gallo, who died of the disease in 1994.

CINJ is affiliated with the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

(UMDNJ) and is located at our medical school campus in New Brunswick, New Jersey. CINJ is part of a statewide network of teaching hospitals providing access to

the highest standard of cancer care to all New Jersey residents. We see abut 6,000

prostate cancer patients annually and this number is increasing by about eight percent each month.

The Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ) is the center of excellence for cancer

treatment in New Jersey. Our team of staff physicians, scientists and basic science

researchers recognize that there is no cure for prostate cancer when it metasticzes.

We are concentrating our efforts on developing new ways to treat this devastating

disease. Patients are enrolled in five different clinical trials for advanced prostate

cancer. CINJ is establishing an integrated working group of nationally recognized

experts whose work can be applied to prostate cancer. Through a series of focus

groups, CINJ is bringing together the basic scientists and physician/researchers to

educate each other to work in collaboration in order to develop new treatments for

prostate cancer.

The Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute will be incorporated into the Cancer Institute

of New Jersey’s statewide network of affiliated hospitals and providers to facilitate

treatment and research so that patients with advanced prostate cancer may be enrolled in clinical trials at several locations throughout the state. This will allow for

treatment of more patients with novel therapies and it increases our ability to rapidly evaluate these therapies. We are also working with local clinics and agencies

on treatment plans for uninsured prostate cancer patients.

The Cancer Institute of New Jersey has recruited investigators from our sister research institutes in New Jersey to study prostate cancer. These researchers are isolating genes involved in the development of prostate cancer and are initiating epidemiological studies to determine the efficacy of screening in African-Americans. They

are also studying whether compounds used to prevent other tumors are effective

against prostate cancer. Clinical trials based on laboratory experiments are being

studied to see how cancer cells develop resistance and ways to make the cells sensitive to therapy.

With the establishment of the Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute, collaborative research such as the projects just described will be expanded. Such an institute is necessary to effectively recruit additional nationally-recognized scientists focused on research and treatment of prostate cancer.

To accomplish our goals, we have developed a five-year budget plan for the Gallo

Prostate Cancer Institute for a total of $9.4 million. We expect to raise substantial

funds through private, corporate and other resources. We respectfully seek $5 million in federal funds to facilitate the establishment of this important resource.

We thank the Members of this Subcommittee for their leadership in supporting

nationally and internationally critically-needed research and development initiatives. The Subcommittee is to be commended for its support of university research

throughout the country. Your particular role in the support of biomedical research

is especially recognized.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of UMDNJ and two

of its priority projects—the creation of an International Center for Public Health

and the establishment of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. Mrs. Gallo, nice to see you.

Mrs. GALLO. It is good to see you, too, Mr. Chairman. I just want

to say that the last time I saw you was back in September, when

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
671

we did that short segment with Peter Jennings. And, basically, as

you know, my husband was Congressman Dean Gallo, who died of

prostate cancer back in 1994. And I am really excited about this

initiative within the Cancer Institute, which is our only NCI-designated center in the State of New Jersey, to be able to create the

Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute.

And I just want to thank you for your leadership for cancer, and

also hopefully that, with this, you will take in consideration prostate cancer, considering that the funding for it is kind of low, and

we need to kind of boost it a little bit. So I am hoping that we can

bring some more good researchers into New Jersey.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETTY GALLO

I want to thank Chairman Stevens and the committee for allowing me to testify

before you.

I am here to speak to you about prostate cancer that took my husband Congressman Dean Gallo from the 11th District of New Jersey from me, his family, friends,

his colleagues and his constituents. Dean had the greatest respect for his colleagues

in the Senate, some who served with him in the House of Representatives.

I am sure most of you are not aware that when Dean was diagnosed in February

of 1992 the prostate cancer had already metastasize to his bone. The Prostate Specific Antigen blood test which in short is the PSA, has a normal range is 1–4. Dean’s

PSA when diagnosed was 883. His prognosis at the time was 3–6 months. When

he saw the urologist in New Jersey he said the only thing he could do for Dean was

remove his testicles. When Dean told me this I said I think we need to get a second

opinion. Fortunately Dean’s staff had referred one of his constituents that had prostate cancer to the National Institutes of Health. Dean went there for a consultation

and was accepted for a clinical trial of Suramin and combined hormonal therapy.

We were told by Dean’s doctor at NIH, Dr. Charles Myers, that the removal of

the testicles would not have been enough. Dean needed a more aggressive form of

treatment. This was a very tough adjustment period. Dean had a PSA level drawn

once a week in the beginning. Dean was in Washington while I was back in New

Jersey waiting for the results. Your whole life revolved around the PSA count:

would it go down, would it go up. Trying to keep positive was sometimes very tough,

but Dean and I had a very strong love and faith that helped us through the rough

times. With all of the combined treatment, love and emotional support, Dean survived 21⁄2 years with a good quality of life. It was the best 21⁄2 years of our 8 year

relationship.

I am now working at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey as a Fundraising Associate/Advocate. My main goal at The Cancer Institute is the creation of the Dean and

Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute. The Cancer Institute is naming the Institute

after Dean because he was a tireless supporter of the people of New Jersey and the

Congress of the United States. He believed in making the nation stronger by building and constant improvement and was instrumental in creating CINJ. Because of

Dean being diagnosed in the advanced stages of prostate cancer, their efforts to cure

prostate cancer are motivated by their memory of his excellent service. The Cancer

Institute is NCI-designated and the only one in the State of New Jersey. The Institute has only been opened about 2 years and has already outgrown its facilities. We

are currently seeing about 6,000 prostate patients a year and the number is increasing about 8 percent a month. There is no available curable treatment for prostate

cancer once it recurs, and when it does, it is fatal.

Prostate Cancer patients who are diagnosed early in the progression of their disease have different treatment options then those who are diagnosed with metastasize disease such as Dean was. At many cancer centers, these patients are seen at

different places and even at different hospitals. At The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, we have developed an integrated approach, where all prostate cancer patients

are seen in the same clinical setting, and where all physicians who are experts in

prostate cancer review the cases together. Thus, each patient is followed regardless

of the stage of their disease by various specialists, and each patient has the benefit

of medical and surgical expertise continuously reviewing their progress.

The central location of CINJ and its network of affiliated hospitals make CINJ

care accessible to virtually all New Jersey residents. In addition to treatment, CINJ

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
672

offers patient support groups to assist patients and their families cope with this

dreaded disease. Since there is no cure for metastic prostate cancer the physicians,

researchers and directors of CINJ are concentrating their efforts on developing ways

to treat this devastating disease.

A requirement for the designation of Clinical Cancer Center by the NCI is that

the center establish a strong research component that integrates the best available

medical treatment of cancer with nationally recognized basic researchers to find new

cures. The CINJ is the only center in New Jersey that has fulfilled this requirement. The CINJ is physically located on the New Brunswick campus of Robert Wood

Johnson Medical School. The medical school’s nearby Piscataway campus is adjacent

to Rutgers University, another globally recognized center of research. Two nationally acclaimed research centers are administrated jointly by RWJMS and Rutgers

University. The Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine (CABM) has leaders in molecular biology, including several Howard Hughes investigators. The Environmental and Occupation Health Safety Institute (EOHSI) includes a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences center of excellence for the study of environmental toxicology.

The study of environmental toxicology could be an important factor in the area

of prostate cancer. I am not an expert in this field, but I have spoken to people who

have seen cancer concentrated in certain areas. Prostate cancer in New Jersey has

the highest incident rate for men. 6,900 men will be diagnosed this year with prostate cancer of which 1,400 will die from this disease. Out of 50 states, number 1

being the worse we are 10th in prostate cancer among the white population and 8th

among African Americans. We are not sure if it is due to the way we disinfect our

vegetables, feed our cows, pigs and chickens, process our food for shelve life, the

source of our water, or the possible pollutes not only underground, but also in the

air. We have become a technological society. The possibility that the problem with

the environment has built over the years and is now surfacing at such an incredible

rate, could be a primary cause of prostate cancer.

CINJ has successfully recruited investigators from the CABM and EOHS specifically to study prostate cancer. CINJ has initiated clinical trials for prostate cancer

based on laboratory experiments. These experiments address how cancer cells develop resistance and ways to make the cells sensitive to therapy.

With the establishment of the Gallo Prostate Institute, collaborative research like

the projects just described will be tremendously expanded. The Gallo Prostate Institute will allow us to focus the strengths of the CINJ on the devastating problem

of prostate cancer in New Jersey, its surrounding region, and in the nation as a

whole through treatment and research. Such an Institute is imperative to provide

the resources to effectively recruit additional nationally recognized leaders in research into the study of prostate cancer. In order to bring together scientists of this

caliber, all focused on prostate cancer, it is imperative to have a strong focused center.

Since there is currently no effective curable treatment for prostate cancer once it

progresses beyond the prostate, a concerted effort must be made to develop new

treatments. This effort requires two approaches. The first is a comprehensive study

of the biological characteristics of the disease at the basic science level. The Cancer

Institute of New Jersey is committed to entering the national efforts on this front.

We have obtained the technology, for example, to examine the expression patterns

of over 10,000 genes from a single tumor sample, using multigene arrays. This will

greatly facilitate collaborations between the basic scientists at the various New Jersey academic institutions with the clinical scientists at CINJ.

The CINJ is uniquely suited to scientifically examine the difference in mortality

between African Americans and white Americans with the disease, which is a major

question in prostate cancer. New Jersey has a large population of African Americans

at all levels of income. We can thus investigate how much of the disparity between

the mortality of both groups is due to genetic predisposition versus economic status.

The scientists at CINJ are more than capable of answering this question, particularly with the additional infrastructure support which will be available once the resources for the Gallo Prostate Institute are acquired.

The proposed budget for the Gallo Institute is $9.4 million to be spent over a 5

year period. We expect to raise substantial funds through the state and other public,

private, corporate, foundations and other resources. We therefore seek an allocation

of $5 million to facilitate the establishment of this important resource for programs,

research and education and awareness of prostate cancer. It will not be used for

bricks and mortar.

I want to thank Chairman Stevens and the committee again for allowing me to

testify. The creation of the Gallo Prostate Institute will be a valuable tool for the

State of New Jersey. As in Dean’s case, with the help of a Nationally recognized

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
673

Cancer Institute he was able to survive 21⁄2 years with a good quality of life and

continue to serve the constituents of New Jersey.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mrs. Gallo.

As a matter of fact, this afternoon, the retiring Post Master General will come to this building to dedicate the Prostate Cancer

Stamp. It will be its first opening here, because we are trying to

get greater awareness of the problem.

Mrs. GALLO. That is great.

Senator STEVENS. And I do thank you for coming. We will do our

best.

Mrs. GALLO. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Mr. EKARIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Dr. Robert Rubin.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. RUBIN, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, NEW MEXICO

Dr. RUBIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert

Rubin, and I am President and CEO of the Lovelace Respiratory

Research Institute in New Mexico. Our 50-year-old institute is the

basic science institute—is the only one in the country—dedicated to

the prevention, treatment and cure of respiratory diseases.

For over 40 years, we operated a Federal lab, called the Inhalation Toxicology Institute, for the Department of Energy. This national facility was dedicated to defense issues, centered on the biomedical effects of inhaling dangerous materials, such as radioactive, toxic or bioactive substances. Nineteen months ago, this facility was privatized, and my organization moved all of our scientists to the facility on Kirtland Air Force Base, in Albuquerque,

and began the process of making it self-sufficient. This facility, and

our Institute, now focus heavily on Department of Defense mission

research projects.

This one-of-a-kind large facility is equipped with unique specialty

equipment and professional staff found nowhere else. Much of our

work is defense related, and I would like to mention some of the

most important projects now.

We are now dedicated to the investigation and creation of new

technology to combat the ever-growing threat of chemical, radiological and biological warfare on the battlefield or in the urban

American setting. With our extensive aerosol science program, inhalation toxicology research group and unique exposure facilities,

we serve the various agencies concerned with this growing threat.

We work especially close with Sandia National Labs, which also

has a mission to develop new technologies to counter these threats.

We are also working with Los Alamos Labs to include their unique

capabilities in this consortium.

We propose the creation of a new organization, centered around

Los Alamos, Sandia and Lovelace, dedicated to do a permanent,

single-purpose research designed to counter threats to combat and

civilian personnel posed by the introduction of radioactive, toxic

and biological substances through the air. Privatization has allowed us to develop partnerships with industry and government to

pursue this line of research, and we will be seeking funding to

make this a permanent R&D organization in New Mexico.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
674

An example, Senator, of the type of technology we wish to develop and expand is a joint project with Georgetown University

Medical School to create a hand-held drug delivery device, dispensing drugs, called retinoids, that our scientists have shown can induce lung regeneration and reverse or protect lung tissue from

damage due to inhaled toxic substances. This will be of direct benefit to the soldier in the field.

Building on this research, we should be able to mount a credible

defense against many types of battlefield or urban aerosol chemical

and biological threats. This $6 million project is of special significance to the chemical and biological warfare defense mission.

We also work with the Department of Defense to study Gulf War

Syndrome in an attempt to elucidate the possible chemical and

physiological mechanisms that may have produced this illness.

Such basic research should allow more rational treatment protocols

for those individuals so affected, and provide data that can be used

in the future to counter similar threats.

Our current efforts center on a study of the role of silicone in the

sand breathed by the Desert Storm troops, in combination with

pathogens known to be present in the inhaled atmosphere in the

region at the time of the action. This study of combinations of inhaled substances that might produce disease is a common theme

for us and is the central mission of our new Environmental Protection Agency-funded National Environmental Respiratory Center.

PREPARED STATEMENT

This Center will collaborate with the scientists working on the

defense issues to obtain the critical mass of expertise and synergism that produces new ground-breaking research finding. Most of

this important defense work has been made possible at reduced

costs by the privatization process, which was designed to retain

and nurture this unique national resource.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT RUBIN

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Rubin, and I am President and CEO of the

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute. Our 50-year-old Institute is the only basic

science institute totally dedicated to the prevention, treatment and cure for respiratory diseases. For over 40 years we operated a federal lab called the Inhalation

Toxicology Institute for the Department of Energy. This national facility was dedicated to defense issues centered on the biomedical efforts of inhaling dangerous materials such as radioactive toxic or bioactive substances. 19 months ago this facility

was privatized and my organization moved all our scientists to this unique facility

on Kirtland Air Force Base and began the process of making it self-sufficient.

This one-of-a-kind large facility is equipped with unique specialty equipment and

professional staff found no where else in the world. Much of our work is defenserelated and I would like to mention some of the most important projects and how

they relate to current critical national defense issues.

We are now dedicated to the investigation and creation of new technology to combat the ever-growing threat of chemical and biological warfare on the battlefield or

in the American urban setting. With our extensive aerosol science program, inhalation toxicology research group and unique exposure facilities we serve the various

agencies concerned with this growing threat. We work especially close with Sandia

National Labs, which also has a mission to develop new technologies to counter

these threats. We proposed the creation of a new consortium of organizations centered around the Sandia/Lovelace relationship, dedicated to permanent single-purpose research designed to counter threats to combat and civilian personnel posed by

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
675

the introduction of toxic substances through the air. Privatization has allowed us

to develop partnerships with industry and government to pursue this line of research and we seek funding to make this a permanent R&D facility on or next to

Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

An example of the type of technology we wish to develop and expand is a joint

project with Georgetown University Medical School, to create a hand-held drug delivery device to dispense drugs called retinoids, that our scientists have shown can

induce lung regeneration and reverse or protect lung tissue from damage due to inhaled toxic substances. Building on this research, we should be able to mount a

credible defense against many types of battlefield or urban aerosol chemical and biological threats. We seek $6 million to move this technology along to the prototype

stage.

We also work with the Department of Defense to study Gulf War Syndrome, in

an attempt to elucidate the possible chemical and physiological mechanisms that

may have produced this illness. Such basic research should allow more rational

treatment protocols for those individuals actually so affected and provide data that

can be used in the future to counter similar threats. Our current efforts center on

a study of the role of silicone (in the sand breathed in by the Desert Storm troops),

in combination with pathogens known to be present in the inhaled atmosphere in

the region at the time of the action. This study of combinations of inhaled substances that might produce disease is a common theme for us, and is the central

mission of our new EPA-funded National Environmental Respiratory Center. This

center will collaborate with the scientists working on these defense-related projects,

to obtain the critical mass of expertise and synergism that produces new groundbreaking research findings.

Most of this important defense work has been made possible at reduced costs by

the privatization process which was designed to retain and nurture this unique national resource.

I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify here today.

It is proposed that the Department of Defense establish a cooperative agreement

with the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute to meet research needs related to

national defense. It is also proposed that the Department participate in the National

Environmental Respiratory Center, an interagency effort to understand the respiratory health risks of combined exposures to mixtures of airborne contaminants,

and support other research initiatives enhancing the Department’s ability to fulfill

its national defense mission.

THE LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE HAS UNIQUE AND PROVEN

CAPABILITIES FOR MEETING IMPORTANT DEFENSE-RELATED RESEARCH NEEDS

The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI)

Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, LRRI is the nation’s only independent, nonprofit biomedical research organization wholly dedicated to the prevention, treatment, and cure of respiratory disease. LRRI conducts basic and applied research for

government, industry, health advocacy organizations, and the public. The Institute

is committed to reduction of the nation’s large burden of respiratory disease by conducting research aimed at understanding causes and biological mechanisms, understanding and reducing risks from materials inhaled in the environment and workplace, and developing new strategies for prevention and treatment.

LRRI’s staff of 230, including 40 scientists, 160 technicians and support staff, and

30 postdoctoral and graduate trainees and part-time staff, conduct approximately

$25 million annually of basic and applied, independent and collaborative research

annually in 350,000 square feet of owned and leased laboratory facilities. LRRI research is funded by federal agencies (60 percent, largely NIH, DOE, EPA, and

DOD), and private sources (40 percent, largely the pharmaceutical, chemical, and

automotive industries). LRRI’s research focuses in three principal areas: (1) causes,

mechanisms, and detection of lung cancer and noncancer respiratory diseases; (2)

treatment of respiratory disease and administration of drugs by inhalation; and (3)

respiratory toxicology and health risks from inhaled air contaminants in the environment and workplace. The Institute is a leader in the respiratory health field, and

is well-respected by academia, government, and industry alike for its objective leadership in placing health risks from airborne toxicants in proper perspective. LRRI

has a strong record in inter-institutional research collaboration, is affiliated with the

University of New Mexico, and has research liaisons with Sandia National Laboratories and numerous other organizations.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
676

LRRI leases the privatized, government-owned Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute facility on Kirtland AFB, which it developed and operated for many years

for the Department of Energy. This facility is the nation’s best-equipped center for

basic and applied research on the health effects of inhaled materials. LRRI is committed to maximizing the use of this taxpayer-owned facility to meet federal research needs involving respiratory disease and inhaled toxicants.

LRRI has Assisted the Department of Defense in Several Important Areas

Over the last 30 years, LRRI has produced a large portion of the key information

necessary to place the health risks of nuclear weapons production and deployment

in their proper context. Administered through the Department of Energy, LRRI research on the long-term health consequences of inhaling radionuclides has provided

a foundation for risk assessment, and the Institute’s research on treatments for accidental inhalation exposures underpin today’s therapeutic options. The most recent

studies have determined that cigarette smoking markedly increases the lung cancer

risk from inhaled plutonium particles, and developed animal models useful for

studying smoke-induced lung cancer and noncancer disease.

LRRI continues to conduct research to place the understanding of Gulf War illnesses on a stronger scientific basis. The potential toxicological nature of emissions

from diesel-fueled tent heaters was characterized. An ongoing study is examining,

for the first time, the possible long-term health consequences of inhaling very small

doses of nerve agent. A proposal under consideration would evaluate the plausible,

but unknown, contribution of inhaled sand dust to reported effects by facilitating

immune disorders.

Of importance to both training and battlefield scenarios, LRRI is conducting research on the toxicity of depleted uranium fragments from armor-piercing munitions, and earlier provided toxicity data which underlies present estimates of the

hazards of inhaling or ingesting trace amounts of depleted uranium.

LRRI’s expertise in air sampling, controlled generation of toxicant atmospheres in

the laboratory, and evaluating health effects is making an important contribution

to the nation’s chemical and biological defenses. LRRI has conducted research on the

occupational hazards of working with nerve agent precursors. More recently, LRRI

partnered with Sandia National Laboratories in research to develop new methods

for remote detection of airborne biological agents. Together, these laboratories seek

to refine these methods and extend the technology to additional chemical and biological agents.

LRRI is also working with a small technology-based company on a promising new

plasma-based technology for rapid and complete destruction of chemical and biological agents. If successful, this technique would avoid the current problems of other

technologies regarding toxic residues and environmental air contamination.

THE LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PROPOSES TO USE ITS INDEPENDENT

AND COLLABORATIVE RESOURCES TO ADDRESS CURRENT DEFENSE-RELATED RESEARCH NEEDS

Cooperative Agreement for Conducting Toxicological Research

It is becoming increasingly apparent to both LRRI and the Department of Defense

that the research capabilities of LRRI are well-aligned with many current and likely

future needs of the agency. In view of this alignment and the difficulties encountered in maintaining the Department’s intramural toxicological research resources

and joint interservice efforts, it is appropriate to consider an arrangement which

makes LRRI’s resources more readily and more broadly accessible by the Department. LRRI seeks to work with the agency to establish a cooperative agreement

under which a broad spectrum of work matched to the Institute’s resources can be

readily conducted. LRRI has experience operating successfully under a cooperative

agreement with the Department of Energy, and is in the process of establishing a

cooperative agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency. Such an arrangement can increase the utility to the Department of the federally-owned resources

leased and managed by LRRI.

The National Environmental Respiratory Center: Determining Health Risks from

Combined Exposures to Air Contaminants

The Department’s operations create numerous needs to understand and mitigate

the respiratory health risks from inhalation exposures to mixtures of airborne contaminants, from sequential exposures to multiple contaminants, and from combinations of occupational exposures and non-occupational exposures, such as cigarette

smoke. Similar concerns for environmental air pollution resulted in the establishment this year of a new National Environmental Respiratory Center (NERC). LRRI

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
677

proposes that the Department of Defense take advantage of this activity by supporting research that addresses the Department’s specific information needs.

Respiratory diseases now kill one out of four Americans. Despite workplace standards, occupational exposures are still associated with numerous respiratory diseases,

including allergic sensitization, rhinitis and bronchitis, pneumoconiosis, and cancer.

NIOSH estimates that as much as 30 percent of chronic obstructive lung disease

and asthma in adults may be caused by occupational exposures, and that 20 million

workers are exposed to agents that can cause these diseases. The national health

burden for occupational asthma is estimated to be as high as $400 million yearly.

The military and civilian workforce involved in meeting the Department’s mission

incur many of the respiratory health risks encountered by other workers, and the

work of the Department also involves some unique risks.

Present environmental and workplace air quality regulations address individual

pollutants, or pollutant classes, one at a time. The scientific and regulatory communities are increasingly aware that estimating the health consequences of air contaminants one at a time often misrepresents actual risks. Multiple agents can cause

the same effects (e.g., inflammation, cancer). Some agents amplify the effects of others (e.g., acid particles and ozone, radon and cigarette smoking). It is likely that a

mixture of air contaminants, each within its acceptable concentration, could present

an unexpected aggregate health risk that is unacceptable. The combined risks of

smoking and occupational exposures are largely unknown. Our poor understanding

of the risks of toxicant mixtures makes it difficult to identify and prioritize the

sources or practices whose management would most efficiently reduce the effects.

The Center is being initiated this year with core funding provided for in the EPA

fiscal year 1998 appropriation. The mission of the Center is to facilitate and participate in a national initiative to understand respiratory health risks from combinations of inhaled airborne environmental and occupational pollutants. It is appropriate for the Department of Defense to participate in this activity. No single agency

has the sole mandate for addressing the combined exposures problem, and the Department certainly has a stake in worker and public protection from combined exposures.

The Center will perform four principal functions. First, the Center will conduct

research aimed at understanding the respiratory health risks of combined exposures

to multiple airborne toxicants. Second, the Center will establish and maintain a specialized resource for information on present knowledge about the effects of combined

exposures, and related research and research resources nationwide. Third, the Center will facilitate communication and planning in this specialized area by coordinating workshops and conferences on the health effects of contaminant mixtures and

combined exposures. Government and non-government research sponsors and researchers from numerous organizations and disciplines will be brought together to

identify critical research gaps and optimize the use of resources.

The Department of Defense can meet its information needs and its interagency

responsibility in this field by participating in funding the Center, and by sponsoring

research directed at the Department’s specific information needs.

Chemical/Biological Defense Research Consortium

A key problem in the development of new technology to deal with chemical and

biological threats is the basic multidisciplinary nature of the required research. Detection, mitigation, and countermeasures inevitably require new microelectronic devices, laser technology, software, analytical chemistry, aerosol science, microbiological expertise, respiratory physiology, inhaled drug delivery, and infectious disease management. No single institution is expert in all of these fields.

Recognizing the importance of the chemical/biological threat, not only on distant

battlefields, but also for internal national security, three New Mexico research organizations have proposed to pool their laboratory resources, technical experience, and

intellectual capabilities to develop new measures to deal with these threats. LRRI,

Sandia National Laboratories, and the University of New Mexico Health Sciences

Center have pooled their remarkable and complementary resources to partner successfully on other issues, and are confident that their synergy can help the Department meet its security mission in the chemical/biological defense arena. All have

previous experience in addressing issues key to this field.

The functions of this collaborative research team would be to evaluate threats, develop new technologies, and improve existing technologies to identify and mitigate

chemical/biological threats. Key themes would be remote detection of specific agents,

personnel protection, threat elimination, and treatment of affected individuals. Although not yet formalized, a consortium of these research organizations would offer

significant resources to the Department.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
678

Novel Treatments for Debilitating, Intractable Respiratory Disease

The Department is faced with as large number of military employees and civilian

workers who develop progressive, debilitating respiratory disease. These diseases

place a large burden on the Department and society in terms of both financial and

human costs. A portion of this disease burden may result from occupational exposures, probably more disease results from tobacco smoking, and a portion may be

attributable to genetic predisposition. In addition, the Department is potentially

faced with cases of debilitating lung and airway disease on the battlefield from

chemical and biological agents.

Severe, destructive respiratory disease is an extremely difficult clinical challenge.

Many respiratory diseases, such as emphysema, have not been amenable to cure,

but are treated simply to relieve symptoms and maintain as much quality of life

as possible. Others, such as cancer, are possible to cure in some instances, but are

generally intractable and typically fatal. Indeed, the overall survival rates have not

improved for either lung cancer or emphysema.

Together with its Senior Fellows (outstanding researchers in other institutions

who collaborate closely with LRRI and are supported in part by the Institute), LRRI

is conducting pace-setting research aimed at more effective treatments and cures of

debilitating respiratory disease. An especially exciting example is the work of Drs.

Donald and Gloria Massaro of the Georgetown University Medical School. Building

on years of work in the field, these researchers have now shown that chronic lung

disease (emphysema, in this case) can be reversed by treatment with analogues of

vitamin A. Normal air sac structure has actually been restored in adult lungs with

destructive emphysema, and work is underway with LRRI collaborators to determine the effectiveness of local application by inhaling the drug. Another example

is the current work at LRRI to increase the effectiveness of anti-cancer treatment

by delivering drugs directly to the lung and airway surfaces by inhalation.

Lovelace and Georgetown now seek $6 million to extend these technologies for the

use of the Department of Defense and other agencies faced with countering such

new dangerous exposures. These funds would be used to better define the mechanism by which retinoids induce lung regeneration, to develop new systems to deliver

drugs and protective agents by aerosol systems systems, and to create credible

counter-measures to air-born toxic and biological threats.

Supporting innovative research aimed at treating, and potentially curing, debilitating respiratory disease is well within the scope of the Department’s health concerns. LRRI proposes that the Department support its work on restoring destroyed

lung tissue and treating respiratory disease by inhaled drugs.

Senator STEVENS. You are asking for $6 million; is that it?

Dr. RUBIN. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. Any questions?

Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to state for the

record and for the Doctor my congratulations and wholehearted

support for the privatization effort. This has been a public facility

for 40 years, for all intents and purposes, funded by the Federal

Government. You might remember Randy Lovelace was one of the

original doctors involved with space. As a consequence, this laboratory was created with reference toxicity of air. Over the years, it

has been one of the leading ones.

And I am very proud of them for taking a leap toward privatization—meaning that they will get business from a lot of different

sources, built around their expertise. Doctor, I compliment you and

your people and thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. RUBIN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Dr. RUBIN. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Our next witness is Bobby Harnage, the President of the American Federation of Government Employees.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
679

STATEMENT OF BOBBY L. HARNAGE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO

Mr. HARNAGE. Good afternoon, Senator.

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, my name is Bobby

Harnage, and I am the National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, which represents some

600,000 Federal employees. I would like to begin my testimony by

thanking the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify.

And on a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for

the leadership you have shown in securing passage of the emergency supplemental appropriation bill, which provided much-needed funding to DOD. There was a lot of talk that DOD would perhaps have to furlough or even lay off civilian employees if that legislation had not been passed in time. However, because of your experience and expertise as a lawmaker and as an appropriator and

because of your unmatched concern for national security and your

determination to treat Federal employees fairly and equitably, I

knew that furloughs and layoffs at DOD simply would not occur.

Finally, I thank you for your forthright opposition to the Freedom from Government Competition Act currently pending before

the government affairs committee. We will work with you to ensure

that the sponsors of this government-wide contracting out legislation do not complicate chances of passage of various appropriation

bills by offering their measure as an amendment to such legislation.

I discuss in detail in my written testimony AFGE’s request that

the subcommittee retain the 10-employee rule, which prevents the

conversion to contractor performance of an activity or a function of

DOD that is performed by more than 10 civilian employees until

a most efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is complete.

And so I will say nothing more about this on this occasion except

to bring our request to your personal attention.

Finally, permit me to discuss the use of in-house personnel ceilings by DOD officials to contract out work, often at a higher cost

because of the absence of public/private competition. That is not

just my opinion, that is what the military brass say, that is what

the DOD Inspector General says, that is what the General Accounting Office says, and that is what senior DOD managers tell their

subordinates to do in the three memos I attached to my written

testimony.

Since that submission of my testimony, I have come across yet

another personnel ceiling horror story. In a letter to the field from

the Air Force Reserve’s Assistant Director for Communication and

Information, she writes, and I quote:

We recognize there are limited manpower resources in the field for supporting

new systems as they come on line. With the current constrained budget environment, we also recognize that we are unable to obtain additional civil service personnel to fill these shortfalls. For these reasons, we have been pursuing the authority

and funding to hire contractors to assist you with more critical network management and systems administration requirement. Since all of these systems are being

installed without additional personnel manpower, a contract vehicle was our only

option to support these labor-intensive requirements.

Recognizing this practice is bad for taxpayers, warfighters and

Federal employees, your subcommittee has taken the lead on this

issue by including a prohibition against this practice in recent deU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
680

fense appropriation bills, and we urge you to include it in this

year’s funding measure.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to

answer any questions you might have.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I have gone

through your whole statement, and we are going to be in touch

with you about the A–76 questions also.

Mr. HARNAGE. That would be great.

Senator STEVENS. I appreciate that.

Are there any questions?

[No response.]

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Mr. HARNAGE. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOBBY L. HARNAGE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, my name is Bobby Harnage. I am the

President of the American Federation of Government Employees. AFGE represents

more than 600,000 federal employees serving worldwide, including 300,000 employed by the Department of Defense (DOD).

I would like to begin my testimony by thanking the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations Bill. I also welcome

this opportunity to work with the Subcommittee in addressing the needs and concerns of DOD employees. AFGE members are justifiably proud of their past service

in defense of the United States. As both Americans and federal employees, AFGE

members take seriously their role in keeping America’s defense strong and ready.

We also know that you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of this Subcommittee

share AFGE’s belief that the United States must continue to remain ready to meet

any threat to the security of our nation.

On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the leadership you

showed in securing passage of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill

which provided much-needed funding to DOD. There was a lot of talk that DOD

would perhaps have had to furlough or even lay off civilian employees if that legislation had not been passed in time. However, because of your experience and expertise

as a lawmaker and an appropriator, because of your unmatched concern for national

security, and because of your determination to treat federal employees fairly and equitably, I knew that furloughs and layoffs at DOD simply would not occur. Finally,

I thank you for your forthright opposition to ‘‘The Freedom From Government Competition Act’’ (S. 314), currently pending before the Senate Governmental Affairs

Committee. We’ll work with you to ensure that the sponsors of this governmentwide contracting out legislation don’t complicate chances of passage of various appropriations bills by offering their measure as an amendment to such legislation.

UPHOLDING THE COMPETITIVE FRAMEWORK OF OMB CIRCULAR A–76 AND THE TENEMPLOYEE RULE

Mr. Chairman, we know that the options of contracting out, outsourcing, and privatization are generating more attention than ever. Many contractors, many senior

Pentagon officials, and even some Members of Congress who have been around long

enough to know better are eager to give work away to private sector firms even if

it can’t be proven that contracting out saves money.

For AFGE and its members, however, the central issue which should drive the

discussions surrounding the outsourcing debate is readiness—how we can get the

most effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability for the taxpayer dollar invested. It

would be wrong to assume that AFGE’s only interest in these discussion is to preserve federal jobs. AFGE has a long-standing policy to follow outsourced work into

the private sector once a decision to contract out is made. For example, two years

ago, we signed a contract with a private sector firm, Hughes Aircraft, which allows

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
681

AFGE to continue its representation of the employees at the recently converted Indianapolis Naval Air Warfare Center.

So those defense contractors whose claims of savings are based not on innovation

and ingenuity but instead on nothing more than paying their employees poorly and

providing them with few if any benefits had better watch out. This union isn’t going

away.

The fact that AFGE will retain its vigor and vitality—even in this era in which

privatization is all the rage—by organizing outsourced workers allows this union to

be a calm and constructive player in the discussions surrounding defense reform

and the realization of budgetary economies. AFGE is not anti-privatization. We are,

however, unreservedly and non-negotiably pro-competition. And on this principle,

we will not cave or compromise.

AFGE was extensively involved in the 1995–1996 reform of OMB Circular A–76.

This effort resulted in a revised Supplement that, while permitting more flexibility

to contract out, also enables federal employees greater involvement in the competitive process, and makes contracting out a ‘‘two-way-street’’ by permitting work to

return back in-house when it is more cost-effective to do so.

When confronted with the anxious demands of private sector firms eager to secure

expensive new contracts and their pro-privatization friends in the Pentagon, it’s imperative to remember that the way to generate efficiencies and savings is not contracting out or privatizing. Rather, what’s key is ensuring real and genuine competition between the public and private sectors before any work is contracted out.

We must also remember the basic difference between a private sector bid and a

federal sector bid. A private-sector bidder offers a promise of performance and costs.

On the other hand, a federal bidder’s offer is based on a proven record of performance and costs (as determined by annual budgets). The differences between the real

and the ephemeral, the proof and the promise, and the walk and the talk reinforces

the need to ensure full and fair public-private competition.

Although less extensive than the public-private cost comparison process under

OMB Circular A–76, the ten-employee rule is an important mechanism in reducing

wasteful contracting out. This provision, which has been included in recent defense

appropriations bills, (a) prevents the conversion to contractor performance of an activity or function of DOD that is performed by more than ten civilian employees

until a most efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is completed and (b)

requires that any resulting service contracting decision be submitted to the Senate

Appropriations Committee.

It is precisely because the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee takes an

interest in ensuring cost-effective service contracting that the ten-employee rule

should be retained. Although your panel might continue to receive service contracting reports from DOD through an informal arrangement with the Senate Armed

Services Readiness Subcommittee, it would send the wrong signal to the Pentagon

if the ten-employee rule were dropped entirely at exactly the same time that some

DOD officials emphasize service contracting even at the expense of cost-effectiveness.

Clearly, the taxpayers would not be well-served if it appeared, however inaccurately, that the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the panel that

makes the most important of all spending decisions, was getting out of the service

contracting oversight business.

Moreover, it would not be well-advised to raise the threshold for conducting cost

comparisons from instances involving ten employees to those involving, say, twenty

employees. We are already concerned about contracts being arbitrarily split up in

order to avoid the coverage of the ten-employee rule. That problem would be exacerbated if the ten-employee rule devolved into, say, a twenty-employee rule. I think

most lawmakers agree that it would be irresponsible to contract out a service without assurance that the taxpayers would benefit from such an arrangement, especially when the cost comparison process required need not be as comprehensive as

a complete OMB Circular A–76 study.

Further, it would be a mistake to assume that your panel’s cost comparison safeguard is the same as the one used by the Senate Readiness Subcommittee, as some

have suggested. As you know, your cost comparison requirement applies to all instances of contracting out when it involves more than ten employees. The Readiness

Subcommittee’s safeguard would only take effect when DOD makes a ‘‘decision to

study’’ the conversion of a function involving twenty or more employees.

As you know, A–76 allows managers to convert commercial activities involving

eleven or more employees to contract without a cost comparison process. In addition,

agencies, as a result of the revised A–76 supplement, can obtain waivers from the

cost comparison requirement in other situations. As your staff has suggested, securing a waiver from A–76’s cost comparison requirement does not constitute a decision

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
682

by DOD managers to study the conversion of commercial activities to contract.

Therefore, in what is likely to be a significant number of instances, the Senate

Readiness Subcommittee’s reporting and cost comparison safeguard simply would

not work.

Of course, in those very same instances, your panel’s superior safeguard would

ensure that DOD conducts a cost comparison—one which would be less extensive

than an A–76 study but still sufficient to deter against wasteful outsourcing—and

then reports any resulting service contracting decision to the Congress. But that

would only happen if you and your colleagues decide to retain the ten employee rule.

AFGE’S recommendations

AFGE urges the Subcommittee to resist any attempts to exempt the Department

of Defense from the competitive requirements of the recently-reformed OMB Circular A–76 and its Supplement.

AFGE urges the Subcommittee to reaffirm its commitment to the ten-employee

rule.

AFGE also urges the Subcommittee to include language in this year’s bill which

would require DOD to conduct a post-contract award audit to ensure the government is truly receiving the savings or efficiencies promised by the contractor in its

bid. In the event promised savings or performance are not realized, or in cases of

contract non-performance or default, DOD would be required to report what action—

such as recompetition or conversion to in-house performance—it is taking to correct

this situation. The information required by the audit is already included in A–76’s

new Supplement, so this report could be provided with a minimum of cost or administrative burden to the agency compiling this report. However, we also need to compile this important information for all contracting out resulting from direct conversions and A–76 waivers and then allow DOD’s contract administrators to bring this

work back in-house in the event of poor performance and/or excessive costs. Mr.

Chairman, we are eager to assist the Committee in drafting the necessary language.

URGING THOROUGH CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF DOD’S WASTEFUL POLICY OF MANAGING

BY ARBITRARY FTE CEILINGS

AFGE members are extremely concerned about the effect of Full-Time Equivalent

(FTE) personnel ceilings on our federal defense workforce’s competitive capability

and on our nation’s readiness.

In early 1994, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported that several

agencies—including the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services,

Housing and Urban Development, State, Education and Treasury, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency—said that they each could have saved several million dollars by performing functions directly rather than having them performed by

contractors but did not do so because either their requests to OMB to take on the

necessary full-time equivalents (FTE’s) were refused or the agencies were so sure

such requests would be refused that they were not even submitted.

It then became apparent that DOD, the department the American people rely on

to safeguard their future, is also experiencing in-house staff shortages. On March

16, 1995, the personnel directors of the four branches of the armed forces told the

Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee that civilian personnel ceilings, not

workload, cost, or readiness concerns are forcing them to send work to contractors

that could have been performed more cheaply in-house.

Also in March 1995, GAO reported ‘‘that the personnel ceilings set by OMB frequently have the effect of encouraging agencies to contract out regardless of the results of cost, policy, or high-risk studies.’’ And the DOD Inspector General noted in

a 1995 report, ‘‘the goal of downsizing the federal workforce is widely perceived as

placing DOD in a position of having to contract for services regardless of what is

more desirable and cost effective.’’

Moreover, I have in my possession three internal documents which suggest that

DOD managers are instructing subordinates to manage by personnel ceilings and

then contract out the work. The first document instructs managers to impose personnel ceilings and then contract out the work. The second document imposes a ‘‘not

to be exceeded’’ ceiling and insists that work performed by employees under GS–

12 be contracted out. The third document instructs Army officials to absorb civilian

personnel reductions and offset the manpower shortages by aggressively contracting

out.

We shouldn’t be surprised that much contracting out occurring because of personnel ceilings is wasteful. After all, there’s no public-private competition. Federal employees aren’t given opportunities to compete in such situations—simply because

there aren’t enough of them to do the work. Clearly, DOD should be required to

manage by budgets. If it has work to do and money is authorized and appropriated

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
683

to do that work, then DOD should be able to use federal employees if in-house performance is to the benefit of warfighters and taxpayers.

We all know that DOD’s civilian workforce is going to get smaller. We all know

that there is going to be more contracting out. But DOD should not be imposing

arbitrary personnel ceilings and foreclosing the option of in-house performance of

important work, especially if contractors are less efficient.

Even if not always successful, we appreciate the subcommittee’s efforts to prevent

DOD from managing by personnel ceilings by the inclusion of prohibitions in recent

defense appropriations bills.

AFGE’S recommendation

AFGE strongly urges the Subcommittee to require DOD to manage by budgets,

rather than personnel ceilings.

Recent articles in the media have brought to the attention of readers the ‘‘shell

game’’ which is allowing the Administration to claim that the federal government

is getting smaller when in fact federal employees are only being replaced by often

more expensive contractor employees. As The Washington Times reported recently,

‘‘One of the biggest trends in federal workforce policy over the past ten or twenty

years has been to contract out more of the government’s work to the private sector.

Many thousands of government jobs are now being performed by private

contractors*** (T)he workers shifted to outside the government remain largely

unseen and uncounted.’’

If the federal government spends more than $110 billion annually on highly laborintensive service contracts and the annual pay and retirement benefits for the federal government’s own workforce of 1.8 million executive branch employees is $108

billion, the contractor workforce must be quite large indeed. As The Washington

Times pointed out, the Administration has no idea how big the contractor workforce

really is, preferring to remain willfully ignorant. I find this preference to be both

incredible and confounding! Is there a single large corporation that wouldn’t even

have the foggiest idea about the size of its contractor workforce? Of course not!

AFGE’S recommendation

If you, too, Mr. Chairman, are concerned about the Administration’s ‘‘shell game’’

of hiding hundreds of thousands of government employees on contractor payrolls

and then claiming to have reduced the size of government, I urge you to consider

adding H.R. 887, legislation introduced by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton

(D-DC), to this year’s defense appropriations bill. Her bill would simply require

OMB to develop a government-wide system for determining and reporting the number of non-federal employees engaged in service contracts. That’s the first step

which must be taken if we’re ever going to end the ‘‘shell game’’ in which the Administration wins the public relations war while taxpayers lose their shirts.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. I would gladly answer any questions. AFGE

looks forward to working with the Subcommittee as the defense appropriations bill

is marked up.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. OUELLETTE, SERGEANT MAJOR, USA (RETIRED), DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA

Senator STEVENS. Now we have Sergeant Major Michael

Ouellette, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA.

Yes, sir.

Sergeant OUELLETTE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 160,000 members of the Non Commissioned

Officers Association [NCOA], we wish to thank you very much for

the opportunity to appear before you.

I am not going to read to you. We have submitted the statement.

But I would like to expound a little bit on the comments you made

earlier, when you said that during recent visits to the field there

were considerable concern with the morale of the troops, military

people and their families.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
684

And, Mr. Chairman, that is the message that the Non Commissioned Officers Association receives loud and clear. That the issue

in fact in the minds of the senior non commissioned officer of all

the services is in fact the ability to retain good people over the long

haul. With the constant limitations on pay raises, the reduction in

food money is causing grave concern within the military. That is

compounded by what is perceived in the field to be a diminishment

of the retirement benefits associated with that service.

They are concerned with the costs of health care in the future

and what the situation is going to be. They are also concerned with

the threat of base closures that further minimize availability of

those facilities to obtain the benefits. And with that kind of information from our membership, this morning our new President,

Roger W. Putnam, announced that the Non Commissioned Officers

Association considers the reform of the military retirement systems, the two current systems, the 1980 system and the 1986 system, to be the first legislative priority of the Association.

That is, the troops out there, Mr. Chairman, see a need in the

future to virtually buy all of the benefits associated with service.

And, in turn, the people serving under the retirement systems, the

playing field is not levelled. And there are many serving there with

significantly reduced income levels associated with retirement.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Therefore, the Association will be working aggressively in the future to try and repeal the two systems, to return to the old system

of final base pay times 50 percent at 20 years, to try and encourage

continued retention of people. NCOA, although it is concerned

mainly with people programs, has to look at the retention and the

maintenance of the institutions of the armed forces. And, Mr.

Chairman, right now the view is so dim in the minds of those serving that we feel we must take a bold step to move forward, to try

and improve the situation so that in fact, at the end of the service,

military people, retirees and their families, may in fact have

enough money to be able to buy the complete range of their military earned benefits associated with retirement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. OUELLETTE

Mr. Chairman, the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA)

appreciates the opportunity to present testimony before this subcommittee on the

fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense Budget. The Association’s comments and

recommendations represent the views and concerns of its noncommissioned and

petty officer membership and those of the Apprentice Division (E1–E3) and will address a wide range of compensation, personnel, medical care and quality-of-life

issues of significant importance. Hopefully, this subcommittee will consider recommendations from an enlisted viewpoint to be of value and assistance during deliberations.

NCOA is a federally chartered organization representing 160,000 active-duty,

guard and reserve, military retirees, veterans and family members of noncommissioned and petty officers serving in every component of the Armed Forces of the

United States; Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.

PRELUDE

Mr. Chairman, NCOA wishes to extend its appreciation to the members of this

subcommittee for their efforts on behalf of enlisted men and women of the armed

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
685

forces. Military people rely on the favorable actions of this subcommittee to provide

funding for annual quality-of-life improvements and this subcommittee has not

failed to meet its obligations to those who serve. There is no question that continued

positive funding actions by this subcommittee are paramount to the armed forces’

ability to recruit and retain quality enlisted people to meet its wide-ranging mission

responsibilities. At the very top of enlisted members’ list of priorities is the ability

to meet their financial responsibilities to financially support themselves and/or their

families.

NCOA understands the difficult deficit reduction climate in which the Congress

and the armed forces must operate. The efforts of this subcommittee have been and

will continue to be vitally important to the well being of the enlisted forces.

The major point the Association wishes to make to this subcommittee is that the

decision to maintain credible military services automatically carries with it a responsibility to take care of the men and women who comprise that force regardless.

This subcommittee has done that in the past. Yet much more must be done to avert

a manpower crisis.

NCOA wishes to offer a number of pay, personnel, medical care and quality-oflife improvement recommendations intended to address a number of areas which

can significantly improve the overall well-being of military members, retirees, their

families and survivors.

ANNUAL MILITARY PAY RAISE

NCOA appreciates the support of this subcommittee to pass legislation in 1997

that awarded military members a 2.8 percent cost-of-living pay raise effective January 1, 1998. However, it must be noted the increase was one-half percent below inflation as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI) which was set at 3.3 percent. NCOA and most enlisted members of the armed forces are well aware that

military pay raises have been capped below private sector pay growth or full inflation in 12 or the last 16 years. The result is that military pay, even with the January 1998 increase, lags a cumulative 13.5 percent behind that enjoyed by the average American worker performing similar work. With the knowledge of these facts

and after sustaining months of family separation and the hardships associated with

the multitude of missions of the armed forces, complicated by increasingly longer

workdays due to force reductions and operation tempo, enlisted men and women feel

they are being ‘‘short-changed’’ by those in control of their destinies.

In 1997, the House of Representatives recognized the seriousness of this pay situation by including language in their version of the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization Bill that directed future military pay raises to be at the full ECI level. Unfortunately, this provision was dropped in conference and the status quo prevailed.

Although NCOA supports full ECI pay raises and total elimination of the differential with civilian sector pay, the Association does not expect the Congress to approve

a 13.5 percent pay raise in 1999 to correct the situation. NCOA does recommend

that Congress adopt a long-term military pay raise plan that would resolve the

problem over time. Future military pay raises paid annually at full ECI levels plus

an additional percentage amount would put military members on equal financial

ground with their civilian counterparts in future years, while at the same time,

gradually eliminating the current estimated pay differential. NCOA recommends a

long term plan that would increase pay by the ECI plus 2 percent in 1999, ECI plus

3 percent in 2000, ECI plus 4 percent in 2001 and ECI plus 5 percent in 2002.

THE UNIFORMED SERVICES THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN (USTSP)

This year NCOA expects a recommendation to come before Congress that would

establish a savings plan for members of the uniformed services. This proposal would

give those eligible to participate an opportunity to contribute up to 5 percent of their

basic pay into a program referred to as the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan

with the deduction made from their pay by the servicing Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS). Under normal conditions, such a proposal would appear

to have considerable merit; however, NCOA is very concerned that such a proposal

sends the wrong message or paints an inaccurate picture of the current financial

capabilities of enlisted members of the military services. NCOA believes it to be

highly unusual that at a time when annual pay raises are being capped below inflation; When a pay gap of 13.5 percent is estimated to exist between military and civilian sector pay; When commissaries are redeeming food stamps and WIC vouchers

in the millions of dollars, the Defense Department would offer a proposal that

strongly suggests that military people, particularly enlisted people, can afford to

save money.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
686

Since the original proposal made only those who entered military service on or

after August 1, 1986, eligible to participate, NCOA believes the main intent was to

provide a program to supplement the retirement system for military members who

began service on August 1, 1986. The financial impact of that system is itemized

on Enclosures 1 and 2. There can be no doubt the 1986 retirement system will impose a wide range of financial penalties on those serving under it. In the interests

of military services’ ability to recruit and retain military people until retirement,

NCOA recommends the retirement system be improved from its current version

rather than initiate a new program when similar civilian savings and tax deferred

programs already exist for those who can afford to take advantage of them.

HOUSING AND FACILITIES

Last year in testimony to this subcommittee, NCOA supported a Defense Department proposal to change the manner in which Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ)

and Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) were paid. The one allowance system went

into effect on January 1, 1998, and hopefully will provide military families with a

sufficient amount of money to cover the cost of adequate housing wherever assigned.

TUITION ASSISTANCE

Last year Congress instructed DOD to standardize the Tuition Assistance Program for all services. The military services have responded to guidance and have

changed its program to mirror each other. However, NCOA has received information

that the services are finding it difficult to fully fund the program from within their

existing budgets. NCOA is very concerned that an inability to fully fund this important recruiting incentive and professional develop program will result in a reduction

of the benefit across all of the services. The military services now provide participants with a maximum annual tuition assistance benefit of $3,500. It is extremely

important to provide adequate funding to maintain that level of benefit especially

when higher education opportunity while in service is used as a recruiting incentive.

This is clearly a funding requirement that must be fully supported by this subcommittee. NCOA recommends this subcommittee include appropriate tuition assistance funding levels in order to provide equity throughout the services and level the

education opportunity ‘‘playing field’’ for all eligible members of the military services.

MILITARY RETIREE ISSUES

NCOA has a number of retired force issues and concerns it wants to bring to the

attention of this subcommittee. Both of the issues are direct funding requirements,

however, the issue of Concurrent Receipt will more than likely be debated in another committee. Both issues are vitally important to military retirees.

—Retired Pay Cost-Of-Living Adjustment (COLA).—NCOA appreciates the efforts

of this subcommittee to provide a 2.1 percent COLA to military retirees effective

January 1, 1998. Nonetheless, NCOA remains extremely concerned that last

year’s congressional activity included suggestions by some that the Consumer

Price Index (CPI) overrates inflation. The Association believes this debate will

continue into 1998. NCOA urges this subcommittee to continue to resist retirement or COLA proposals that would reduce the value or purchasing power of

military retired pay.

—Concurrent Receipt.—Despite the fact that cost is a major factor in changing the

current offset between VA disability compensation and military retired pay,

NCOA remains committed to correcting this equity. Retired pay and VA compensation are made for two distinctively different reasons. Yet, should a military retiree be adjudicated to be disabled by the VA, there continues to be a

dollar for dollar offset in the payment of benefits. NCOA urges this subcommittee to work toward reducing or eliminating the current VA disability offset to

military retired pay at least for the 100 percent or most severely disabled.

MILITARY MEDICAL CARE

Mr. Chairman, availability and access to military health care or alternative options that are needed to protect the medical care needs of military beneficiaries.

Surveys of Coast Guard people and their families consistently show that medical

care along with adequate pay, inflation protected retired pay and commissary availability are the top concerns of the military community. In fact, with base and hospital closures and reductions in medical personnel, the increasing lack of no-cost

health care is a major concern to active and retired personnel alike. Enlisted people,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
687

both active and retired, suffer the greatest impact because of their lower pay levels

which cause them to place a greater value on the benefit.

Currently more than 58 hospitals have been closed as part of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) or other actions. Services have been cut back

at many of the hospitals remaining open and many of them have been and continue

to be downgraded to clinic size. Hundreds of thousands of retirees and their family

members who received care in MTF’s are now finding no care available. Retirees are

being denied prescription drugs by MTF pharmacies in increasing numbers. They

are told the prescribed drugs cost too much and are not stocked or are restricted

for issue to active duty beneficiaries only.

The TRICARE Program has been in development or implementation for nearly a

decade, yet the TRICARE-Prime still does not cover certain parts of the United

States. For example, in California where the military managed care system has

been in place the longest, there are still areas without TRICARE Prime networks.

However, despite the lack of established networks, the TRICARE-Standard/

CHAMPUS option should be available. Unfortunately, the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Chare (CMAC) is so low many physicians will not accept it. The current system is broken, and must be fixed.

NCOA fully supports keeping a strong, effective direct care system for the delivery

of health care and in the best interests of medical readiness. The Association also

supports making full use of the military treatment facilities and TRICARE networks

as primary providers. However those retirees (Medicare-eligible) who are either

‘‘locked-out’’ of TRICARE-Prime or not guaranteed access to these primary sources

of care should be offered a number of alternatives or options. In this regard, NCOA

supports:

—Medicare Subvention.—NCOA is pleased that Congress passed legislation last

year providing authority to provide a Medicare Subvention demonstration

project at six sites across the United States. Although this action was a major

step forward, the Association is greatly concerned by loss of military medical

care access for the many Medicare eligible military retirees residing outside the

confines of the demonstration test sites. Therefore, NCOA strongly supports the

immediate implementation of the Medicare Subvention concept across the

United States in order to provide immediate relief and to minimize the great

injustice being done to all Medicare eligible military retirees who have lost

earned health care benefits.

—FEHBP as an Option.—NCOA supports offering the Federal Employees Health

Benefit Program (FEHBP) as an option to Medicare eligible military retirees,

their families and survivors. Additionally, the Association also supports offering

this option to TRICARE-Standard eligible beneficiaries residing outside of

TRICARE-Prime catchment areas. Although not an issue that can be acted

upon by this subcommittee, in the best interests of Coast Guard retirees, NCOA

urges the subcommittee members to support any legislative effort to direct DOD

to restore TRICARE-Standard or CHAMPUS as originally intended by Congress

or authorize FEHBP as an option for all military retirees and their families.

—Medicare Part B Enrollment Penalty Waiver.—NCOA urges the subcommittee

members to support the enactment of any legislation to waive the 10 percent

per year Part B Medicare late enrollment penalty for military retirees whose

access to the military health care system has been curtailed because of base closures or implementation of TRICARE-Prime.

—Mail-Order Pharmacy Program Expansion.—Another legislative item that

would be most beneficial to all military retirees would be the expansion of this

program beyond just those affected by BRAC actions. NCOA urges the subcommittee members to support legislation to expand the DOD mail-order pharmacy program to include all military retiree, regardless of age, status or location. The availability of this program would be a great benefit to Medicare eligible military retirees even if Medicare Subvention or FEHBP legislation were not

passed.

SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

Because of the efforts of Congress last year, military retirees who enroll in the

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) can now withdraw from the program during the first

year following the two-year anniversary date of their retirement. NCOA continues

to recommend a legislative change to SBP which would permit 30-year paid-up coverage.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
688

COMMISSARIES

NCOA constantly receives inquiries from enlisted people, both active-duty and retired, concerning the continued availability of this very important non-pay benefit.

Of course, the loss of this benefit would impact significantly on all eligible patrons,

however, the impact would be the greatest on enlisted patrons simply because of

their reduced pay levels. NCOA has supported initiatives to improve the management of the commissary system and would support the privatization of commissaries

as long a the value of the benefit is not eroded and services are not reduced. The

Association, however, is not confident that a decision to privatize the benefit would

result in a reduction in the value of the benefit. Therefore, NCOA appreciates the

past efforts of this subcommittee to protect the availability of the commissaries and

urges the members to maintained required appropriated fund levels to protect the

non-pay benefit as being in the best interests of the enlisted communities.

GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES

NCOA is committed to supporting legislation intended to improve the lives of

members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. In doing so, NCOA

supports any legislative effort and urges this subcommittee to provide funding that

would:

—Authorize unlimited commissary access for guard and reserve members.

—Make the Reserve Component Transition Assistance Program (RCTAP) disability retirement provision a permanent part of law.

—Authorize full-payment of benefits due under the Ready Reserve Mobilization

Income Insurance Protection (RRMIIP).

—Provide long-term, low-interest loans or Federal grants to self-employed Reservists who suffered significant financial penalties as a result of their participation

in Operation Desert Shield/Storm and other contingencies for which selected reserve members are involuntarily activated.

—Reject any effort to eliminate the Military Leave Program for Federal civilian

employees participating in the reserves.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the single most valuable effort this subcommittee could

make to the well-being of the military enlisted community and the armed forces in

general is to send a signal that Congress will provide some stability in pay and benefits. Last year, the House of Representatives attempted to make full ECI pay raises

mandatory. Although that particular effort failed, there were numerous improvements. For instance, Congress passed legislation that reduced out-of-pocket medical

costs for military families assigned to isolated areas. They made improvements in

Hazardous Duty Pay and Family Separation Allowance (FSA) and even gave military members a new Hardship Deployment Pay. A Retiree Dental Plan, although

non-subsidized, became a reality. Still there remains uncertainty in the minds of

military people. Even with the legislative gains achieved by military people, they

still seem only to remember the attempted threats to their benefits.

The insecurity caused by this constant churning of threats to benefits creates an

environment of stress that takes a real toll on national security. Military people

simply must be given opportunities to respect and participate in change instead of

living in constant dread and fear of loss.

NCOA appreciates the opportunity to present a number of enlisted views in testimony before this subcommittee. The Association looks forward to addressing further

details regarding the issues discussed and any other issues with you and the subcommittee staff.

Thank You.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

I think you are right. I think that you should note when we were

over in the Kuwait area, we ran into just a hailstorm of comments

about the retirement system, based upon an Internet piece that

they showed to us, which was spurious. There is just a lot of information out there that goes to the Internet. And these guys and gals

out there have got time to look at that and to read them. They are

about the only ones I know that have time to read them. But, at

any rate, they do read them. And they were really hot about the

question of retirement.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
689

So, we are going to have to do something about correcting that

misconception. But the trouble is we are dealing with a myth. Because the information that is out there about what happened to the

retirement is wrong. We have not changed the retirement this last

year. That is what that article said.

Senator Inouye and I are going to take a look at that and see

what we can do. We appreciate your statement.

Do you have any comments, Senator?

Senator INOUYE. I think it should be pointed out that tomorrow

morning we are having a special meeting with the Secretary of Defense. And this will be on the top of the agenda.

Senator STEVENS. One of the agenda items we have is how to

deal with this false information about what happened to the retirement benefits. And we also have to do as you say, we have to do

something about the inconsistencies of the systems that are out

there. At least we ought to be dealing with the facts and not with

false statements. Thank you.

Sergeant OUELLETTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And

when it all comes down to the decisions, it is the soldier and the

marine, with their faces in the mud, and the sailors at sea, and

those people that really go through it that provide the level of security needed by this country. And we just simply have to take care

of those people.

Senator STEVENS. We have to keep the promises we make.

Sergeant OUELLETTE. That is right.

Senator STEVENS. There is no question about that.

Thank you very much.

Sergeant OUELLETTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Inouye, nice to see you.

STATEMENT OF RONALD VAN NEST, CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE

ANESTHETIST, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS

Senator STEVENS. Our next witness is Ronald Van Nest, the

American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.

Mr. VAN NEST. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to

testify before this committee today. My name is Ronald Van Nest,

and I am a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, a CRNA. For

the last 3 of my 30 years in the Navy, I was a member of the

American Association of Nurse Anesthetists Federal Services Committee, while holding the position of Nurse Anesthesia Consultant

to the Navy’s Surgeon General. I am a recently retired Captain in

the Navy Nurse Corps.

I am testifying today on behalf of the American Association of

Nurse Anesthetists, the AANA, which represents more than 27,000

CRNA’s, including over 600 that serve in our armed forces. My testimony today will make three points and one request. The points

are that nurse anesthetists are inexpensive to educate, inexpensive

to maintain, and we provide safe anesthesia service.

The request is that you look into the current anesthesia staffing

models in the military, which we consider wasteful. First, I would

like to thank this committee for its continued support of the efforts

of the Department of Defense to recruit and retain qualified nurse

anesthetists. AANA thanks this committee for your support of speU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
690

cial pay programs for CRNA’s, and strongly recommends their continuation as an important recruitment and retention tool.

Nurse anesthetists, while providing virtually the same service as

physician anesthesiologists, are far less costly for the services to

educate. Data indicates that as many as 10 highly qualified

CRNA’s may be educated for the cost of training an anesthesiologist. The services have also saved resources by spending far less

in bonus money to retain CRNA’s. The nurse anesthetist and a

physician start anesthesia training at the same time. In 8 years

the CRNA will have received $69,000 in special pay, while the anesthesiologist will have received $253,000.

It is true, however, that cost-effectiveness means nothing if the

quality is not there. Let me stress that numerous studies have

shown that there is no significant difference in the outcomes between the two providers. The Department of Defense could provide

even more cost-effective care if it utilized its providers more appropriately. There is no reason that CRNA’s should be supervised or

co-assigned with anesthesiologists in a wasteful ratio of 1 to 1 or

2 to 1. These ratios amount to nothing less than very expensive

featherbedding.

I would like to take this opportunity to alert you to another related issue that may be coming before your committee. As you may

know, the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] recently

proposed a rule that would defer to State law on the issue of physician supervision of nurse anesthetists. AANA strongly supports

this rule. However, legislation has been introduced by Senator

Faircloth to prohibit HCFA from implementing this rule.

We have reason to believe that there may be an attempt to attach this legislation to an appropriations bill. And it may come before the members of this committee for consideration.

AANA strongly recommends that you resist any attempts to attach this legislation to any appropriations bill, and that the States

be allowed their right to regulate our practice.

PREPARED STATEMENT

AANA thanks this committee again for its support of military

nurse anesthetists, and I will be happy to answer any questions

you may have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD VAN NEST

The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is the professional association that represents over 27,000 certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA’s)

in the United States, including over 600 CRNA’s in the military services. The AANA

appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony regarding CRNA’s in the military.

We would also like to thank this committee for the help it has given us in assisting

the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of the Services to recruit and retain

CRNA’s.

CURRENT STATUS OF CRNA FORCES IN THE DOD

Nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas

in every war the U.S. has been engaged since World War I. Military nurse anesthetists have been honored and decorated by the U.S. and foreign governments for

outstanding achievements, resulting from their dedication and commitment to duty,

and competence in managing seriously wounded casualties. In World War II, there

were 17 nurse anesthetists to every one anesthesiologist. In Vietnam, the ratio of

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
691

CRNA’s to physician anesthetists was approximately 3:1. Two nurse anesthetists

were killed in Vietnam and their names have been engraved on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. During the Panama strike, only CRNA’s were sent with the fighting

forces. Nurse anesthetists served with honor during Desert Shield and Desert

Storm. Military CRNA’s continue to provide critical anesthesia support to humanitarian missions around the globe in such places as Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia.

In all of the Services, maintaining adequate numbers of active duty CRNA’s is of

utmost concern. For several years, the number of CRNA’s serving in active duty has

consistently fallen short of the number authorized by DOD as needed providers.

Current statistics on the number of active-duty CRNA’s for fiscal year 1998 are detailed below:

NUMBER OF ACTIVE DUTY CRNA’S—FISCAL YEAR 1998

Authorization Inventory Shortage

Army ............................................................................................... 276 232 ¥44

Navy ................................................................................................ 134 133 ¥1

Air Force ......................................................................................... 233 230 ¥3

DOD Total .......................................................................... 643 595 ¥48

HOW CRNA’S SAVE DOD MONEY

The practice of anesthesia is a recognized specialty within both the nursing and

medical professions. Both CRNA’s and anesthesiologists (MDA’s) administer anesthesia for all types of surgical procedures, from the simplest to the most complex,

either as single providers or in a ‘‘team care setting.’’ Patient outcomes data has

consistently shown that the anesthesia provided by solo CRNA’s is of the same high

quality as that provided by CRNA’s who work with anesthesiologists, or that provided by solo anesthesiologists. CRNA’s and MDA’s are both educated to use the

same anesthesia processes in the provision of anesthesia and related services.

While both types of health care professionals can provide the same or similar

services, CRNA’s cost the military much less to educate and to retain. In the first

place, it costs the military significantly less to educate a CRNA as an anesthesia

provider compared to the cost of educating an anesthesiologist. Second, a physician

draws thousands of dollars in additional bonuses that illustrate they are significantly more expensive to retain.

Training costs are less

The most substantial educational difference between CRNA’s and anesthesiologists is that prior to anesthesia education, MDA’s receive medical education while

CRNA’s receive nursing education. However, the anesthesia part of the education

is very similar for both providers. CRNA’s and anesthesiologists are both educated

to use the same anesthesia processes in the provision of anesthesia and related services. However, the cost to educate nurse anesthetists is significantly lower than the

educational costs for physician anesthesiologists. Becoming a CRNA takes an average of 30 months additional education beyond the nurse’s baccalaureate education,

while becoming an anesthesiologist takes a minimum of 8 years beyond the baccalaureate degree. But if you compare just the cost of the anesthesia portion of their

educational programs, CRNA education is far more cost-effective than physician

education. Data from the 1992 AANA Council on Accreditation survey of nurse anesthesia programs indicates that the average annual program cost per student nurse

anesthetists is $11,741. The total cost for 30 months of CRNA education would

therefore be approximately $29,352 ($11,741 per year × 2.5 years). According to a

letter received by AANA from HCFA in 1990, the average annual residency program

cost per medical resident was $84,837. The total cost for a four-year anesthesiologist

residency would therefore be approximately $339,400 ($84,837 per year × 4 years).

AANA estimates that at least 10 CRNA’s can be educated for the cost of educating

one anesthesiologist. With the shorter training period, the 10 CRNA’s will each be

in practice for several years before the one anesthesiologist completes his/her residency.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
692

Non-MD bonuses are less than physician bonuses

In addition to the decreased cost of training a nurse anesthetist, the bonuses received by CRNA’s in the military are significantly lower than those received by military physicians.

The Incentive Special Pay for Nurses

In the early 1980’s, once military CRNA’s reached the grade of major with 12–

14 years service, they could expect their salary and fringe benefits to match that

of the average employed CRNA in the civilian workforce. By the 1990’s, due to significant increases in civilian CRNA, military pay and fringe benefits were no longer

comparable to the average employed civilian CRNA. According to a March, 1994

study requested by the Health Policy Directorate of Health Affairs and conducted

by DOD, a large pay gap existed between annual civilian and military pay in 1992.

This study concluded that ‘‘this earnings gap is a major reason why the military has

difficulty retaining CRNA’s.’’ In order to address this pay gap, in the fiscal year

1995 Defense Authorization bill Congress authorized the implementation of an increase in the annual Incentive Special Pay for nurse anesthetists from $6,000 to

$15,000 for those CRNA’s who are no longer under service obligation to pay back

their anesthesia education. Those CRNA’s who remain obligated will receive the

$6,000 ISP. In addition, DOD has standardized the payback obligation across all the

Services, which allowed for fair implementation of this increase.

AANA thanks this Committee for its assistance in securing this increase in the

annual ISP. AANA strongly recommends the continuation of the annual ISP for

CRNA’s, which recognizes the special skills and advanced education that CRNA’s

bring to the DOD health care system.

Board Certification Pay for Nurses

Included in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill was language authorizing the implementation of a board certification pay for certain non-MD health care

professionals, including advanced practice nurses. AANA is highly supportive of

board certification pay for all advanced practice nurses. It is clear that the concept

of board certification pay comes from the physician model, which was implemented

as an incentive for physicians to attain the highest level of competency and certification. The establishment of this type of pay for nurses recognizes that there are

levels of excellence in the profession of nursing that should be recognized, just as

in the medical profession.

While many CRNA’s have received board certification pay to date, there are many

that remain ineligible. Since certification to practice as a CRNA does not require

a specific master’s degree, many nurse anesthetists have chosen to diversify their

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
693

education by pursuing an advanced degree in other related fields. But CRNA’s with

masters degrees in education, administration, or management are not eligible for

board certification pay since their graduate degree is not in a clinical specialty.

Many CRNA’s who have non-clinical master’s degrees either chose or were guided

by their respective services to pursue a degree other than in a clinical specialty.

Many feel that diversity in education equates to a stronger, more viable profession.

CRNA’s do utilize education and management principles in their everyday practice

and these skills are vital to performance of their duties. To deny a bonus to these

individuals is unfair, and will certainly affect their morale as they work side-by-side

with their less-experienced colleagues, who will collect a bonus for which they are

not eligible. In addition, in the future this bonus will act as a financial disincentive

for nurse anesthetists to diversify and broaden their horizons.

AANA encourages DOD and the respective services to reexamine the issue of

awarding board certification pay only to CRNA’s who have clinical master’s degrees.

Comparison to Physician Bonuses

Even with the implementation of an increased ISP and the addition of a board

certification pay, CRNA’s remain cost effective anesthesia providers for DOD. Nurse

anesthesia students receive no bonus money at all while attending anesthesia

school. Then, CRNA’s receive only $6,000 per year in ISP, and an average of $2,500

in board certification pay while under payback service obligation for four years.

After their payback is completed, nurse anesthetists are eligible for a $15,000 annual ISP bonus, with a continuation of the board certification pay. The alternatives

to CRNA’s, physician anesthesiologists, are eligible for four different bonuses. Physicians are eligible for a $5,000 annual variable special pay upon entering residency.

After their four years of residency, they immediately are eligible for an additional

$15,000 special pay, and a $33,000 physician ISP annually. Upon passing board certification (usually about 18 months after residency is completed), an additional

$2,500 in board certification pay is added to the bonus total (See Appendix One for

breakdown of total). All of this bonus money is paid to physicians annually while

they are still under a payback service obligation.

In the first eight years of service alone, the result is a wide disparity in the

amount of bonus dollars paid to physician anesthesiologists ($253,500) compared to

the amount paid to CRNA’s ($69,000).

HOW MORE EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION CAN SAVE MONEY WITHOUT SACRIFICING QUALITY

OF CARE

In light of the fact that it costs less to educate CRNA’s, that nurse anesthetists

draw minimal bonuses compared to physician anesthesiologists, and that numerous

studies show there is no significant differences in outcomes between anesthesia providers (See Appendix Two), it is clear that CRNA’s are a cost-effective anesthesia

provider for the military. From a budgetary standpoint, it is vitally important to utilize these high quality, cost-effective anesthesia providers in appropriate ratios with

their physician anesthesiologist counterparts. ‘‘Over-supervision’’ is not only unproductive, it is financially wasteful and unnecessary.

During World War II, there were 17 CRNA’s for every one anesthesiologist (17:1).

In Vietnam, the ratio was approximately three to one (3:1). Currently the military

is operating with much narrower ratios of CRNA’s to anesthesiologists. As recently

as last year, the Army was functioning with two CRNA’s to every anesthesiologist

(2:1); in the Air Force, the ratio was even narrower at approximately 1.6:1; and the

Navy was at the level of nearly one CRNA for every one anesthesiologist (1:1).

Such practice models are generally unheard of in the private sector, even in locations where CRNA’s practice with little or no autonomy. In most civilian hospitals,

the practice ratios run approximately 3 or 4 CRNA’s to every one anesthesiologist

(3–4:1). The practice ratios could be increased in military treatment facilities from

their current levels to a more cost-effective level of 3–4:1, with no sacrifice to quality

of care.

The U.S. military services do not require anesthesiologist supervision of CRNA’s.

There are many military medical treatment facilities throughout the world which

have military CRNA’s as their sole anesthesia providers, and this practice arrangement has not had a negative impact on the quality of anesthesia care. Increasing

numbers of anesthesiologists in the military has resulted in practice models with

wasteful practice ratios. There continues to be proposals in all Services for increased

supervision of CRNA’s, with attempts by physician anesthesiologists to place unnecessary supervision language into local military treatment facility policies which

would require strict adherence to a practice model of one CRNA to every one anesthesiologist.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
694

A practice model requiring a 1:1 ratio for the provision of anesthesia would not

only be financially wasteful, but even more importantly, the Services would lose mobilization effectiveness by requiring two anesthesia providers where autonomous

CRNA’s have previously provided anesthesia safely and effectively for over 100

years. This military standard is based on the need of the Services to provide a wide

range of health care with as few providers as necessary during mobilization to remote or isolated locations. Historically, CRNA’s have always worked independently

at such locations; therefore, there is no basis for requiring supervision of CRNA’s

when they then return to more urban facilities. A predetermined ratio of supervision

should not become part of the practice environment. The supervision of CRNA’s

should be based on the experience of the anesthesia care providers (both CRNA and

anesthesiologist), the mission of the medical treatment facility, and the complexity

and type of surgical procedure.

The ability to function autonomously in remote locations is required of all military

CRNA’s. It is the promise of this independence that draws many to military anesthesia service. Therefore, any attempt to adopt an anesthesia practice standard that

would require that an anesthesia care team consisting of a CRNA and a supervising

anesthesiologist to deliver all anesthesia would not only undermine mobilization effectiveness, but it would also prove detrimental to the morale of military CRNA’s

and would undermine attempts by the Services to recruit highly motivated individuals.

AANA recommends that this Committee direct DOD to maintain the mobilization

effectiveness of CRNA’s by enforcement of the current practice standard of autonomous anesthesia care by CRNA’s in all locations, with practice ratios of 3–4:1. This

ratio is more cost-effective, with no sacrifice of quality of care.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the AANA believes that retention and the appropriate utilization

of CRNA’s in the Services is of critical concern. There is a deficit of 48 CRNA’s in

fiscal year 1998. Many active-duty CRNA’s are suffering from ineffective practice

models. The efforts detailed above will assist the Services in maintaining the military’s ability to meet its peacetime and mobilization medical mission in a cost-effective manner without sacrificing quality of care. We thank the Committee for its support of CRNA’s. For further information, please contact Greta Todd, AANA Associate Director of Federal Government Affairs, at 202/484–8400.

Pursuant to clause 2(g)(4) of the Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) and the witness representing AANA, Ronald Van Nest, disclose the following federal grants:

The Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs, which

is a subsidiary of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, was awarded a

grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Funds for the Improvement of Post

Secondary Education program in the following amounts:

October 1, 1994 ................................................................................................ $104,059

October 1, 1995 ................................................................................................ 108,529

October 1, 1996 ................................................................................................ 113,529

October 1, 1997 ................................................................................................ ..................

APPENDIX ONE

Timeline CRNA Anesthesiologists

End 1st year ............................................................................. $0 $5,000 Variable Special Pay.

End 2nd year ............................................................................ 0 5,000

Mid-year: End nurse anesthesia program. Begin CRNA

payback.

0

End 3rd year ............................................................................. 1 6,000 2 $2,500

5,000.

End 4th year ............................................................................. 6,000 5,000.

End Residency. Begin Anesthesiologist payback ............ 2,500

End 5th year ............................................................................. 6,000

2,500 5,000.

15,000 Additional Spec. Pay.

33,000 physician ISP.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
695

APPENDIX ONE—Continued

Timeline CRNA Anesthesiologists

End 6th year ............................................................................. 6,000

2,500 5,000.

15,000.

33,000.

Mid-year: physician passes board .................................. 2,500 Board Cert. Pay.

End 7th year: End CRNA payback ............................................ 15,000

2,500 12,000 Increased VSP.

15,000.

33,000.

2,500.

End 8th year ............................................................................. 15,000

End physician payback .................................................... 2,500 12,000.

15,000.

33,000.

2,500.

Total bonuses cost to DOD ......................................... 69,000 253,500

1 ISP.

2 BCP.

APPENDIX TWO

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN ANESTHESIA OUTCOME BY PROVIDER: SYNOPSIS OF

AVAILABLE PUBLISHED INFORMATION COMPARING CRNA AND ANESTHESIOLOGIST

PATIENT ANESTHESIA OUTCOMES

Patients and health care institutions have an interest in information concerning

the quality of care given by health care providers.

Nurse anesthetists have been providing quality anesthesia care in the United

States for more than 100 years. In administering more than 65 percent of the anesthetics given annually, CRNA’s have compiled an enviable safety record. No studies

to date that have addressed anesthesia care outcomes have demonstrated that there

is a difference in patient outcomes based on the type of provider.

—In a study mandated by the U.S. Congress and performed by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, the report to Congress states:

‘‘There was no association of complications of anesthesia with the qualifications

of the anesthetist or with the type of anesthesia.’’ (House Committee Print No.

36, Health Care For American Veterans, page 156, dated June 7, 1977.)

—A study concerning anesthetic-related deaths from 1969–1976 by Albert

Bechtoldt, Jr. and the Anesthesia Study Committee, published in the North

Carolina Medical Journal in April 1981, stated on page 257 that: ‘‘Therefore,

when we calculated the incidence of anesthetic-related deaths for each group

which administered the anesthetic (Figure 2,) we found that the incidence

among the three major groups (the CRNA, the anesthesiologist and the combination of CRNA and anesthesiologist) to be rather similar. Although the

CRNA working alone accounted for about half of the anesthetic-related deaths,

the CRNA working alone also accounted for about half of the anesthetics administered.’’

—The Stanford Center for Health Care Research conducted a 17-hospital intensive study of institutional differences. A report of the study stated that: ‘‘Thus,

using conservative statistical methods, we concluded that there were no significant differences in outcomes between the two groups of hospitals defined by

type of anesthesia provider.’’ See Forrest WH Jr. ‘‘Outcome—The Effect of the

Provider,’’ at page 137 in Hirsh RA, et al (eds): Health Care Delivery in Anesthesia. 1980. Philadelphia: George F. Stickley Company.

—A 1994 legislatively mandated study by the Minnesota Department of Health

looked at the provision of anesthesia services by anesthesiologists and certified

nurse anesthetists. The resulting assessment of the existing studies determined

that there are no studies, either national or Minnesota-specific, that concluU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
696

sively show a difference in patient outcomes based on type of anesthesia provider.

—The Center for Health Economics Research (CHER) completed a report in January 1988 for the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The purpose

of the report was to assist HCFA in the development of a fee schedule for CRNA

direct Medicare reimbursement, effective January 1, 1989. CHER is an independent Boston-area based research organization that analyzes and evaluates

federal health programs. As part of the report, CHER conducted a review of the

literature concerning anesthesia quality. CHER addressed the question of

whether the quality of anesthesia care varies by the type of anesthesia provider.

As part of its literature review, CHER reviewed three studies which have explicitly examined anesthesia outcomes by provider type. The CHER researchers

concluded that ‘‘none of the studies detected significant differences in anesthesia outcomes among nurse anesthetists versus anesthesiologists.’’ The CHER researchers stated that anesthesia outcomes between CRNA’s and anesthesiologists ‘‘have not been shown to differ.’’

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Report on H.R.

1748, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988–89, commented on a proposed change in the supervision of nurse anesthetists in the military services that would require anesthesiologist supervision. The committee stated

that: ‘‘From the quality of care standpoint, the committee is not aware of any data

that suggests that nurse anesthetists need a higher level of supervision than they

currently have. If such data exists, the committee would be very interested to review it.’’

At pages 208 to 209, the report stated that: ‘‘The committee understands that the

current practice in the civilian, as well as military, medical care systems is that a

nurse anesthetist must be supervised by a physician. Under the change proposed

within the military, a nurse anesthetist would be required to be supervised by an

anesthesiologist.

‘‘The committee is extremely skeptical that such a policy change makes sense

from a patient care, quality of care or medical readiness standpoint. In terms of patient care, the requirement that an anesthesiologist supervise every anesthetist

would mean that many anesthesiologists would be forced to provide less patient

care. Some small hospitals that currently have only one nurse anesthetist and no

anesthesiologist would lose their anesthesia capability altogether under this proposal.’’

In concluding the discussion of this subject, the House committee said that the

adoption of a change in policy that would require anesthesiologist supervision of

nurse anesthetists must be supported by compelling reasons, with full explanation

and supporting data.

The practice of anesthesia has become safer in recent years due to improvements

in pharmacological agents and the introduction of sophisticated technology. Recent

studies have shown a dramatic reduction in anesthesia mortality rate to approximately 1 per 250,000 anesthetics.

In 1990, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) intended to conduct a research

study on morbidity and mortality in anesthesia. Following a review of the anesthesia data, the CDC concluded that morbidity and mortality in anesthesia was too low

to warrant the study.

In a 1988 book, Mark Wood of the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company

summarized a St. Paul study of its anesthesia-related claims. St. Paul studied the

leading medical liability allegations that St. Paul-insured anesthesiologists and

CRNA’s reported between 1981 and 1985. The data consisted of all claims, including

pending and closed claims. St. Paul concluded that ‘‘nurse anesthetist loss experience is very similar to that of anesthesiologists * * *.’’ See Wood, MD, ‘‘Monitoring

Equipment and Loss Reduction: An Insurer’s View,’’ in Gravenstein JS, Holzer JF

(eds): Safety and Cost Contained in Anesthesia. 1988. Stoneham, Mass.:

Butterworth Publishers.

From 1988 to 1995, St. Paul has returned nearly $24,000,000 in premiums to its

insured CRNA’s because the loss experience was substantially better than St. Paul

originally predicted. Further, St. Paul stated in a July 1995 publication: The St.

Paul Medical Services Nurse Anesthetist Update, that ‘‘nurse anesthetists insured

by St. Paul will experience an average countrywide 7 percent decrease in their medical professional liability insurance rates in 1995.

AANA General Counsel Gene A. Blumenreich of Nutter, McClennen and Fish,

LLP, Boston, Massachusetts has concluded that while the fact that there is no difference regarding the quality of care rendered by anesthesiologists and CRNA’s

‘‘may be surprising to the less knowledgeable, an understanding of the nature of anesthesia would lead one to expect this. The vast majority of anesthesia-related acciU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
697

dents have nothing to do with the level of education of the provider.’’ Blumenreich

GA, Wolf BL. 1986. ‘‘Restrictions on CRNA’s imposed by physician-controlled insurance companies.’’ AANA Journal 54:6:538–539.

The most common anesthesia accidents are lack of oxygen supplied to the patient

(hypoxia), intubation into the esophagus rather than the trachea and disconnection

of oxygen supply to the patient. All of these accidents result from lack of attention

to monitoring the patient, not lack of education. In fact, the Harvard Medical School

standards in anesthesia are directed toward monitoring, which reiterates the basic

point: Most anesthesia incidents relate to lack of attention to monitoring the patient, not lack of education.

As Mr. Blumenreich has stated: ‘‘Anesthesia seems to be an area where, beyond

a certain level, outcome is only minimally affected by medical knowledge but is

greatly affected by factors such as attention, concentration, organization and the

ability to function as part of a team; factors toward which all professions strive but

which no profession may claim a monopoly.’’ Id.

CRNA’s offer a cost-effective alternative to all-physician care in the field of anesthesia. Anesthesia is an appropriate specialty for either nurses or physicians. The

evidence to date is compelling and comprehensive that CRNA’s provide safe, quality

anesthesia care. Patient outcome is similar regardless of whether the anesthesia

provider is a CRNA or an anesthesiologist.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Is it correct that of all the medical and surgical

cases requiring anesthesia in this country, 85 percent are handled

by nurse anesthetists?

Mr. VAN NEST. I cannot support that number, Senator. I have

heard varying numbers. One number that the AANA uses is about

65 percent of all the anesthesia rendered in rural hospitals is done

by nurse anesthetists. We are roughly around 50 percent nationwide on anesthesia service. A lot of the service, however, that is

rendered by an anesthesiologist is co-rendered by a nurse anesthetist, either in a supervisory or in a collaborative relationship. So

there is a lot of anesthesia being administered by nurse anesthetists that may also be considered rendered by an anesthesiologist.

Senator INOUYE. What would be the national ratio between nurse

anesthetists and M.D. anesthesiologists in hospitals?

Mr. VAN NEST. I am speaking for myself on this answer at this

moment. The membership in the American Association of Nurse

Anesthetists and the membership in the American Society of Anesthesiologists is roughly the same. We are very close, within a couple of thousand members, to the best of my knowledge.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CALKINS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Senator STEVENS. Our next witness is Charles Calkins, of the

Fleet Reserve Association.

Mr. CALKINS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for the

opportunity to present the Fleet Reserve Association’s priorities regarding personnel issues for fiscal year 1999.

I also wish to express appreciation to you and members of the

subcommittee for your strong support of the men and women serving in our uniformed services. Thanks to your efforts, they have

seen significant quality-of-life improvements. Our country and its

uniformed services face many challenges, not the least of which is

turmoil in distant parts of the world that threatens our national

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
698

interests. Inadequate defense funds, insufficient manpower, declining recruiting and retention rates, widening pay comparability,

crumbling infrastructure, and disenfranchised older retirees add to

these challenges.

These and other issues are addressed in our complete statement

and, in the interest of time, I will focus only on several key points.

Compared to 1989, DOD funding in fiscal year 1999 will have

dropped approximately $40 billion. This reduction helped to balance the budget, generate a projected surplus, and free up money

for other government programs. Notable is an increase by next year

of over $208 billion, compared to 1989, in Department of Health

and Human Services funding.

Keeping in mind the challenges discussed above, it seems those

most deserving of consideration in the reallocation of government

spending are the men and women who are now sharing the sacrifices and hardships of serving in the armed forces. In addition to

these major challenges, additional personnel cuts are planned—not

because the workload has decreased, but because money saved

from the personnel account is sorely needed for procurement and

modernization.

Next year’s mission demands will be greater than in 1998, and

the Navy can ill afford to lose 18,000 more personnel, as recommended in the Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR]. And the Marine Corps should not be mandated to further reduce manpower

below pre–1998 levels.

Annual military pay raises always trail 15 months behind the

applicable employment cost index [ECI]. And each year the pay gap

grows wider. Hopefully Congress has not forgotten the need, when

in 1981 we had to raise the pay of its senior enlisted members. At

that time, many were voting with their feet.

The Fleet Reserve Association [FRA] urges larger pay adjustments to narrow the pay gap in accordance with the latest full ECI

data immediately prior to the effective date of the pay raise, and

a gradual pay increase for senior enlisted personnel to bring it to

a level commensurate with their leadership roles.

Regarding health care, improvements are needed in Tricare. And

a major priority is the test of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program option for older beneficiaries. Confusion over the three

military retirement plans is a concern for our sea services leaders,

and all uniformed service members are pondering career decisions.

Second- and third-term enlistees—and we are finding that firsttermers—are also discovering that the retirement program they

may look forward to provides significantly less financially than the

previous two programs. Yet they must pay the same amount for

health care for themselves and their families.

The FRA believes Congress should repeal the 1986 Military Retirement Reform Act or redux.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, the FRA shipmates appreciate

your untiring commitment and support of personnel now serving

and those who have served in the past. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
699

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CALKINS

INTRODUCTION

The FRA is a Congressionally-chartered organization of nearly 160,000 enlisted

Sea Service personnel who are now serving, or have served in the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The Association has been the ombudsman for the

three services’ active, reserve, and retired components since 1924. Most members

are senior enlisted personnel who have served in one to three wars and have 20 to

30 (or more) years of honorable service.

The Association’s three staff members who are responsible for preparing this

statement are Sea Service veterans with more than 100 years of combined experience including active duty stints and time working military issues and programs on

Capitol Hill. They take this opportunity to warn Congress of the pending damage

to the Nation’s defense establishment if the fiscal year 1999 defense budget is approved in its present form.

MILITARY READINESS IS NOW AT CODE YELLOW

It’s impossible to ignore the many indicators spelling out the challenges facing the

United States and its Armed Forces. In addition to inadequate funds and a very unsteady world, insufficient manpower is causing concern, recruiting and retention are

worsening, pay comparability is widening, optempo continues to plague perstempo,

infrastructure is quickly deteriorating, retired service members are up-in-arms for

being ‘‘disenfranchised’’ at medical treatment facilities, commissaries are under constant threats of closure or privatization, and the list goes on.

In this statement, FRA will briefly address most of these topics plus others of concern to its membership. (Additional information relating to these views is available

on request from Retired Navy Master Chief Joe Barnes, FRA Director of Legislative

Programs, at 703–683–1400 x 312.)

MANPOWER

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best, ‘‘The reality of our current

tempo is that we are doing more operations with a smaller force.’’

Since the Department of Defense (DOD) convinced Congress that the so-called

‘‘peacetime’’ Armed Forces need but a ‘‘few good men and women,’’ operation tempos

have significantly increased. The ‘‘downsizing’’ of manpower strengths has led to

longer deployments, as well as family problems, instability, stress, and falling retention numbers, to name a few.

Take a look at the Navy’s situation. When things were ‘‘hot’’ between the United

States and USSR, only about 25 percent of the force was deployed at one time.

Today, according to Vice Adm. Daniel Oliver, Chief of Naval Personnel, it’s 30–33

percent forward deployed with 50–60 percent underway on any given day. With the

trouble spots in the Middle East apparently here to stay, the Navy’s mission demands will be greater than in fiscal year 1998 and it can ill-afford to lose 18,000

more personnel as recommended in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

In a recent visit to Naval installations in the Virginia Tidewater area, FRA National President Robert Beese found discontent among submariners fearing that further manpower reductions will adversely effect their mission, yet the QDR recommends reducing the Navy’s submarine force from 73 boats to 50. However, the

Navy plans to have 75 submarines operational in fiscal year 1999. Currently, submarines are deployed 50 percent of the time with 25 percent forward deployed.

(Beese recommends that more members of Congress should visit the boats. Arrangements may be made through the Navy or FRA.)

The Marines were deployed less during the Cold War years than now. Despite indications that optempo would be reduced in fiscal year 1999, Marine land forces

plan to be involved in 28 joint exercises, the same number as in fiscal year 1997,

and 66 training exercises, five (5) more than scheduled for fiscal year 1998. The Marines are expected to do this with 1,800 less personnel than in fiscal years 1997 and

1998.

FRA states unequivocally that the Navy and Marine Corps should not be mandated to further reduce manpower strengths below pre-fiscal year 1998 levels.

RECRUITING

The good news for fiscal year 1997 was that the Armed Services met their quality

and numerical goals. The bad news is that it was done with smoke and mirrors.

The Pentagon reduced the original requirements. Quality is assessed at a 60–90 percentile of accessions scoring in the upper half of the military’s entrance exams, but

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
700

the services just eked past the lower figure at the 63 percent level down from 74

percent in 1992.

Recruiting will be tougher for fiscal year 1999. The propensity of youths interested in serving their country in uniform has dropped from 26.2 percent in 1991 to

20.7 percent in 1996. The economy is doing especially well and civilian employment

is there for anyone searching for a job. Especially alarming is the fact that except

for educational benefits, there are fewer reasons for today’s youth to enlist in the

military.

Even pay and compensation fails to influence a single prospect’s decision to join

one of the Armed Forces. The consensus is that the military does not fairly treat

its people (not surprising to military retirees) and most do not believe the military

takes better care of its people than civilian employers. Last, but certainly not least,

the bitter reality that the military fails to fulfill promises to its retirees (and veterans), results in fewer trusted family members or mentors encouraging the Nation’s

youth to seek a tour of duty in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast

Guard.

What’s the answer? More funds to beef up recruiting programs. Additional monies

will provide extra recruiters to canvass for prospective accessions, help to bolster recruiters’ morale, relieve family tensions, and buy more positive advertising. This

will help ‘‘sell’’ the nation’s mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, grandfathers,

and grandmothers, and hopefully spark the interest of young people to consider donning the military uniform.

DOD spends an average of $7,000 to access one recruit. If Congress should see

fit to add more dollars to attain the Services’ goals, then the money is wisely spent,

thus assuring our citizens that they have the best and brightest of the Nation’s

youth manning the ramparts after effective training to achieve the highest state of

combat readiness.

RETENTION

The Navy predicts tougher retention times in the near future and the following

analysis supports this contention.

NAVY

[In percent]

First termers Second termers Third termers

Prior .................................................................................... 38 54 62

Current ............................................................................... 30.8 48.4 57

Even the Air Force has fewer experienced and trained personnel staying on board

for longer tours of duty. Its retention rates look like this:

[In percent]

First termers Second termers Third termers

Prior .................................................................................... 61 82 97

Current ............................................................................... 58 72 94

Most significant is the loss in second term service members who have the most

influence on the young first termers. They are small unit leaders expected to replace

more senior enlisted members in the out years. With more retirements coming on

line, second and third termers are needed even more than during the mid-1980’s

and early 1990’s. The military loses a fraction of its high state of readiness with

each departure.

Retention is down for a number of reasons: better paying jobs in the civilian sector for trained personnel; excessive time away from family; questionable career

choice due to the drawdown; lack of promotion opportunities; loss of confidence in

senior leadership; job dissatisfaction; shortfalls in personnel budget (PCS and SRB

delays); and erosion of retirement benefits.

The attrition rate among young men and women prior to completing their first

enlistment is also troubling. About one-third drop out for one reason or another. The

military must develop a better program to screen applicants. FRA recommends enactment of legislation allowing the military to review juvenile records of those seeking to join its ranks.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
701

For example, 24,604 of 39,496 of one military service’s accessions for 1996 required either drug or moral waivers. Some officials are convinced that these youths

will repeat similar offenses for which they were granted waivers prior to the end

of active service.

PAY AND ALLOWANCES

FRA is grateful for the enhancement of a number of compensation items in the

Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts. Most

noteworthy were the consolidation of the quarters and housing allowances, an increase in hazardous duty incentive pay, special pay for certain hardship duty

locales, bonuses in lieu of special pay for enlisted members extending certain overseas tours, etc. However, FRA was disappointed that Congress ‘‘reformed’’ the subsistence allowance.

Pay.—Last year FRA provided a chart depicting how the Administration, et al.,

determines annual military pay raises which are always 15 months behind the applicable Employment Cost Index (ECI). Every year the gap comparing military pay

with civilian wages, grows wider, and it now stands above the 13 percent mark.

Also included in last year’s presentation was an additional chart depicting the decline in the ratio of pay between a senior petty officer/noncommissioned officer and

a recruit seaman/private. Prior to the All Volunteer Force the ratio was 4.6:1. It is

now 2.6:1, indicating nearly a 44 percent decline. In pursuit of a justification for the

decline, which is not indicative in the commissioned officer pay grades, FRA heard

many excuses. Most prevalent was that junior personnel need more pay because

they’re married, have children, are on food stamps, in receipt of WIC, can’t afford

civilian rental and other costs including auto insurance, etc.

FRA firmly believes military personnel in the junior ranks should be paid adequate pay and allowances, but not at the expense of their senior enlisted leaders.

Hopefully, Congress hasn’t forgotten that it had to raise the pay of its senior enlisted service members in 1981 above that authorized for other pay grades. Petty

officers and non-commissioned officers in those pay grades were voting with their

feet. The Navy did not have enough experienced petty officers to take its ships to

sea. The Army was deeply concerned that its forces had become ‘‘hollow’’. Is Congress aware that the same problem is beginning to eat away at the senior and midlevel enlisted ranks?

FRA has turned on the caution light. The annual cry and hue for more junior enlisted pay is again heard however senior enlisted are not included.

Basic allowance for subsistence (BAS).—As stated above, FRA is extremely disappointed with Congress capping future BAS payments for career enlisted personnel

in order to better compensate non-career junior personnel. The Association finds this

unacceptable, not because the latter group is not deserving of recognition, but that

the law plays one against the other.

Sea pay.—For the past two years FRA surveyed Navy senior enlisted leaders as

to their thoughts concerning payment of sea pay to junior enlisted personnel (E1–

E3) serving aboard naval vessels whose more senior crew members are authorized

sea pay. The Association has received a strong affirmative, particularly from those

petty officers (and many officers) who serve or have been deployed aboard ship for

6 months or more. The idea came from a 1995 visit, in connection with the Defense

Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life, aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk and

U.S.S. Anchorage.

Recommendations.—In view of the above statements on Pay and Allowances, FRA

recommends the following Congressional actions.

—Narrow the pay gap between military pay and civilian wages by increasing military pay in accordance with the latest full ECI growth immediately prior to the

effective date of the pay raise.

—Gradually increase senior enlisted personnel basic pay to a level that is more

commensurate with their leadership roles.

—Revise Section 602 of Public Law 105–85 to provide equitable increases in BAS

for all enlisted personnel.

—Adopt sea pay for pay grades E1 thru E3 for those members assigned duty

aboard U.S. naval vessels deployed for 30 days or more.

Action taken on behalf of these recommendations should include authorizing and

appropriating additional funds without directing the Services to meet the obligation

under current funding policies.

HEALTH CARE

FRA has joined with The Military Coalition (TMC) in its request for enhanced

health care programs for uniformed services personnel. In a statement prepared for

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
702

the subcommittees having oversight of the military’s health care program, TMC

seeks improvements in TriCare, adoption of a Medicare subvention program for

those over-65 beneficiaries unable to access military treatment facilities, a widespread pharmaceutical drug mail-order program, and a Federal Employees Health

Benefit Program (FEHBP) test program for over-65 beneficiaries who have no access

to MTF’s or Medicare-contracted HMO’s.

COMMISSARIES

Commissaries are part of the military compensation package. The system has

been around long enough to become a permanent part of the military’s benefit package, especially for those who endure a career in the Armed Forces.

Nevertheless, the privilege to use or operate the commissaries has been under

continual scrutiny since the early 1970’s. It’s either close the stores, privatize them,

and/or increase the surcharge.

Currently, commissary operations are subsidized by Congressional appropriations,

and rightly so. The subsidy funds operating costs that include pay for the stores’

employees. It was Congress that mandated the services to provide pay and benefits

to the workers at identical wage scales afforded federal employees.

FRA urges Congress to continue to authorize and appropriate sufficient funds to

maintain the commissary program at the current level of service to its customers.

TRANSITION AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Efforts may be underway to abolish the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and

the Relocation Assistance Program. The reason given is that there is no longer any

use for them. FRA disagrees.

First, the ‘‘drawdown’’ in military manpower strengths may continue into fiscal

year 1999, despite FRA’s opposition. As long as that threat hangs over the heads

of our uniformed personnel, there is a compelling need for TAP.

Even if the ‘‘drawdown’’ is stopped for fiscal year 1999, FRA believes the military

services have an obligation to reward their honorably discharged members with a

program assisting in returning them to civilian life.

The Relocation Assistance Program is not, nor was it ever intended to be related

to TAP. It’s a program assisting service members transferred to new bases. Many

of the younger members, particularly those with families, welcome the assistance

when moving to a new base where everything is unfamiliar.

FRA urges Congress to fully fund both programs so that they may serve those

who serve or have served the Nation in uniform.

MILITARY RETIREMENT

Confusion over the three military retirement plans is causing concern for the

many uniformed service members contemplating a career in the Armed Forces.

Those entering the military after September 8, 1980 will soon be eligible for retirement. They probably know that the computation of their retired pay will produce

lower payments than those received by their comrades-in-arms whose entry dates

were prior to the 1980 date.

Service members with dates of entry after July 31, 1986, now second and third

term enlistees, are discovering that the retirement program they may look forward

to provides less financial rewards than those enlisting prior to the 1986 date and,

again, prior to 1980 date. They question whether further commitment as a member

of the active forces is worth the additional years of sacrifices and hardships.

If the post-1986 members stay, they face reduced pay over those retiring earlier,

however they must pay the same amount for the military’s health care (TriCare)

for themselves and their families.

FRA believes Congress should repeal the Military Retirement Reform Act, Public

Law 99–348, of July 1, 1986. Its effect on retention in the Armed Forces is now becoming clear. FRA predicts that this will get worse if Congress fails to take positive

action to make military retirement more attractive to the post-July 31, 1986 accessions.

Additionally, FRA recommends that Congress provide equitable cost-of-living adjustments (COLA’s) to all military retirees reduced only by the month retired, not

the year.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT

Many words have been written advocating the concurrent receipt of non-disability

military retired pay and veterans’ compensation without reduction in either payment. To date, Congress has seen fit to ignore this injustice and the issue continues

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
703

to be a ‘‘hot potato’’ for both the National Security/Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees.

This distinguished Subcommittee is familiar with the issue and legislation introduced by Rep. Michael Bilirakis of Florida. There are three bills, each covering a

broader number of recipients. FRA supports all three but realizes the costs associated with two of the bills are prohibitive. Therefore, the Association urges the adoption of H.R. 44 with a cost of $42 million per year. The legislation addresses the

need to supplement the income of the most disabled of military retirees.

SURVIVOR BENEFITS

FRA salutes Congress for enacting the ‘‘Forgotten Widows’’ legislation. It should

offer a bit more dignity to these ladies as well as some financial relief. The task

now is for DOD and the military/veterans organization to disseminate the word on

how to apply. Upon receipt of this information, FRA will give it widespread distribution throughout the Association’s membership.

There are two additional ‘‘fixes’’ FRA wishes Congress to address for fiscal year

1999. The first concerns surviving souses of service members formerly in receipt of

Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) who lost it upon remarriage. A few

years ago these spouses were authorized resumption of payments if their subsequent marriage terminated upon death or divorce. The Association seeks this subcommittee’s support in urging the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs to reauthorize

and fund receipt of DIC payments to these spouses. (38 USC applies.)

The second issue is authorization for a paid-up option in the Survivor Benefit

Plan (SBP). Currently there is considerable discontent with SBP premiums-for-life

provisions. Once the participant reaches a more senior year in life, he/she questions

the value in continuing the plan. More serious attention is brought to the issue

when the covered spouse attains the age of 62. For most participants, once the

spouse becomes eligible for Social Security benefits, the 55 percent-of-retired-pay

promise drops to 35 percent.

In a July 1996 DOD study of SBP, it was discovered that the government’s statutory contribution of 40 percent has dropped to 26 percent. FRA believes there is justification to seek an amendment to SBP (10 USC 1447–1460) to offer the retireeparticipant a paid-up plan once he or she attains the age of 70, or pays premiums

into the plan for 30 years, whichever occurs first. (The Association is in support of

the position advocated by The Military Coalition (TMC) on this issue.)

UNIFORMED SERVICES THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN (USTSP)

FRA strongly supports encouraging personnel to save money for future financial

needs, however the Association is opposed to the proposed USTSP plan because it

is flawed. Despite assurances that the proposal is for all military personnel, junior

enlisted service members, for the most part, will not be able to participate. Money

is tight, particularly for those who are married.

As a representative of enlisted Sea Service personnel, FRA has received only a

few requests from its members urging support of the plan. Other considerations prevent the Association from seeking the enactment of the proposal and FRA will be

pleased, if requested, to share them with the Subcommittee.

MONTGOMERY GI BILL AND VEAP

In 1996 legislation was enacted authorizing service members enrolled in the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill

(MGIB), a more generous plan. The law provided that members with active VEAP

accounts on October 9, 1996 would be eligible to take advantage of the conversion

opportunity. However, a legal interpretation of the law later required members to

still have money in the account in order to be considered ‘‘active.’’ This

disenfranchised thousands of members who had been counseled by the services to

withdraw the funds in their accounts.

Many of the Association’s members have expressed frustration over the issue.

Since the counseling was in error, FRA seeks the Subcommittee’s support in the allocation of additional funds in the Veterans’ Affairs budget with an authorization

in order to expand the number of members who may convert.

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Most issues addressed above also apply to the Reserve enlisted members of the

Navy and Marine Corps, and somewhat to the Coast Guard. FRA also recommends

your favorable consideration of the following proposals.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
704

—Amend the IRS Tax Code to authorize tax deductions for un-reimbursed expenses involved in travel and transportation to and from Reserve drill sites.

—Require that the States not calculate remuneration for Reserve services when

computing unemployment compensation.

—Authorize a test of unlimited commissary privileges for Reservists and, if successful, authorize full time access.

The Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Reserves add greatly to the capability

and combat readiness of their respective services. Maintaining their well-being and

combat readiness in recognition of their contributions to today’s demanding optempo

is a must. Every taxpayer dollar to fund the reserve components provides a threefold or greater return on the investment.

CONCLUSION

Mister Chairman, FRA Shipmates wish to express their sincere appreciation to

you and members of the Subcommittee for your tremendous support of the men and

women serving in our Nation’s Uniformed Services. Thanks to your commitment

and leadership, the quality of life for our military personnel has significantly improved in recent years.

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. I thank you very much, sir. I can assure you that the committee’s concern echoes yours. We are very

much concerned about retention and recruiting. Signs are beginning to show that we may be headed for trouble down the road.

Mr. CALKINS. Well, I just had a discussion with our new MCPON

this morning over at our headquarters. And he has had roughly 20

audiences since he has been in office. And his comment to me was:

Chuck, please help us do something, because we have really got a

problem. And like he said, it is coming not only from the secondand third-termers, but from the first-termers, as well. They are

taking a look down the line.

And we would appreciate any help you could give us on that,

Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. CALKINS. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ANN KOLKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE: OVAR’COMING TOGETHER

Senator INOUYE. May I now call upon Ms. Ann Kolker, Executive

Director, Ovarian Cancer National Alliance.

Ms. Kolker, welcome.

Ms. KOLKER. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much for the

opportunity to testify at this important hearing. And thank you,

Senator Inouye and other members of the committee, for including,

and last year increasing, critically needed funds for ovarian cancer

research in the Congressional Special Interest Research Program.

I am Ann Kolker, a founder, and now the Executive Director of

the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance. The Alliance was formed

last summer, and it is the creation of leaders from the growing

number of ovarian cancer groups across the country. These groups

united to establish an umbrella organization, the Alliance, in order

to have a coordinated effort that will put ovarian cancer policy,

education and research issues squarely on the national agenda.

Our statement today marks our first public appearance here in

the Senate.

I also serve as the consumer representative on the integration

panel of the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program. As you and

other members of the committee are aware I am certain, the Ovarian Cancer Research Program is still in its first funding cycle. So

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
705

there is not a track record yet for this program as there is for the

Breast Cancer Research Program, for example. We look to the success of that effort to inform the expansion of the Ovarian Cancer

Program.

On behalf of the Alliance, I have a straightforward message:

Ovarian cancer research has, to date, been drastically underfunded.

It is urgent that policymakers dramatically expand resources devoted to this disease. The goal must be to increase in a significant

way the ovarian cancer survival rate, which is so poor that this disease has the unwelcome distinction of being the deadliest of the female cancers.

Ovarian cancer is indeed life threatening. More than 50 percent

of the women who have it die within 5 years of diagnosis. That is

because unfortunately, in at least 70 percent of cases, women are

not diagnosed until the cancer has reached an advanced stage,

when it is often too late to cure. But, as with other cancers, when

women are diagnosed in early stages—which occurs in less than

one-quarter of the cases—the 5-year survival rate is over 90 percent. And I was very fortunate to be diagnosed in this stage.

The key to improved survival is of course early detection. And for

ovarian cancer, a critical component of earlier detection is a better

understanding of key scientific aspects of the disease. But this will

only happen if research is substantially increased. The creation of

the Ovarian Cancer Research Program several years ago, and last

year’s expanded appropriation of $10 million, were important steps

in that direction.

Today we ask you to consider a significant funding increase for

the program. It is essential to build on the work that is just underway and to bolster research on a disease that each year kills onethird as many women as breast cancer but receives less than onetenth the dedicated research dollars in the DOD budget.

Our goal, as a part of this research, is to develop a screening tool

that is reliable and affordable and easy to administer. There is no

screening tool for ovarian cancer in the way that there is for cervical cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer. And until this is

done, early detection of ovarian cancer will continue to elude too

many women and their families. Thousands and thousands of

women will needlessly die. It is our strong hope that the research

funded through this important program will ultimately yield a

screening instrument.

The 183,000 women currently living with ovarian cancer, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters, and the millions of at-risk

women around the country, and all of our families look to your support for increasing the resources dedicated to this lethal disease.

Thank you very, very much.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Ms. Kolker.

At this moment, the Department of Defense Medical Department

is in the process of developing a simple, reliable screening process.

Ms. KOLKER. We hope this happens in an expeditious way.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Ms. KOLKER. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
706

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN KOLKER

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing.

I am Ann Kolker, a founder and now executive director of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance: Ovar’coming Together. The Alliance, formed last summer, is the creation of leaders from the growing number of ovarian cancer groups across the country. These groups united to establish an umbrella group, the Alliance, in order to

have a coordinated, professionally managed effort that will put ovarian cancer policy, education and research issues squarely on the agenda of national policy makers

and leaders in women’s health. This statement, which addresses the importance of

the Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program to our community,

marks our first public appearance here in the Senate.

I also serve as a consumer representative on the Integration Panel of DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP). As members of the Committee are aware,

the OCRP is still in its first funding cycle. This means there is no track record yet

for the ovarian cancer program, as there is for other research efforts supported

through the Congressional Special Interest Research Program. Many of us in the

ovarian cancer community are aware of the success of the Breast Cancer Research

Program. We look to that effort to inform the expansion and development of the

ovarian cancer program.

On behalf of the Alliance, I have a straightforward message: ovarian cancer research has to date, been drastically under funded. It is urgent that policy makers

dramatically expand resources devoted to this disease. The Alliance is grateful to

this Committee for including $10 million for ovarian cancer research in the Congressional Special Interest Research Program for fiscal year 1998. However, there is a

critical need for more funds in the coming year. We must make an all out effort

to increase, in a significant way, the ovarian cancer survival rate—which is so poor

that this disease has the unwelcome distinction of being the deadliest of the female

cancers.

Ovarian cancer is life threatening: more than 50 percent of the women who have

it die within five years of diagnosis. That is because in at least 70 percent of cases,

women are not diagnosed until the cancer has reached an advanced stage, when it

is often too late to cure. In these all too common cases, the fatality rate is an alarming 80 percent. But when women are diagnosed in first stage, which occurs in less

than one-quarter of cases, the five year survival rate is over 90 percent. I was fortunate to be diagnosed in this stage.

There is of course, more than one reason for these sobering statistics. Let me talk

first about the one that this committee is in a position to address. Scientific research

is drastically under funded. Knowledge about key aspects of ovarian cancer is so

limited that diagnostic tools are too often imprecise and there is no simple, reliable

screening mechanism for the general population. As is the case with other cancers,

the key to improved survival is early detection. But for ovarian cancer—there are

no early detection tools that work for the general population. These life-saving

measures will only be found when more research funding is made available.

The creation of the Ovarian Cancer Research Program several years ago, and last

year’s expanded appropriation of $10 million, were important steps, in that direction. Today we ask you to consider a significant funding increase, in order to build

on the work that is just underway in the Ovarian Cancer Research Program, and

to bolster research on a disease that each year kills one-third as many women as

breast cancer, but receives less than one-tenth the dedicated research dollars in the

DOD budget.

An ultimate goal of the Alliance is to prevent ovarian cancer. But, until this happens, an immediate priority is to increase the research dedicated to advancing scientific understanding. This in turn, will lead to a substantial increase in the early

detection rate—particularly if the research community can identify bio and other

markers that will improve diagnostic tools and result in the development of a reliable screening mechanism, as simple and accessible as the Pap smear is for cervical

cancer, the mammogram for breast cancer or the PSA test for prostate cancer.

We know that the incidence of ovarian cancer is not nearly as great as breast,

cervical or prostate cancer—the one good thing going for ovarian cancer. However,

experience has shown us that early detection saves lives: the introduction of the Pap

smear, and the use of mammography—even with their limitations—have dramatically improved early detection of cervical and breast cancer, and spared many people

with these terrible diseases the early death sentence that 75 percent of women with

ovarian cancer face.

For the Alliance, the development of a screening device that is affordable, reliable,

and easy to administer is a top priority. Until this is done, early detection will continue to elude too many women and their families. Thousands and thousands of

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
707

women will needlessly continue to die. It is our strong hope that the research funded through this important program will ultimately yield such an instrument.

I don’t want to leave the committee with the impression that the only reason for

the very low rate of early detections is the dearth of research. Another critical factor

is the limited awareness of the disease’s subtle symptoms in the general medical

community. Because it is not a common disease—affecting only 1 in 55 women—

it is not ‘‘on the screen’’ of many internists and family physicians—the doctors who

first see women who report abdominal discomfort, bloating, bleeding or some of the

other common, but vague, symptoms. As a result, doctors often misinterpret these

symptoms—telling their patients that their complaints ‘‘come with the territory of

middle age’’ or referring them to gastroenterologists. All the while of course, the

cancer is advancing, and the woman’s chances of being treated in time to be cured

diminish. Gaining the attention of the medical community about ovarian cancer will

also help to increase early detection, and ultimately improve survivor outcome.

Another reason for the high mortality rate is that women themselves are not sufficiently aware of this disease. And even women with more explicit risk factors—

women who have never had a child, or who have a strong family history of ovarian,

breast or colon cancer—for example—cannot be assumed to be alert to the disease.

This awareness problem is compounded by the fact that the symptoms may be subtle, such as unexplained fatigue, loss of appetite, nausea or constipation, and not

necessarily unique to ovarian cancer. Broad-based public education programs will go

a long way to inform women that when that when these symptoms persist over

time, or changes in their bodies tell them ‘‘something is definitely wrong, ’’ they

must request testing for ovarian cancer, as well as for the litany of intestinal maladies that they are usually tested for. In short, increased awareness among both physicians and consumers should lead to more early stage diagnoses, and improved survival over time.

Those of us working with the Alliance are aware that there is vital research on

many aspects of ovarian cancer taking place at cancer centers and in the private

sector across the country. Indeed, without the dramatic advances that have been

made in the past few years in treating ovarian cancer, many women, including myself, would not be around, or certainly, would not have active lives. For ‘‘a new lease

on life’’ we are grateful to those who have conducted the research and trials that

have led to improved therapies. We urge that as research is expanded to new areas,

the important efforts to develop more effective treatments for advanced stage and

treatment resistant disease continue to move forward.

In the past couple of years some new monies—both public and private—have been

designated for ovarian cancer research. An infusion of new funds—particularly from

this committee—has expanded the avenues of inquiry that can be pursued—and

that is an exciting development. However, as we all know, much more remains to

be done. It is essential to gain a better understanding of key scientific aspects of

ovarian cancer, in order to increase dramatically the percentage of cases diagnosed

in early stage, when the prospects of survival are very high, and to prevent recurrence, which plagues so many women.

Thank you for your attention to this important women’s health issues. The

183,000 women currently living with ovarian cancer, our sisters, daughters and

granddaughters, the millions of at-risk women around the country, and all of our

families look to your support for increasing the resources dedicated to this lethal

disease.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE, COLONEL, USA (RETIRED),

NATIONAL MILITARY AND VETERANS ALLIANCE

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is Colonel Charles C. Partridge, Legislative Counsel, National Association for Uniformed

Services.

Colonel Partridge, welcome, sir.

Colonel PARTRIDGE. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye, for

the opportunity to testify before this committee.

The National Association for Uniformed Services and the National Military Veterans Alliance’s primary concern is the current

problems in medical care with the Department of Defense. And I

know that this committee, over the past 5 years, has increased

spending for the Defense Health Program nearly a billion dollars

over what was requested by the Department of Defense. We appreU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
708

ciate your support in that. We also appreciate the support of this

committee for medicare subvention, which is being developed now

as a demonstration program.

Our problem today is that even when all of these programs are

put into effect, there will still be some 40 to 50 percent of military

beneficiaries who will have no benefit. They will have no access to

the military hospitals even when medicare subvention is fully in

place, or they live in a location where they cannot access a military

hospital. Because at age 65, under the current law, military retirees are the only Federal employees who lose their guaranteed employer-provided benefit. At age 65, they have no guarantees. If they

can get in a military hospital, if the space is there, if the drugs are

there, of course they get them. Otherwise they do not.

We think medicare subvention will help, but it will not be the

full solution. We think the complete solution is enacting the Federal Employees Health Benefit plan for military retirees, particularly those over 65. With the enactment of this program nationwide, it would provide access to all beneficiaries. They would have

a benefit just as Federal civilians have from the time they enter

the service until the time they leave it. Now they do not have that.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has taken a step in the

right direction. They have a provision in the current defense bill

that would provide for a demonstration of the Federal Employees

Health Benefit Program. The problem is it is too small and it is underfunded. And what we would like this committee to do is to add

something like $100 million for the purpose of carrying out this

program this coming year. And then, if we could add $100 million

a year for the next 4 years, we believe that would be a good start

toward solving this problem.

That concludes my statement, Senator Inouye. If you have any

questions, I would be glad to answer them.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator INOUYE. Well, my concerns are your concerns. And I believe that promises made must be kept.

Colonel PARTRIDGE. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Colonel, we will do our best.

Colonel PARTRIDGE. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, NAUS and the National Military and Veterans Alliance would like to express its appreciation to you

for holding these important hearings. The testimony provided here represents the

collective views of our members.

The Alliance includes 15 military and veterans organizations. These organizations

represent over 3,500,000 members of the seven uniformed services, officer and enlisted, active duty, reserve, National Guard, retired and other veterans plus their

families and survivors. These organizations whose top priority is a strong national

defense are listed below:

Naval Enlisted Reserve Association

American Military Retirees Association

American Retirees Association

Gold Star Wives of America

Korean War Veterans Association

Military Order of the Purple Heart

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
709

Military Order of the World Wars

National Assn. for Uniformed Services

Naval Reserve Association

Non Commissioned Officers Assn.

The Retired Enlisted Association

Society of Medical Consultants to the

Armed Forces

Tragedy Assistance Prog for Survivors

Veterans of Foreign Wars

Medical care along with adequate pay and inflation protected retired pay and

commissaries are the top concerns of the military community. With base and hospital closures and reductions in medical personnel, the increasing lack of available

health care continues to be a major concern to active and retired personnel alike.

We want to thank the committee for its long standing interest in Military Health

Care and for its support for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for

military retirees.

BACKGROUND

The military health system has several missions, first and foremost is caring for

active duty troops and maintaining military medical care readiness, readiness training and contingency operations as well as providing care for active duty family

members; continuing to provide promised, lifetime medical care to military retirees,

and their family members. To carry out these missions, top quality personnel to

staff military medical units, hospitals and clinics are essential. These personnel are

attracted to military medicine through the Uniformed Services University of the

Health Sciences, the U.S. Health Profession Scholarship Program and quality graduate medical education programs sponsored by the various military medical services. Each is an important element of the system and are all linked together.

A military medical system is necessary to support not only the present active

forces but also to meet future requirements. To attract, maintain and properly certify highly qualified medical professionals requires assuring them that they will

have a complete range of patients with varied health problems to include older retirees. They can’t be adequately trained treating only young (average 23) service members and young family members. This means it is imperative to maintain a strong,

vibrant, capable direct care system.

CURRENT

The direct care system coupled with TRICARE Prime, Extra and Standard along

with Medicare Subvention and increased cooperation between DOD and DVA should

result in adequate care for all eligible beneficiaries. Unfortunately, military personnel are increasingly being disenfranchised and DOD has not yet developed a plan

that will provide an adequate health care option for all DOD beneficiaries. In addition, the TRICARE system is flawed. Some of the problems and recommendations

for solving them follow:

A DOD study found that TRICARE administrative costs are far too high. Each

Managed Care support contract proposal costs millions of dollars, each winner can

expect a protest from the losers costing more millions. More money is being spent

on medical administration and less on the patient. We believe this committee should

direct a review of alternative means of procuring private sector healthcare to supplement the Military healthcare system. Pending that review, current contracts in

the Western regions which will soon require recompeting should be extended. The

extension would provide badly needed program stability before starting another

round of contracting.

While we support expanding TRICARE Prime beyond catchment areas, some

areas are too sparsely populated to create networks. If the TRICARE Standard benefit were adequate, beneficiaries in those areas could still be served. However, the

CHAMPUS Maximum Allowance Charge (CMAC) is too low. The CMAC should be

linked to the service benefit plan of the Federal Employees Benefits Program plan

benefit as Congress originally directed, rather than the Medicare rate. DOD has also

reduced the value of TRICARE Standard/CHAMPUS when it is used as second

payer to other insurance. When CHAMPUS/TRICARE Standard is used as a second

payer it is based on ‘‘benefits-less-benefits’’ rather than a ‘‘coordination of benefits’’

basis. As a result beneficiaries usually receive no benefits from CHAMPUS as second payer. The coordination of benefits method should be restored and legislative

provisions put in place to keep it.

The TRICARE Point of Service (P.O.S.) option for enrollees in the Prime program is too expensive at $300/$600 deductibles and 50 percent copay. The P.O.S. option

should be changed to the TRICARE Standard rate, $150/$300 and 25 percent copay.

We have seen no evidence of abuse of the P.O.S. option and believe that the standard deductible and copays are enough to prevent frivolous use. Further, there

should be no requirement to obtain advance authorization to use the P.O.S. option.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
710

The VA is a TRICARE subcontractor in some regions. Currently, copays are the

same whether beneficiaries use the VA or civilian providers. Military personnel believe that VA hospitals/clinics should be given the same status as MTF’s for

TRICARE purposes and that copays be waived if beneficiaries obtain their care at

VA hospitals and clinics.

MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT (SUBVENTION)

We welcome the Medicare reimbursement demonstration project which is authorized at six sites in 10 locations. We hope that the program can be rapidly expanded

to serve more beneficiaries at more sites and full implementation expedited. According to the GAO (GAO/T/HEH5–97–84 Feb 97) no more than 75,000 of the 1.2 million

Medicare eligible beneficiaries can be accommodated by military treatment facilities

even after the program is fully expanded throughout the United States. DOD expects to care for additional Medicare eligibles in the TRICARE Networks; however,

it is clear that all Medicare eligibles will not be served and that another option is

needed. We will address this issue later.

MEDICARE SUBVENTION PPO OPTION

Last year Medicare reform legislation also provided for the first time for a Medicare Preferred Provider Option demonstration project. Unfortunately, the DOD/

Medicare Subvention agreement allows only a test of an HMO option which DOD

plans to do through the TRICARE Seniors program. We believe the PPO Option

should be added to the DOD/Medicare demonstration project. This has the potential

for the biggest benefit to DOD and the largest savings to the Medicare Program.

It would be a more acceptable option to retirees than the TRICARE Partners or Affinity program that will be part of the Subvention demonstration.

FEHBP OPTION

DOD has not yet submitted a plan that would provide a health care option for

all military beneficiaries. Furthermore, when they do so we expect it to be in the

form of demonstrations, tests and phases that will take three or more years to fully

implement. It will probably be 10 to 12 months after legislation is enacted before

the first military retiree is enrolled in the Medicare subvention test, and as pointed

out earlier even when fully implemented in 3 years or so, very few retirees will have

access. We need an option that can be implemented next year. We believe that the

best, most cost effective option is authorizing retirees to participate in the Federal

Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). With this Committee taking the

lead, retirees could begin receiving care in the FEHB Program in 1999. Several bills

have been introduced during this Congress to deal with this issue. Senators Strom

Thurmond, Paul Coverdell and Lauch Faircloth have introduced S. 1963, which

would provide the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program beginning next year.

Costs are controlled by capping the program at $100 million for fiscal year 1999 and

increasing by $100 million per year until it reaches $500 million in 2003. At about

that time some DOD demonstration programs should begin to open up for participation and military FEHBP participants would have the option of leaving FEHBP for

one of the DOD programs. Our estimates indicate that some 30 percent of retirees

would select the FEHBP option. The death rate of older military retirees, especially

those of WWII and Korea is close to 3,000 per month. They need access to health

care now, not five to seven years from now when it would be too late. Now is the

time to act. We must not continue to allow the decline in availability of medical care

to disenfranchise military retirees and their families.

UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES

The Alliance thanks this committee for its strong support for providing necessary

funding for the continued operations of the Uniformed Services University of the

Health Sciences. Study after study has shown that when all factors are considered

USUHS is more cost effective that the U.S. Health Profession Scholarship Program.

We urge you to continue your support for this school which is a national resource.

RETIREE DENTAL PROGRAM

The unsubsidized Retiree Dental Program which recently began enrolling retirees

has already signed up over 100,000 military families. The program should be reviewed as we obtain experience this year to determine what adjustments in benefits

should be made to meet the needs of beneficiaries and remain cost effective to them.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
711

UNIFORMED SERVICES FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (USFHP)

The nine Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities continue to treat military beneficiaries through their USFHP which is a very popular program. They use the same

fee structure as TRICARE providers. The Facilities offer the only DOD sponsored

program that is keeping the military healthcare promise by guaranteeing care to

Medicare eligible military beneficiaries fortunate enough to live near them and obtain care there. We thank this committee for its support for the USTF’s in the past

and urge you to continue to support their operation.

CLOSING

Mr. Chairman, the National Military Veterans Alliance thanks you and this subcommittee for holding this hearing and we urge immediate action to enact FEHBP

legislation now, so that military beneficiaries can begin enrolling and receiving care

in fiscal year 1999.

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. CROWLEY, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS, ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT POLICY BOARD FOR MATHEMATICS

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is Dr. James Crowley, Executive Director of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,

Joint Policy Board for Mathematics.

Dr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Senator Inouye, for the opportunity to

comment on the fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Department

of Defense.

Today, I would like to address DOD’s investment in basic research, or 6.1 research as it is known to DOD. As I noted in my

written statement, I worked for DOD in various scientific capacities

for 22 years, so I am very familiar with the importance of basic research to the defense mission. I have seen firsthand how the results of basic research are incorporated into defense technologies

and systems for the ultimate benefit of our defense forces, the

American taxpayers, and our national security.

I am very concerned, Senator, that the buying power of DOD’s

support for basic research has dropped dramatically in recent

years—by 18 percent since 1994. And I included a chart in my

written statement that shows this.

Moreover, these funding levels are well below historical levels of

investment in defense basic research. Those past investments

played a critical role in enabling today’s DOD to meet the Nation’s

defense needs through superior and cost-effective military technologies.

The reduced budgets have had a staggering effect on the DOD

research agencies’ ability to maintain the strength of their programs. For example, in the mathematical and computational

sciences, the scope of promising research that DOD has identified

as relevant to its mission has been curtailed, and whole thrusts of

research have had to have been eliminated in some programs. The

opportunities lost are not insignificant.

The funding erosion in DOD’s basic research programs must be

stemmed if we are going to achieve our national security objectives

in the future. We urge the subcommittee to begin restoring the

buying power of defense basic research by fully funding DOD’s request for basic research. We must start reversing the downward

funding trend. And enacting the relatively modest proposed increase for fiscal year 1999 would be a crucial first step.

Let me say a few words about what basic research means to

DOD. You are no doubt aware of the importance of long-term funU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
712

damental research. I would also point out that some of the research

supported through the 6.1 account is not as long term as you might

think. In many cases, university researchers have been brought in

for special expertise to help resolve real-time scientific and technical challenges.

And this raises a critical point: by engaging the Nation’s research

universities in defense-related problems, DOD ensures itself access

not only to today’s researchers and the latest discoveries, but also

to graduate students, whose involvement in defense-related research helps guarantee the production of mathematicians, scientists and engineers who can contribute to meeting defense needs

in the future, to tackling long-term research problems and being

able for DOD to call on more immediate ones.

I have given several examples in the testimony, and time will not

permit me to go through all of them. I have given just a few from

one area of research in the written statement, but there are countless others from all areas of science and engineering which show

the critical nature of research to improvement and cost-effective

technology for national defense.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you, and I hope you will

remember the critical importance, but sometimes hidden impact, of

basic research on defense capacities.

Thank you, Senator, and I am glad to answer any questions you

might have.

Senator INOUYE. Dr. Crowley, I thank you very much. We have

one problem. It is easy to sell applied research, because most people can see the end product. You should help us sell basic research.

If you have any ideas on how we can convince our colleagues,

please share it with us.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Dr. CROWLEY. I would be happy to do that.

I think the basic research that is supported by the DOD agencies

is different from, in some ways, basic research in other areas, in

that as mission agencies, the areas chosen for basic research are

those that do have an impact on DOD needs. And so I think it is

important to maintain the basic research because it will feed into

technologies in the future.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir.

Dr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Senator.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES M. CROWLEY

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you

very much for this opportunity to comment on fiscal year 1999 appropriations for

the Department of Defense. I am James Crowley, Executive Director of the Society

for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) in Philadelphia. I speak on behalf

of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (JPBM), which is a collaboration of three

professional societies, including SIAM, the American Mathematical Society, and the

Mathematical Association of America. These organizations have a combined membership of over 57,000 mathematical scientists and educators whose concerns encompass fundamental and interdisciplinary research in mathematics; the applications of mathematics to science, engineering, industry, and business; and mathematics education at all levels.

Today I would like to address DOD’s investment in basic research, also known

in DOD budgetary parlance as 6.1 research. Let me start by noting that from 1988

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
713

to 1994, while I was an officer in the Air Force, I served as the Director of the Mathematical and Information Sciences Directorate at the Air Force Office of Scientific

Research (AFOSR), then as Assistant Chief Scientist at the Air Force Systems Command at Andrews AFB, and then as Manager of the Applied and Computational

Mathematics Program at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),

so I’m very familiar with the importance of basic research to the defense mission.

I’ve seen first-hand how the results of basic research are incorporated into defense

technologies and systems for the ultimate benefit of our defense forces, American

taxpayers, and our national security. Furthermore, DOD’s 6.1 activities are an essential component of maintaining the United States’ world leadership in mathematics, science, and engineering research.

The buying power of DOD’s support for basic research has dropped dramatically

in recent years—by 18 percent since fiscal year 1994, as you can see from the chart

I’ve included below. Moreover, these funding levels are well below historical levels

of investment in defense basic research. Those past investments played a critical

role in enabling today’s DOD to meet the Nation’s defense needs through superior

and cost-effective military technologies.

DOD SUPPORT FOR BASIC RESEARCH (6.1)

[In millions; constant dollars determined using OMB’s latest GDP deflator]

Fiscal year—

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 estimate

1999 request

Current dollars ......................................... $1,167 $1,227 $1,099 $1,032 $1,042 $1,111

Constant 1992 dollars ............................. 1,111 1,138 997 958 907 948

The main point I would like to make today, Mr. Chairman, is that the funding

erosion in DOD’s basic research programs must be stemmed if we’re going to

achieve our national security objectives into the future. We urge the subcommittee

to begin restoring the buying power of defense basic research by providing DOD’s

request of $1.11 billion for the 6.1 account in fiscal year 1999. You will note from

my chart above that the requested amount does not even bring funding up to the

constant dollar value of last year’s basic research budget. But we must start reversing the downward funding trend, and enacting the relatively modest proposed increase for fiscal year 1999 would be a crucial first step.

Let me say a few words about what basic research means to the DOD. First of

all, maintaining a robust long-term basic research program is essential to ongoing

efforts to develop new technologies, improve existing ones, and employ them as effectively as possible in the service of national security.

Secondly, some of the research supported through the 6.1 account is not as longterm as you might think. In many cases—and I’m thinking just of cases involving

the mathematical sciences, which I know best, but this is no doubt true for other

areas as well—university researchers have been brought in for special expertise to

help solve real-time scientific and technical challenges faced by military personnel,

the defense laboratories, or DOD contractors.

And this leads me to perhaps the most critical point here. By engaging the Nation’s research universities in defense-related problems, DOD ensures itself access

to top researchers and the latest discoveries in pursuit of its R&D objectives. Not

just today’s researchers but the next generation as well. The support DOD provides

for graduate students in defense-related research areas helps guarantee the production of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers who can contribute to meeting defense needs in the future.

I would again refer to my first-hand knowledge of how valuable it is for DOD to

maintain a productive relationship with universities for the reasons I’ve cited. At

DARPA especially it is a specific goal to seek out academic researchers who can help

solve defense-related problems and link them up with their counterparts in DOD

laboratories and in industry to tackle both short- and long-term problems.

The defense agencies that sponsor basic research—the Army Research Office

(ARO) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR), as well as AFOSR and DARPA—

have an excellent track record for making decisions about which areas are vital to

DOD’s technology goals and which researchers are best able to mine the scientific

opportunities for contributions to national security. Rigorous internal decision-making processes guide these investments to ensure both scientific excellence and consistency with DOD’s strategic priorities.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
714

The spending cuts in basic research have had a staggering effect on these agencies’ ability to maintain the strength of their programs. In the mathematical and

computational sciences, the scope of promising research that DOD has identified as

relevant to its mission has been curtailed and whole thrusts of research have had

to be eliminated in some programs. The opportunities lost are not insignificant.

I’ll mention the impact on another agency that is especially relevant to the mathematical sciences—the National Security Agency. The NSA is the Nation’s largest

employer of mathematical scientists, and of course its in-house research activities

are highly classified. In 1984, NSA initiated a competitive grants program to support unclassified academic research in several mathematical fields, including cryptography, which, I’m sure you know, is important in the making and breaking of

codes. The establishment of the program was a response to a sharp decline in the

number of Americans earning advanced degrees in the mathematical sciences. Although that number has stabilized, U.S. citizens still earn less than half of the

mathematical doctorates awarded by U.S. institutions. Yet the purchasing power of

NSA’s external grants program has been dropping steadily during the 1990’s; its

budget will have declined by 50 percent in real terms between fiscal year 1990 and

fiscal year 1998.

Finally let me illustrate my remarks about DOD’s investment in basic research

and its contributions to the national defense with some examples. You are no doubt

familiar with how quickly advances in computer hardware are developed and incorporated into the state-of-the-art—computer speed doubles every one and a half

years, for example. Less well known but equally important is the fact that new and

improved mathematical algorithms, which are the basis of all computer software,

also contribute to this remarkable trend. In fact, the fanciest computer hardware

would be useless without equally sophisticated advances in mathematical modeling

and algorithm development. Let me cite a couple of cases in which DOD support

has facilitated breakthroughs in this area:

—Research during the past 25 years has led to the development of mathematical

techniques underlying computer programs that can easily manipulate geometric

objects. The techniques are now embedded in a wide range of applications, including the high-performance computers used in aircraft design and other modern CAD/CAM packages that make rapid prototyping and computer-aided design possible. One unexpected use of these techniques is in film animation, as

demonstrated in the widely popular movie, ‘‘Toy Story’’. But these same tools

are being used by defense contractors to cut the development time and cost for

new aircraft and other major DOD purchases.

—Mathematics can be used to model, or predict, how radar waves behave when

scattered off of surfaces such as aircraft bodies. But the resulting equations are

complicated, and getting computers to solve them is not a straightforward process. Advances in the development of computational algorithms that can solve

these equations are enabling the design and testing of stealth technology in

simulation—that is, on computers—before any actual fabrication begins. The

modeling of radar-wave scattering continues to be a challenging mathematical

and computational problem, and we are just starting to see how powerful the

resulting tools can be.

The potential impact of mathematical modeling and computational simulation on

meeting the needs of DOD expands with advances in computers and in mathematics

itself. For example, a recent DOD initiative in modeling, simulation, and control of

fabrication processes for thin films promises to deliver new, more reliable and economical processing techniques for critical thin films. Thin films of semiconductor

material have many uses in electronic components. Thin films of super-conducting

material could lead to compact, high performance microwave filters for wireless and

aerospace communications. But thin films are not easy to manufacture. Small variations in the composition or shape of the material can render a component useless.

Getting machines to process thin films smoothly, evenly, and without variations at

the microscopic level is a challenge that is being addressed with the application of

mathematics. The strict requirements can be met with intelligent manufacturing

using predictive computer models and model-based control of the manufacturing

processes. To achieve this will require considerable research in mathematical techniques, including mathematical modeling and development of new numerical methods.

I hope these examples demonstrate how basic research is an essential component

of the defense enterprise. This concludes my testimony today. I truly appreciate this

opportunity to talk to you about the impact of defense basic research. Again, thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to answer any questions you might have.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
715

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. WHISTON, D.D.S., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

DENTAL ASSOCIATION

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is Dr. David A. Whiston,

President, American Dental Association.

Welcome, Dr. Whiston.

Dr. WHISTON. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye. It is a

pleasure to be here.

As you mentioned, my name is Dave Whiston. I am President of

the American Dental Association [ADA]. I practice dentistry across

the river, in Arlington, Virginia. I appreciate the opportunity to be

here.

I would like to talk just briefly about two specific items. One is

the flexibility of being able to offer multi-year contracts to military

dental officers. And the second is the unique quality of military

dental research.

I want to thank you, first, though, Senator, and the subcommittee, for the great support you have given us over the past several

years relative to pay parity issues—specifically, special pay issues

and the accession bonuses. That was a great start on the recruitment side of the equation, where we have had some problems. Now

we would like to address the retention side of the issue. We are

having great problems with retention of Federal dental officers.

In fact, now we are short in access of 300 offices. The projection

over the next several years by DOD is that the shortage will double. And what we are seeing now is that after 10 years, we are only

seeing a retention rate of 26 percent. After 20 years, it is only 13

percent. And DOD’s most conservative estimates indicate it should

be at least 3 times that 13 percent level.

It used to be, in 1982, the average Federal dental officer would

remain in the service 11.8 years. Less than 15 years later, in 1996,

they only stay in about 7 years. So there are some real problems,

some real shortages that we see, much of it related to income, comparable income of Federal officers versus private practitioners.

But the net effect is that of active duty personnel, one of seven

are non-deployable for dental reasons. One of seven active duty

personnel are non-deployable because of dental problems. What we

would like to see, to impact this side of the equation, is at least

the flexibility to be able to offer multi-year contracts, preferably 4-

year contracts, to Federal officers, so that we could impact the retention side of the equation. We respectfully request an $8.6 million addition to the fiscal year

1999 budget, to be able to offer these multi-year contracts.

On the dental research side—and just to briefly characterize

that—military dental research is dental research that is not duplicated anywhere in the private sector. We are talking about dental

research aimed at specific dental field equipment, research aimed

at developing materials which are not environmentally sensitive,

and which would impact the statistic now, which is a pretty glaring

one, which is that 16 percent of all active duty personnel, 16 percent each year, must be evacuated for dental reasons.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, we realize you have great demands, specific demands, in the

defense budget for critical defense dollars, and we understand that,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
716

but in order to address the recruitment and retention side of the

equation and the preparedness side, relative to evacuations, we respectfully request your consideration of the $8.6 million relative to

the flexibility of offering multi-year contracts, and $4 million in fiscal year 1999 for the purposes of specific military dental research,

again, to impact on that non-deployability side of the equation as

well as the evacuation side of the equation.

Thank you very much, Senator, for the opportunity to be here

today.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID A. WHISTON

On behalf of the American Dental Association (ADA), thank you Mr. Chairman

for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense (DOD)

appropriations. I am Dr. David A. Whiston, the President of the ADA and a practicing dentist in Arlington, Virginia.

The ADA is a professional organization that represents approximately 143,000 licensed dentists (75 percent of the profession) in the United States. The ADA seeks

to advance the art and science of dentistry, and to promote high-quality dental care

and the oral health of the public.

Over the years the ADA has maintained a close liaison with the federal dental

services which include all three Service branches, the Public Health Service, and the

Veterans Administration. The Association is proud to represent the needs of our nation’s federal dental officers.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to address two areas of concern for military dentistry: dental corps officer multi-year contracts, and military dental research funding.

Dental Corps Officer Multi-Year Contracts

I commend this committee for the support it has provided federal dental officers.

As you know, in the past two years the Congress has approved special pay raises

and an accession bonus to alleviate severe recruiting and retention problems that

exist in the Army, Navy, and Air Force dental corps, as well as the Public Health

Service.

Retention of military dental officers is a readiness concern for the Services. A

1997 study by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)

shows that retention is decreasing for every year group of dental officer. The aggregate retention has declined to 26 percent at ten years of service and 13 percent at

20 years. The ideal force profile calls for 40–50 percent retention at 10 years and

30–35 percent retention at 20 years.

In 1982, a military dentist served an average of 11.8 years. In 1996, the expected

length of service slumped to 7.4 years. The high turnover rate contributes directly

to a shortage of dental officers and causes turbulence in force management. Currently the Services’ Dental Corps are short approximately 300 officers from the DOD

authorized level. The study projects that this shortfall will grow dramatically to between 400 and 700 dentists in the next few years if nothing is done.

Maintaining the authorized number of military dentists, particularly experienced

personnel, ensures dental readiness of America’s Armed Forces. The 1994 Tri-Service Comprehensive Oral Health Survey found 92 percent of military personnel required some form of dental care. An average of one out of seven active duty service

members at the end of fiscal year 1996 were determined to be non-deployable due

to dental problems. A recent symposium at Fort Hood, Texas, identified the lack of

access to routine dental care as the number one health concern of soldiers.

If declining rates of retention continue, it will lead to shortfalls in the availability

of active duty dentists for deployment. This would impact directly on the provision

of dental care for troops in garrison operations, conflict situations, and peacekeeping

missions.

The primary causes for retention problems are the lack of pay comparability with

the private sector. In 1982, a military dentist earned approximately 82 percent of

the reported income of private sector dentists. By 1996, that percent had dropped

to 51 percent. This large pay gap exists throughout the career span of a military

dentist.

The 1997 Defense Authorization Act and Defense Appropriations Act provided

funds to increase dental officer special pay for junior grade dental officers with less

than 10 years of service. That legislation also provided for an accession bonus of

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
717

$30,000 for new dental officers. While it is too early to ascertain the full impact of

the increase and the bonus, preliminary evidence suggests the accession bonus will

improve recruitment in the coming years.

The 1998 Defense Authorization Act increased special pay rates for mid-career officers and provided for the use of multi-year contracts similar to those used for physicians as a retention and force management tool. Although no funds were provided

for these two pay proposals, their passage provides the three Services (and the Public Health Service) a valuable tool to improve recruiting and retention problems.

Mr. Chairman, the use of multi-year contracts for critical specialists will help the

Services to obligate dentists for up to four years. Experience with the Medical Corps

has demonstrated the success of these contracts. The Services need an additional

$8.6 million in fiscal year 1999 in the military pay appropriations account (Army:

$2.3 million; Navy $1.6 million; and Air Force $4.4 million) to offer these multi-year

contracts to its oral surgeons, orthodontists, periodontists, and endodontists.

Military Dental Research

The mission of military dental research is to maximize and maintain operational

readiness. This is accomplished by performing research and development to improve

both preventive and interceptive care prior to deployment and forward dental care

and management of maxillofacial injuries.

Army and Navy dental research programs conduct basic and applied research and

development to produce products for use in military environments that are not duplicated by civilian research and development efforts. The U.S. military dental research laboratories, the U.S. Army Dental Research Detachment (USADRD) and the

Naval Dental Research Institute (NDRI), are located at the Great Lakes Naval

Training Center, Illinois. They focus on R&D of new technologies that reduce lost

duty time caused by dental disease or trauma in military populations.

Areas of research emphasis include: epidemiology of dental disease and trauma,

rapid diagnostic aids, new preventive technologies, improved dental field equipment

(smaller, lighter, and lessened power requirements), dental materials that are insensitive to operational environments, and technologies to reduce the morbidity and

mortality of oral and maxillofacial trauma.

Mr. Chairman, on an annual basis 16 percent of deployed personnel experience

a dental emergency requiring evacuation from their military unit, and 1 percent

sustain oral and maxillofacial trauma. Studies have shown that the annual dental

emergency rate during the Vietnam War was 157 dental emergencies per 1,000 soldiers. During Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm the annual rate of dental emergencies was 100 per 1,000 Marines ashore. A recent RAND study (Army Medical

Support for Peace Operations and Humanitarian Assistance (1996)) reported that

military dentists were some of the busiest of all providers in recent humanitarian

missions. As much as 20 percent of all outpatient visits were for dental care.

These emergency rates occur in every deployment and operational environment

and are unacceptable to line commanders. As you know, deployed personnel with

severe oral pain and/or infection cannot perform military duties and may require

evacuation to receive appropriate dental treatment. Evacuation from remote and isolated sites can be costly to the military and degrade operational readiness. The need

for dental research and development to address dental readiness is therefore paramount.

Unfortunately, the military biomedical R&D community undervalues this impact,

as evidenced by disproportionate reductions in dental R&D funding and personnel

authorizations. Army dental research funding decreased from $3.6 million in 1991

to $0.865 million in 1997. Program funding ceased in fiscal year 1998 and $677,000

had to be allocated from other medical research programs to support on-going dental

research. This represents an 82 percent funding reduction since 1991. The Army

laboratory has also experienced a 45 percent reduction in authorized personnel since

1991.

Navy dental research funding has faced similar reductions—from a high of $2.2

million in 1994 to $1.1 million in 1998. This represents a 50 percent reduction in

just four years. Since 1992, Navy dental research has also experienced a 33 percent

reduction in authorized personnel (from 57 to 38). These funding and personnel levels are absolutely inadequate to accomplish the mission of military dental research.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you of just a few of the significant dental research

projects that Army and Navy dental researchers are working on.

—Dental field equipment is being developed to reduce the size, weight, and electrical requirements of the deployed dentist while increasing treatment capability. Research projects include fabricating and testing of an electric handpiece

dental field operating and treatment system, construction and testing of a portable solar panel to recharge the battery for a dental handpiece located in the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
718

Dental Emergency Field Set, and evaluation of radiographic images captured on

a digital sensor and displayed on a laptop screen.

—Field expedient dental materials are being developed that are less sensitive to

degradation during storage due to environmental factors such as heat, cold, and

humidity.

—Single-dose, controlled release analgesics, antibiotics and vaccines for use in deployed environments and to accelerate the return to duty of battlefield casualties are being developed.

—Gum or powder that prevents plaque buildup and thereby reduces dental disease for deployed troops who are not able to perform proper oral hygiene is also

being developed.

—Research projects related to determining the rates of dental emergencies and

dental trauma during deployment and determining the rates of oral and maxillofacial trauma in personnel serving in airborne and armor units are ongoing.

—A new smokeless tobacco cessation program has been developed and will evaluate the impact on readiness.

Mr. Chairman, dental emergencies and trauma significantly impair operational

readiness and sustainability. Increased dental research funding is needed to improve preventive and interceptive dental care prior to deployment, to improve forward support dental care, and management of oral and maxillofacial injuries. The

Army and Navy needs $4 million in fiscal year 1999 ($2 million for the Army Dental

Research Detachment and $2 million for the Naval Dental Research Institute),

which is $2 million above fiscal year 1998 appropriated amounts, to continue these

valuable dental research programs.

Conclusion

The ADA recognizes the multitude of funding priorities Congress must reconcile,

but believes that the requirements spelled out in this statement are urgently needed

to maintain the oral health and readiness of military personnel. Funding for multiyear contracts will help insure a stable dental corps, improve recruiting and retention, and better balance pay inequities. Improved funding for dental research will

help decrease dental emergencies and trauma significantly with the resultant improvement in operational readiness and sustainability. The Association respectfully

requests that this subcommittee support the program enhancements discussed

above.

Senator INOUYE. Doctor, where did you get those statistics on one

out of seven are non-deployable?

Dr. WHISTON. One out of seven non-deployable is a statistic that

I was given at the American Dental Association. My understanding

is that it is from DOD. But I can get you the numbers on that.

Senator INOUYE. I am certain the committee would appreciate

that.

[The information follows:]

LETTER FROM DAVID A. WHISTON

MAY 20, 1998.

The Honorable DANIEL K. INOUYE,

Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee, United States Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR INOUYE: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Defense Subcommittee to highlight the need for appropriations for multi-year contracts

for dental corps officers and increased funding for military dental research. Funding

for these programs is important for the future of military dentistry and, more importantly, the readiness of our active duty forces.

You asked for the precise source of two statistics quoted in my statement. The

following are those cites:

—‘‘An average of one out of seven active duty service members were determined

to be non-deployable due to dental problems.’’ (Office of Secretary of Defense for

Health Affairs Study, 1997); and

—‘‘Studies have shown that 92 percent of military personnel require some form

of dental care.’’ (1994 Tri-Service Comprehensive Oral Health Survey).

I greatly appreciate your interest and offer to work with the American Dental Association to improve the oral health care of our troops. Toward that end, our ADA

Washington Office staff will contact your staff for appropriate follow-up.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.001
719

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

DAVID A. WHISTON, D.D.S.,

President.

Senator INOUYE. I did not realize it was that bad.

Dr. WHISTON. Yes, it is significant. It really is. Ninety-two percent, Senator, of all active personnel have dental needs. And those

can be addressed. But the ability to address those needs is decreasing as the retention problem increases. So we could see an increase

to that one of seven.

Senator INOUYE. Ninety-two percent require dental care?

Dr. WHISTON. Yes, 92 percent, of some type.

Senator INOUYE. They are not watching the TV Crest ads?

Dr. WHISTON. Right. You are right. [Laughter.]

Yes. They have not listened to some of your suggestions over the

years, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. We would like to work with you to see how we

can help in reducing these numbers.

Dr. WHISTON. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. These are terrible.

Thank you very much.

Dr. WHISTON. Thanks for the opportunity, Senator.

STATEMENT OF JEAN LOU CHAMEAU, DEAN OF ENGINEERING, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is Dr. Jean Lou Chameau,

Dean of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Dr. Chameau.

Dr. CHAMEAU. Senator, members of the committee, my name is

Jean Lou Chameau, and I am the Dean of Engineering at Georgia

Tech, in Atlanta. Georgia Tech is the largest engineering school in

the country, graduating more than 2,000 engineers every year.

I am testifying on behalf of the Association of American Universities, AAU, representing 62 research universities in the country;

and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges, representing almost 200 public universities in the country.

You have copies of my written testimony, which I will briefly

summarize. I think it is more than fair to say that the technologies

critical to winning the Cold War and America’s successful campaign during Desert Storm owe their allegiance to university-based

defense research. There are many examples, including semiconductors, phased-array radar for intercontinental ballistic missile defense, laser guidance systems, stealth design, and so on.

These technologies make a difference for people in the field. A

very good example was given when the global positioning system,

or GPS, saved the life of Air Force Captain Scott O’Grady, after his

F–16 was shot down over Bosnia.

In my University, Georgia Tech, we conduct a significant amount

of research that contributes to the defense mission. For example,

Tech engineers are using acoustic-electromagnetic waves in new

ways to detect both metallic and nonmetallic land mines. We are

also developing what is called a smart T-shirt. It is basically a Tshirt with optical fibers, very cost efficient, about $25 to $30 to

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
720

produce. And we provide medical personnel the ability to monitor

a soldier’s condition, including vital signs.

University research also helps address emerging security issues

such as terrorism, biological and chemical agents, and cybersecurity. There are many areas in the areas of telecommunications,

miniaturization and other technologies. The DOD funding of university research concentrates in fields where advances are most

likely to contribute to national defense and also to the mission.

The DOD accounts for 60 percent of the Federal funding to electrical engineering, 55 percent for computer engineering and

sciences, 41 percent for materials research. The DOD contribution

to educating the next generation of engineers and scientists should

not be underestimated. The DOD supports 45 percent of federally

funded graduate students in electrical engineering, 25 percent in

mathematics, 48 percent in aerospace engineering. Our students

get research training and become highly qualified scientists and engineers of the future, who are going to work at academia, industry,

DOD, and Federal laboratories.

The Department’s budget for fiscal year 1999 provides a total of

$1.1 billion for defense in 6.1 basic research. This represents about

a 6.6 percent increase over last year. Similarly, there is an expected $3 billion budget for applied research, an increase of about

0.8 percent. We believe these budget projections will lead to a realistic and appropriate estimate of what will be needed to carry out

a strong research program.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Finally, DOD basic research funding has been used several times

in the last few years to provide offsets for unrelated new expenditures. And we hope your subcommittee will not use it this year for

this purpose.

Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEAN LOU CHAMEAU

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

to testify today. My name is Jean Lou Chameau, and I am Dean of Engineering at

the Georgia Institute of Technology. Georgia Tech is the largest engineering school

in the country, graduating annually in excess of 2,000 engineers. I am testifying on

behalf of the Association of American Universities, representing 62 premier research

universities in the United States and Canada, and the National Association of State

Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, representing 195 public institutions of higher

education across the United States.

My purpose this morning is to talk about the scientific and technological breakthroughs that have resulted from university research supported by the Department

of Defense (DOD). I will emphasize how important these breakthroughs are to our

national security and readiness for future military conflicts. I will also talk about

the importance of DOD Basic and Applied Research to key academic disciplines; to

fundamental discoveries in science, engineering and mathematics; and to the training of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Finally, I will briefly review

the recent history of funding reductions in these programs, and I will urge that

these programs not receive additional cuts, either to offset supplemental fiscal year

1998 appropriations, or in the regular fiscal year 1999 appropriations process.

As you know, Basic and Applied Research are funded under program elements 6.1

and 6.2 in the Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation section of the Department of Defense appropriation. The Army, Navy, Air Force and the ‘‘Defensewide’’ account under the Office of the Secretary all receive separate appropriations

for these programs. Universities play the largest role in basic defense research, reU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
721

ceiving more than 60 percent of this funding (program element 6.1). They also receive substantial funding for applied defense research and advanced technology development (program elements 6.2 and 6.3, respectively).

BREAKTHROUGHS FROM DOD-FUNDED UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

Many crucial defense technologies have emerged from fundamental research conducted on university campuses. Among these are: radar, nuclear power, digital computers, semiconductor electronics, lasers, fiber optics, night vision, vaccines and

drugs for malaria and other tropical diseases, inertial guidance, the Global Positioning System, stealth and other advanced materials, computer networking (ARPANet,

forerunner of the Internet), and computer-based visualization systems for training

and for planning and conducting operations.

As just one example, the remarkable usefulness of the Global Positioning System

(GPS) was dramatized by the rescue of the Air Force Captain Scott O’Grady after

his F–16 was shot down over Bosnia in June 1995. The portable GPS receiver in

his life vest allowed rescue helicopters to land at his hidden position and rescue him

in a few minutes despite hostile troops nearby. One of the key technologies that

makes GPS possible, the ultra-precise atomic clock, was created in the 1950’s by

university researchers intent on studying Einsteinian space-time relativity (advances in satellite technology, miniaturization, and mathematics were also necessary). Atomic clocks improved during the 1960’s, and in 1973, DOD decided to develop GPS. The system of 24 satellites needed for GPS was launched between 1989

and 1993.

The Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT), including the Georgia Tech Research

Institute (GTRI), received approximately $84 million in Department of Defense

grants and contracts in 1997. These funds involve a full range of activity from basic

research through developmental, test and evaluation work. Some of the highlights

of this research in the basic science and engineering disciplines at Georgia Tech include the following projects:

Molecular Design Institute

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) supports molecular synthesis and processing

research, making it possible to tailor new materials, atom by atom, to achieve a desired set of properties. This molecular manipulation at the atomic level into material nanostructures is fundamental research important for meeting future Navy requirements for sophisticated surface and underwater vessels, weapons and equipment. Georgia Tech is one of two centers in the country currently involved in this

advanced research.

Acousto-Electromagnetic Sensor for Locating Land Mines

The Army Research Office currently sponsors basic research at Georgia Tech in

the area of land mine detection. The objective of this project is to investigate new,

innovative techniques for detecting and locating both metallic and non-metallic land

mines. Presently, non-metallic land mines are almost impossible to detect with existing systems. Georgia Tech electrical engineering researchers are now investigating a technique that uses both acoustic and electromagnetic waves in a synergistic

manner to detect these mines. Land mine detection is a high priority for DOD and

this work should lead to new methodologies for protecting U.S. troops from these

deadly devices.

Intelligent Turbine Engines

At Georgia Tech the Army sponsors a five-year program that investigates the use

of modern control approaches to improve the performance of gas turbines that are

employed in helicopters and tanks. This research program investigates control approaches that will reduce the number of needed compressor stages. In parallel efforts, we are using control approaches to improve the performance of the gas turbine’s combustor by reducing the frequency at which the combustion process unexpectedly extinguishes and reducing the volume required for complete combustion. It

is expected that the improvements provided by this program will reduce the gas turbine’s fuel and improve its reliability.

Conformal Aperture Velocity Sonar/Conformal Active Sonar System

The goal of the CAVES/CACTISS program at Georgia Tech, sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, is to revolutionize submarine SONAR systems and implementation philosophies. The Conformal Aperture Velocity Sonar (CAVES) system

consists of a hull mounted, large aperture, broad band receiving SONAR system

that will greatly enhance a submarine’s ability to make detections in open water

and in shallow water environments. The Conformal ACTIve Sonar System

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
722

(CACTISS) is a hull mounted, large aperture, broad band transmitting sonar system

that will work in conjunction with CAVES to provide a submarine with the capability to communicate with the battle group, hunt mines, and jam enemy torpedo sonars. Following a successful test of small aperture CAVES and CACTISS arrays in

late 1996, preparations are now underway for full aperture CAVES and CACTISS

arrays to be tested at quarter-scale at the Navy’s Intermediate Scale Measurement

System located at Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho in March 1999.

Active Control of Combustion Instabilities in Missiles

The Air Force supports a three-year effort at Georgia Tech to investigate the use

of secondary fuel injection to ameliorate unstable combustion processes. Instabilities

in missile combustion systems have hindered the development of practically every

missile system to date (and many other propulsion systems) and resulted in program delays and cost overruns. By use of a novel fuel injector, developed and patented under this Air Force program, we are demonstrating that using properly

timed secondary fuel injection can prevent and/or eliminate these undesirable instabilities, thus preventing future programs delays and cost overruns.

Army Rotorcraft Center of Excellence

The Army is a sponsor of Georgia Tech’s Rotorcraft Center of Excellence operated

by the School of Aerospace Engineering. This center is the largest of 3 national Centers of Excellence in rotorcraft technology and supports work important to the missions of each of the defense services operating rotorcraft vehicles. The center performs research on aerodynamics, aeroelasticity, dynamics, engines, composite materials, structures, flight mechanics, controls, and put it all together in systems design

and engineering education.

BEING PREPARED IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD

With future threats to national security so uncertain, maintaining technological

superiority will require a strong continuing research effort. The armed forces today

not only must be ready to fight in conventional regional wars like the Gulf War;

they also must be ready to undertake peacekeeping missions in hostile situations

and to defend against unconventional threats such as terrorism, biological and

chemical agents, and computer sabotage.

DOD-sponsored university research is an important source of new knowledge and

innovative solutions to these problems. Incremental adaptations of existing weapons

and equipment are not necessarily suitable in the new world situation. University

researchers are investigating new approaches to assist likely future missions—for

example, small, highly mobile units operating in ambiguous situations far from their

bases.

Rapidly developing computer-based information technologies, coupled with advanced sensors, promise to revolutionize warfare. University scientists and engineers are working to exploit the information revolution faster and better than the

rest of the world. Research now being conducted on campus into new visual reality

and computer visualization technologies will permit future U.S. forces to dominate

the situation with superior information and communications. DOD currently provides more than half the federal funding of university research in computer sciences

and electrical engineering.

At least 100 million land mines are buried in 62 countries, hindering regional stability and endangering U.S. troops on peacekeeping missions. DOD supports university research into novel approaches, such as using new combinations of sensors and

nonlinear signal processing techniques to improve detection of land mines, and

using advanced acoustics and neural network signal processing techniques to locate

mines under sediment in shallow water.

INVESTING IN AMERICAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Supporting university research benefits DOD in many ways. It produces important advances in knowledge. It helps keep top scientists and engineers involved in

defense research. Not least, the students who get hands-on research training become

the highly qualified scientists and engineers of the future who go on to work in academia, industry, and federal laboratories.

DOD is the third largest federal funder of university research (after the National

Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation). The funds are awarded

under competitive merit review procedures to assure high quality. Nearly 350 universities and colleges sponsor DOD research and development.

Unfortunately, last year, the science and technology budget at DOD hit a 35-year

low, after adjusting for inflation. Basic research is down by $350 million in just the

last five years. I am concerned that the scientific and engineering communities will

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
723

find resources drying up for promising areas of inquiry. In particular, I am concerned about the effect that shrinking funding will have on those disciplines that

are most heavily funded by the Department, since other sources may not easily be

found to keep these disciplines healthy.

DOD’s funding of university research is concentrated in fields where advances are

most likely to contribute to national defense. As a result, DOD accounts for 60 percent of the federal funding for electrical engineering, 55 percent for computer engineering and sciences, 41 percent for metallurgy/materials engineering, and 33 percent for oceanography.

DOD also supports a high percentage of graduate students in relevant field—45

percent of federally funded graduate students in computer engineering and sciences,

25 percent of those in mathematics, 48 percent in aerospace engineering, 42 percent

in electrical engineering, and 30 percent in metallurgy/materials engineering. These

graduate students go on to meet America’s need for a trained and scientifically literate workforce, whether in the military, the government, in defense and civilian

industry, or in academia. The Department’s budget request would provide a total of $1.11 billion for Defense 6.1 (basic research) programs in fiscal year 1999, including programs funded

under the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as Navy, Army, and Air Force

research programs. This represents an increase of 6.6 percent over the final funding

level for fiscal year 1998. According to the Department’s RDT&E Programs (R–1)

report, applied research would receive a total of $3.02 billion, an increase of 0.8 percent over fiscal year 1998.

I believe these budget projections represent a realistic and appropriate estimate

of what will be needed to carry out a vigorous research program in the coming year,

and I hope you will approve them in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.

Finally, I understand that this committee may be called upon to identify offsets

for a supplemental appropriation in the near future. DOD basic research funding

has been used several times in the last few years to provide offsets for unrelated

new expenditures, and I hope your subcommittee will not use it this year for this

purpose.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Dr. Chameau. I note one

of the problems you cite is the 100 million land mines found in 62

countries. Is the Georgia Institute of Technology working on this at

this time?

Dr. CHAMEAU. Yes. We have a major program to detect land

mines using acoustical and electromagnetic waves.

Senator INOUYE. What is the status now?

Dr. CHAMEAU. The status of those programs are that I think

there is a very high likelihood that you could have some prototype

available within a year.

Senator INOUYE. Within a year we should have something that

could be used in the field?

Dr. CHAMEAU. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. We look forward to that, sir. Thank you very

much.

Now may I call upon Chief Master Sergeant Mark Olanoff,

United States Air Force Retired, the legislative director of the Retired Enlisted Association.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT MARK H. OLANOFF, USAF

(RET.), LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION

Sergeant OLANOFF. Thank you, Senator Inouye. I would like to

thank you and Senator Stevens for allowing the Retired Enlisted

Association to testify before your subcommittee, and we represent

over 100,000 members active reserve and retired and their families,

and in my statement I have detailed a lot of the different programs

we requested you look at for fiscal year 1999, but I am going to

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
724

concentrate on military health care because that is our number 1

concern, but I just wanted to reflect back very quickly to what Mr.

Dugan said from the American Legion. It is very ironic that we have already transferred $150 billion out

of the defense budget and now we have to come to you to lobby to

put money back. It is just sad that we have to do that, and maybe

next year and some of the future years we can look at some of

these programs and try to fund them before we transfer all the

money after we close the bases instead of after the fact.

As I said, Senator Inouye, our number 1 priority is health care,

and due to the downsizing of DOD budgets, and as well as the impact of the base realignment and closure on military retiree communities, finding access to health care is our number 1 priority.

This trend of military treatment facilities either being downsized

in staff or closed due to BRAC creates confusion among retirees

that reside in those given areas where to access health care, receive their prescription drugs, and what happened to the promise

of the health care that we were told when we decided to make the

military a career?

The question is how can we answer these and plan on providing

health care for retirees now and in the future? You might recall

last year I testified before the committee and stated that providing

the Federal employee health plan, which is the same plan that

Congress has, and their staff, to military retirees is one part of the

overall solution, which is treated as our number one legislative priority.

We appreciate the support of you and the other Members in this

room that supported the medicare subvention test program, but as

I am sure you are aware, that has been delayed due to requirements of the Health Care Finance Administration and site locations, but hopefully in September this program will start.

As we anticipate, the success of this program TREA knows that

this program fully implemented will only resolve approximately 33

to 40 percent of the over 1.2 million that are over 65 years old, and

I have attached a GAO report in my testimony that states that the

military treatment facility capacity is only another 75,000.

Therefore, to continue meeting the needs of the rest of the program we ask you to support one of the bills that is out there, Senate bill 1334, of which Senator Bond from Missouri is the sponsor,

and it currently has 64 cosponsors. Many of the people on this committee are cosponsors of that bill.

And, as was alluded to earlier, the Senate mark came up with

a test and also a couple of other provisions, a three-prong approach, but the funding in that is not enough. It is only $60 million.

And we ask that you and this committee come up with a way to

try to expand on Senator Bond’s original bill, which would only

have two locations, and we think that if we could have at least six

locations then maybe we would get a better demonstration, or at

least we would know how the program works. To have what the

Senators recommended is a step in the right direction, but we

think we need more than that.

As you are aware, Secretary Cohen is considering two more

rounds of BRAC in 2001 and 2005, so we want that now to test the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
725

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] in order to

meet the challenge of providing health care to our military retirees

for the future.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, Senator Inouye, I would like to thank you very much for

allowing the Retired Enlisted Association to provide their views.

Senator INOUYE. Sergeant, I can assure you that at tomorrow’s

special meeting with the Secretary this will be an item on the

agenda.

Sergeant OLANOFF. Thank you, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT MARK H. OLANOFF

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of The Retired Enlisted Association’s (TREA) National

President, Technical Sergeant David Pahl, U.S. Air Force (Ret) and Auxiliary President Ethel Hale, and over 100,000 members and auxiliary, we appreciate the opportunity to present testimony to this subcommittee concerning the fiscal year 1999

National Security Appropriations. TREA is a federally chartered organization representing retired, active, guard, reserve and family members who are serving (career military) or have served (and are now retired) in every component of the Armed

Forces of the United States: Army; Marine Corps; Navy; Air Force; and Coast

Guard.

I am Chief Master Sergeant Mark H. Olanoff, U.S. Air Force (Ret), TREA’s Legislative Director.

HEALTH CARE PROBLEMS

With the continued down sizing of the Department of Defense (DOD) budget and

the impact of Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) in military retiree communities, retirees are having increasing difficulty in accessing health care. This has

lead to a decrease in staff in military treatment facilities (MTF) to meet the needs

of the retiree community. Further, the amount of ‘‘Space Available’’ care has been

curtailed due to these reasons.

As you are no doubt aware, military retirees over the age of 65 are forced out of

the CHAMPUS/TRICARE system onto Medicare. The only other access for health

care is through ‘‘Space Available’’ care at MTF’s for retirees over the age of 65.

Today, these Medicare eligible retirees are left wondering where they will receive

their health care.

Retirees who live in non-catchment areas or areas affected by limited access to

health care due to TRICARE limitations need alternatives for their health care

needs. This group of retirees should not lose their benefits because of where they

decide to live.

You know about the promise of guaranteed lifetime health care for military personnel upon 20 years of active duty service or at age 60 for Reserve or National

Guard service. This is and was a very powerful recruiting inducement. Many of our

members want to know where the benefits are now?

Many military retirees feel as if the government lied to them. They believe that

their promised benefits have been taken away purely for political reasons. I would

like to speak for all retirees right now and offer some solutions to the health care

problem.

SOLUTION 1—FEHBP

There is legislation pending in both the Senate and House to create a demonstration program to allow Medicare-eligible military retirees to enroll in the Federal

Health Employee Benefits Program (FEHBP), H.R. 1766 and S. 1334. TREA supports this program as another option to improve access to health care for military

retirees. Our retirees have stated that they are willing to pay for the opportunity

to enroll in a quality health care program, FEHBP. This is the same health care

system that covers all Federal employees, including members of Congress and their

staffers. Military retirees are the only group of Federal workers who lose their employer sponsored health care benefit when becoming eligible for Medicare. Why

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
726

should there be a difference if an employee wears a uniform or a suit? We want

equality.

According to the definition by the Department of Veterans Affairs, all enlisted retirees are considered ‘‘indigent veterans’’, because no enlisted retiree receives a

gross retirement of more than $26,481 (for 1 dependent). This has been used as an

argument against the FEHBP Demonstration. However, many of our enlisted retirees have successful second careers, by taking advantage of benefits like the G.I. Bill

for college. We understand that health care is not ‘‘free’’ and we are willing to pay

for greater access. But many of our retirees did not have all of the retirement options (for example IRA’s, Roth IRA’s, Education IRA’s, 401K’s, mutual funds, etc).

I want to speak for them right now and Congress provide FEHBP as one choice to

access care.

SOLUTION 2—FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF DOD SUBVENTION

TREA would like to express its sincere thanks to the Senate for supporting the

Medicare Subvention demonstration program with the Department of Defense. We

now would like to see the program expanded to a nation-wide program. Many of our

Medicare-eligible retirees have received letters from hospitals stating that ‘‘spaceavailability’’ no longer exits. We believe that a small investment for Medicare-eligible retirees is necessary to provide health care to those who really need it. Allowing

as many Medicare-eligible military retirees to use Medicare at MTF’s will provide

retirees yet another option for health care. Though this is not the complete solution

to the health care for military retirees, because it would only meet the needs of 33

percent of the 1.2 million retirees over 65.

SOLUTION 3—MEDICARE PART ‘‘B’’ WAIVER

H.R. 598 and S. 912, which are pending in both the House and Senate, authorizes

the waiver of the penalty for not enrolling in Medicare Part ‘‘B’’ for Medicare-eligible

military retirees. Retirees were counseled not to enroll in Part ‘‘B’’ because it would

not be necessary because they resided near MTF’s to access their free health care.

These retirees should not be punished with late enrollment fees due to the fact that

the local MTF has closed. The issue must be addressed now as the Secretary of Defense is planning two additional rounds of BRAC for 2001 and 2005.

We believe that the small investment for DOD Subvention and FEHBP along with

the waiver of enrollment penalties will restore health care benefits for our Medicareeligible retirees and allow the employer (Uncle Sam) to receive some needed creditability when it comes to keeping promises.

REASONS DOD IS ACCOUNTABLE TO CORRECT HEALTH CARE PROBLEMS

Mr. Chairman, the time has come to hold the Department of Defense accountable

for the current state of military retiree health care. The Fiscal Year 1997 Defense

Authorization Act Report, to accompany S. 1745, directed DOD to conduct a study

on the cost and feasibility of FEHBP to military retirees over 65 no later than

March 1, 1997. Further, the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act Conference

Report Section 712, directed the Secretary of Defense to prepare a plan for the expansion of TRICARE Prime not later than March 1, 1998. Also, Section 752 provides

a Sense of the Congress that Congress and the President shall take steps to address

the availability of health care for such retirees within two years. Further, the fiscal

year 1998 Defense Appropriations Conference Report directs the Defense Department to submit a report no later than March 1, 1998 on its plans for all phases

of Medicare Subvention. Also, the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management is required to submit a legislative proposal to implement a limited FEHBP demonstration program. As these deadlines pass, we are still

waiting for DOD to meet these report deadlines. Now, is the time for action.

I am sure that you are aware of the lawsuit that has been filed in the Federal

District Court in Florida regarding military health care. The initial ruling allows

two enlisted military retirees who enlisted prior to June 7, 1956 (effective date of

space available health care) to sue the government under the Little Tucker Act. This

Act allows each retiree to collect damages of $10,000. Also, a ruling will be made

to determine if this lawsuit can be expanded to a ‘‘class action lawsuit’’. If this lawsuit is upheld, billions of dollars will be needed for the millions of military retirees

or their survivors. Is this the proper method to solve disputes over promised retirement benefits? I hope not or more lawsuits will occur. Mr. Chairman, where are

these studies and proposals? It is time for accountability, oversight, the end of report language, Sense of the Congress, studies, committees and other rhetoric. We

want action now.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
727

DOD has stated that it would not be opposed to a limited test of FEHBP in NonPrime areas. GAO Testimony by Stephen P. Backhus on February 27, 1997 (GAO/

T–HEHS–97–84) page 3 states ‘‘Between 1987 and 1997, the number of older retirees increased by about 75 percent, to 1.2 million; and they are projected to outnumber active-duty personnel in the future. These changes has significantly reduced

the availability of care for retirees in DOD facilities’’. Further, GAO Report HEHS–

97–134 to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the National Security Personnel

Subcommittee page 2 states ‘‘Finally, relatively few retirees (about 75,000) could be

accommodated by subvention at military medical facilities because of facility capacity and financial constraints’’. On page 9 ‘‘the basis of the number of retirees living

near military facilities with sufficient capacity to operate a subvention program, we

estimated that about 75,000 older retirees could participate nationwide if the subvention program was offered at all but DOD’s smallest hospitals’’. Although DOD

expects to care for additional Medicare eligibles in the TRICARE Networks, it is

clear that all Medicare eligibles will not be served and that another option is needed.

We believe that the solution for the problems surrounding retiree health care lie

in a combination of FEHBP and DOD Subvention. In return for legislation mentioned above for the Medicare-eligibles, we and many other military associations,

pledge to you that we will prepare the future retirees for continued health care after

retirement. Just as other civil servants have the option to keep this benefit (and

pay the premium), we will prepare the future retirees to pay for this benefit. This

provides equality to all federal workers whether military or civilian. Finally, the two

largest veterans organizations, The American Legion and The Veterans of Foreign

Wars have resolutions supporting our position.

RETIREE DENTAL PLAN

This program has been very popular, however, DOD did not provide for the opportunity for beneficiaries to enroll in a plan that would cover bridges, crowns, and

dentures. Since many older retirees need these types of dental procedures, recommend DOD be directed to bid a plan that will include them. Also, spouses of military retirees are not allowed to enroll in the new dental plan unless the military

sponsor enrolls. Some military retirees use the VA for their dental benefits and do

not need to enroll in the Retiree Dental Plan. TREA requests Congress recommend

legislation that corrects this inequity.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT

The issue of concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability payment.

Currently, there is an offset dollar for dollar in VA disability and military retirement. There is legislation pending in the Senate (S. 657) which would address this

inequity by allowing partial restoration of retired pay. Many of our retirees are severely disabled and unable to work. Is it fair that their retirement pay is therefore

reduced? No other disabled retired veteran has such an offset of their retirement

pay, only the military retiree.

SURVIVOR BENEFITS PLAN (SBP)

Current law requires a survivor of a military retiree to have their pension offset

at age 62 due to the eligibility of Social Security. We believe this law punishes our

retirees.

This is not a ‘‘free’’ benefit. Our retirees pay premiums to protect their survivors

with 55 percent of their retired pay. Whether a survivor receives Social Security

should not be a factor as SBP allows retirees more choices to provide for beneficiaries. Further, this offset does not apply to any other federal workers—again we

demand equality. Last year, legislation was signed into law which gave servicemembers the opportunity to withdraw from the SBP. By withdrawing, however, one

losses the guarantee of a pension for their survivor. Presently, there is a bill in the

House of Representatives (H.R. 3107) that will provide a paid up policy for military

retirees who have paid SBP premiums for 30 years and reach age 70, whichever is

later. TREA recommends adoption of SBP ‘‘paid up’’ premiums.

OTHER ‘‘BENEFITS’’

During the deliberations of BRAC, the impact of military retirees does not seem

to be a very important issue. Secretary Cohen has already been ‘‘Lobbying’’ for more

Base Closures to re-invest in modernization. What about the military retiree who

rely on base facilities for health care? Why does DOD wait for bases to close and

then try to solve the health care problem? We believe a plan must be in place to

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
728

resolve retiree health care before a base closes. Remember, military and retired pay

is based on a concept called ‘‘Regular Military Compensation’’ (RMC). Health Care,

Exchange and Commissary benefits are included in RMC. When a base or post is

closed, the military retiree is not compensated for this loss of RMC. Please remember to think of us when these decisions are made.

RESERVE AND GUARD ISSUES

Many of our members are serving or have served as citizen-soldiers. TREA recommends that members of the guard and reserve be given the same commissary

benefit as their active duty and retired counterparts. Again—equality to all, regardless of current status.

Also, another issue of great concern is the Reserve/Guard Mobilization Insurance.

This benefit was canceled in the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act. We

believe to attract and maintain a viable reserve component that mobilization insurance is an important ingredient to retain quality citizen-soldiers. Further, TREA

recommends that active and retired reserve component members be authorized to

travel ‘‘Space-A’’ unrestricted. We believe if a seat is available and not filled, then

reserve component members and their spouse should be permitted to fly (CONUS

and Overseas). We are not advocating any changes to the current ‘‘Space-A’’ priority

system. Finally, TREA supports FEHBP for personnel on active duty tours (either

Title 10 or Title 32 Active Guard Reserve) as many of these full-time reserve component personnel are not located near a MTF.

CONCLUSION

Would you work for an employer who makes promises for the future and then

does not deliver? Many of our members made their life plans based on the promises

made to them at the time of entry into the military. We believe a combination of

TRICARE, DOD and VA Subvention and FEHBP will solve the access problem for

all military retirees. Lets fix this problem now so we can all move on to the other

important issues that must be solved.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Committee for giving The Retired Enlisted Association the opportunity to present its views and solutions on the

important subject of military retirees and their ‘‘earned’’ retirement benefits.

STATEMENT OF JANE WEISENBERG, VICE PRESIDENT COMMUNITY

PROGRAMS, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, SAN

DIEGO, CA

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the vice president of Community Programs, Children’s Hospital and Health Center, San

Diego, Ms. Jane Weisenberg. Welcome to the committee.

Ms. WEISENBERG. Thank you, Senator, for this opportunity to

testify today in support of the Marine Corps new parents support

program, and thanks to this committee for its generous support of

this program over the past 5 years.

Your recognition of this project as worthy of Federal support has

helped thousands of military families by providing a program

whose aim is to prevent the suffering of domestic violence and child

maltreatment and abuse. There continues to be a critical need for

family support programs for military personnel.

Military families face uniquely stressful and uncertain times.

Military service members tend to be younger, more likely to be

married, and receive lower pay than their civilian counterparts.

Military families lead a transient existence. Most move at least

every 3 years, ripping the military family from the support network

of friends and relatives that civilian families rely on to get through

tough times.

The long absences of spouses, lengthy cruises, battlefield exercises, and peacekeeping missions, add to familial stress. Because

military families are separated from their extended families they

lose a wealth of knowledge and support regarding raising their

children. The new parents support program offers parenting classU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
729

es, such as Daddy’s Baby Boot Camp to help new parents learn the

necessary skills to care for a child, and the new parents support

program has professional, experienced nurses and social workers

who can visit the home to help families learn what they need to

do to raise a child in a nurturing, caring environment.

The new parents support program was developed and modeled

from a demonstration project at Camp Pendleton, run by Children’s

Hospital in San Diego. Some aspects of the program are available

to all new parents, and other services are targeted at families identified to be at high risk, or who have a known instance of child

abuse.

New parents support program was made a part of the coordinated community response, a comprehensive U.S. Marine Corps

system to address family violence. Since 1992, Children’s Hospital

in San Diego has offered new parents support programs at all U.S.

Marine Corps bases, including Yuma, 29 Palms, Barstow, El Toro,

Tustin, Camp Pendleton, MCRD, Miramar, Camp Lejeune, New

River, Cherry Point, Parris Island, Beaufort, Quantico, Henderson

Hall, Okinawa, Iwakuni, and your own Kaneohe Bay.

Programs of this nature play an integral role in the military

readiness by ensuring the stability of military families. We are requesting continued support for the new parents support program.

We are requesting $5.6 million for the Marine Corps new parents

support program in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill.

We would also like to go on record as being supportive of the

other new parents support programs at the other Armed Services.

New parent support programs have worked well, and we strongly

urge that all new parents support programs be adequately funded.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if you are interested in participating or observing any of our programs I would be happy to arrange that.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE WEISENBERG

Mr. Chairman, my name is Jane Weisenberg and I am the Vice President Community Programs at the Children’s Hospital and Health Center in San Diego, California. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record regarding

the New Parent Support Program. At the outset, I would like to thank the Committee for its generous support for this project over the last five years. Your recognition

of this project as worthy of federal support has helped military families since the

program’s inception in 1993.

Critical Need

There continues to be a critical need for family support programs for military personnel. Military families face uniquely stressful and uncertain times. Military service members are younger, more likely to be married, and receive lower pay than

their civilian counterparts.

Military families lead a transient existence which also contributes to the problem

of domestic violence. Most move at least every three years, ripping the military family from the support network of friends and relatives that civilian families frequently rely on when times get tough. The long absences of spouses, lengthy cruise,

battlefield exercises or peacekeeping missions, add to familial stress. Because military families are separated from their extended families, they lose a wealth of

knowledge and support regarding raising children. The New Parent Support Program offers parenting skills classes, home visitations and helps to establish support

networks to fill this void.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
730

United States Marine Corps Program

The New Parent Support Program was developed and modeled from a demonstration program at Camp Pendleton, California, run by the Children’s Hospital Center

for Child Protection in 1990. It subsequently was made a part of the Coordinated

Community Response, a comprehensive U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) system to work

with family violence. The program was brought to the attention of Congress in 1992,

and the decision was made to establish and staff the program at all 18 USMC major

bases and to test its viability for other branches of the Service. Since 1993, the New

Parent Support Program has been successfully implemented on all 18 major USMC

base:

Yuma, AZ

29 Palms, CA

Barstow, CA

El Toro, CA

Tustin, CA

Camp Pendleton, CA

MCRD, San Diego, CA

Albany, GA

Kaneohe Bay, HI

Camp LeJune, NC

New River, NC

Cherry Point, NC

Parris Island, SC

Beaufort, SC

Quantico, VA

Henderson Hall, VA

Okinawa, Japan

Iwakuni, Japan

Since this time, services have also expanded to include new installations such as

Miramar, California.

The New Parent Support Program uses a combination of nurses and social workers to provide comprehensive home visitation services to families identified at risk

for abuse and/or neglect. Additionally, infant parenting and child education classes

are offered to all personnel located at each base. Home visitors provide support and

advocacy and link client families to military and civilian adjunct services. The New

Parent Support Program delivers three levels of service:

Level 1.—Level 1 services are community based primary prevention activities including parent education classes, infant education classes, support groups,

playmorning, and a wide variety of site-specific specialty classes tailored to meet the

individual needs of each site. Any active duty service member or family member of

the military community is eligible for Level 1 services. Average participation is 9.8

persons/activity, and over 30 percent of the families participating in the standard

18 week parent education curriculum had both mother and father attending the

classes.

In addition to the community-based primary prevention activities, the New Parent

Support Program also offers primary prevention Level 1 home visits by a registered

nurse to all pregnant women on each military installation. Level 1 home visits begin

in the third trimester of pregnancy and may continue until six months post partum.

Any risk identified during these home visits automatically elevates the Level 1 family to on-going Level 2 or 3 services.

Level 2.—Level 2 services provide case-specific prevention for families identified

as ‘‘at risk’’ or ‘‘high risk: for abuse and/or neglect including both spousal abuse and

child maltreatment. These families may be referred to NPSP by a military agency

such as the Family Service Center or the Family Advocacy Program or they may

be self-referred. Level 2 intervention includes home visitation services by both

nurses and social workers, case management, parent education classes, support

groups, and referrals to appropriate military and civilian resources.

Level 3.—Level 3 services are prevention and intervention services for families

with a known incident of either child maltreatment and/or spousal abuse. Level 3

services for active duty service members may be mandated by the service member’s

military command. The intervention with these families includes all the components

of Level 2 services as well as the development of a safety plan, victim advocacy, and

appropriate coordination with the Family Advocacy Program. All NPSP clients have

access to their home visitor by beeper 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The fifth year evaluation suggests that appropriate families are being referred to

the program. During 1997, 3,228 Marine Corps families received home visitation

services and 15,441 referrals were made for these families to community-based support services. In addition, the families are responding positively—of 6,415 requests

for service, 49 percent of the families agreed to participate. That is a relatively high

engagement rate for a program of this type.

Children’s Hospital of San Diego

For 15 years before the military’s involvement in the New Parent Support Program, Children’s Hospital of San Diego successfully sponsored a similar program

throughout San Diego County. The program was then started as a pilot demonstration project at Camp Pendleton. The Camp Pendleton program was designed to furU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
731

nish a broad range of clinical, educational, in-home, and counseling services to

eliminate the potential clauses of child abuse. This resulted in a two-year cooperative effort between the Children’s Hospital of San Diego and the U.S. Marine Corps.

Then in 1992, the Children’s Hospital was competitively awarded the contract to extend the Camp Pendleton model worldwide. To date, the program has met with exceptional success.

Children’s Hospital’s Center for Child Protection has long had a reputation as a

center of excellence for dealing with prevention and treatment of child abuse and

neglect. Because of the long-standing relationship between the Children’s Hospital,

the Marine Corps and its widespread recognition as a center of excellence for pediatric care, the hospital is uniquely qualified to continue this fully implemented program.

Need for Congressional Support

Tremendous pressures are placed upon military families today. Large numbers of

families of active-duty personnel, young spouses and very young children, are often

living in communities, isolated from their extended families and frequently the services of the installation where the service member works. The need continues for programs aimed at assisting these families to cope with such pressure. Advocacy programs of this nature play an integral role in military readiness by ensuring the stability of military families during uncertain times, and should receive priority consideration by Congress. Unlike most existing military child protection programs which

focus on child abuse after it happens, the New Parent Support Programs are aimed

at preventing the abuse and providing family support for families at risk.

Congress has generously provided support for the Marine Corps New Parent Support Program for the last five years. In light of this Subcommittee’s previous support for the New Parent Support Program and for other family advocacy initiatives,

we are requesting $5.6 million for the Marine Corps New Parent Support Program

in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Bill to advance and continue these vital programs for the U.S. Marine Corps. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to go on record

as being supportive of the New Parent Support Programs of the other Armed Services. The hardships of military life does not only affect the Marine Corps, but the

honorable men and women in the other services as well. The New Parent Support

Programs have worked well and we strongly urge that all of the New Parent Support Programs be adequately funded.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of our request.

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you that the problem you have

cited is high on our agenda. We are well aware that the men and

women who serve spend about half their time away from their

homes either on exercises or deployed missions overseas or in

training centers, and we are also well aware that the conditions of

employment are not the most conducive to family tranquility. It is

one of the most frustrating and aggravating problems we have, but

I can assure you we will do our best.

The chairman and I are the dinosaurs of the Senate. We served

in World War II at a time when about 5 percent of military personnel had dependents. Today, over 65 percent of our men and women

have dependents. That is a big difference, and we are trying our

best to maintain the high caliber of personnel that we enjoy at this

moment, and we are afraid that if we do not do something about

it now we may lose it. I thank you very much.

Ms. WEISENBERG. Thank you, Senator.

STATEMENT OF MILDRED BROOKE, VICE PRESIDENT, J&E ASSOCIATES

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is Mildred Brooke, vice president, J&E Associates.

Ms. BROOKE. Good afternoon. My name is Mildred Brooke. I am

the vice president of operations at J&E Associates, Incorporated, a

privately held management consulting firm. I want to thank you

for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and for the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
732

support that you and the other Members of the subcommittee have

given military families, particularly those at-risk families that I

will discuss.

Our professional staff at J&E provide services internationally

that address a broad range of human service needs through Government agencies at the local, State, and national levels. We are

currently working in partnership with the Departments of the

Army and the Navy on their family advocacy programs. I wish to

focus my remarks today on the Department of Defense child abuse

prevention program known as the new parents support program.

Senator Inouye, I know you are very familiar with the new parents support program because you were instrumental in securing

the initial funding for the program in 1992 and have given support

for the program as it has expanded since that time. We thank you

for that leadership, and call upon you once again, as we need that

leadership now more than ever, as I will explain.

At present, we operate the new parents support program at 29

Army installations worldwide as opposed to the originally planned

50 installations, and until the dramatic reduction in the current

fiscal year funds we also provided the program at 16 Navy bases,

but that has been reduced to 5.

My comments today are in support of restoration of funds in

1999 to the prior years level. Unfortunately, in fiscal year 1998, the

funding level which had been provided by this subcommittee in

1995, 1996, and 1997 was not provided, thereby resulting in an 80-

percent reduction in overall dollars, which seriously crippled the

program at most sites and ended it at others.

Although DOD has notified us that some additional moneys will

be available in 1998, it is still inadequate to maintain the program

in the quantity and at the quality which Congress has supported

in the past. In the Armed Services, six children of every 1,000 are

subjected to child abuse each year. This equates to 8,000 documented cases each year and does not include all the children who

suffer from neglect.

The new parents support program is based on a practical, successful model for preventing family violence. The program targets

expectant parents and families with children under the age of 6

years. Services are provided through home visits, education classes,

support groups, and structured playtimes for parents and children.

The program is particularly critical for young military parents, who

are often separated from their families and friends during times of

stress.

I am requesting that the subcommittee again demonstrate its

support for the program at the level that will ensure that all families with need and those at-risk children that are victimized by the

unique stresses to which their parents are subjected be restored to

the funding level at which it was previously of $20 million.

If the funding remains at the projected level, $10 million, it is

predicted the program will serve only 10,000 families a year, in

contrast to the more than 60,000 families who voluntarily participated in 1997.

One approach to adapt to this reduction is to limit the services

to families with children under the age of 1 year, instead of the

current requirement for under 6 years.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
733

Unfortunately, this approach will miss the military families who

may be in greatest need of the program. National data supplied by

the Department of Health and Human Services shows children are

at the greatest risk for child abuse in their first year of life for civilian families, but in military families, 3- to 4-year-olds are the

most vulnerable to child abuse.

I would like to close my comments today by noting that the military families being served by the new parents support program

have come to our staff and to their commanders to express how disheartened they are by the recent reduction in services as a result

of the funding cuts. On behalf of these young parents, I ask that

you give fullest consideration to restoring the funding of this proven program to its prior years level of $20 million, which would include the $5.6 million earlier mentioned.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you for this opportunity today, and I am prepared to answer your questions.

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you, Ms. Brooke, that I will do everything possible to see that the funds are restored.

Ms. BROOKE. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILDRED BROOKE

My name is Mildred Brooke, Vice President of J&E Associates, Inc., a privatelyheld management consulting firm that was founded in 1985. J&E has focused its

efforts in providing direct mental health, substance abuse, and social services to vulnerable populations in need of assistance. Today, we provide services internationally

and address a broad range of human service needs through government agencies or

private firms at the local, State, and national levels. We currently have contracts

with the Departments of the Army and Navy to provide an array of family advocacy

services. Among the programs for which we provide management and professional

staff is a highly regarded, effective child abuse prevention program known as the

New Parent Support Program, or NPSP. At present we operate the NPSP at 29

Army installations worldwide. Until a reduction in the funds available for the NPSP

led to staffing cutbacks, we also provided staff for the program at 16 Navy bases—

a number that has since been reduced to 5.

My comments today are in support of a restoration of funds that were cut from

the NPSP in this year. Before fiscal year 1998, the NPSP was funded at $20 million

and was available to families at most military installations with large populations

of young children. At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, funding for the NPSP was

cut by a full 80 percent, all but crippling the program at many sites and ending

it at others. Although $6 million has since been added to the fiscal year budget, the

NPSP will simply not meet the objectives it was designed to meet unless the funding levels Congress has supported in the past are restored.

So that you can appreciate why funding for the program should be restored to the

$20 million level, let me begin by telling you a bit about the NPSP and what military family members think about the program. I will then explain how the budget

cuts made in fiscal year 1998 have impacted the program and how services will be

affected if the budget for the program is left at $10 million for fiscal year 1999.

The NPSP—Who it Serves, How, and Why.—Across the Armed Services, 6 children out of 1,000 are subjected to child abuse, equating to more than 8,000 substantiated cases of child abuse per year. The NPSP, a program which exists in some

form in all four Services, is based on a practical, successful model for preventing

family violence, in particular violence against children. As designed the program

targets expectant parents and families with children under the age of 6 years and

provides support, referral, information, and educational services. This is especially

critical taking into consideration the fact that new parents in the military are often

isolated from friends and families who might otherwise provide them with support.

In the Army and Navy alone, the program provided services to more than 66,000

participants from military families.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
734

By working closely with families who participate voluntarily in the NPSP, the

highly trained licensed nurses and clinical social workers who staff the NPSP can

identify at-risk families and provide a variety of interventions designed to decrease

the risk of abuse in these families. The interventions included as part of this program include home visits, parenting and infant care classes, support and therapy

groups, developmental play groups, and other activities, including referrals to additional military and civilian services. Through these activities, the NPSP staff helps

these families learn to cope with stress, isolation, post-deployment reunions, and the

everyday demands of parenthood. This contributes to a measurable reduction in the

frequency of child abuse among participating families. Although the focus of the program is on children and families, the program also helps to decrease the incidence

of spousal abuse in military families.

Like all programs for military families, the NPSP must be tailored to meet the

needs of each military community participating in the program. For example, at one

installation served by one of my company’s New Parent Support teams, groups for

teenage mothers were established to meet a special local need. Where language is

a concern, our staff has offered classes and materials in both English and Spanish.

The NPSP meets unique needs, however, every effort is made to coordinate with

existing programs and services. For example, at one installation, infant care classes

are offered as a joint effort of the NPSP and the Red Cross. Across installations,

the NPSP works in tandem with the Family Advocacy Program (FAP), the DOD program with overall responsibility for preventing family violence, complementing and

expanding the FAP’s prevention services. The program is particularly valuable in

reaching and assisting families who live in isolated communities and face tremendous pressures. These families, often young and inexperienced, have a high risk for

abuse and/or neglect. In 1997, J&E determined that 18 to 20 percent of the Army

families receiving home visits by the NPSP had a documented incident of child and/

or spousal maltreatment, as determined by the Army’s Case Review Committee. For

these families, the home visits were designed to emphasize safety, build skills and

knowledge, improve problem solving, and reduce isolation. When we examined all

cases that received home visits from our staff in 1997, J&E staff found that approximately 60 percent of the cases across Army installations worldwide were documented as being ‘‘at risk’’ or ‘‘high risk’’ for abuse and/or neglect. Clearly, these data

indicate the seriousness of abuse and neglect in military families and demonstrate

a documented need for services such as the NPSP.

What Do Military Families Say About the NPSP?.—As the contractor for the Department of the Army’s NPSP effort, J&E has sought feedback on the usefulness

of the program from participating families. Some examples we have received are as

follows:

Eighty percent or more of the family members at three military installations who

participated in infant care classes in late 1997 rated the class as ‘‘excellent’’. At two

installations where parenting classes were offered in Spanish, in excess of 90 percent of the participants rated these classes as ‘‘excellent’’.

Participants, when asked to write about their experiences with the NPSP home

visits and parenting classes, uniformly wrote glowing reports about the staff and

program benefits. Their comments included the following:

‘‘I feel that breaking down how an argument starts between a couple with some

‘‘hands on’’ examples helps the couple understand how to prevent arguments.’’

‘‘The home visitor has been a big help to me and my wife.’’

‘‘The home visits gave me a chance to verbalize my concerns and fears.’’

‘‘During my husband’s long deployment to Bosnia, I had many questions and worries about our first child, an infant of 4 months. I turned to the NPSP for help and

they came to my home for one-on-one parent conferences.’’

‘‘I think the program was very helpful to my family and myself at a time when

we really needed help.’’

‘‘I wish I would have taken this class earlier.’’

‘‘I really enjoyed being part of this class. I learned more about parenting and

being patient.’’

‘‘That is something I really needed to learn.’’

The Impact of the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Cut.—As you can image, the NPSP

was substantially scaled down from its planned scope when its budget was slashed

by 80 percent at the beginning of 1998. To illustrate, the Army’s program was originally designed to serve 39 Army installations, with expansion to 50. However, due

to funding cuts, it now serves 29 sites, with only modified services available. We

are no longer able to provide the full complement of staff needed for each team (social workers, nurses, and administrative staff) despite the number of families needing services at each installation. Most program teams at each installation are

staffed at levels below that which is required. Because of lack of funding, the NPSP

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
735

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment: Reports from the

States to the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect, 1993.

staff now make less frequent home visits, and provide fewer classes. In addition,

certain culturally-specific services have been eliminated. In short, the very activities

that have made the NPSP a success are being undermined.

What Can We Expect in Fiscal Year 1999.—The future of the NPSP depends in

large part on Congress’ commitment to the program. If Congress demonstrates, as

it has in the past, that it does not want military children to be victimized by the

unique stresses to which their parents are subjected, it will restore funding for the

NPSP to the pre-1998 level of $20 million. The NPSP will once again be a model

program for child abuse prevention and proof of our nation’s commitment to the

well-being of military families. If, on the other hand, funding is left at $10 million,

the NPSP will only be able to serve approximately 10,000 families per year, in contrast to the 60,000 families who voluntarily participated in the program in 1997.

One plan under discussion to achieve this dramatic reduction in services is to limit

services to families with children under the age of one rather than under the age

of six. This plan, simply stated, is a fix that focuses on dollars rather than on the

reality of child abuse in military families.

In civilian families, national data show that children are at greatest risk for child

abuse during their first year of life, and the most frequent form of child abuse is

neglect. However, in military families, data collected before the NPSP became widely available showed that three- and four-year-olds are at greater risk of abuse, and

physical abuse is the most common form of abuse.1 (See following graphs.) As a nation, do we really want to operate a program to protect one group of military children from child abuse and turn our backs on another larger group of children whom

we know to be at even greater risk? I don’t believe we do and trust that you will

prove that we do not.

Closing.—I would like to close my comments today by noting that participants in

the NPSP—military families with young children—are disheartened by the funding

cuts to the program. They are writing letters in support of the program and are

phoning their respective Commanding General’s hotline to express concerns. At one

installation where we operate the NPSP, participants have offered to volunteer their

services to help keep the program available. The comments of one young mother at

one of our Army sites captures what these families feel. She said, ‘‘I don’t understand how a program like this cannot be funded when it’s such a big asset to the

parents and children of this installation. (The installation) is in desperate need of

a program like this.’’

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee today.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
736

STATEMENT OF MASTER SERGEANT MICHAEL P. CLINE, (RET.), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL

GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is Master Sergeant Michael P.

Cline (Ret.), executive director, Enlisted Association of the National

Guard of the United States.

Sergeant CLINE. Good afternoon, Senator Inouye. We thank you

for allowing us to participate in these hearings. We are honored to

be able to present the views of our members on the efforts of this

committee.

Mr. Chairman, I must report to you that the relationship between the Active Army and the Army National Guard is still not

fixed. Although the Army has made some attempts to alleviate the

shortfalls of the Army National Guard, there still remains a significant shortfall in fiscal year 1999 appropriations of $634 million.

Why do we feel that there is a continuing problem? Look at the

recently passed fiscal year 1998 emergency supplemental appropriations. The Army National Guard started out with $5.9 million

in additional operations and maintenance funding in the original

bill. It received only $175,000 in the final bill. The Air National

Guard began with $975,000 for operation and maintenance. It received nothing in the final bill. The House Security Committee recently completed its work on the fiscal year 1999 defense authorization bill. The estimate for the Army was increased by 4,800 positions, while the Army Reserve full-time manning was increased by

1,000 positions. The Army National Guard was cut by 4,516 positions.

April figures show that the Active Army and the Army Reserve

cannot meet current end strength requirements. Attrition rates for

the Active are about 36 to 37 percent, while the Army National

Guard is above current end strength levels, with an attrition rate

of only 17 percent.

Where is the rationale for increasing the Army and Army Reserve while making deep cuts in the Army National Guard? Its

costs are significant to send and train soldiers and to have them

replace existing soldiers just does not seem feasible.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
737

The Army National Guard’s 1999 budget shortfalls total $634

million, $184 million in the pay and allowances account, and $450

million in OPTEMPO accounts. This shortfall represents less than

1 percent of the total Army’s budget.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the budget resolution means no additional funds. I believe the Army National Guard shortfall can be

divided from other forces. Historically, the Army funds OPTEMPO

high, but only executes 71 percent. That remaining 29 percent of

their funding is more than enough to make up for the Army National Guard’s shortfall.

As you are aware, the Army has not been able to maintain end

strength suffering, from an attrition rate of above 36 percent. The

Army Reserve has had the same problem. The Army National

Guard continues to maintain its end strength at only that 17 percent attrition rate. The Army’s personnel account can easily afford

to lose funding. The Army National Guard’s shortfall can be derived from the personnel funding the Army does not need anyway.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, you fought hard last year to get

the Army to play fair with the Guard, and we appreciate your efforts and hope you will continue to fight on behalf of the men and

women of the National Guard. Unfortunately, the problem is still

with it. The Association of the National Guard and members of The

Military Coalition voice support for the legislative agenda of The

Military Coalition. I would like to thank you, Senator Inouye, and

the chairman for giving us this opportunity to testify.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MASTER SERGEANT MICHAEL P. CLINE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee: I am honored to have this opportunity to present the views of the

Enlisted men and women of the National Guard of the United States. Our members

are very appreciative of the support extended to them in the past, and are very confident that you will, through your diligent and conscientious efforts, give serious

consideration to the most critical issues facing the National Guard today.

The citizen soldiers of today are truly the finest ever. You may ask yourself, Mr.

Chairman, why are NCO’s and Enlisted people so concerned about the budget? This

is the bottom line: It is the NCO’s’ direct responsibility to train the troops that the

Administration and Congress deploy around the world. The National Guard must

have adequate funding to fully train its soldiers and airmen and protect them from

harm. The Guard must be adequately prepared and resourced to complete its varying assigned missions and avoid degrading criticism from its adversaries. Without

these additional funds, the National Guard will fall into the hollow force that is

being predicted by some individuals in the military community.

As the drawdown of the active forces continues, the Guard is being called upon

more and more to provide peacetime and combat-ready support for contingencies

around the world. Shortages in specific areas are becoming acute. While we assert

that the use of the National Guard is the most cost effective means of implementing

a strong national defense strategy during these financially constrained times, we

also believe that we must have adequate funds to maintain the best possible services to our nation.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Mr. Chairman, based on information received from the Department of Defense

and on the budget submission presented by the administration, the Army National

Guard has a major shortfall in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations. Once again, the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
738

President’s budget submission contains budget information that will bankrupt the

Army National Guard and completely destroy its ability to perform its mission. The

fiscal year 1999 budget for the Army National Guard (ARNG) will only pay approximately 71 percent of its requirements—requirements that were decided upon and

validated by the Department of the Army, not by National Guard officials.

The ARNG’s 1999 budget shortfalls total $634 million. $184 million is in the pay

and allowances (P&A) accounts and $450 million is in operations and maintenance

(O&M) accounts.

In millions

of dollars

P&A (Pay and Allowances):

Military Schools and Special Training .......................................................... 156

Recruiting and Retention Bonuses ................................................................ 18

Active/Guard/Reserve Pay .............................................................................. 10

Total P&A .................................................................................................... 184

O&M (Operation and Maintenance):

Surface OPTEMPO ......................................................................................... 110

Real Property Maintenance ........................................................................... 98

Depot Maintenance ......................................................................................... 94

Information/Telecom Management ................................................................ 73

Medical Support and AT/IDT Supplies and Services ................................... 75

Total O&M ................................................................................................... 450

Total Unfunded Requirement .................................................................... 634

This budget request fails to provide sufficient funds to maintain minimum readiness levels. Failure to fund Army National Guard O&M and P&A accounts will have

a detrimental impact on ARNG readiness, recruiting, retention and the ability to

perform both state and federal missions. This shortfall is forcing National Guard

NCO’s to choose between attending schools needed for promotion or staying with

their units to mentor junior enlisted troops. Inadequate funding of Schools and Special Training accounts decreases unit readiness, reduces promotion capabilities and

diminishes retention rates.

A shortfall in the Bonuses funds limits the recruiting market and diminishes retention rates. Not fully funding active Guard and Reserve pay does not support the

Quadrennial Defense Review’s programmed strength for the ARNG and forces the

ARNG to begin separation procedures as well as limiting the ability to support traditional National Guard soldiers.

The shortfall in Surface OPTEMPO funds does not fund later deploying units.

Real Property Maintenance underfunding will permit only limited emergency repairs, will allow deterioration of ARNG facilities and will contribute to the increase

in the maintenance backlog of equipment. Unserviceable equipment awaiting Depot

Maintenance adversely impacts training and readiness. Lack of funding for Depot

Maintenance decreases the pool of available serviceable assets for both mission and

training requirements and jeopardizes Division redesign plans. A funding shortfall

in the Information/Telcomm Support account means that the ARNG cannot maintain basic information structure; the Reserve Component Automation System cannot

be supported. The Miscellaneous Med/Tng Support, Supplies and Svcs account needs

funding for medical supplies, medical screening and training support programs to

ensure combat readiness.

The National Guard’s eight combat divisions are the hardest hit since the budget

funds a small portion of their operating tempo requirements. These divisions are

providing many of the Guard elements deploying to Bosnia, while active Army divisions that receive the highest funding priority spend much of their time at home

station. The guys who are being funded to go overseas are staying home, and the

guys who are being funded to stay home are going overseas.

In recent years, budget requests have not adequately funded ARNG readiness accounts, including O&M and P&A. This inadequate funding, represents only 1 percent of the Total Army budget.

The current fiscal year 1999 funding level for the ARNG will not maintain the

minimum readiness level necessary to fulfill our obligation to National Defense. National Guard Bureau has broken out the items/program that will benefit from each

additional $50 million plus-up in funding provided by Congress:

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
739

$50 million add-on

Fully funds Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) personal pay

Fully funds schools for the Enhanced Separate Brigades

Provides 50 percent of the funding needed for Special Training for the Enhanced

Separate Brigades.

$100 million add-on

Early Deployers and Activating units are funded to 100 percent

Schools are funded for Echelon Above Division FA units

$150 million add-on

ARNG Bonus program will be fully funded

Late deploying units will be funded to 75 percent of Department of Army (DA)

requirements

Medical Support will be funded to 71 percent of DA requirements

$200 million add-on

Increases Real Property Maintenance funding to 49 percent

Funds emergency repairs

Depot Maintenance funding to non-deploying units will be increased to 17 percent

$250 million add-on

Increases funding of information technology to 50 percent. Basic infrastructure

and connectivity will be maintained, but technology upgrades will not be paid

Money would also be used for Annual Training and IDT training support, contract

services and supplies

$300 million add-on

Fully funds the Late Deploying units

$350 million add-on

Funds 57 percent of Divisional unit MOSQ and Leadership Development Requirements

$400 million add-on

Increases funding to non-deploying units’ Depot Maintenance, bringing it up to 42

percent of DA requirements

$450 million add-on

Increases funding for Information Technology to 75 percent of DA requirement,

allowing for systems upgrades and limited replacement of equipment

$500 million add-on

Funds 80 percent of other contract Medical Services and Supplies for ARNG activities

Increases funding for schools for Divisional units and for Special Training for Enhanced Separate Brigades and EAD-FA units

$550 million add-on

Fully funds Schools and Special Training requirements

Increases Depot Maintenance funding to 61 percent

Allows for limited upgrades and repairs to ARNG equipment

$600 million add-on

Increases Real Property Maintenance funding to 80 percent

Depot Maintenance funding to non-deploying units increases to 44 percent

$634 million add-on

Fully funds the ARNG unfunded requirements in the fiscal year 1999 budget

Increases Depot Maintenance to non-deploying units to 50 percent

Funds Medical Support (physicals, screening) to 100 percent

Funds Training Support to 80 percent

Funds other Supplies and Services to 84 percent

RCAS

The President’s budget requested adequate funds to field the Reserve Component

Automation System (RCAS) for fiscal year 1999. Last year, cuts in funding to RCAS

were made during the appropriation process, but were added back in at a later time.

EANGUS asks that the President’s budget request be maintained on this item as

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
740

the legislation moves through Congress. In addition, supplementary funding is needed to institute distance learning programs.

MLRS

In its first combat deployment in Operation Desert Storm, the Multiple Launch

Rocket System (MLRS) dominated the artillery battlefield. Army National Guard

units from Oklahoma and Arkansas performed admirably, utilizing the capabilities

of MLRS. These units not only performed magnificently, but also assisted coalition

forces from the United Kingdom and France during the advance into Iraq. From

January 17, 1991, until February 26, 1991, units from the 1–158 Field Artillery

MLRS fired more than 934 rockets at Iraqi defenses. The overwhelming success of

MLRS in Desert Storm emphasizes the importance of a modernized artillery force.

Today, the National Guard represents two-thirds of the total Army’s artillery

force. MLRS is a mission in which the Army National Guard can reasonably be

trained and prepared quickly to assist the regular Army in future contingency missions. Modernization with MLRS is far from complete; 11 National Guard battalions

and seven National Guard divisions are unfunded. The Army’s budget request for

fiscal year 1999 contained no MLRS Launchers—the unfunded request is for the

National Guard only. Eight of the ten MLRS battalions the Guard does have were

congressional add-ons. $150.4 million in additional appropriations to the Army’s procurement account is necessary to add an MLRS battalion to the Army National

Guard in fiscal year 1999. Although there are plans to downsize battalions to 3

times 6 (18 MLRS), resulting in an additional 9 units per battalion which will cascade down, additional funding will not be wasted. So many MLRS units are needed

that any add-on in fiscal year 1999 would be a valid request.

ENGAGEMENT SKILLS TRAINER

The Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) is an interactive weapons simulator that

integrates leading-edge technology in computers, audio visual systems and lasers.

The result is a relatively low-cost system that allows full training in weapons

marksmanship and judgmental firearms training by military and law enforcement

users on an international basis. The obvious advantages of this system are reduced

live ammunition and range operation costs, virtual elimination of safety and environmental risks and reduced ‘‘dead’’ time in travel to and from live fire ranges. The

fidelity of the interactive targets and scenarios provide trainees with ‘‘real world’’

situations involving use of force options without risk to trainees, live trainers or bystanders.

The Army National Guard is currently fielding the EST in two configurations: a

full twelve-lane EST with a focus on training collective (squad level) tasks, and a

four-lane configuration with a focus on individual skills and tasks. The training

value of the EST for the individual combatant/section/crew and squad has been validated throughout the ARNG and fully supports the strategic vision for training in

the 21st century. The accelerated ammunition reductions within the U.S. Army ($40

million a year) place a renewed urgency on fully fielding the National Guard with

the EST. The current fielding plan is to place a four-lane trainer in most Army

Guard armories throughout the U.S. and place the full EST at larger sites and

training centers.

Several Army Guard units have established arrangements informally with local

law enforcement agencies for co-use of Guard simulator systems to conduct needed

law enforcement training. This Community-Based Simulation Training Strategy envisions the Army National Guard continuing to field the EST in consonance with

the Army’s validated requirement and training strategy. This concept draws upon

the ‘‘Community-Based Defense Force’’ mission of the National Guard. Local law enforcement will work out individual agreements with the local Army Guard unit. It

is envisioned that this program will grow into a national program involving all Reserve Component forces.

The concept of this Community-Based Simulation Training Strategy entails funding for approximately $5 million to allow for the establishment of a valid pilot program across an appropriate spectrum of locations in the nation. At approximately

$48,000 per system, this would allow for fielding 104 lane trainers in various communities and states. After system fielding and implementation of the pilot program,

a report will be generated showing actual cost savings for the Guard and law enforcement participants in the program. The results are expected to illuminate the

need for completion of the fielding of the remaining systems over the next four

years.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
741

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

The Air National Guard (ANG) has proven to be one of the most cost-effective

means of maintaining Total Air Force capability within the constraints of a shrinking defense budget. This is evident with the continued involvement in worldwide

contingencies by the ANG C–130 airlift forces.

Below are the unfunded requirements for the ANG for fiscal year 1999:

In millions

Miscellaneous ANG Equipment:

F–16 Targeting Pods ................................................................................ 160.5

Data Links for F–16, A–10, F–15, B–1 ................................................... 64.951

Night vision capability ............................................................................. 20.931

Improved aircraft survivability ............................................................... 50.005

Training systems ...................................................................................... 12.810

Total Miscellaneous Equipment .......................................................... 309.197

F–16 A/B Service Life Extension .................................................................... 18.000

Real Property Maintenance ............................................................................ 24.000

Depot Maintenance .......................................................................................... 26.000

Real Property Maintenance Backlog Reduction ............................................ 26.000

Total ANG fiscal year 1999 Unfunded Priorities ............................... 403.2

The ANG F–16’s require a targeting pod to fulfill current Precision-Guided Munitions requirements. Recently, several low-cost targeting pods have been produced

that could dramatically increase capability at a relatively low initial cost. These

pods would improve ANG combat capability and contingency support availability.

Data Links for F–16’s, A–10’s, F–15’s and B–1’s are needed to save soldier’s and

airmen’s lives by preventing fratricide and enhancing situational awareness while

providing accurate combat ID capabilities. Links also provide access to data for battle participants, giving them target/threat information and intelligence.

Night Vision capability consists of: Night Vision Goggles; F–15 Night Vision Imaging System; HC/C–130 Night Vision Imaging System program and the HC–130 AN/

ARS–6 Personnel Locator System. Night Vision is the key to sustained 24-hour combat operations and is essential for successful combat execution, lethality and survivability. Night Vision is also essential for minimizing search time and providing

quick, positive identification in search and rescue missions.

Improved Aircraft Survivability includes: the Electronic Warfare Management

System; the Mega Data Transfer Cartridge; C–130 Cockpit Armor; the HC–130 Integrated Electronic Warfare System and Fighter Engine Modernization.

Training Systems consist of: new A–10 Unit Training Devices (simulator); F–15

Full Mission Trainers; video recording system for the B–1 and Automated Squadron

Management System.

The Service Life Extension Program for F–16A/B Aircraft is required on 24 F–

16A/B aircraft in order for them to last through 2005. Many of these aircraft have

already exceeded their programmed service life of 4,000 hours. This repair/modification requires $8.64 million of Aircraft Procurement and $9.6 million of Operation

and Maintenance, ANG funding.

At $86 million for fiscal year 1999, the ANG Real Property Maintenance budget

will be insufficient to meet the urgent requirements. Backlog of Maintenance of Repair will be $643 million at the end of fiscal year 1999 based on current funding.

$24 million is urgently needed to repair severely deteriorated airfield pavements,

upgrade infrastructure at joint use airfields, bed down new mission requirements

and correct fire and safety deficiencies. $26 million is urgently needed for repair of

roofs, exterior walls, windows and doors. It would also be used to repair heating,

ventilating, electrical, water and sewer systems.

The ANG Depot Maintenance account for fiscal year 1999 needs an additional $26

million to eliminate deferred aircraft, engine and support equipment maintenance.

C–17

The C–17 is essential to the Air Force’s ongoing modernization of its air mobility

forces and is key to meeting the nation’s strategic mobility requirements for the 21st

century. The C–17 possesses the full range of capabilities that will meet critical

DOD and national needs; long range, outsized and oversized cargo, the ability to operate on simple and congested runways, efficient on-load and off-load, airdrop and

excellent defensive systems. It will replace capacity lost as C–141’s retire. The burdens placed on U.S. strategic mobility forces will not become less demanding in the

future. In fact, the potential demands of peacetime engagement, the likelihood of

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
742

smaller-scale contingencies worldwide, and the increased possibility of confronting

nuclear, biological, and chemical threats all pose challenges for mobility forces. The

current acquisition plan for the C–17 will severely hamper our nation’s strategic mobility forces. Additional funding to provide for fielding of the first C–17 to the ANG

is necessary sooner than planned. Aging C–141’s are 40 years old and have suffered

from overuse. Enlisted Aircrews’ lives are at risk, as well as the pilots of these aged

aircraft.

FULL-TIME SUPPORT

The National Guard’s role under the Total Force Policy is substantial; it requires

high levels of readiness. The ability of Guard units and personnel to mobilize, deploy, integrate and operate was amply demonstrated during Operation Desert

Shield/Desert Storm and now Bosnia. The level of full-time support manning has

a direct and demonstrated influence on readiness capabilities and is dictated by mission and equipment levels rather than by end strength. Full-time support manning

is a pivotal element in day-to-day operations and functions in administration personnel, supply and training preparation and in enhancing the quality of training by

making inactive duty training periods and annual training more efficient and effective. A need exists for full-time spaces to support organizing and maintaining state

health and dental clinics.

CLOSING

Mr. Chairman, it is our Association’s belief that the National Guard, in conjunction with the active component, represents the most cost-effective weapon at our disposal to defend our nation. The National Guard’s potential has barely been tapped.

Yet, it stands ready, willing and accessible to meet our defensive needs. It is imperative to ensure that the National Guard has the necessary support to fully develop

into an integral part of the Total Force. This can only be accomplished through modernization of equipment, a stable force strength, and training. Shortchanging any

one of these areas could prove fatal to the effectiveness of the National Guard and

the defense of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the National Guard is your next door neighbor, he or she may be

a truck driver, your lawyer, your son or daughter or your grandchildren’s teacher.

When the National Guard is called, America goes to war. The National Guard is

family. Americans at their best. The National Guard—Protectors of Freedom. Defenders of Peace.

I would like to thank the Chairman and Members of this committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 1999 funding requirements for the

Army and Air National Guard.

Senator INOUYE. I know this is one of the most vexing problems

we face at this time. I was hoping this matter could be resolved by

now, but apparently it will be with us for a long, long time.

Sergeant CLINE. If I could add something, Senator Inouye. It has

been our association’s belief that end strength and force structure

is an issue of the officers. We normally let them take care of that

business, but things have gotten so bad.

When we are only facing 13 percent OPTEMPO in our eight divisions, that means the tank commander gets to drive his tank 13

miles a year. How do we expect somebody to be ready to go in

harm’s way when they cannot meet their OPTEMPO requirements,

and it is the enlisted guy who is out there in the forefront in the

Army doing the job.

Senator INOUYE. And yet they expect you to do it.

Sergeant CLINE. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
743

STATEMENT OF CMDR. VIRGINIA TORSCH, MSC, USNR, THE MILITARY

COALITION

ACCOMPANIED BY CMDR. MIKE LORD, JAGC, USN (RET.), THE MILITARY COALITION

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is Commander Virginia

Torsch and Commander Mike Lord, The Military Coalition.

Commander TORSCH. Thank you, Senator Inouye. I am going to

go ahead and present it, but I have got backup here if I need it.

On behalf of The Military Coalition, I would like to express our

deepest appreciation to the chairman and distinguished members

of this subcommittee for holding these important hearings and for

allowing us to present our concerns.

The Military Coalition is committed to making Tricare a better

health care plan and has been working with DOD and with Congress to remedy some of the problems even as we pursue other

more comprehensive fixes to the military medical care system.

This subcommittee has been very instrumental in ensuring that

many of these problems have been resolved, at least ameliorated,

and the coalition would like to express its deepest appreciation for

the committee’s role.

One of the most critical steps towards restoring equity in the

health care benefit for older retirees was taken last year, with the

enactment of legislation for a medicare subvention test in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The coalition deeply appreciates the subcommittee’s leadership in getting this important legislation enacted

and is optimistic the test will prove that subvention is a win-win

provision for all concerned.

However, the coalition is concerned that many subvention supporters believe subvention is the solution. This is not the case at

all. In fact, even when Tricare Senior is expanded Nationwide,

medicare subvention, when combined with DOD’s level of effort,

will only benefit medicare-eligible beneficiaries residing in the

catchment areas of major military hospitals, which is at best about

30 to 40 percent of the medicare-eligible uniformed services population.

Next to lifetime health care commitment, an additional option

must be provided to the have-nots and lock-outs, and that is to

offer those medicare-eligible uniformed beneficiaries who cannot

benefit from Tricare Senior the opportunity to enrol in the Federal

Health Employment Benefit Program. We realize that one of the

principal arguments being made against FEHBP–65 is its price tag

to the beneficiary.

This was not a concern the coalition took likely, and before concluding that FEHBP–65 would be a viable option for beneficiaries,

we conducted a health care cost survey in 1996. That survey revealed that 32.5 percent of enlisted retirees 65 and older, and 41.8

percent of officer retirees 65 or older would be economically better

off with FEHBP than under their current health care coverage.

That represents a significant population who would benefit from

enrolling in the Federal Health Employments Benefits Program.

While the coalition would prefer to have FEHBP–65 enacted Nationwide, we recognize that the limited test may be necessary to

take the guesswork out of the low cost of this option. We are therefore delighted that the Senate Armed Services Committee comU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
744

pleted its draft of the uniformed 1999 defense authorization bill

last week. They included a three-prong test of additional options

for medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries.

The test provides medicare-eligible retirees the opportunity to enroll in the Federal Health Employments Benefit Program at two

sites, the opportunity to buy into a medicare supplemental insurance program for a premium to be determined by the Defense Department which would not exceed 75 percent of the FEHBP premium at two other sites, and the option to participate in the Department of Defense mail order pharmacy program subject to copayments and other charges deemed appropriate by the Secretary

of Defense at two other sites.

The only change to this provision we ask this committee to consider is to expand the FEHBP portion of the test to perhaps include

more sites.

Enactment of this Senate provision should not be too problematic

for DOD, since last year in a report to Congress Dr. Edward Martin, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs,

indicated DOD would support a limited test of FEHBP–65. The coalition is anxiously awaiting DOD’s proposal, but it is concerned

that DOD is dragging its feet in developing the plan.

Timing is critical, because the Office of Personnel Management

indicates that even with FEHBP–65 legislation enacted this summer, enrollment for the demonstration cannot begin until November of 1999, with implementation in January 2000. It would be a

travesty if the test slipped beyond that date.

It is truly ironic that, despite their many sacrifices, retired service members lose their military health insurance at age 65. Please

keep in mind those hit hardest are the retirees who fought in

World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and then won the Cold War.

They have saved the Government many, many billions in reduced

defense spending every year. These retirees have already paid the

premiums for equal coverage not just in money but in service and

sacrifice, including many who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Chairman, the coalition respectfully requests and strongly

recommends that this committee include funding in its markup of

the fiscal year 1999 defense appropriations bill to conduct the

three-pronged demonstration of FEHBP–65 for medicare supplemental with the expansion of the pharmacy benefit as provided by

the Senate fiscal year 1999 Defense Authorization Act.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee. This concludes my testimony.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Commander. You spoke

of a 1996 survey on health care. Can you share a copy of that survey with us?

Commander TORSCH. Certainly, sir.

Senator INOUYE. We would appreciate that very much.

Commander TORSCH. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
745

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CMDR. VIRGINIA TORSCH

Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee: On behalf of The

Military Coalition, we would like to express appreciation to the Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense for holding this important hearing. This testimony provides the collective

views of the following military and veterans organizations which represent approximately 5 million members of the seven uniformed services, officer and enlisted, active, reserve, veterans and retired plus their families and survivors.

Air Force Association

Army Aviation Association of America

Association of the United States Army

Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant

Officer Association, United States

Coast Guard

Commissioned Officers Association of the

United States Public Health Service,

Inc.

Enlisted Association of the National

Guard of the United States

Fleet Reserve Association

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.

Jewish War Veterans of the United

States of America

Marine Corps League

Marine Corps Reserve Officers

Association

National Guard Association of the

United States

National Military Family Association

National Order of Battlefield

Commissions

Naval Enlisted Reserve Association

Navy League of the United States

Naval Reserve Association

Reserve Officers Association

The Military Chaplains Association of

the United States of America

The Retired Enlisted Association

The Retired Officers Association

United Armed Forces Association

United States Army Warrant Officers

Association

United States Coast Guard Chief Petty

Officers Association

Veterans of Foreign Wars

The Military Coalition does not and has not received any federal grants, and does

not have nor has had any contracts with the federal government.

INTRODUCTION

The Military Coalition (TMC) has been privileged to observe the design and implementation of Tricare from a front row seat over the last few years. The Coalition

was delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the development of the

Tricare benefit package and to provide extensive comments on the Tricare rules and

regulations. Open dialogue between the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Health Affairs (OASD/HA) and the Coalition has allowed actual beneficiary experience to be part of the daily evaluation of the program as Tricare has been implemented throughout the country. The Coalition is very committed to making Tricare

a better health care plan for all participants and has been working vigorously with

DOD and Congress to remedy some of the problems with the program, even as it

pursues other more comprehensive solutions to the problems burdening the military

medical care system.

It is important to note, however, that despite the progress in fixing some of the

problems with Tricare, to be addressed shortly, there are still significant issues that

must be resolved. These issues include a lack of a uniform health care benefit, low

reimbursement levels, slow claims processing and others to be detailed later in this

statement.

IMPROVEMENTS IN TRICARE

In general, Tricare Prime, the HMO piece of Tricare, is relatively consistent with

other managed care programs. With some notable exceptions, Tricare Prime has

been well received in areas surrounding Military Treatment Facilities (MTF’s). The

Coalition has closely followed Congress’s and DOD’s progress in trying to improve

the Tricare program, and would like to note some positive fixes to Tricare and to

the military health care benefit in general over the last year.

Medicare Subvention Test.—One of the most critical steps toward restoring equity

in the health care benefit for older retirees was taken last year with the enactment

of legislation for a Medicare subvention test in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

The provision calls for a test of Medicare subvention (to be known as Tricare Senior)

for three years at six sites around the country to include: Keesler AFB, Biloxi, MS;

Ft. Carson and the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO; Madigan Army Medical Center, Ft. Lewis, WA; Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA; Dover Air Force

Base, Dover, DE; and a joint site including Brooke Army Medical Center and

Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, Ft. Sill, Lawton, OK; and Sheppard

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
746

AFB, Wichita Falls, TX. The Coalition deeply appreciates this Subcommittee’s leadership in getting this important legislation enacted and is optimistic that the test

will prove that subvention is a win-win provision for all concerned.

Despite this successful outcome, the Coalition remains concerned that the demand

for enrollment in Tricare Senior will far exceed the capacity. Congress has only allocated $50 million in Medicare funding for fiscal year 1998, which will cover approximately 10,000 additional beneficiaries at the test sites. Although a considerably

larger number will receive care in the test facilities because DOD has agreed to continue its prior level of service to Medicare-eligibles without reimbursement, there

is considerable uncertainty as to the maximum program capacity. The Coalition is

also concerned that beneficiaries who became Medicare-eligible before December 1,

1997, but who never used a uniformed services health care facility as a Medicareeligible beneficiary before that date are ineligible to participate in the test. Many

of these individuals never used an MTF because they could not get appointments

or did not require medical care. It is not fair to penalize these individuals by forever

denying them the opportunity to enroll in Tricare Senior. The Coalition recommends

that when Medicare subvention is implemented nationwide, all Medicare-eligible

uniformed services beneficiaries be allowed to enroll in Tricare Senior regardless of

any prior usage of the military health care system.

Expansion of Tricare Prime Outside of Catchment Areas.—Last year the Coalition

expressed concern that Tricare Prime needed to be expanded to all areas where

there are significant numbers of uniformed services beneficiaries (including retirees)

and where there are sufficient numbers of civilian providers to establish a civilian

network of providers under Prime or Extra (like base closure sites). The Coalition

is pleased to see that Section 712 of the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act

requires that DOD prepare a plan to expand Tricare Prime to noncatchment areas.

The Coalition is urging DOD to implement this plan as soon as feasible.

Waiver of Deductibles, Copayments and Annual Fees for Family Members of Active

Duty Members Assigned to Remote Duty Locations.—The Coalition has also been

concerned that active duty members assigned as recruiters, ROTC instructors, fulltime advisors to reserve units, or to duty stations outside Tricare Prime catchment

areas do not have the option of enrolling their family members in Tricare Prime

with the lower co-payments. These families have been unfairly burdened with the

higher cost of care under Tricare Standard. Therefore, the Coalition was pleased to

see that Section 712 of the Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization Act also allows the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of either providing

a health care stipend or a reduction in Tricare Standard cost-sharing for family

members of these active duty members. It is our hope that DOD will make a decision and implement this plan in a timely manner.

The Coalition was also pleased that Section 731 provides a transitional program

that requires DOD ensure active duty members assigned to remote locations have

the same timely access to care as those who are assigned closer to a military treatment facility. DOD must allow active duty members to receive care under Tricare

Standard (CHAMPUS) without any copayments or deductibles until Tricare Prime

becomes available to that area.

Portability and reciprocity for Tricare Prime enrollees.—The Coalition expressed

concern last year that Prime enrollees could not transfer their enrollment from one

Tricare region to another, or get care in a different Tricare region than the one in

which they were enrolled. The Coalition is very pleased to see that DOD has issued

a policy memorandum implementing portability of Prime enrollment, both for active

duty family members and for retirees. The Coalition is aware, however, that there

are still a few problems in actually making Prime fully portable, and we are urging

DOD Health Affairs to work out these problems as quickly as possible. The Coalition is also urging DOD to speed up its efforts on reciprocity of care between Tricare

regions.

CONCERNS REMAIN HOWEVER

Although great strides have been made by DOD and Congress in fixing some of

the more egregious problems with Tricare, the Coalition remains concerned about

problems we noted last year that still have not been addressed. These problems are

detailed in Attachment A, and we urge this Committee to work with the Senate

Armed Services Committee to implement our suggested fixes.

The one problem we do want to concentrate on however, is that Tricare does not

provide a uniform health care benefit for all military beneficiaries, particularly for

those who are Medicare-eligible. Earlier the Coalition expressed its appreciation and

optimism about Medicare Subvention. There is no doubt that it is a critical step toward honoring the health care commitment. Having said that, the Coalition is conU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
747

cerned that many Subvention supporters believe Subvention is ‘‘the solution.’’ This

is not the case at all. In fact, even when Tricare Senior is expanded nationwide,

Medicare Subvention, when combined with DOD’s level of effort will only benefit

Medicare-eligible beneficiaries residing in the catchment areas of major MTF’s.

The stark reality is that Subvention will only accommodate a maximum of 30 percent to 40 percent of Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries. Thus, to

honor the lifetime health care commitment, another option must be provided.

Before turning to the Coalition’s specific recommendation, it’s important to address a myth shared by the American public—and many in Congress—that uniformed services retirees have better-than-average health care benefits. This is an

unfortunate misperception from decades ago. In fact, as indicated in the following

charts, DOD is the largest single employer in the country, but ranks in the bottom

11 percent of large American employers (10,000 or more employees) in terms of the

health care coverage it provides to Medicare-eligible uniformed services retirees.

The 1997 Hay Benefits Report (one of the nation’s most respected benefits survey

firms), indicates even smaller firms substantially subsidize Medicare supplemental

insurance for their retirees. As shown below, the larger the firm, the greater the

subsidized benefit.

EMPLOYER-FUNDED HEALTH COVERAGE (FOR MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREES)

Firm size

<0.5K 0.5–1K 1–5K 5–10K 10K∂ All

Firms Surveyed ................................................................. 121 69 190 55 91 526

Percent Providing at Least Some Subsidy ....................... 71 78 79 85 89 80

Percent Paying at Least 50 Percent of Premium ............ 67 70 71 85 85 74

Note: DOD Falls within Bottom 11 percent of Large Firms Nationwide.

Source: 1997 Hay Benefits Report.

A more appropriate comparison is to pit DOD Medicare-supplemental coverage for

military retirees with that offered by the largest corporate employers to their retirees and what the federal government provides all other federal retirees, except those

from the uniformed services. As the following chart demonstrates, uniformed services retiree health coverage is a very distant last.

‘‘BIG FIVE’’ CIVILIAN RETIREE COVERAGE

Employer

Employer

Prem Pmt

(percent)

Family

Deductibles Retiree Cost Share OtherBenefits 1

GM ........................................................... 80 $600 0 ......................................... Rx, D, V.

Ford .......................................................... 100 $250 20 percent/$500 Cap ......... Rx, D, V.

IBM .......................................................... 100 $250 20 percent ..........................

($340 INP) ..........................

Rx, D, V.

(0 INP)

Exxon ........................................................ 95 $500 20 percent/$2,500 Cap ...... Rx, D.

Fed Gov’t (Civ) ........................................ 72 ( 1 ) Nominal .............................. Rx, D.

Fed Gov’t (Mil) ......................................... 0 ( 2 ) ............................................ None. 3

1 Often Waived.

2 Retiree Pays Everything, Medicare Doesn’t.

3 Some get Space-A care; civilian plans cover all retirees.

Rx—Prescriptions; D—Dental; V—Vision.

As the Coalition has testified before, we are convinced that the fair, equitable and

cost effective solution is to offer those Medicare-eligible uniformed service beneficiaries the opportunity to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP–65). In this regard, Mr. Chairman, the Coalition is extremely appreciative of this Subcommittee’s effort to have DOD submit FEHBP–65 test legislation

to Congress this year. Although we are extremely reluctant to settle for less than

nationwide implementation of FEHBP–65, we recognize that a test is the only way

to dispel the numerous misperceptions about the potential dire consequences of

opening FEHBP to the uniformed services community. For example:

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
748

—Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that FEHBP–65 nationwide carries a price tag of about $1.7 billion annually;

—Assertions that adding uniformed services beneficiaries to the FEHBP could

have an adverse impact on the premiums paid by federal civilian participants;

—Predictions that service beneficiaries would increase their consumption of Medicare benefits;

—Concerns that the lack of an elderly and infirmed patient base in military hospitals could impair medical readiness; and

—Speculation that FEHBP would be unaffordable for enlisted members and other

low income beneficiaries.

The Coalition does not agree that any of these concerns should be show-stoppers

and would like to discuss them in turn.

TAKING THE GUESSWORK OUT OF FEHBP–65 COSTS

We turn first to what we believe are grossly overstated CBO cost estimates. For

example, in doing its analysis, the CBO ignored several health care options available to uniformed services beneficiaries which the Coalition believes would militate

against their participation in FEHBP–65. In arriving at its $1.7 billion cost estimate, CBO assumed that 70 percent of the 1,300,000 eligible beneficiaries would

participate in FEHBP–65 if offered. This estimate ignores:

—The 30–40 percent of the Medicare-eligible uniformed services population who

would be accommodated by Medicare Subvention (including DOD’s level of effort);

—The estimated 10 percent who are enrolled in Medicare at-risk Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO’s) and would likely remain in these programs;

—The additional 17 percent who already participate in FEHBP or private sector

insurance plans that are equal to or better than FEHBP. (Source 1997 GAO Report);

—Others who have access to VA facilities—a trend that could increase if VA Subvention is enacted; and

—Inertia and cost-conscious decision-making. Human nature being what it is,

many retirees are likely to be satisfied with the status quo because of cost concerns or an aversion to shifting to a new program.

In its analysis as shown below, the Coalition assumed a conservative 32 percent

would participate in Subvention.

Thus when Medicare subvention, Medicare at risk HMO’s and private sector coverage are considered, the residual population of FEHBP-eligibles is 533,000. The Coalition also considered data from a 1997 GAO report that indicated about 30 percent

of the Service beneficiaries have Medigap supplemental policies and would likely

switch to FEHBP. Further, TMC assumed that an additional 100,000 beneficiaries

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
749

without supplemental insurance would also participate—for a range of potential

costs of $280 million to $452 million annually—far less than the CBO estimate.

NO IMPACT ON FEDERAL CIVILIAN PREMIUMS

Since a separate risk pool would be established, there would be no impact on federal civilian premiums, while there is every likelihood the cost to DOD would be

further reduced. One fundamental reason is that the vast majority of uniformed

services beneficiaries are covered by Medicare. According to CBO, when FEHBP is

combined with Medicare Part B, the health care outlays for FEHBP insurers are

only 70 cents for every dollar of premiums paid. CBO estimates that for individuals

age 65 and older who are not eligible for Medicare—a phenomenon more prevalent

among federal civilian retirees than military—FEHBP insurers pay out $2.50 for

every dollar of premiums paid.

MEDICARE IMPACT WILL BE NEGLIGIBLE

The CBO estimate incorporates two assumptions about retiree behavior: (1) service retirees will forego care in MTF’s to take advantage of their Medicare benefit

supplemented by FEHBP; and (2) enrollment in FEHBP in non-prime areas will result in increased use of Medicare by beneficiaries (because if they are paying premiums for FEHBP, they might as well get their money’s worth).

The first prediction is tied to CBO’s inability to recognize (because of scoring

groundrules) that when combined with Tricare Prime, Tricare Senior will accelerate

the demise of Space A care and force retirees to use Medicare. Thus, the Medicare

impact will occur without FEHBP.

There is no empirical data to substantiate CBO’s second assumption. A test of

FEHBP–65 will eliminate the guesswork.

MEDICAL READINESS

This misconception about FEHBP–65 stems in part because of DOD concerns that

FEHBP, if offered to all retirees, would erode the patient base that is critical to

medical readiness. In fact, there will be no impact on readiness because Medicare

Subvention (Tricare Senior) will provide all the patients needed to meet the clinical

training and professional experience needs of physicians, corpsmen and other ancillary medical personnel.

THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE

This is not a concern the Coalition took lightly, and before concluding that

FEHBP–65 would be a viable option for its beneficiaries, the Coalition conducted a

health care cost survey in 1996. That survey revealed that 32.5 percent of enlisted

retirees 65 and older and 41.8 percent of officer retirees 65 and older would be economically better off with FEHBP than under their current health care coverage.

That represents a significant population who would benefit from FEHBP. The proof

is in the pudding and a test would help corroborate the survey results.

Mr. Chairman, uniformed services retirees receive considerable literature from organizations like the Coalition extolling the health care advantages Federal civilian

retirees and retirees from large corporations have when they become eligible for

Medicare. Military retirees are well aware that DOD and other agencies in the Federal government will spend more than $4 billion in fiscal year 1998 to provide federal civilian retirees health care that is second to none. Military retirees do not understand, and neither do we, why they should not be given the opportunity to participate in this extraordinary program as well. Therefore, The Military Coalition is

seeking your support to appropriate funding to allow Medicare-eligible uniformed

services beneficiaries, including those eligible for Medicare due to disability, to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP), the health care benefit

available to 9.6 million Federal employees and annuitants, including members of

Congress. The Coalition is of the firm belief that Medicare-eligible uniformed services retirees have earned the right to participate in FEHBP–65 and that it is a viable means of satisfying the lifetime health care commitment. We believe our members would consider this option a reasonable alternative to the virtually non-existent

military health care because FEHBP premiums are less expensive than most Medicare supplemental policies, and most FEHBP plans provide better coverage, including a prescription drug benefit, at less cost than Medicare supplements.

For the last two years, the Coalition has been working assiduously with Congress

to get legislation enacted for FEHBP–65. In early 1997, Representative Moran introduced legislation for FEHBP–65 nationwide (H.R. 76) and Senator Warner introduced the Senate companion bill (S. 224). However, because of the less than enthuU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
750

siastic support accorded to those bills by Congress and DOD, the Coalition believes

the only way to convince the skeptics is to conduct a test of FEHBP–65 along the

lines spelled out in S. 1334. This bipartisan bill, which now has 58 cosponsors (236

for its House companion bill, H.R. 1766), would authorize a demonstration of

FEHBP–65 in two geographic areas—one including a Tricare Prime area with military treatment facilities and the other without such facilities—and would include no

more than 25,000 Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries in each area. In other

words, approximately 50,000 beneficiaries would be given the opportunity to enroll

during the demonstration and, based on the participation rate, accurate data could

be derived to predict the cost of extending the program nationwide. CBO has scored

this initiative as costing about $68 million each year. The cost would actually be

less the first year because DOD’s share of premiums would be paid for only nine

months rather than a full year. If need be, for better data collection, the test could

be conducted at more than two areas, while controlling costs by limiting the opportunity to participate to the 50,000 beneficiaries contemplated by S. 1334.

The demonstration proposed by S. 1334 is consistent with guidance in the Fiscal

Year 1998 Defense Appropriations Act which directed DOD to submit FEHBP test

legislation to Congress this year. This should not be too problematic for DOD because last year in a report to Congress, Dr. Edward Martin, the Acting Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, indicated DOD would support a limited test

of FEHBP–65 in non-Prime areas. The only difference between S. 1334 and Dr.

Martin’s idea is S. 1334 would conduct the demonstration in a Tricare Prime

catchment area. We agree with the approach in S. 1334 that the only way to get

meaningful data is to put FEHBP in a head-to-head contest with Tricare Senior to

see how many beneficiaries would opt out of care in an MTF to enroll in FEHBP.

It’s our guess that there will always be more applicants for Tricare Senior than the

system can accommodate. But, with FEHBP to fall back on, DOD could fulfill its

commitment to servicemembers in a reasonable way.

It is truly ironic that, despite their many sacrifices, retired servicemembers lose

their military health insurance at age 65. Please keep in mind that those hit hardest by Congress’ and DOD’s inaction are the retirees who fought in World War II,

Korea and Vietnam and then won the Cold War. The latter victory alone is saving

the government many, many billions in reduced defense spending every year. These

retirees have already paid the premiums for equal coverage, not just in money, but

in service and sacrifice, including many who paid the ultimate sacrifice. FEHBP–

65 is needed to cover their widows as well.

The Coalition is anxiously awaiting DOD’s proposal, but is concerned that DOD

is dragging its feet in developing the plan. Timing is critical because the Office of

Personnel Management indicates that even with FEHBP–65 legislation enacted this

summer, enrollment for the demonstration cannot begin until November 1999 with

implementation in January 2000. It would be a travesty if the test slipped beyond

that date.

Mr. Chairman, the Coalition respectfully requests and strongly recommends that

this committee include funding to conduct a demonstration of FEHBP–65 in its

markup of the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations Bill.

OTHER HEALTH CARE CONCERNS

The Coalition would like to briefly mention two other concerns that are closely

related to the Tricare program. First, the almost 400 percent increase in premiums

last year for the Continuing Health Benefits Program essentially leaves military

beneficiaries without an affordable COBRA benefit. The Coalition strongly recommends the premiums for CHBP be reduced to a more affordable level for uniformed services beneficiaries leaving military service.

Second, DOD’s insistence that all health care programs, including dental plans,

carry the Tricare name, has created confusion for many beneficiaries. The Coalition

is especially concerned about the retiree dental plan which is totally unrelated to

the Tricare program. This plan is not subsidized by DOD, but is paid for entirely

by the retiree. Further, the dental plan is open to retirees of all ages, including

those who are eligible for Medicare. However, the Coalition has received numerous

complaints that health care benefits advisors and even some DEERS employees

have told Medicare-eligible beneficiaries they could not participate in the retiree

dental plan because it was a Tricare plan and therefore only open to CHAMPUSeligible beneficiaries. The Coalition requests that this Committee work with the

Senate Armed Services Committee to exert pressure on DOD to drop the Tricare

name from this dental plan so that Medicare-eligible beneficiaries are not inadvertently discouraged from participating in this very important program.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
751

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, The Military Coalition is cognizant that many of the initial problems with Tricare (especially the Prime program) resulted from growing pains as

Tricare was implemented throughout the country. This Committee has been instrumental in ensuring that many of these problems have been resolved or at least ameliorated, and the Coalition would like to express its deepest appreciation for the

Committee’s role.

Nevertheless, Tricare remains seriously flawed in that it does not provide a uniform health care benefit for all military beneficiaries. This fundamental flaw must

be remedied through Congressional action as soon as possible with enactment of a

test for FEHBP–65. The Coalition is also very concerned about the increasing difficulty that both the Prime and Standard programs seem to be having with locating

and retaining quality health care providers. The Coalition urges this Committee to

take immediate measures to strengthen both the Tricare Prime and Standard

(CHAMPUS) options so that Tricare becomes a viable health care benefit.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, we wish to express our profound appreciation to you

and this Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our views on these critically

important topics. We will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

ATTACHMENT A

TRICARE PRIME PROBLEMS

Tricare does not help Medicare-eligible beneficiaries residing overseas. These individuals are in a Catch-22 situation. They cannot enroll in Tricare Prime because

they are no longer eligible for CHAMPUS and they cannot use Medicare because

that program does not operate in foreign countries. Their only alternative is to rely

on space available care in the military hospitals which is becoming increasingly difficult to find since many overseas medical facilities have been closed. Unfortunately,

Medicare subvention will not help these beneficiaries.

In addition to the problems faced by Medicare-eligible retirees overseas, the Coalition is also concerned by the delay in allowing CHAMPUS-eligible retirees to enroll

in Tricare Prime overseas. The Coalition recommends that DOD Health Affairs expedite the enrollment of these individuals.

Tricare Prime enrollees who do not reside in a catchment area and are unable

to enroll with a military primary care manager (PCM) have a different Prime benefit than those enrollees residing in catchment areas who have a military PCM. This

situation has been further exacerbated by the alternative financing method which

will be implemented in Tricare Regions 1, 2 and 5. Tricare Prime enrollees in

noncatchment areas are assigned to civilian PCM’s and receive most of their care

in the civilian Prime network with copayments for all visits and services, while enrollees in catchment areas have a greater chance of being assigned to a military

PCM’s and receiving care in MTF’s with no copayments. The alternative financing

method further encourages a military commander to ensure that his Prime enrollees

(those assigned to a PCM in his facility) receive first priority for care in his MTF

since he now assumes financial risk for these Prime enrollees. This incentive could

potentially lock out any Prime enrollee with a civilian PCM from receiving care in

the MTF. The Coalition is concerned that the alternative financing method considerably worsens the lack of a uniform health care benefit, by effectively creating two

distinct Tricare Prime plans—an MTF Prime, where enrollees receive most of their

treatment in MTF’s with no co-payments; and a civilian Prime, where enrollees receive their care through civilian providers with the requisite copayments.

Although the House mark of the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act included report language expressing concern over the alternative financing method

and requesting DOD test this method in only two Tricare regions before extending

it throughout the rest of the country, the final Authorization Act did not address

this issue. The Coalition recommends a thorough evaluation of the alternative financing methodology to determine its impact on the uniformity of the Tricare Prime

benefit before allowing DOD Health Affairs to expand this methodology to the rest

of the Tricare regions. The Coalition also requests the Committee’s assistance in ensuring that Prime enrollees in noncatchment areas have the same equal opportunity

for care in an MTF as a Prime enrollee in a catchment area with a military PCM.

Access standards for Tricare Prime are still not being met in most Regions. The

Coalition continues to document numerous instances in most Tricare Regions where

access standards for time and for distance have not been met. A June 1996 GAO

report on Tricare noted that DOD did not have a system for tracking access data.

The GAO report stressed that such a system was extremely important for measurU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
752

ing how well Tricare is meeting this key performance goal. Recent briefings from

DOD officials on their new quality assurance and utilization management contracts

have not reassured the Coalition that DOD will measure access data through this

new contract. The Coalition recommends DOD establish a method of tracking access

data as recommended by GAO. The Coalition also requests DOD be directed to give

immediate attention to all reports of access problems.

Tricare Prime enrollees are still occasionally charged Tricare Standard fees by

some civilian health care providers such as anesthesiologists and pathologists. These

providers are not part of the Tricare Prime network, but are sometimes part of the

health care team at a civilian hospital that is part of the Tricare Prime network.

Tricare Prime enrollees should not be subjected to these ‘‘hidden’’ fees. If an enrollee

receives care from a civilian hospital that is part of the Tricare Prime network, the

enrollee should pay only the Tricare Prime co-payment of $11 a day and no more.

Tricare managed care contractors have acknowledged the problem and for the

most part have tried to ensure that all those who deliver care to Prime enrollees

participate in the Prime network. The Coalition still believes, however, that DOD

Health Affairs should revise its regulations to stipulate that if an enrollee receives

care from a civilian hospital that is part of the Tricare Prime network, the enrollee

will only be subjected to the Tricare Prime co-payment of $11 a day.

Tricare Prime enrollees are still occasionally being referred to non-network pro- viders, thus invoking point of service charges which include a $300 deductible and

a 50 percent copay. The point of service charges have also been applied when a

Prime enrollee has been seen by a network provider who happens to be on call that

day, but is not the enrollee’s primary care manager, even though the enrollee did

not request to be seen by that provider.

DOD and the contractors have acknowledged the problem and have made great

progress in correcting it. However, the Coalition believes a more permanent solution

would be to have a Tricare Prime enrollee sign a form that he or she is knowingly

choosing to exercise the point of service option and realizes the higher copayments

and deductibles he or she will incur. This will eliminate situations where the

Tricare Prime primary care manager mistakenly refers the enrollee to a non-network provider.

Tricare Prime enrollees are paying the lion’s share of the cost of mental health

services. The Coalition was appalled to learn that Prime enrollees are paying 44

percent to 55 percent of the allowed amount for mental health outpatient visits in

some Tricare Regions. At the end of Attachment A is a copy of a provider’s explanation of benefits. On pages one and two are the reimbursement rates for active

duty and retired Prime enrollees. The total allowed amount for the visit is $45.

Tricare pays $25 of that for an active duty Prime enrollee, and the enrollee pays

the rest ($20). For a retired Prime enrollee, Tricare pays only $20 and the retiree

must pay $25. Pages three and four show the provider’s reimbursement and beneficiary copayment for a Tricare Standard beneficiary. Note the provider receives

$102 per visit and the active duty beneficiary pays $15.30 per visit and the retiree

$20.40 per visit. The copayments under Tricare Standard for both active duty and

retired beneficiaries are less than under Tricare Prime.

The Coalition urgently requests that an investigation of the prevalence of this sort

of disparity in payment be conducted for other areas of the country, and for other

health care services. The Coalition does not believe it is the intent of Congress that

Prime enrollees pay almost half of the cost of mental health care.

DOD has not established an effective Ombudsman Program in every Tricare Region. The Coalition has received numerous complaints that beneficiaries are having

a difficult time getting through to the Tricare Service Center or Health Benefits Advisor to get questions answered about Tricare benefits, or to resolve Tricare Standard (CHAMPUS) claims. Frequently, beneficiaries become so frustrated they call

various Coalition associations in desperation because they feel they have no other

place to go to get their questions answered. The Coalition strongly recommends that

DOD be directed to establish an Ombudsman office staffed by independent parties

(not DOD or the managed care contractor) in every Tricare region to serve as the

advocate for the beneficiary.

Improve quality control oversight of Tricare managed care support contracts, to

include better monitoring of patient satisfaction, assessment of clinical outcomes,

oversight of provider networks, and adherence to access standards in addition to utilization management. The Coalition remains concerned that DOD continues to focus

on utilization management as the mainstay of its quality control program, while

overlooking other equally important measures of quality such as adherence to access

standards, patient satisfaction and most importantly, clinical outcomes. The Coalition recommends a continued evaluation of DOD’s progress in implementing a more

complete quality control program.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
753

The Coalition continues to hear about problems with Tricare Prime network providers. Directories of Prime providers are still not accurate—in some cases the provider either does not accept Prime patients (and never did), or has closed his practice to new Prime patients; the offices of some network providers are located in undesirable, and even unsafe, parts of town; and there have been reports of a dearth

of Prime providers, especially specialists. The Coalition is particularly concerned

even though standard CHAMPUS rates are the same as Medicare for most health

care services, most of the Tricare managed care support contractors have negotiated

Tricare Prime reimbursement rates with network providers that are even lower

than Medicare. Although providers are not happy with the discounted rates, most

providers have accepted them. However, in the last year, some major provider

groups have dropped out of Tricare Prime (including a 250-member provider group

in Colorado and the entire provider network of the Medical University of South

Carolina), and we are concerned this trend may accelerate. The Coalition urges Congress to take immediate steps to increase the reimbursement rates for Prime providers in order to attract and retain quality health care providers.

PROBLEMS WITH TRICARE STANDARD (CHAMPUS)

Tricare Standard (CHAMPUS) reimbursement levels are still much too low to attract quality health care providers. There are also unreasonable delays in reimbursement for Tricare Standard (CHAMPUS) claims. The Coalition has continuously

expressed its concern over the low CHAMPUS reimbursement rates. Beneficiaries

have reported that in the more rural areas, (and increasingly even in urban areas),

where providers do not depend on a military patient base, health care providers

have become increasingly unwilling to accept Tricare Standard (CHAMPUS) patients at all.

It is difficult to estimate the impact of the lower rates on access to care. Although

the Secretary of Defense has the authority to waive the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC) if it is affecting access, the Tricare Support Office (TSO)

has never requested such a waiver, claiming it has never adequately documented

access problems. However, this is akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy because the TSO

only reviews CHAMPUS claims where the only data provided are from those physicians or other health care providers who are willing to accept Tricare Standard reimbursement levels. The TSO does not document how far the beneficiary may have

had to drive to find a provider, how many times he was turned away before he was

able to find a provider; or what rates are charged by providers who refuse to accept

Tricare Standard.

The low reimbursement rates are just part of the problem. By themselves, low

rates may not be a deterrent to care. However, low rates combined with the ‘‘hassle’’

factor in filing claims and delays in reimbursements have proven to be too much

in some cases for health care providers who now simply refuse to accept CHAMPUS

patients at all. The Coalition has also received numerous complaints from its members who, when filing their own CHAMPUS claims, had to resubmit the claim two

or three times before receiving payment.

Although the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act has a provision directing DOD to make CHAMPUS reimbursement rates more consistent with Medicare,

the Coalition has heard that DOD is delaying implementation of this provision. The

Coalition would like a definitive date as to when DOD is going to increase substandard CHAMPUS rates to the level of Medicare.

Another significant problem that must be addressed is the delays in reimbursements. The Coalition urges Congress to exert pressure on DOD to simplify the claim

form and exercise greater oversight to significantly reduce unwarranted delays in

reimbursements.

The Coalition was very pleased to see that Section 737 of the 1998 Defense Authorization Act eliminated DOD’s policy that required all providers to file

CHAMPUS claims. We are particularly pleased with DOD’s prompt compliance.

However, allowing beneficiaries to resume filing their own claim forms has presented yet another problem. Several years ago DOD required non-availability statements (NAS) for certain outpatient procedures. The outpatient NAS requirement

was repealed on September 23, 1996. In its place pre-authorization for these procedures, and others that have subsequently been added, was instituted. Since DOD

does not even print enough Tricare Handbooks for the beneficiary population, much

less send them out to beneficiaries, family members have no indication that they

must get pre-authorization for certain procedures. The Coalition has heard from

beneficiaries with substantial unpaid claims. These beneficiaries have sought care

from nonparticipating Tricare providers (as is their right under the Tricare Standard option), paid the bill, submitted their claim to Tricare, only to be told that since

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
754

pre-authorization was not sought, the procedure will not be covered. This has not

only affected families who live near military hospitals, but to families stationed in

remote areas.

The Coalition understands that it is normal practice for employers or insurance

companies to provide covered beneficiaries with information regarding the benefits

and limitations of their health care plans. Thus we believe that if DOD intends to

subject Tricare Standard beneficiaries to restrictions on their receipt of health care,

at the very least it should provide them with up to date Tricare Standard Handbooks.

The enforcement of the 115 percent billing limit in cases of third party insurance,

has resulted in loss of reimbursement to beneficiaries. Last year, DOD’s policy of

employing the 115 percent limit in the case of third party reimbursement had the

effect of shifting CHAMPUS’ payment approach from ‘‘coordination of benefits’’ to

‘‘benefits less benefits.’’ Before the 115 percent limit was enforced, a third party insurer would pay first, then CHAMPUS would pay the balance up to what

CHAMPUS would have paid had it been first payer. Now that the 115 percent limit

has gone into effect, CHAMPUS will not pay anything if the third party insurer

paid an amount in excess of the 115 percent billing limit. So if a third party insurer

would pay 80 percent of a physician’s bill of $500 (or $400), but CHAMPUS would

only have paid 115 percent of its maximum allowable charge of $300 (or $345),

CHAMPUS will pay nothing toward the balance of $100 that the patient must pay.

Under the previous ‘‘coordination of benefits’’ method, CHAMPUS would have paid

the difference as long as it did not exceed the amount payable under CHAMPUS.

We have repeatedly expressed our concern that the shift in policy unfairly penalizes

beneficiaries with other health insurance plans. CHAMPUS reimbursement

amounts have been steadily decreasing over the years, and almost all other civilian

insurance plans are more generous than CHAMPUS in their payments to providers.

The House mark of the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act contained report language that urged DOD to enforce a requirement that health care providers

charge CHAMPUS beneficiaries no more than 115 percent of CMAC rate, or that

CHAMPUS continue to pay for health care services when paying as second payer

to other health insurance under DOD’s previous policy. Unfortunately the committee

report was not addressed in the final Act. The Coalition recommends this issue be

revisited in the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization and Appropriation Acts to

include statutory language to re-establish ‘‘coordination of benefits’’ as the DOD

payment methodology.

The Tricare Standard (CHAMPUS) catastrophic cap out of pockets is still $7,500

for retirees, which is much higher than other civilian fee-for-service plans which traditionally set limits between $2,000 and $3,000. The Coalition strongly recommends

this cap be reduced to $3,000.

Beneficiaries who choose Tricare Standard still have to obtain non-availability

statements from the MTF before seeking inpatient care from civilian providers.

While the Coalition recognizes that DOD is trying maximize savings in Tricare by

encouraging the use of military providers, beneficiaries who incur the higher costs

associated with Standard do so because they either want complete freedom of choice

of providers or cannot get into Tricare Prime. The Coalition strongly recommends

that all NAS requirements be eliminated for Tricare Standard.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD S. BURKE, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE

TASK FORCE, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND

HYGIENE

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness, Dr. Donald Burke, member of

the Legislative Task Force, American Society of Tropical Medicine

and Hygiene.

Dr. Burke, welcome, sir.

Dr. BURKE. Thank you, Senator Inouye. I am here to represent

the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, a society

of 3,000 researchers and tropical medicine practitioners in the

United States. The Department of Defense medical research programs play a critical role in our Nation’s infectious disease efforts

as you know, sir. Working with other U.S. institutions, our military

institutions have worked to help us understand, diagnose, and

treat infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, cholera,

AIDS, and diarrheal diseases.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
755

There are two particular aspects I want to take these moments

to emphasize. The first are the overseas laboratories of the U.S.

military, the fixed facilities in Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Brazil,

Kenya, and Peru. These labs are strategically located in regions of

the world where the threats from infectious diseases are genuine.

They serve as critical sentinel alerting stations.

The DOD has recently initiated a disease surveillance system for

emerging diseases worldwide. However, the current funding for

this program has not been sufficient to meet the needs of this program. The Tropical Medicine Society urges the committee to provide an estimated $7 million in new research and development

funds that will allow the DOD to fully develop and operate this

surveillance network.

Another problem is that these laboratories have not had attention to their infrastructure. In the last 2 years the Navy Medical

R&D Command had a 40-percent reduction in their investment in

their overseas laboratory infrastructure dollars. These overseas laboratories are too important to be allowed to deteriorate.

The second major area of emphasis is in vaccine research and development. Vaccines are the single most cost-effective means for

protecting U.S. military against infectious diseases during deployment. A number of vaccines have been successfully developed by

the military, and there is excellent progress on some, like malaria,

dengue, and good work being done on AIDS.

However, a number of promising vaccines such as meningococcis,

hantavirus, and hepatitis E vaccines are in the pipeline but are not

being pursued for lack of funding. The Tropical Medicine Society

urges the subcommittee to provide sufficient resources to move

these vaccines into clinical trials. These trials will impact not only

military preparedness, but will advance public and private interests as well.

Let me conclude by saying that the Tropical Medicine Society requests your continued support of the DOD infectious disease research program. This is a critically important area, given the resurgence of emergent new diseases. However, there are many areas of

unmet need and opportunity still to be addressed.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With the shrinking U.S. military, coupled with the need to respond to conflict anywhere in the world, it is more important than

ever to preserve this combat readiness. Like other military research, medical research cannot easily be restarted when the need

arises.

Thank you very much, sir.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD S. BURKE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

testify today. My name is Donald Burke and I am a Professor of International

Health in the School of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

I am pleased to present testimony on behalf of the American Society of Tropical

Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) in support of Department of Defense (DOD) medical research programs.

ASTMH is a professional society of 3,500 researchers and practitioners dedicated

to the prevention and treatment of infectious and tropical infectious diseases. The

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
756

collective expertise of our members is in the areas of basic molecular science, medicine, vector control, epidemiology, and public health. ASTMH has had the privilege

of testifying before this Subcommittee on several occasions, and we hope that our

recommendations are helpful to you in determining the annual funding levels for

DOD’s infectious disease research programs.

DOD medical research programs play a critical role in our nation’s infectious disease efforts. Working with other U.S. public health agencies, DOD scientists at the

U.S. Army Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the Walter Reed

Army Institute of Medical Research (WRAIR), and the U.S. Naval Medical Research

Institute (NMRI) are helping us to better understand, diagnose, and treat infectious

and tropical diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, cholera, AIDS, and diarrheal

diseases.

The threat these diseases pose to U.S. military personnel is not new. During the

Vietnam War, two-thirds of hospital admissions were due to infectious diseases.

More recently, twenty-nine percent of soldiers deployed in Somalia in 1993 got malaria, making it the number one cause of all hospital admissions in Somalia. U.S.

soldiers will continue to be deployed in regions of the world where the threat of infectious disease exists.

Military medical research has, over the years, been very successful in providing

the armed forces with a series of new vaccines, new prophylactic drugs, and other

preventive medicine measures. However, emerging infectious diseases are a continuing threat to military effectiveness during deployments. Infectious disease research

support by DOD continues to be essential to protect our fighting men and women

from infectious diseases through the development of vaccines and preventive medicines, and to enable infected personnel to return to duty through the development

of effective therapies.

These programs also fill a critical need by helping to identify endemic and epidemic disease threats throughout the world, assisting not only U.S. military needs

but other U.S. health and humanitarian needs as well. DOD technical expertise is

consistently sought as organizations such as the World Health Organization and the

Pan American Health Organization are faced with new infectious disease outbreaks

around the globe.

Sentinels Around the Globe

I would like to take a moment to focus on one aspect of the U.S. military infectious disease research program which deserves special mention—the overseas laboratories. The U.S. Army and the Navy currently support six overseas laboratories

in Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Brazil, Kenya, and Peru. These labs are strategically

located in regions of the world where the threat from existing and emerging infectious and tropical diseases is the greatest. They serve as critical sentinel stations

alerting both the military and public health agencies to dangerous infectious disease

outbreaks and increasing microbial resistance. Because they are located close to the

source, laboratory personnel can be mobilized to respond quickly to potential problems. For example, recently a U.S. Navy scientist responded to a call from the World

Health Organization during an outbreak of severe hemorraghic fever in Kenya. This

laboratory in the region had been conducting research on Rift Valley fever and could

respond quickly and effectively to provide assistance to local authorities with diagnosis, prevention and control measures.

A recent report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) entitled, ‘‘America’s Vital Interest in Global Health’’, highlights the leadership role the U.S can play in expanding

the scope of global surveillance efforts. The report cites the cost-effectiveness of surveillance as well as the devastating cost of our failure to support global disease surveillance in the face of emerging infectious diseases. The IOM recommended that

the U.S. take advantage of existing field research laboratories and expand their

scope and linkage to other global health organizations. U.S. technical expertise and

communications advantages makes us uniquely suited to play a leadership role in

this effort. In fact, the DOD has recently initiated a disease surveillance system for

emerging infectious diseases with the Walter Reed Army Institute of Medical Research acting as the communications hub linking the six overseas laboratories. However, the current funding for this program has not been sufficient to meet the needs

of a global surveillance system. Therefore, ASTMH urges the Committee to provide

the estimated $7 million in new research and development funds needed to allow

DOD to fully develop and operate a global disease surveillance network. This will

provide the necessary resources to properly implement an effective program of epidemiologic and preventive medicine research for a number of major infectious disease threats, such as malaria, cholera, viral hemorrhagic fevers including dengue,

Rift Valley fever, yellow fever, and Machupo, the hantaviruses, tropical fevers such

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
757

as Venezuelan equine encephalitis and Orapouche, and serious parasitic diseases

such as systemic leishmaniasis.

The military’s overseas laboratories also play an important role in collaboration

with U.S. research institutions including academia, industry, and government agencies. Having the fixed facilities, field sites, and staff makes it possible to maximize

our infectious and tropical disease research efforts. These collaborations are important not only for expanding our knowledge and understanding of infectious diseases,

but also for providing hands-on training for students, investigators, and local health

authorities. In many cases, these sites have ensured that productive projects could

be carried out. Collaboration between the Walter Reed Research Unit in Rio de Janeiro, Harvard School of Public Health scientists, the Naval Medical Research Institute detachment in Lima, Peru, and the University of Texas at Galveston School of

Medicine has resulted in important advances in malaria research and in improved

international infectious disease surveillance capabilities.

It is important to mention that while the DOD overseas research laboratories play

an essential role in our basic, clinical and epidemiological infectious diseases research efforts, we must not forget to provide funding for overhead—the infrastructure needed to support research programs. In the last two fiscal years, the Naval

Medical Research and Development Command has had a 40 percent reduction in

support for overhead costs in Navy overseas medical research laboratories. These

overseas laboratories are too important to be allowed to deteriorate.

Vaccine Development

Vaccines are the single most effective and cost-effective means of protecting military personnel from infectious diseases during deployment. DOD research facilities

have unique expertise, experience and capabilities in developing vaccines and conducting vaccine trials. They are currently conducting clinical trials on a number of

promising experimental vaccines. These include vaccines for dengue fever, malaria,

shigella, and AIDS. In addition, a number of promising vaccines, such as

meningococcal B, hantavirus, and hepatitis E vaccines, are in the pipeline but are

not being pursued due to a lack of funding. ASTMH urges Subcommittee members

to provide sufficient resources to move these vaccines to clinical trials. These clinical

trials will not only impact military preparedness but will advance existing public/

private vaccine development partnerships.

One of the most critical and complex areas for vaccine development is malaria.

Malaria infects 300–500 million people annually and kills an estimated 2.1 million

people every year. As it continues to spread and drug-resistant forms become more

frequent, new drug and vaccine development is critical. DOD research has already

resulted in the development of two new drugs for the prevention and treatment of

malaria, Mefloquine and Halofantrine. Research on vaccine development is moving

forward quickly. In fact, collaborative vaccine development efforts between WRAIR

and a private pharmaceutical company have moved to the clinical testing phase and

the results are promising. This research has produced the first vaccine which has

protected volunteers from mosquito-born malaria infection. Researchers with the

NMRI are also at the forefront of efforts to develop a DNA vaccine against malaria.

Scientists from NMRI and WRAIR are also working with scientists from the Institute from Genomic Research to sequence the genome of plasmodium falciparum, the

most common human malaria parasite. DOD has indicated that it will invest as

much as $8 million over five years in the project. Understanding of the genome is

central to our ability to develop an effective DNA malaria vaccine.

We are making progress but we cannot move forward without the involvement of

military scientists and a sustained funding commitment.

Conclusion

The ASTMH requests your continued support of DOD Infectious Diseases Research programs. This is critically important given the resurgent and emerging infectious disease threats which exist today. The DOD programs are essential to advancing our war on infectious diseases and to protecting America’s military forces.

We are pleased that the Administration’s request for infectious disease research programs does not cut current funding levels. However, as indicated in our testimony,

there are many areas of unmet need and opportunity. Failure to act now will only

result in health care cost increases for the military and threaten future troop deployments.

With a shrinking U.S. military, coupled with the need to respond to conflict anywhere in the world, it is more important than ever to preserve combat readiness.

Like other military research, medical research cannot easily be restarted whenever

the need arises.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
758

Thank you for your consideration of our requests. I would be pleased to respond

to any questions.

DISCLOSURE INFORMATION

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) has received

the following federal support:

National Institutes of Health (1997), $7,000.

Purpose: To support travel expenses of selected outstanding young investigators

from developing countries, allowing them to participate in the Society’s annual scientific meeting.

U.S. Army (1996), $15,000.

Purpose: To support travel expenses of selected outstanding investigators from developing countries, allowing them to participate in the Society’s annual scientific

meeting.

National Institutes of Health (1996), $7,000.

Purpose: To support travel expenses of selected outstanding investigators from developing countries, allowing them to participate in the Society’s annual scientific

meeting.

Senator INOUYE. May I ask, what is shigala?

Dr. BURKE. Shigala is one type of diarrhea that can cause bloody

diarrhea. It is very common in persons who are in tropical countries, sir.

Senator INOUYE. And what is Rift Valley Fever?

Dr. BURKE. That is a hemorrhagic fever not unlike the Ebola in

terms of its clinical manifestations, but it is transmitted by biting

insects.

Senator INOUYE. And Machupo?

Dr. BURKE. That is another one of the hemorrhagic fevers. These

are all the emerging disease threats that are considered a real

problem when you put people into tropical disease areas, particularly in Africa, and the U.S. military has particular expertise in

these diseases, what with the facility at Fort Dietrich.

Senator INOUYE. Is there coordination between the military and,

say, NIH?

Dr. BURKE. There is a good degree of coordination. The military

tends to focus more on the international disease threats and the

more severe disease threats that might be encountered by military

personnel. The NIH tends to focus more on the domestic population

disease threats. There is a lot of collaboration, particularly on diseases like malaria.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, doctor.

STATEMENT OF HOLLY E. HAZARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DORIS DAY

ANIMAL LEAGUE

Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the executive director of the

Doris Day Animal League, Ms. Holly Hazard.

Ms. HAZARD. Thank you, Senator Inouye. I am going to synopsize

my comments to make my comments as brief as possible.

In the 1960’s the Air Force acquired a colony of chimpanzees for

testing space travel before any American astronaut went into

space. The Air Force, which has not used chimpanzees for space research since 1970, has leased them to various laboratories and has

now decided to either retire the animals to a sanctuary, or to transfer them to yet another research facility through a competitive bidding process. There are currently 142 chimpanzees under the Air

Force’s care.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
759

The U.S. Congress authorized this divestiture of the chimpanzees

in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act. The humane community is working diligently to place a bid on these animals. The

Center for Captive Chimpanzee Care, directed by Jane Goodall and

others, has been formed for the specific purpose of offering these

chimpanzees a new life.

The center envisions a place where chimpanzees can learn to

interact in social groupings without enclosures and to live out the

rest of their lives as best a chimpanzee can in a captive environment. We have secured architectural plans and are looking for an

appropriate site and acquired an executive director.

We have managed to raise $1,195,000 in the last 6 months, some

of it in a challenge grant, and I have just learned that the Doris

Day Animal Foundation has agreed to add another $100,000 to this

pot, but this amount, although staggering in the realm of the nonprofit world, is woefully short of the amount needed to successfully

bid and provide a secure future for these animals.

Meanwhile, the bidding process has been fraught with bias and

inequities that tipped the process significantly in favor of the status quo. We have been given conflicting information as to who

owns the $10 million building that was financed by the Federal

Government and in which many of the chimps are housed on

Holloman Air Force Base.

The Air Force Base has referenced $1.2 million in endowments

that supposedly accompany some of these animals specifically for

their retirement. However, the funds, which are maintained by the

Coulston Foundation, the current leasee, have been placed in an irrevocable trust and will not be transferred with the chimpanzees,

according to the Air Force.

The humane community may be forced to bid on these animals

against a bidder who has already been awarded Federal money for

their lifetime care, but which will not release the funds.

The humane community wants to do what is right by these animals. To do so will stimulate research into how best to care for

other captive chimpanzees. It will provide a model sanctuary as

recommended by a recently convened NIH-sponsored NAS commission on the care of captive chimpanzees and also by the Speaker

of the House of Representatives, but the humane community cannot do it alone.

We did not capture these animals. We did not perform research

on these animals. We did not warehouse them. However, we are

willing, indeed we are excited to work in a public-private partnership to solve this problem, but we cannot do it without your help.

The Air Force has given us until June 3 to present a proposal.

It is unlikely we can meet our fund-raising goal by this deadline,

although we are doing all we can.

The United States Government must take some of the responsibility for these products of its progress. These chimpanzees

should not be auctioned to the highest bidder. They are not old jets

or broken tanks.

On behalf of our 200,000 members and supporters and the hundreds of thousands of humane citizens organized with other animal

protection organizations we are asking this committee to approU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
760

priate one-half of the money needed for the chimpanzees’ lifetime

care, or $8 million for fiscal year 1999.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. I must confess to you that this is a problem that

we have not coped with too often. Is this doctor for real, the one

that you quote, this Dr. Coulston?

Ms. HAZARD. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. Is he for real?

PREPARED STATEMENT

Ms. HAZARD. I have not met him personally. I have only seen videotapes of his comments. He is actually, unfortunately all too real.

Senator INOUYE. I can assure you that I will urge my colleagues

to read your testimony very carefully.

Ms. HAZARD. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOLLY E. HAZARD

As John Glenn proudly comes forward to serve his country once again in a flight

into space, we are reminded of the risks that he and others took, the caliber of the

man, and of all of his subsequent accomplishments.

However, there are some space veterans who have been ignored by the media and

the American public for the past 35 years. No one speaks of their heroism, their

sacrifice, and certainly not of their bright future. These are the ‘‘Chimpmonauts’’

and their descendants, currently under the ownership of the U.S. Air Force, and

leased out to a private biomedical research laboratory. These 142 chimpanzees, who

share 98.4 percent of our DNA, are the survivors and descendants of an original colony of 65 infants who were taken from their families in the jungles in Africa.

Brought to the United States, they were trained to explore the safety of space travel

prior to manned flight.

In November 29, 1961, five-year old Enos was launched into space inside a Mercury Capsule. Due to a malfunction, Enos was given an electric shock for every correct maneuver he made, a reward-punishment system that contradicted over a year

of training. Rather than alter his behavior, Enos endured the shocks and performed

the flight tasks he knew were right. The test flight took Enos on a two-orbit ride

and landed him alive. This qualified the system for manned flight, and the following

year John Glenn orbited the earth three times.

The Air Force, which has not used the chimpanzees for space research since 1970,

has leased them to various laboratories, and has now decided to either ‘‘retire’’ these

animals to a sanctuary or to transfer them to yet another research facility through

a competitive bidding process.

The United States Senate authorized this divestiture under the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act, which states that the Air Force must employ a competitive

negotiated bid process for the animals and must divest itself of the primate research

complex at no cost to the Air Force. It is not clear whether this financial stipulation

applies to the chimpanzees themselves or not.

The humane community is working diligently to place a bid on these animals. The

Center for Captive Chimpanzee Care, directed by Dr. Jane Goodall and others, has

been formed with the specific purpose of offering these chimpanzees a new life. The

Center envisions a place where chimpanzees can learn again to interact in social

groupings, with outdoor enclosures, and live out the rest of their years as best a

chimpanzee can in a captive environment.

We have secured architectural plans, are looking for an appropriate site and have

hired an Executive Director. We have managed to raise $1,195,000 in less than six

months, but this amount, although staggering in the realm of the nonprofit world,

is woefully short of the amount needed to successfully bid and provide a secure future for the animals.

Meanwhile, the bidding process has been fraught with bias and inequities that tip

the process significantly in favor of the status quo. We have been unable to obtain

specific medical, experimental and social information on each chimpanzee or to view

property associated with the chimps’ care that may be available through the divestiture. We have even been given conflicting information as to who owns the $10 million building in which many of the chimps are housed on Holloman Air Force Base.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
761

1The Wall Street Journal, December 30, 1997.

2 ‘‘Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care, Management and Use’’, National Research Council, 1997. 3 ‘‘Gingrich Supports Chimpanzees Home’’, The New York Times, May 5, 1998.

The current lessee, The Coulston Foundation, is a private research laboratory that

already owns over 500 chimpanzees. It may submit a bid to assume permanent ownership of the Air Force chimpanzees. The Foundation’s director, Dr. Frederick

Coulston, is a controversial figure. According to a Wall Street Journal article from

December 30, 1997, Coulston is quoted as saying, ‘‘I would like to have 5,000

[chimps] to use, eventually, as organ donor banks for humans. * * * He calls AIDS

a ‘silly disease’ whose sufferers should have been forced to display ‘a big sign on

the door saying ‘Quarantine’ * * * He says he had to turn to chimps when his

work with human subjects—prisoners—was halted in the 1960’s.’’ 1

The current lessee was charged in 1995 by USDA with multiple violations of the

Animal Welfare Act, including the overheating deaths of three chimpanzees. The

case was settled after the lessee agreed to pay a $40,000 fine. Earlier this year,

USDA filed an unprecedented second set of charges, including the negligent deaths

of two chimpanzees and seriously deficient housing and sanitary conditions. It is our

position that the chimpanzees for whom our government is responsible should be

removed from this environment forthwith, much less be subjected to a bid process

under which they might remain at this facility permanently. The Air Force has referenced $1.24 million in endowments accompanying some of

the animals. However, the funds, which are maintained by The Coulston Foundation, have been placed in irrevocable trust funds and will not be transferred with

the chimpanzees. The humane community may be forced to bid on these animals

against a bidder who has already been awarded federal money for their lifetime

care, which can be used to prove his financial ability to provide for the animals. This

appears to run counter to Congressional intent.

The humane community wants to do what is right by these animals. To do so will

stimulate research into how best to care for other captive chimpanzees. It will provide a model for a ‘‘sanctuary’’ as recommended by a recently convened NIH-sponsored NAS Commission on the care of captive chimpanzees,2 and also the Speaker

of the House.3

But the humane community cannot do it alone. We did not capture these animals.

We did not perform research on these animals. We did not warehouse them. However, we are willing, indeed excited, to work in a public/private partnership to solve

this problem, but we cannot do it without your help.

The Air Force has given us until June 3rd to present a proposal; it is unlikely

we can meet our fundraising goal by this deadline, although we are doing all we

can. The United States government must take some responsibility for these ‘‘products’’ of its progress. These chimpanzees should not be auctioned to the highest bidder. They are not old jets or broken tanks. They deserve the best care, not the easiest outcome, the Air Force can provide. This is true even if it means some additional

cost for the United States government.

The chimpanzees cannot speak out on their own behalf, they cannot recount their

history and accomplishments, they cannot lobby the United States Senate or direct

their fate. But every American who ever looked up into the heavens to pray for our

astronauts can recognize what we as a nation owe these individuals, and can act

on this conviction. Please appropriate the funds necessary to help us help them live

out their lives in peace.

STATEMENT OF FRANCES M. VISCO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BREAST

CANCER COALITION

Senator INOUYE. Our final witness is the president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Frances Visco. Ms. Visco.

Ms. VISCO. Good afternoon, Senator Inouye. I just want to highlight some of the points from my testimony, because my testimony

has been submitted for the record.

I want to certainly thank you on behalf of the National Breast

Cancer Coalition, you and Chairman Stevens, for your ongoing support of the Department of Defense peer review breast cancer research program.

I know that you know the importance of this program to the

women in the military, and to military dependents, and also the inU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
762

credible benefits that have accrued to the Defense Department as

a result of the program, enriched partnerships and collaborations

with the academic and scientific community, and also a message to

the women in the military of the importance of their issues.

We, as you know, have a plan, a plan by which we spend the

money appropriated for this program, and the plan has been incredibly successful. It is a plan that helps us look at what has happened in the world of science over the past couple of years.

We can respond very quickly to what is happening out there, and

we make certain that the money goes where it is going to have the

strongest effect, and I think the recent news on cancer research

highlights the importance of what it is that we have been doing

through this program.

You know, the cancer drug through Jude Folkeman’s research on

antiangiogenesis, he has had that idea for 30 years, and no one

would fund him. The traditional funding mechanisms would not believe that it was a worthwhile idea.

Well, the Department of Defense program is filling gaps like

that. At the Food and Drug Administration right now there has

been filed a request for approval of a very exciting, innovative therapy for breast cancer treatment, and this new therapy was funded

in part through DOD funding while no one else would give the

funding for that part of this research, so that is the kind of places

where this program puts its money and where we put our money.

Now, we are collaborating through this program with the National Institute of Health [NIH] and the National Cancer Institute

[NCI] so that we do know what is going on there and what is happening in the outside world. Equally important, the integration

panel that oversees this panel of which I am a member has outside

scientists. It has representatives from the National Cancer Institute, but it also has primarily renowned scientists from the outside

community, and so we are constantly getting information on what

is happening in the world of research into breast cancer.

I think another very important thing that has happened through

this program, of which we can all be proud, is this past year we

had the Era of Hope meeting in Washington, D.C., and I am very

sorry that you could not attend that meeting. It was incredible,

where for the first time ever the taxpayers of this country were

given a detailed report of what happened with their tax dollars. It

was incredibly successful and we are going to continue to do that.

PREPARED STATEMENT

While we are making great strides, the vast majority of the research is not getting funded. The proposals that score well are not

getting funded through this program, and that is why we presented

to the committee this morning a letter from 63 of your colleagues

in the Senate in support of your request for $175 million to continue this incredible program.

But once again, I want to thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANCES M. VISCO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on

Defense for your exceptional leadership in the effort to increase and improve breast

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
763

cancer research. As my testimony will describe in detail, the investment in cancer

research made by you and this Committee is one of the contributions which has

brought us closer than ever to the verge of significant discoveries about cancer. I

am Fran Visco, a breast cancer survivor, a wife and mother, a lawyer and President

of the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC).

As you know, the NBCC, a grassroots advocacy organization made up of over 450

organizations and tens of thousands of individuals, has been working since 1991 toward the eradication of breast cancer through advocacy and action. The NBCC’s

goals are (1) to increase the federal funds available for research into breast cancer

and to focus research on prevention, on finding the cause of and a cure for this insidious disease; (2) to make certain that all women have access to the quality care

and treatment they need, regardless of their economic circumstances and (3) to increase the influence of women with breast cancer in the decision making that affects

their lives.

On behalf of the NBCC and the 2.6 million women who are now living with breast

cancer, I thank you for your strong past support of the Department of Defense’s

(DOD) peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program and I urge your continued

support of this important program with an appropriation of $175 million for the program for fiscal year 1999. The NBCC believes this program is vital to the eradication of breast cancer. And we are not alone, I have with me a letter signed from

over 50 of your colleagues in the Senate which requests that the DOD peer-reviewed

Breast Cancer Research Program be funded at $175 million for fiscal year 1999.

As a member of the Integration Panel that implements the DOD Breast Cancer

Research Program, I have witnessed the evolution of this program. In just five short

years, the program has matured from a small, isolated research program to a broadreaching influential voice forging new and innovative directions for breast cancer research and science. The flexibility of the program has allowed the Army to administer this groundbreaking research effort with unparalleled efficiency and skill. In

addition, an inherent part of this program has been the inclusion of consumer advocates at every level, which has created an unprecedented working partnership between advocates and scientists and ultimately led to unchartered research in breast

cancer. It is important to note that the DOD Integration Panel that designs this program

has a plan on how best to spend the funds appropriated. This plan is based on the

state of science—what we know—the gaps that exist in our knowledge and the

needs of women and their families. This plan exists within our philosophy that we

do not want to restrict scientific freedom, creativity and innovation. While we carefully allocate these resources we do not want to predetermine the specific research

areas to be addressed. This permits us to complement and not duplicate other federal funding programs. For example, the recent announcement of two new drugs

that will go into clinical trials for cancer based on the preliminary work of Judha

Folkman, highlights the importance of this philosophy. The DOD Breast Cancer Research Program funds ideas similar to Dr. Folkman’s—those that are not easily accepted within traditional funding programs. In addition, a possible new revolutionary therapy for breast cancer is now before the FDA for approval. This therapy

comes from research that in part was funded through the DOD program, when no

one else would support the research.

The NBCC, and its members, are dedicated to working with you to ensure the

continuation of funding for this program at a level that allows this research to forge

ahead. Just last week, our members were up on Capitol Hill to bring our message

to Congress. We had over 600 breast cancer activists from across the country join

us at our Annual Advocacy Training Conference to continue to mobilize behind the

efforts to eradicate breast cancer. The overwhelming interest and dedication to

eradicate this disease continues to be evident as people are willing to come all the

way to Washington, D.C.—paying the expenses out of their own pocket and taking

time away from their careers and families—to deliver their message about the importance of our commitment.

Breast cancer costs this country untold dollars in medical costs, lost resources,

lost productivity, and in lost lives. The war against breast cancer, the search for answers to what causes the disease, how we can prevent it, how we can cure it—these

are immense issues, requiring a concerted, coordinated effort on the national level.

Breast cancer is not just an issue for one month, but an ongoing crisis.

However, as is becoming more and more apparent in the media, we seem to be

on the brink of a historical moment for cancer research. Recent discoveries and

breakthroughs in cancer treatment have created extraordinary momentum in the

fight against cancer at all policy levels. There is a new energy and optimism in the

U.S. in the scientific, policy and consumer communities around cancer research—

a universal feeling that the significant past research investments are poised to pay

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
764

major dividends in the areas of cancer prevention, detection and treatment. We are

closer than ever before to reaching our goal of eradicating breast cancer. Your leadership in supporting the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program is an essential component of the innovative approach that is needed to finally combat this disease.

Since I testified before this Committee last year, the success of the DOD Breast

Cancer Research Program has been illustrated by two unique assessments of the

program. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) which originally recommended the structure for the program, independently re-examined the program in a report published

in 1997. Their findings overwhelmingly encourage the continuation of the program

and offer guidance for program implementation improvements. In addition to the

IOM report, the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program reported the progress of the

program to the American people during a public meeting called the ‘‘Era of Hope.’’

It was the first time a federally funded program reported back to the public in detail

not only the funds used, but the research undertaken, knowledge gained from that

research and future directions to be pursued. This meeting allowed scientists, consumers and the American public to see the exceptional progress made in breast cancer research through the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program.

The 1997 IOM review of the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program commended

the program and stated that ‘‘the program fills a unique niche among public and

private funding sources for cancer research. It is not duplicative of other programs

and is a promising vehicle for forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the

nation’s fight against breast cancer.’’ The IOM report recommends continuing the

program and establishes a solid direction for the next phase of the program. It is

imperative that Congress complement the independent evaluations of the DOD

Breast Cancer Research Program, as well as reiterate their own high level of commitment to the program by appropriating the funding needed to ensure its success.

The IOM report has laid the ground work for effective and efficient implementation

of the next phase of this vital research program, now it needs the appropriate funding.

The success of the program was also highly evident in the fall of 1997, when the

DOD Breast Cancer Research Program hosted their public meeting, ‘‘Era of Hope,’’

bringing together scientific investigators and consumers to examine the progress

made since the program’s inception and look ahead at upcoming developments in

promising new directions. The conference focused on breast cancer prevention and

detection; breast cancer genetics and biology; and breast cancer treatment and quality of life. For each topic, the current status of health care or research available was

examined and potential areas for progress were presented. The presentations were

given both by scientists and consumers, demonstrating the strong partnership that

has evolved between the scientific community and the public around breast cancer

research. The unique collaboration of scientists and consumers in this public meeting, reaffirmed that together scientists and consumers are bringing an unforeseen

vision and commitment to the fight against breast cancer and allowed for many new

innovative ideas to be exchanged.

One of the most impressive outcomes of the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, made evident at the ‘‘Era of Hope’’ meeting, was the caliber of new scientific

talent the program has recruited and the research insight the program has given

them. The DOD program has not only increased current research, but has also inspired new efforts on the part of some of the nation’s best and most experienced

researchers who have never before been attracted to breast cancer research. In the

proceedings from the meeting, Brigadier General Zajtchuk, Commander of the U.S.

Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, stated that ‘‘the high quality and

innovation of the research contained in these volumes and presented at the meeting

clearly reflects that the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command has

supported some of the most talented and creative scientists in their efforts to eradicate breast cancer.’’

Many scientists at the ‘‘Era of Hope’’ meeting expressed their enthusiasm for the

program and the opportunity to work substantively with consumers at every step

of the research process. In fact, the scientists who have seen first hand the benefits

of the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program have issued a strong statement, that

in their scientific judgement the program should continue: ‘‘* * * * we urge that

this program receive ongoing funding. This program has been broadly defined such

that the research performed will be of benefit not just for breast cancer, but for all

cancers and other diseases.’’

The DOD Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted bright, fresh scientific

minds with new ideas and continues to open the doors to how they think about

breast cancer research and research in general.

Developments in the past few years have begun to offer breast cancer researchers

fascinating insights into the biology of breast cancer and have brought into sharp

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
765

focus the areas of research that hold promise and will build on the knowledge and

investment we have made. The Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards

(IDEA) grants of the DOD program have been critical in the effort to respond to

new discoveries and to encourage and support innovative, risk-taking research. The

IDEA grants have been instrumental in the development of promising breast cancer

research. These grants have allowed scientists to explore beyond the realm of traditional research and have unleashed credible new ideas and concepts. IDEA grants

are uniquely designed to dramatically advance our knowledge in areas which offer

the greatest potential.

Therefore, we have devoted a majority of the DOD funds to these types of grants,

yet there were many promising proposals that could not be supported because of a

lack of funds. It is disheartening to think that lack of funding could be the only factor stalling scientific research that could save so many lives. IDEA grants are precisely the types of grants that cannot receive funding through more traditional programs such as the National Institutes of Health, and academic research programs.

It is vital that these grants are able to continue to support the growing interest in

breast cancer research—$175 million for peer-reviewed research will help sustain

the IDEA grant momentum.

In addition to the fact that the DOD program provides desperately needed, excellent quality breast cancer research, it also makes extremely efficient use of its resources. In fact, over 90 percent of the funds go directly to research grants. The federal government can truly be proud of its investment in DOD breast cancer research. The overall structure of the system has streamlined the entire funding process, while retaining traditional quality assurance mechanisms.

The NBCC is highly committed to the DOD program, as we truly believe it is one

of our best chances at finding a cure or prevention for breast cancer. In May of

1997, our members presented a petition with over 2.6 million signatures to the Congressional leaders on the steps of the Capitol. The petition calls on the President

and the U.S. Congress to spend $2.6 billion on breast cancer research between 1997

and the year 2000. Funding for the DOD peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Research

Program is an essential component of reaching the $2.6 billion goal that so many

women and families worked to gain.

Mr. Chairman, you and this entire Committee have been leaders in the effort to

continue this innovative investment in breast cancer research. We ask you, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to recognize the importance of what you have

initiated. What you have done is set in motion an innovative and highly efficient

approach to fighting the breast cancer epidemic. What you must do now is continue

to support this effort by funding research that will help us win this very real and

devastating war against a cruel enemy.

Thank you again for inviting me to testify and giving hope to the 2.6 million

women living with breast cancer.

Senator INOUYE. I believe the women of America owe you a debt

of gratitude, you and your ladies, for your determination and your

persistence, and your commitment. I have seen the ladies standing

in dark corridors at all hours of the day and night lobbying. I can

tell you that the success that you have seen is due to your persistence and, in fact, many Members of the Congress are deathly

afraid of your coalition. [Laughter.]

Maybe the other lobbying groups could learn a lesson from you.

Ms. VISCO. Well, it really is as a result of the partnership we

have developed with Members of Congress who support this cause

also.

Senator INOUYE. Seriously, we will do our best.

Ms. VISCO. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. I wish to thank all of you on behalf of the committee for sitting by all of these hours.

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

The subcommittee has received statements for witnesses who

could not testify and they will be placed in the record at this point.

[The statements follow:]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
766

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. MAVES, MD, MBA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI- DENT, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY—HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, INC.

Mr. Chairman, I am Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA, Executive Vice President of

the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. (AAOHNS). Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to you on behalf of

our Academy. As you may know, the AAO-HNS is the largest medical society of physicians, with over 10,000 members, dedicated to the care and treatment of patients

with disorders of the ears, nose, throat and related structures of the head and neck.

We are sometimes referred to as ENT physicians.

Mr. Chairman I would like to bring to your attention several issues that concern

the Academy.

Tobacco

The first of these is tobacco use cessation in the military.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. has been

opposed to the use of tobacco for many decades. We are the physicians who care for

most of the patients with cancer of the head and neck, and we see the harmful affects of tobacco use among our patients every day.

Increasingly there are news reports of tobacco companies admitting to the adverse

impacts of tobacco on users. We also know that there can be significant impacts on

individuals, especially children, who happen to be in the vicinity of toxic smoke from

tobacco products used by others.

We were pleased to see that several years ago the Department of Defense announced a policy banning smoking in all DOD work facilities worldwide. This farreaching initiative makes DOD workplaces free of harmful secondhand smoke as

well and thus will improve the overall health of all military personnel.

We do know, however, that many in the military have substituted tobacco smoking with smokeless tobacco to avoid disciplinary action where smoking itself is prohibited—smokeless tobacco also has very serious medical effects.

Even with all of the scientific information we now have about the negative impacts of smoking and secondhand smoke on individuals, we find that tobacco use

is still indirectly encouraged by the military through subsidized sale of tobacco products at military commissaries and PX’s where cigarettes and other tobacco products

can be bought at much lower prices than otherwise would be charged. The Academy

has expressed its concern that the DOD would likely not ban sale of tobacco products in the commissary system. We strongly support the concept of bringing tobacco

prices at least to a parity with civilian prices to help cut down on use.

We especially urge that the Department of Defense promote tobacco cessation programs with personnel and their families, but especially in relation to mothers and

children, about the hazardous affects of secondhand smoke as well as tobacco.

Skin Cancer and UV Radiation

Last year the Academy indicated its strong support of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in developing nationwide UV Index to alert

members of the public to the dangers of excessive radiation from the sun, potentially

resulting in skin cancers (especially of the head and neck), eye damage and immune

system damage.

It is our understanding that one of your Senate colleagues, Senator Connie Mack

of Florida, has begun an effort with the National Association of Physicians for the

Environment (NAPE) to survey selected Federal agencies to determine the extent

of education programs regarding skin cancer as affected by excessive ultraviolet radiation from sunlight. Those Federal agencies would include those which have employees and clients (such as farmers served by the Department of Agriculture) routinely exposed to occupational and recreational sunlight far more than the general

public.

Of course, the major agency which has such personnel is the Department of Defense. Millions of our young men and women are routinely exposed to excessive sunlight for long periods of time in carrying out their duties. Senator Mack has requested from the DOD a report on its educational activities, and will follow up, we

are sure, with recommendations for necessary actions to be taken.

Our Academy members, of course, deal with many of the skin cancers of the head

and neck, where many of the skin cancers occur. We urge that this committee consider, once the report is made available by Senator Mack, how it might participate

with the Department of Defense in insuring that all personnel and their families

are educated in this regard. One excellent instrument of education is the so-called

UV Index, widely made available by the National Weather Service and by private

weather reporting companies, which indicates, particularly in the summer, in a

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
767

range of 1–10, the severity of UV radiation from the sun, at given localities throughout the United States. This excellent tool has been used by our Academy to inform

members of the public about the extent of sunlight and have warned the public

about the dangers of excessive sun exposure. Both the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency support the effort on

skin cancer and use of the UV Index. Although these agencies are not funded by

this committee’s recommendations, nevertheless we note here their commendable

activities in this regard.

Along those lines we would be remiss if we did not report how pleased we are

to see that a large number of military units have been receiving awards from the

EPA Stratospheric Protection Division for their work in reducing the use of CFC’s

and other atmospheric ozone depletion chemicals in their activities, leading to stratospheric ozone layer protection.

As you know, the stratospheric ozone layer protects us from excessive UV radiation harmful to the skin, and potentially causing skin cancer.

In this activity and in so many others that the Department of Defense has become

a leader in, we have seen the ‘‘greening’’ (environmental improvement) of the Department facilities.

Noise Reduction

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me deal with the issue of noise reduction.

Our Academy, from its beginning, has been concerned about the affect of excessive

noise on the structures of the ear, particularly those noises which are extremely excessive. We know that noise is a necessary part, frequently, of daily military life,

and particularly so in wartime. Nevertheless, we believe that many of the noise affects on military personnel can be reduced by the appropriate use of noise-reducing

and prevention activities.

Summary

Mr. Chairman, we have raised several issues with you involving the interface between the Academy’s concerns and military activities.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDITH G. SMITH, CITIZEN ADVOCATE FOR DISABLED

MILITARY RETIREES

I am Edith Smith, a citizen advocate dedicated to correcting the inequities in the

TRICARE benefit now provided to disabled retired beneficiaries who are dually eligible for Medicare. I am pleased to submit my statement to the Members of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, at

a hearing for public witnesses on May 11, 1998.

My husband, Vincent M. Smith, and I became involved in this advocacy work as

a result of our personal experiences and the devastating situations faced by other

disabled retirees when they were unexpectedly terminated from their CHAMPUS

benefit of retirement as a ‘‘cost saving’’ measure to the Pentagon.

In 1989, my husband qualified for Social Security Disability Income at age 49

through Social Security contributions made solely by his private sector employer of

more than 6 years following his military retirement from 21 years honorable service

in the United States Marines Corps. Twenty-nine months later, his CHAMPUS benefit ended without notice of termination from DEERS, and he was forced to the lesser benefits of Medicare simply because he was disabled. How can DOD force the

substitution of a benefit earned through private sector employment (Medicare) for

a benefit of military retirement (CHAMPUS)?

Efforts initiated by Congressman Bill Young, FLA., and Senator John McCain,

AZ, quickly restored CHAMPUS as second payer to Medicare A and B for retired

beneficiaries under age 65 in October, 1991.

I would like to present my views on the military health benefit as uniquely provided to military retirees and their family members who become eligible for Medicare under age 65. I believe the Department of Defense has interpreted and implemented (or failed to implement) these laws in the most restrictive budget sense favoring the system, often without regard for fairness and equity to disabled beneficiaries. Congress passed these laws as critical protective measures to ensure that

retired military beneficiaries would receive no less medical benefit than others simply because of their misfortune to suffer full disability or End Stage Renal Disease

(ESRD.)

The requirement to enroll in Medicare Part B coverage is an unjust, discriminating, and additional requirement of TRICARE eligibility for disabled retired beneficiaries. Medicare Part B participation is not required of disabled active duty family

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
768

members to retain TRICARE eligibility or retired Federal Civilians to maintain

their eligibility for FEHBP. The disabled retired military beneficiaries are unhappy

with this ‘‘second class status’’ and many would be better served by a voluntary option to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) that

is provided to Congress and the Federal Civilian workforce.

ISSUES OF CONCERN FOR MILITARY MEDICARE ELIGIBLES UNDER 65

Data match between Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)

and Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) was accomplished by DEERS on

about March 19, 1998, as required by Sec. 734, Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act. DEERS courtesy information letters informing disabled beneficiaries of the

termination of their retired eligibility TRICARE/CHAMPUS were mailed on March

20, 1998, to 12,093 beneficiaries who had not purchase Medicare Part B. 99,676

military beneficiaries were identified as eligible for Medicare A and TRICARE by

the DEERS/HCFA match.

DEERS inaccurately reflects TRICARE as primary w/o Part B. It appears that

DEERS did not update their computer records on March 20, 1998, to reflect Medicare A and the lack of Part B for individuals identified on the HCFA data tape when

the match occurred. 12,093 disabled persons may now be erroneously listed in

DEERS as primary TRICARE eligible. Government personnel who depend on

DEERS records have informally advised some disabled individuals who are not enrolled in Part B to continue with needed medical care under TRICARE until DEERS

records reflect their ineligibility for TRICARE pending anticipated retroactive legislative relief. DOD must document this situation or informal policy so that no disabled person who trusted government advice will later be at risk to suffer prosecution under TRICARE fraud regulations if other officials disagree with this policy at

a future date in order to recoup TRICARE funds and balance the budget on the

backs of desperate disabled retirees.

Part B requirement waived temporarily to September 30, 1998. The Supplemental

Appropriations Bill, April 30, 1998, contains language to temporarily waive the Part

B requirement for TRICARE beneficiaries who are dually eligible for Medicare. This

waiver is based on a determination that such continuation is appropriate to assure

health care coverage for a person who may have been unaware of the loss of

CHAMPUS eligibility. The Part B waiver must be continued until July 1, 1999, in

order to properly coordinate with the complex enrollment requirements of Medicare

B.

Waiver of recoupment for erroneous CHAMPUS payments for Medicare eligibles;

fiscal year 1996, Section 743, Not yet implemented—over 2 years later. Proposed

rule published in Federal Register, December 4, 1997. An description of this provision was omitted from the DEERS letter mailed to disabled beneficiaries on March

20, 1998.

‘‘Equitable Relief’’ waivers for Under 65’s are the appropriate solution to this ‘‘no

Part B’’ problem and must be approved for request by DEERS as discussed in a letter from Dr. Stephen Joseph, ASD(HA) to HCFA, January 16, 1997. It appears that

the rights of Medicare eligibles under age 65 have been prejudiced by DOD’s failure

to accomplish a data match which has caused the unintentional, inadvertent, or erroneous nonenrollment by some beneficiaries in Medicare Part B. ‘‘Equitable Relief’’

granted by HCFA would allow immediate or retroactive enrollment in Medicare Part

B without premium penalties, thus quickly restoring earned TRICARE benefits to

our most needy retirees without legislative changes.

Eliminate the unfair requirement of Medicare Part B for TRICARE eligibility.

People suffer when decreasing DOD staff cannot accomplish the additional tasks to

develop the expanded administrative bureaucracy required by this new complex

military health benefit.

BACKGROUND

This small group of disabled retired beneficiaries is unjustly denied equal eligibility for TRICARE/CHAMPUS. The disabled military beneficiaries have been cost

shifted to the lesser benefits of Medicare A by entitlement, and to Part B by required enrollment with a 1998 premium of $43.80 @ mo., simply because they have

been employed and suffer the misfortune of severe disability or End Stage Renal

Disease (ESRD.) No other military beneficiaries are required by law to purchase

other health insurance for which they may be eligible in order to save TRICARE

money.

Why then has Congress required the disabled beneficiaries to enroll in Medicare

B? As DOD develops and expands their new managed care demonstrations and programs, the Medicare eligibles under 65 have been ‘‘cherry picked’’ and left basically

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
769

alone to fend for themselves in a ‘‘no man’s administrative land’’ of the dual coverage of Medicare and TRICARE.

Since 1973, when Social Security Law first entitled disabled individuals to Medicare A , DOD has recognized a continued need to coordinate a mechanism between

DEERS and HCFA to identify and notify dual eligible military beneficiaries. After

25 years, DOD accomplished the data match last month and identified 12,093

unique retired beneficiaries who had failed to purchase Part B. Without Part B

these disabled retired beneficiaries were ineligible for TRICARE. Complex Medicare

B enrollment requirements will leave many without any outpatient coverage until

July 1, 1999.

DOD (HA) reacted with compassion to the plight of this large group of vulnerable

beneficiaries and asked Congress for emergency legislation to waive the Part B requirement from January 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999. This legislative relief may leave

unintended gaps in medical coverage. DOD’s request for relief legislation ignores the

spirit of forgiveness (implied by Congress) to waive the Medicare B premium penalties that have incurred because DOD/HCFA did not run the data match in 1991

when CHAMPUS was restored to these individuals.

‘‘Equitable Relief’’ waivers are critical for retired under 65 beneficiaries because

of the ability to enroll retroactively in Part B and the waiver of stiff premium penalties. Retroactive enrollment in Part B insures continuous eligibility for

CHAMPUS/TRICARE coverage with necessary reimbursement for any previous unpaid medical bills.

Foreseeing this catastrophic situation the disabled would face when the data

match was accomplished, Dr. Stephen Joseph, ASD(HA), wrote to the Administrator

of HCFA in January, 1997, and requested assistance in solving the problem unique

to Medicare eligibles under 65 resulting from the lack of a data match.

The Health Care Financing Administration (Medicare agency) regulations HI

00830.001—‘‘Granting Equitable Relief’’, HI 00830.005—‘‘When to Consider Relief’’,

HI 00830.010—‘‘Evidence Required’’, and HI 00805.236—‘‘Current Equitable Relief

Consideration Involving CHAMPUS’’ describe HCFA’s process ‘‘* * * to provide certain forms of relief to individuals whose SMI or premium enrollment or coverage

rights have been prejudiced by the error, misrepresentation, action or inaction of an

employee or agent of the Government * * *.’’ DOD officials explain that ‘‘equitable

relief’’ is not an option because of the high cost to HCFA. These regulations do not

describe a monetary cap which prevents HCFA from granting forgiveness to a number disabled beneficiaries who were unaware of the change in law.

A DOD (Health Affairs) memo dated June, 1973, documents DOD’s need for a

mechanism to identify Medicare eligibles under age 65 who are dually eligible for

CHAMPUS. If a data match was deemed to be required and run on March 19, 1998,

then this data match should have been equally necessary in 1973. The CHAMPUS

eligibility situation for active duty family members had not changed since the 1972

Amendments to the Social Security Act provided Medicare for those under age 65

because of disability or End Stage Renal Disease. Contrary to information in the recent DEERS letter, retired disabled military beneficiaries previously enjoyed dual

eligibility of Medicare/CHAMPUS without the requirement to enroll in Part B from

1973 to December 13, 1980. If DEERS has mailed courtesy letters to Medicare eligible at age 65 since 1986, then how can government officials from both DOD and

HCFA be permitted to turn their heads and ignore an equal need to identify and

notify this unique disabled population under age 65?

I respectfully suggest that Congress direct the Department of Defense to revert

to old DOD/HCFA policy basis for ‘‘equitable relief’’ for under 65’s that includes

‘‘error or inaction’’ on the part of DOD/HCFA employees who have failed to accomplish the data match for 25 years.

DATA MATCH BETWEEN DEERS AND HCFA TO IDENTIFY AND NOTIFY DISABLED MILITARY

BENEFICIARIES OF THEIR UNIQUE CHAMPUS/TRICARE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Defense Acts, (not Social Security Law) authorized this Part B requirement.

Therefore, the Department of Defense must be held fully responsible and accountable to identify and notify disabled Medicare eligibles under age 65 of their change

in eligibility to TRICARE/CHAMPUS. DEERS letters are the only personal notification Medicare eligibles receive. Had the DEERS letters been issued beginning in

1973, these disabled military beneficiaries would have received appropriate information to prompt timely enrollment in Part B, possibly averting the lifetime Part B

premium penalties of 10 percent per year associated with late enrollment.

The first DOD memorandum signed by Vernon McKensie, DASD (Health, Resources, and Programs), 25 June 1973, states a need for a ‘‘data match’’ with Social

Security. To quote from the memo: ‘‘We have not been able to complete the coordinaU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
770

tion with Social Security Administration which we feel is necessary to establish a

final CHAMPUS implementation of the three new Medicare eligibility provisions of

the Social Security Act of 1973 which provide Medicare eligibility for some

CHAMPUS beneficiaries. Pending the completion of the necessary coordination of

the CHAMPUS and Medicare claims procedures * * *.’’ This coordination was

never accomplished by DOD until March 19, 1998.

DEERS is a self-reporting system that holds the military sponsor responsible to

update changes to his DEERS records. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health

Affairs) reported to Congress on April 4, 1997, that 23,733 retired Medicare eligibles

under 65 have self-reported their Medicare A eligibility to DEERS. The 1998 data

match has identified 99,676 retired beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare/

TRICARE.

If DOD is not held responsible to provide information on this dual coverage, how

can disabled beneficiaries be held responsible to know the law? When a disabled

beneficiary declines enrollment in Part B, he often does so because he has not been

properly informed of the loss of his TRICARE benefit. He believes he is covered by

CHAMPUS until age 65 as are all other retirees. He also erroneously believes that

if he doesn’t pay for Part B, then he is not enrolled, and does not need to report

Medicare on his CHAMPUS form.

EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM PENALTIES

The failure of DOD to previously provide DEERS courtesy information letters to

dual Medicare/TRICARE beneficiaries should qualify as the ‘‘error, misrepresentation, or inaction of a federal employee which caused the unintentional, inadvertent,

or erroneous nonenrollment by the beneficiary in Part B.’’ 42 CFR 407.32. [DOD,

Office of General Counsel’s Opinion, December 21, 1994.]

Prior to 1996, when a military beneficiary attempted late enrollment in Medicare

B, DEERS officials generally provided the necessary documentation to request an

‘‘equitable relief’’ waiver from HCFA by explaining that DOD had probably misinformed the retiree about this unique requirement to enroll in Medicare Part B as

a condition to retain their military health benefit. TRICARE/CHAMPUS does not

provide each military beneficiary with a handbook as does Medicare and most other

insurance programs.

Base closures caused many retirees who had depended on military medical care

to apply for Medicare Part B with late enrollment penalties. This new influx of Part

B applicants caused by base closure (most over 65) prompted HCFA to review sudden increased HCFA costs associated with granting ‘‘Equitable Relief’’ to these retirees. HCFA may not want to absorb additional costs to their programs resulting from

downsizing the military.

This influx of Part B applicants caused DOD to tighten its policy traditionally

used for providing ‘‘Equitable Relief’’ letters from DEERS for military beneficiaries

seeking late enrollment in Medicare B. DOD then forwarded legislation (fiscal year

1997 and fiscal year 1998) requesting ‘‘equitable relief’’ for over 65’s in Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites with no explanation for omitting the Medicare

under 65’s in this legislative proposal.

Why would DOD exclusively identify BRAC site beneficiaries over age 65 to receive legislative relief from the Part B penalties? Most over 65 retirees would have

received the DEERS courtesy letters explaining their termination of CHAMPUS, the

switch to Medicare, and their personal risk to rely on ‘‘space available military medical care’’ if they choose not to enroll in Part B. DOD’s criteria for requesting ‘‘equitable relief’’ waivers must focus on the beneficiaries who were not informed by

DEERS courtesy information letters of their changed CHAMPUS eligibility. The

unique situation of failing to identify and inform under 65’s was not considered

when the new DOD policy for ‘‘Equitable Relief’’ was written in May, 1996.

DOD must acknowledge and accept responsibility for error and inaction on the

part of government employees who failed to develop a mechanism to inform retired

CHAMPUS beneficiaries of their changed eligibility in a timely manner. Had the

data match been set up in 1973, the system for the dual coverage of Medicare/

CHAMPUS would be working and each beneficiary would have received a timely letter of notification potentially averting penalties and a lapse of medical coverage

when they need it most.

TRICARE PRIME ENROLLMENT FOR MEDICARE ELIGIBLES UNDER 65

ELIMINATE MEDICARE PART B REQUIREMENT

I ask the Committee to please support the removal of the mandated requirement

to purchase Medicare Part B as an unnecessary and unfair condition to enroll in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
771

TRICARE PRIME for the retired Medicare-eligible beneficiary. TRICARE and Medicare are two different federal health programs run by two distinctly different federal

agencies who serve distinctly different populations and purposes. If they have difficulty working together to accomplish a data match in 25 years, how will they coordinate their health benefits so that medical care for the most needy is accomplished without undue problems?

Most DOD informational materials on TRICARE PRIME generally state that

Medicare-eligibles may not enroll in PRIME at this time. Medicare eligibles under

age 65 with Part B are eligible for TRICARE PRIME enrollment. TRICARE PRIME

charts describing eligibility categories, enrollment fees, and copayments must be required to include unique Medicare-eligible requirements. DOD’s explanation that

the disabled group is too small or the dual coverage too complex to justify space in

the marketing materials is not reasonable. TRICARE websites also have failed to

adequately describe the requirements of Part B for unique beneficiaries. TRICARE

money saved by cost shifting the disabled to Medicare should be spent informing

the disabled beneficiaries of their unique health benefit situation.

Many military medical administrators are unaware of the complex eligibility requirements of the dual Medicare/TRICARE benefit.

—Active duty family Medicare-eligible member is not required to purchase Part

B.

—Retired Medicare eligible beneficiary under 65 is required the Part B purchase.

—Disabled family member who has not earned Social Security credits for Disability Income retains full CHAMPUS eligibility until age 65 without the required

switch to Medicare.

—Medicare eligibles at any age may enroll in the Uniformed Services Family

Health Plan without the requirement to purchase Part B.

Historically, military health benefits advisors have been untrained and unable to

discuss Medicare benefits. Now that Defense ACTS have mandated Medicare as a

substitute and requirement for under 65’s to participate in TRICARE, the Defense

Department must be responsible to inform individuals about their Medicare benefits

and how they coordinate with TRICARE. The DOD must not ‘‘cherry pick’’ their programs of retirees because of age or health status as an easy way to meet budget

targets.

HISTORY OF TRICARE/CHAMPUS ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICARE ELIGIBLES UNDER 65

1965, Congress established the Medicare Program under Title 18 of the Social Security Act. Medicare is a Federal Health Insurance Program administered in 2

parts, Part A and Part B. Part A is financed through taxes paid by workers and

their employers (premium free to entitled individuals.) Part B is paid for in part

by premiums from persons who were given the voluntary option to participate.

1966, the expressed intent of the Congress was to provide military retirees a premium free CHAMPUS benefit (in lieu of a reduced monthly compensation) equal to

the Federal Employees Hi Option Blue Cross/Blue Shield or other popular fee-forservice FEHBP plan. Congress provides a Military Medical System with a priority

for ‘‘wartime readiness.’’

1972, the Social Security Amendments (42 USC 1395c) expanded Medicare eligibility to entitled disabled CHAMPUS beneficiaries on or after 1 July 1973. DOD

permitted a dual coverage benefit for all eligible beneficiaries until 1980 with no

Part B requirement. The CHAMPUS regulations (DOD 6010.8 dated 10 January

1977) terminated CHAMPUS coverage effective January 1, 1978, for Medicare eligibles under age 65, but this was not supported in law. Fiscal year 1979 Testimony

presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee by Mr. Vernon McKenzie,

ASD(HA) described this termination of CHAMPUS as a ‘‘cost saving administrative

action’’ that did not reduce medical coverage.

1980, CHAMPUS eligibility terminated for retired beneficiaries under age 65 who

became entitled to Medicare Part A. Public Law 96–513, Sec. 511, an amendment

to the ‘‘Defense Officer Personnel Management Act’’ signed on December 12, 1980.

1991, CHAMPUS restored as second payer to Medicare A and B for retired beneficiaries under age 65. Fiscal Year 1992 Defense Appropriations Act, Public Law

102–190.

1994, Authorized Coordination of Benefits between Medicare and CHAMPUS

specifying traditional reimbursement procedures. Fiscal Year 1995 Def Auth Act,

Public Law 103–337, Sec. 704.

1995, ‘‘Waiver of recoupment’’ for erroneous CHAMPUS payments. Fiscal year

1996, Sec. 743, which provides the authority to waive the collection of erroneous civilian health care payments from persons under the age of 65 who unknowingly lost

TRICARE/CHAMPUS eligibility when they became eligible for Medicare as a result

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
772

of a disability or End Stage Renal Disease. The period of waiver authority begins

January 1, 1967, and ends on either the termination date of any special enrollment

Medicare period established by law, or July 1, 1996, whichever is later. The rule

was published in the Federal Register, December 4, 1997.

1995, ‘‘Data Match’’—Congress directs the administering Secretaries to develop a

mechanism for notifying beneficiaries of their ineligibility for CHAMPUS when loss

of eligibility is due to disability status or entitlement to Medicare Part A under age

65. Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, Sec. 734.

1997, January 16th letter from DOD (Health Affairs) to HCFA requesting a dialogue to develop viable options to provide ‘‘equitable relief’’ for CHAMPUS beneficiaries who are entitled to Medicare under age 65. DOD(HA) acknowledges the inability of DOD to identify this category of beneficiaries in order to notify them of

the change in law. The execution of a timely data exchange was also requested.

1997, Medicare Subvention Demonstration bills passed with fiscal year 1998

Budget Amendment. This Military Medicare Demo’ is the only ‘‘at risk’’ Medicare

HMO permitted to exclude the Medicare eligibles under age 65 who suffer disability.

Are the Medicare eligibles under 65 an ‘‘unfunded mandate’’ for MTF’s? How will

they be treated by the Military Facility Commander who retains the legal ability

to pick and choose the MTF patients according to the needs of their Graduate Medical Education Program and the MTF budget targets?

1997, Legislation waiving Medicare Part B late enrollment penalty excludes disabled Medicare eligibles under 65. H.R. 598 by Rep. John Ensign, (R-Nev.) and S.

912 by Sen. Chris Bond, (R-MO) waives the Part B premium penalty for over 65’s.

Why is there a discriminating omission of the Under 65’s when they are the ones

who did not receive DEERS notification of the change in the CHAMPUS eligibility?

1998, Waiver of TRICARE PRIME enrollment fee for Medicare eligibles under age

65. DOD’s final rule was published in the Federal Register with the effective date

of March 26, 1998. However, DOD policy may not have been disseminated in time

to be included in the initial marketing materials for Regions 1, 2, and 5.

1998, ‘‘Data Match’’ was accomplished by DEERS/HCFA on March 19, 1998, and

DEERS letters were immediately mailed to 12,093 beneficiaries who had not purchased Part B and were without any outpatient coverage. The DEERS/HCFA data

match identified 99,676 retired individuals who are Medicare eligible under age 65.

If ASD(HA) last reported 23,733 dually covered beneficiaries, it would seem that

about 76,000 military beneficiaries were erroneously listed with DEERS as having

primary CHAMPUS eligibility.

1998, Temporary waiver of Part B requirement provision in Supplemental Appropriations bill. April 30, 1998. This emergency measure assures continued medical

coverage under TRICARE until September 30, 1998, for individuals who were unaware of the loss of TRICARE/CHAMPUS and the requirement to enroll in Medicare B.

CONCLUSION

We are very grateful to the Congress for the restoration of CHAMPUS benefits

to retired military under age 65 who are dually entitled to Medicare A and enrolled

in Part B. However, we are concerned about the lack of oversight and understanding

by DOD to administer this dual benefit with full responsibility and accountability.

DOD must now accept full responsibility to advise retired beneficiaries about both

Medicare and TRICARE. If Congress persists in requiring Medicare B, then DOD

must adjust TRICARE coverage to fully supplement Medicare similar to the Federal

Employees Health Benefits Program and Medicare, waiving all cost shares and

deductibles of TRICARE as a ‘‘quid pro quo’’ for Part B enrollment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Obtain additional emergency legislation to waive the Part B requirement temporarily in order to ensure continuing medical coverage for retired beneficiaries until

July 1, 1999.

I respectfully suggest that Congress direct the Department of Defense to designate a position to oversee the fair and equal administration of the health benefit

as uniquely provided to Medicare beneficiaries under age 65. Funding for this centralized oversight task can be offset by savings accrued with the DOD money saved

from shifting retired beneficiaries from TRICARE to Medicare A and B.

DOD must be directed by Congress to work out an arrangement of relief for disabled beneficiaries consistent with HCFA requirements for ‘‘Equitable Relief’’ considerations. Congress implied forgiveness of disabled persons with ‘‘Waiver of

Recoupment’’ of erroneous CHAMPUS payments provision in Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act. The relief from Part B penalties should be similarly grantU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
773

ed. Without ‘‘Equitable Relief,’’ disabled retirees are not properly enrolled in Medicare Part B will find themselves without outpatient coverage for up to 15

months * * * an unconscionable, unintended consequence of law combining two incompatible Federal Health Programs.

Congress must consider eliminating the Part B requirement based on the failure

of DOD to implement the administrative process required to support this provision.

Congress must not expand complex bureaucratic requirements of government programs without adding sufficient staff to accomplish the task.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT COALITION

ON PM–10/PM–2.5

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the California Industry and Government Coalition on PM–10/PM–2.5, we are pleased to submit this

statement for the record in support of our fiscal year 1999 funding request of

$750,000 for the California Regional PM–10/PM 2.5 Air Quality Study.

The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed both state

and federal clean air standards for small particulate matter, designated PM–10/PM–

2.5. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM–10/PM–2.5 standards by December 31, 2001, and the proposed PM–2.5 by

mid-2003. Attainment of these standards requires effective and equitable distribution of pollution controls that cannot be determined without a major study of this

issue.

According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing research data

show that air quality caused by the PM–10/PM–2.5 problem has the potential to

threaten the health of more than 3 million people living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and

problems associated with PM–10/PM–2.5 are better addressed and understood,

many industries will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs for

a soundly researched solution.

PM–10/PM–2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other sources, and

they are a significant problem in the areas that are characteristic of much of California. Typical PM–10/PM–2.5 sources are dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved

roads, and dirt loosened and carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural land.

Soil erosion through wind and other agents also leads to aggravation of PM–10/PM–

2.5 air pollution problems. Chemical transformation of gaseous precursors are also

a significant contributor to PM–2.5, as combustion sources.

Several aspects of the research are important to the U.S. Department of Defense:

—DOD has a number of facilities within the affected region, such as Edwards Air

Force Base and China Lake. Degradation of air quality and visibility could impact their operations.

—Poor air quality also degrades the health and quality of life of personnel stationed at Valley bases.

—Operations at DOD facilities in the Valley produce emissions which contribute

to the Valley’s air quality problem.

—Transport out of the Valley may impact operations in the R–2508 airspace in

the Mojave Desert. Visibility reduction in particular could interfere with the

ability to conduct sensitive optical tracking operations at DOD desert test

ranges.

The Department of Defense is a double stakeholder with respect to the PM–10/

PM–2.5 issue and this important study. DOD activities not only contribute to the

problem, they also are negatively affected by it. The importance of this study on

PM–10/PM–2.5 is underscored by the need for more information on how the federal

Clean Air Act Amendments standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of Title V

of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current understanding of the amount

and impact each source of PM–10/PM–2.5 actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better understanding and more information—which this study would

provide—industry and government will be unable to develop an effective attainment

plain and control measures.

Our Coalition is working diligently to be a part of the effort to solve this major

problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to support research and efforts

to deal effectively with what is essentially an unfunded federal mandate.

Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and local government

entities, are attempting to do our part, and we come to the appropriations process

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
774

to request assistance in obtaining a fair federal share of financial support for this

important research effort. In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study

essential to the development of an effective attainment plan and effective control

measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California. This unique cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local government, as well as private industry, has

raised more than $19 million to date to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM–10/PM–2.5 air quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue

continues, and it is our hope that private industry, federal, state and local governments will be able to raise an additional $8 million over the next two years to fund

this important study.

To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding provided through USDA’s, DOD’s, Interior’s and EPA’s budgets—a total of $10.6 million in federal

funding. Through the Department of Defense, $250,000 was appropriated in fiscal

year 1996, and $750,000 was provided in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. State and industry funding has matched this amount virtually dollar for dollar.

With the planning phase of the California Regional PM–10/PM–2.5 Air Quality

Study nearly complete, a number of significant accomplishments have been

achieved. These interim products have not only provided guidance for completion of

the remainder of the Study and crucial information for near-term regulatory planning, they have also produced preliminary findings which are significant to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) interests.

The Study is significant to DOD interests for a number of reasons. The San Joaquin Valley experiences some of the most severe PM episodes in the nation. The information being collected by the PM study is essential for development of sound and

cost-effective control plans. Without this information, military installations such as

Lemoore NAS in the San Joaquin Valley could be subjected to unnecessary or ineffective controls. In addition, previous studies have demonstrated that significant

amounts of fine particles and their precursors from the San Joaquin Valley are

transported trough the Tehachapi Pass into the Mojave Desert, impacting operations at both Edwards AFB and China Lake NAWS. Good visibility is a missionessential resource for both Edwards AFB and China Lake NAWS due to reliance

on optically-based methods of collecting data at the testing ranges at each facility.

Significant visibility reduction could compromise testing operations at these facilities. Effective control plans for the San Joaquin Valley, based upon the results of

the PM study, will help mitigate visibility reduction in the Mojave Desert through

the reduction of transport from the Valley.

To this end, the PM study is expending significant resources to provide an improved understanding of visibility in the San Joaquin Valley and the Mojave Desert

and transport between these two air basins. A preliminary field monitoring program

was conducted during the fall and winter of 1995/96. Extensive visibility and meteorological measurements were collected. This database is being analyzed to address

the spatial and temporal patterns of visibility, determine the sources which contribute to visibility impairment, and provide an improved understanding of the wind

flow patterns and transport routes between the Valley and the Mojave Desert. Preliminary results indicate that secondary ammonium nitrate is the largest contributor to visibility reduction in the Valley.

The results of these analyses are being used to design large scale field monitoring

programs to be conducted in 1999 and 2000. These field programs will address both

the annual and 24-hour PM–10 and PM–2.5 standards. Surface and aloft monitoring

of air quality, meteorology, fog, and visibility will be conducted at a cost of over $12

million. Final plans for these field studies are being developed, which will be carried

out by numerous contractors over a broad area encompassing Central California, the

Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Mojave Desert. A database of the field study results will be completed in 2001, with air quality modeling and data analysis findings

available in 2002. This timeline is ideally positioned to provide information for federal planning requirements as part of the new PM–10/PM–2.5 national ambient air

quality standards.

The Department of Defense’s prior funding and participation have enabled these

projects to occur. Continued support by DOD is essential to implement a full scope

of visibility and transport-related programs and to ensure that DOD concerns are

met.

For fiscal year 1999, our Coalition is seeking $750,000 in federal funding through

the U.S. Department of Defense to support continuation of this vital study in California. We respectfully request that the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense

provide this additional amount in the DOD appropriation for fiscal year 1999, and

that report language be included directing the full amount for California.

The California Regional PM–10/PM–2.5 Air Quality Study will not only provide

this vital information for a region identified as having particularly acute PM–10/

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
775

PM–2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model for other regions of the country that

are experiencing similar problems. The results of this study will provide improved

methods and tools for air quality monitoring, emission estimations, and effective

control strategies nationwide.

The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee’s consideration of this request for a fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $750,000 for DOD to support the California Regional PM–10/PM–2.5 Air Quality Study.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROGER W. SANDLER, AUS (RET.), EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of the many members

of the Reserve Officers Association from each of the uniformed services, I thank you

for the opportunity to present the association’s views and concerns relating to the

Reserve components and the Defense Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999. In the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, the Congress stated that

‘‘the overall reduction in the threat and the likelihood of continued fiscal constraints

require the United States to increase the use of the Reserve components of the

Armed Forces. The Department of Defense should shift a greater share of force

structure and budgetary resources to the Reserve components of the Armed Forces.

Expanding the Reserve components is the most effective way to retain quality personnel as the force structure of the Active components is reduced * * *. The United

States should recommit itself to the concept of the citizen-soldier as a cornerstone

of national defense policy for the future.’’

RESERVE COMPONENT COST-EFFECTIVENESS

ROA has long maintained that a proper mix of Active and Reserve forces can provide the nation with the most cost-effective defense for a given expenditure of federal funds. Reservists provide 35 percent of the Total Force, but cost only 8 percent

($20.7 billion) of the fiscal year 1999 DOD budget. They require only 23 percent of

active-duty personnel costs, even when factoring in the cost of needed full-time support personnel. We need only consider the comparable yearly personnel (only) costs

for 100,000 Active and Reserve personnel to see the savings. Over a 4-year period,

100,000 Reservists cost $3 billion less than 100,000 Active duty personnel. If the significant savings in Reserve unit operations and maintenance costs are included, billions more can be saved in the same period. ROA is not suggesting that DOD should

transfer all missions to the Reserve, but the savings Reservists can provide must

be considered in force-mix decisions. It is incumbent upon DOD to ensure that each

service recognizes these savings by seriously investigating every mission area and

transferring as much structure as possible to the Reserve components.

ARMY RESERVE

Today’s Army is smaller now than at any time since before WWII. Since 1989,

the Army has reduced its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians and

closed over 700 installations worldwide.

With the downsizing of America’s Army and the transfer of much of the Army’s

combat service (CS) and combat service support (CSS) missions into the Reserve,

the Army Reserve, while only 20 percent of the Total Army, is now structured and

missioned to perform 47 percent of the Army’s CSS and 32 percent of the Army’s

CS missions. Its ‘‘first-to-fight’’ units are prepared to deploy on short notice.

The fiscal year 1999 budget requests for USAR personnel, and operation and

maintenance, are bare bones. The USAR’s share of the Army’s $64.3 billion request

in the fiscal year 1999 DOD budget request is 5.3 percent or $3.2 billion (Reserve

Personnel, Army—$2 billion and Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve—$1.2

billion). Both RPA and OMAR need considerable plus-ups to fully fund known requirements identified during the development of the President’s Budget, but fell

below the funding line. Critical and executable funding shortfalls in the RPA and

OMAR areas alone exceed $190 million.

Reserve personnel, Army (RPA).—Even though the Army Reserve is downsizing to

a programmed fiscal year 1998 end strength of 208,000. The President’s RPA budget

request for $2 billion is inadequate to resource USAR personnel and unit training,

education, manning and support.

The RPA budget request understates the actual executable/critical shortfall by at

least $78 million. Listed are the executable critical shortfalls:

In millions

Professional Development Education (PDE) ........................................................ $7.3

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
776

In millions

Mobilization Training for the IRR ........................................................................ 30.3

Overseas Deployment Training ............................................................................ 10.5

Health Professions Scholarship Program ............................................................. 5.1

Full-Time Support (FTS) ....................................................................................... 25.0

Total ............................................................................................................. 78.2

Professional development education (PDE).—The fiscal year 1999 RPA PDE training budget is funded at only 45 percent of its requirement, underfunding it by at

least $50 million. This $50 million shortfall forces the USAR to limit PDE of some

unit, and many IMA and IRR personnel. With adequate resourcing, soldiers, currently forced to attend schooling in lieu of collective training with their units during

AT, will be able to train and become educationally and professionally qualified, enhancing unit readiness. The executable/critical PDE shortfall is $7.3 million.

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) training.—IRR Mobilization and educational

training accounts are underfunded, severely limiting IRR opportunity to receive

school training or the PDE required for promotion. 45,000 IRR soldiers are unqualified for known mobilization requirements. The training shortfall exceeds $235 million. The executable/critical shortfall is $30.3 million.

Overseas deployment training (ODT).—ODT provides forward presence and nation-building activities in support of CINC missions. Previously an average 18,000

USAR soldiers deployed annually to 50 nations providing 378,000 mandays of costavoidance for AC PERSTEMPO and OPTEMPO. The fiscal year 1999 budget contains no ODT funding. The ODT executable/critical shortfall is $10.5 million.

Health professions scholarship program (HPSP).—HPSP, the principal source of

the AC’s physicians and dentists, provides tuition and financial assistance to Army

Medical Department students during their medical and dental professional training.

The HPSP critical/executable shortfall is $5.1 million.

Full-time support (FTS).—The USAR FTS level is 9 percent, much below DOD’s

17 percent FTS average for the other RC’s. FTS allows USAR unit members to take

full advantage of limited training time and offers the most flexibility in improving

unit readiness. Since 1990 USAR FTS has been reduced by almost 6,000 personnel,

a 20 percent reduction. To reach a 10 percent FTS level in fiscal year 1999, the

USAR requires an increase of 1,000 AGR positions. We urge Congress to add $25

million to the RPA request. This will build the FTS program by 1,000 AGR’s and

raise the FTS level to 10 percent.

RPA summary.—Army Reserve personnel readiness, motivation, and willingness

to continue as volunteers will decline if soldiers are denied the opportunity to receive necessary skills training and the PDE required for promotion. Added funding

will increase the size of the FTS program to 10 percent. We urge the Congress to

add $78.2 million to the RPA budget to fund critical training and manning shortfalls

for TPU, IRR,IMA, HPSP, and FTS personnel.

Operations and maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR).—The fiscal year 1999 DOD

budget request for the Army Reserve Operations and Maintenance (OMAR) account

is $1.2 billion. The executable and critical OMAR shortfall in the fiscal year 1999

request for recruiting and advertising, OPTEMPO, information management, and

the backlog of maintenance and repair is $105 million. Critical shortfalls follow:

In millions

Recruiting and Advertising ................................................................................... $13.0

Operation Tempo ................................................................................................... 20.8

Information Management ...................................................................................... 32.1

Real Property Maintenance .................................................................................. 40.0

Total ............................................................................................................. 105.9

Recruiting and advertising.—The USAR request is critically underfunded by at least $13 million. This severely limits multimedia, print, and contractual advertising

during this period of difficult recruiting. The $16.6 million request is only 33 percent

of the requirement. The executable/critical shortfall is $13 million.

Army Reserve OPTEMPO.—USAR OPTEMPO is funded at only 52 percent of the

requirement. Ninety-four percent of all USAR tactical units are aligned to support

AC MTW requirements. Adequate OPTEMPO funding is necessary to ensure trained

and ready units. The OPTEMPO critical/executable shortfall is $20.8 million.

Information management (IM).—USAR IM accounts are not resourced to keep

pace with the cost of operations and new technology, severely degrading USAR IM.

The critical/executable shortfall is $32.1 million.

Real property maintenance.—The USAR operates facilities in approximately 1,400

locations worldwide. Real property maintenance is funded at only 39 percent. ReU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
777

sources are applied only to the most critical maintenance and repair requirements,

forcing commanders to use other under-resourced accounts to fund emergency repairs. The Backlog of Maintenance and Repair requirement is underfunded by at

least $97 million. The critical/executable shortfall for fiscal year 1999 is $40 million.

OMAR summary.—There is at least a $105 million executable/critical OMAR

shortfall in this budget request that will force the USAR to further reduce equipment and facility maintenance, OPTEMPO, and supply purchases. Quality of life

issues and lack of essential advertising will continue to negatively affect recruiting

and retention. We urge the Congress to add $105.9 million to support these neglected and critically underfunded USAR OMAR programs.

National Guard and Reserve equipment (NG&RE) request.—OSD, in its February

1998 National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report for fiscal year 1999, states

that the USAR has 67 percent of its required equipment pacing items and 68 percent of its ERC A equipment-on-hand (EOH). This represents an equipment shortfall that exceeds $1.4 billion. Realistically, EOH includes substituted equipment,

some that is not compatible with Active Army equipment.

Compatibility problems degrade many USAR CS and CSS capabilities: Reserve

units are unable to communicate with supported units; huge burdens are placed on

the logistics systems to deliver and stock multiple repair parts and fuel supplies,

restricting the mobility, refueling, and maintenance of equipment. Combat multipliers achieved by modern equipment are severely degraded requirements to sustain

multiple models of old and new equipment.

The lack of modern test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment (TMDE) in

USAR CSS units tasked to maintain modernized AC units is a major problem. Without the required TMDE, many units are unable to perform IDT on the equipment

for which wartime proficiency is required. With many USAR units in the Force Support Package (FSP), any tactical vehicle or TMDE equipment incompatibility between USAR FSP units and supported units, degrades support of the combat force.

The greatest relief to USAR equipment shortages is the NG&RE Appropriation.

Since 1981 the USAR has received, through NG&REA and the help of Congress,

over $1 billion in equipment. Without the appropriation the USAR would still be

below 50 percent EOH.

The USAR requires approximately $300 million each year just to modernize its

equipment and be compatible with the equipment entering the Army’s inventory.

Major shortfalls include maintenance equipment, TMDE, trucks (M917A1 dump,

M916A2 tractor), essential ESP upgrade kits (5T, M915), trailers, generators, forklifts, all-terrain cranes, night vision devices, floodlights, welding shops, steam cleaners, LADS, medical equipment, small arms simulators, engineer equipment (hydraulic excavator, roller vibratory type II), M88A1E recovery vehicles, CH–47D helicopter, and the funding to buy miscellaneous equipment. We urge the Congress to

add $200 million in the NG&REA to fund critically needed equipment for the USAR.

SUMMARY

The Army Reserve is a full partner in America’s Army, supplying 73 percent of

the RC units called for Operation Joint Endeavor/Guard. To maintain and improve

current readiness levels the USAR must be properly resourced. USAR readiness is

dependent upon adequate funding levels required to resource: the training of USAR

TPU, IMA and IRR personnel; increased levels of FTS; necessary OPTEMPO; recruiting and retention of quality soldiers; the repair and maintenance of facilities;

improved quality of life; and the procurement of modern compatible equipment. The

combined RPA and OMAR budget requests for $3.2 billion, not counting NG&REA,

are critically underfunded by at least $190 million. We urge Congress to add the

necessary funding to train, support, and equip the dedicated professionals of the

Army Reserve.

NAVAL RESERVE

The Naval Reserve budget remains in decline when adjusted for inflation, despite

its significant compensating leverage. In this regard, it would make more sense, in

light of the decreased, but nevertheless continued threat, and the likelihood of enduring fiscal constraints, to increase rather than decrease the use of the Naval Reserve, as noted in the Sense of the Congress provision contained in the Fiscal Year

1991 DOD Authorization Act. Despite funding cuts, the Navy is increasingly employing the Naval Reserve force. Unfortunately, the budget submission does not reflect this increasing responsibility. The Naval Reserve is not a full partner when the

issue boils down to competition for limited resources.

Operations and maintenance funding.—The Naval Reserve provides continual

OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO relief for the regular force beyond that which occurs durU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
778

ing annual training (AT) periods. There is, however, no reimbursement from the

Regular component for this additional support. Accordingly, ROA urges that operations and maintenance funding be exempt from any correlation to a reduction in

end-strength.

Funding shortfalls—personnel.—Approximately 15 percent of all officers and 25

percent of all enlisted personnel will not receive AT orders in fiscal year 1998,

whereas as recently as fiscal year 1994, AT waivers were granted only under limited

circumstances. Furthermore, USNR AT is budgeted, and generally performed, for 12

days, rather than the 14 days prescribed for the other Reserve components (except

the Coast Guard). Finally, AT is budgeted at 90 percent of the historical rates. At

the same time, the Navy has significantly reduced ADT/ADSW funding, used for

CINC support. The Naval Reserve, in proportion to end-strength, receives less ADT/

ADSW support than any other Reserve component. As a consequence of insufficient

ADT/ADSW funding and of the increasing demands for Reserve manpower from the

fleet CINC’s, the Naval Reserve has used AT funding for fleet support. Consequently, readiness, training, and schooling required for advancement and promotion are being adversely affected.

Funding flexibility.—Title 31 U.S. Code, Section 1301(a), requires that appropriated funds only be used for programs and purposes for which the appropriation

is made. An exception, however, has been enacted to permit the expenditure of RPN

funds for functions performed by Reservists within the unified intelligence command

umbrella and for DOD counter-narcotics efforts, with reimbursement to the RPN account without reprogramming. There are, however, other examples where ready reimbursement would facilitate the ready use of Reserves. Accordingly, ROA recommends that the provisions of section 1301(a) be modified to expand the authority

for reimbursement to Reserve personnel accounts, without reprogramming, for all

programs.

Equipment modernization.—ROA has identified unfunded Naval Reserve equipment requirements for consideration by Congress for addition to the administration’s request for fiscal year 1999, in either the NG&RE appropriation or as earmarked additions to the Navy’s traditional procurement appropriations. These are:

H–60’s (about 22) at a total cost of approximately $450 million; Naval coastal warfare/littoral surveillance systems at an estimated total cost of $130 million; C–9 replacement A/C (14) at a total cost of about $675 million; F/A–18 ECP mods at a total

cost of about $50 million; expeditionary warfare force equipment at a total cost of

about $140 million; P–3C update III kits at a total cost of about $180 million; and

computer-based training at a total cost of about $4 million.

MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Funding shortfalls.—The request to support the Marine Corps Reserve appears to

be underfunded in the Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

(O&M,MCR) and Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps Reserve (RP,MCR) appropriations. Additional O&M funds are needed for individual equipment issue and to provide required training, maintenance, and depot level repairables. The Marine Corps

Reserve personnel appropriation also appears underfunded. Second to the Navy, the

Marine Corps Reserve receives less ADT/ADSW support than any other Reserve

component. The major deficiency in this appropriation is in the area of Active Duty

for Special Work (ADSW).

Equipment modernization.—To achieve the readiness necessary to quickly mobilize and augment the Active Marine Forces in time of national emergency, Marine

Forces Reserve units must be equipped in the same manner as their Active force

counterparts. In this regard, the Initial Issue Program, is a top priority. The Marine

Corps Reserve is also in need of ECP–560’s to make its F/A–18 aircraft compatible

with the F/A–18C’s and D’s utilized by the active force at a cost of $36 million, and

two T–39 replacement aircraft at a cost of $9 million.

COAST GUARD RESERVE

We are fully aware that this committee is not responsible for the direct funding

of the Coast Guard or the Coast Guard Reserve. Nevertheless, as funding for the

DOD and the Coast Guard remains constrained, it is vital to be farsighted to ensure

a continued robust sea power. The Coast Guard’s people, systems, and platforms

provide important national and international capabilities that complement the U.S.

Navy. With a Navy of 116 surface combatants, and regional instability, the Coast

Guard’s cutters—along with several hundred coastal patrol boats—take on new significance. In this regard, the Coast Guard provides a trained, capable, and ready

force for small-scale contingency operations, and force protection in major war.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
779

Coast Guard selected reserve strength.—The fiscal year 1999 authorization request

is to maintain the Coast Guard Selected Reserve end-strength at the 8,000 level.

While recognizing that the Coast Guard Reserve’s end-strength remains below 7,600

for the second consecutive year, we have serious concerns regarding the administration’s proposal for an appropriated end-strength of only 7,600 in view of the fact

that the Commandant has conducted an in-depth study that clearly indicates and

justifies a requirement for in excess of 12,000 Coast Guard Reservists.

We are particularly concerned that the administration and the Coast Guard have

not succeeded in recruiting Reservists to end-strength. We are further very concerned over the impact that the failure to recruit may have on future authorized

and appropriated end-strength in the Coast Guard Reserve. It must be noted that

all the other armed services are meeting their recruiting goals for Reservists (the

Army within the established range of plus, or minus, 2 percent). The immediate

problem, therefore, appears unique to the Coast Guard Reserve.

Coast Guard Reserve funding.—The administration has requested $67 million for

the Reserve Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 1999, and it is anticipated

that $25 million of this amount is intended for reimbursement to operating expenses. Given the present procedures for reimbursement for operating expenses and

direct payments by the Coast Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund

a full training program for 7,600 personnel. Even at this minimal funding level,

Coast Guard Reservists would continue to receive only 12 days of AT each year (all

the other armed services, except for the Navy, are entitled to 14 days’ AT by departmental regulation). In addition, it should be noted that the $67 million funding level

is based on 90 percent funding of on-board strength, as opposed to previously established procedures of budgeting for 90 percent of authorized strength.

Additional funding required to support the full 8,000 level authorized would appear to be $72 million. It should, however, be noted that the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, in appropriating $67 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, limits the

amount of Reserve training funds that may be transferred to operating expenses to

$20 million given the substantial amount of Reserve augmentation work provided

by the Reserves in direct support.

Public Health Service.—ROA is also fully aware that this committee is not directly

responsible for oversight over the Public Health Service. Nevertheless, some Public

Health Service oversight is necessary to ensure that the Public Health Service is,

like the Coast Guard, capable of providing needed personnel to DOD in time of national emergency. In particular, the unique expertise of the commissioned Corps of

the Public Health Service and its Reserve component is vital to the nation’s defense

to biological attack. In this regard, ROA requests the committee’s review of utilization of the inactive Reserve component of the U.S. Public Health Service and establishment of a full-time Office of Reserve Coordination.

AIR RESERVE COMPONENTS AGR OFFICER CONTROLLED GRADE EXECUTION

Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and the Air National Guard (ANG) need an

increase of 23 colonels and 41 lieutenant colonels AGR Controlled Grades, despite

an under execution of 48 colonels and 90 lieutenant colonels on September 30, 1997.

They filled the authorizations with majors, in addition to utilizing all of the major

authorizations. Although the numbers still showed an under execution of 48 colonels

and 11 lieutenant colonels, there were good reasons:

—During this period, the AFRC and ANG placed majors in lieutenant colonel positions to season future senior leadership and establish an experience base in

the program. The colonel and lieutenant colonel authorizations were allocated

to the field with the plan to promote members upon eligibility. These members

are now being promoted to the higher grades.

—Thus, as of March 31, 1998, the AFRCE and AFRC used all officer controlled

grades. As reflected below, within a 6-month period, seven lieutenant colonels

were promoted to colonel and nine majors to lieutenant colonel (seven lieutenant colonel vacancies filled by seven majors plus two additional promotions).

Such promotions are essential to career progression and retention.

March 31, 1998 COL LTC MAJ

Ceiling ........................................................................................................ 274 672 643

Execution 1 .................................................................................................. 233 584 774

Balance ...................................................................................................... ¥41 ¥88 ∂131

Use of Higher Grade .................................................................................. ∂43 ∂88 ¥131

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
780

March 31, 1998 COL LTC MAJ

Execution Delta .......................................................................................... ∂2 ................ ................

1Minus Counterdrug Strength.

—AFRC’s and ANG’s continuing integration into Joint, Departmental and

MAJCOM Headquarters, as well as significant growth in operational units, generates higher grade position requirements. The need to recruit and retain highly

trained and experienced prior-service personnel necessitates hiring at higher

grade levels.

—AFRC’s and ANG’s end strength grows significantly from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1999: from 634 to 991 for AFRC (∂357) and from 10,066 to 10,905 for

ANG (∂839).

Without legislative relief in fiscal year 1999, severe personnel management actions are necessary: options include promotion freezes, voluntary early retirements

and hiring at unacceptably low experience levels. Force structure alternatives include delaying mission starts, reversing resource mix decisions, and deliberately

under executing funded end strength. (AFRC expects to under execute the fiscal

year 1998 AGR program by 28 solely due to grade constraints.)

These highly disruptive actions to the full-time support program will jeopardize

recruiting and retention, new mission growth, end strength execution and Total

Force integration.

ROA strongly urges the Congress to approve the required 23 colonel and 41 lieutenant colonel controlled grades for AFRC and ANG.

GENERAL RESERVE COMPONENT ISSUES

Full-time support.—Increased reliance means increased requirements for readiness. Increased readiness in the Reserve components demands adequate levels of

full-time support. The percentage of full-time support available in Reserve units has

been shrinking under the pressure of budget reductions. ROA urges the Congress

to authorize full-time support levels of at least 12 percent as recommended by the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs in order to provide the readiness

required by today’s increased reliance upon the Reserve components.

Reserve component recruiting.—Recruiting requirements are not overtaken by a

military drawdown—new recruits are required to ensure force viability. While the

Reserve components, with the exception of the Coast Guard, have not yet failed to

meet their recruiting requirements, all of the Reserve chiefs are concerned that they

may be faced with recruiting shortfalls in the future. While recruiting restraints are

not always apparent, there are a number of known factors which are negatively affecting enlistment and commissioning. Perhaps the greatest factor is the turbulence

and uncertainty caused by the drawdown and base realignment and closure actions.

The positive attitude toward the military that the services enjoyed prior to but particularly during the Gulf War is eroding. A military career is no longer perceived

as being as attractive as it was during most of the past decade.

This committee can and should do much to make careers in the Reserve components more attractive, but as it becomes more difficult to attract highly qualified

personnel, it is especially important that requests for recruiting be funded.

Health affairs.—Historically, military retirees have been promised that they have

a right to medical care in military treatment facilities following retirement. Military

retirement pay and military medical care at age 60 are among the most important

reasons citizen-soldiers pursue a career in the Reserve forces.

There has been and continues to be erosion of health care benefits for retired military personnel and their eligible dependents because of the end of the Cold War and

reduced wartime medical requirements; reductions in military medical personnel;

and base closures and realignments under the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. ROA recommends improving military retiree access to space-available care

in DOD medical treatment facilities and allowing Medicare-eligible military retirees

and their eligible dependents to enroll in TRICARE Prime. We also recommend allowing Medicare-eligible military retirees and their eligible dependents who cannot

get care in DOD medical treatment facilities and who lose their CHAMPUS/

TRICARE eligibility (including any prescription drug coverage) at age 65 to enroll

in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Finally, ROA recommends allowing all retired military personnel and their eligible dependents to

participate in the DOD Mail-Order Pharmacy Program.

Gulf war illnesses.—Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, there has been clear and

mounting evidence of numerous apparently disparate medical problems among those

who served in the Persian Gulf area of operations during that time. Medical experts,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
781

both within and outside government have been unable to identify any single cause

for the numerous clinical symptoms that Gulf War veterans and some members of

their families have presented. Moreover, many Gulf War veterans, especially members of the Reserve components, have had difficulty obtaining military medical

treatment pending definitive diagnoses. ROA urges the Congress to ensure that appropriate health care and support are provided to veterans and their families with

Gulf War illnesses without charge, pending medical determination of the causes of

those illnesses. ROA also urges the Congress to provide supplemental appropriations to pay for such health care and support.

Income protection for mobilized Reservists.—The Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program was one of the most important programs that the federal

government ever offered to the individual Reserve member. It provided a measure

of economic security that demonstrated the government’s commitment to the concept

of the citizen-soldier and its recognition of the value that the citizen-soldier brings

to this all-volunteer Total Force. Its cancellation, though programmatically understandable, was viewed by many Reservists as a major breach of faith. We believe

that this program filled a critical need, and that amended and properly marketed

and implemented, it could prove itself to be a significant element in maintaining Reserve and Total Force personnel strength and readiness. ROA urges the Congress

to direct the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report setting forth his views of the

need for and desirability of a program to provide income protection for involuntarily

mobilized Reservists. We further urge that the report assess the need for and desirability of a program of small business loans for self-employed Reservists who are

involuntarily mobilized.

Grade of Reserve component chiefs.—The current grade of the chiefs of the armed

services’ Reserve components is O8 (major general/rear admiral, upper half). Public

Law 104–201, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997, contained provisions

establishing the chiefs of the services’ Reserve components as the commanders of

those components, and directing the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Congress,

within six months, a report containing his recommendations regarding the ‘‘statutory designation of the positions and grades of any additional general and flag officers’’ in the Reserve commands and offices established by that act. ROA recommends that the Secretary of Defense issue the report mandated by Public Law

104–201 and that he recommend the immediate promotion of the reserve chiefs/commanders of the armed services to the rank of lieutenant general/vice admiral. ROA

also recommends that the Reserve chiefs and other Reserve general and flag officers

on active duty be excluded from statutory and administrative ceilings on active duty

general and flag officers. ROA further recommends that absent the report described

above, the Congress include provisions in the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act setting the rank of the Reserve chiefs at the three-star level.

Commissaries.—The Congress has authorized unlimited access to exchanges, but

in expanding commissary privileges, it limited commissary use to 12 a year. ROA

believes that this 12-day restriction is not cost-effective and should be deleted. By

eliminating the printing, distribution and control of the commissary privilege card,

DOD has estimated that it would save the Department of Defense $13.5 million annually. The Defense Commissary Agency calculated that the negligible increased use

of the commissary by Reservists would require no additional DOD funding. We

strongly urge the Congress to address this issue and increase commissary access

from 12 to 24 visits per year for satisfactorily participating Ready Reservists and

retirees.

Space available travel.—Extending space available travel privileges to participating Ready Reserve members and their dependents simply recognizes the essential

nature and value of the Reserve forces’ contribution to the Total Force. The Reserve

components of our Armed Forces are full partners in the defense of the nation, full

partners that are increasingly called upon to support contingencies in all parts of

the world and to contribute their frequently unique expertise to operations that

could not otherwise be contemplated. Yet, in this issue they are not treated as full

partners.

Reservists, who will continue to constitute an increasingly critical element of our

total military force, view full access to space available travel as a major equity and

morale issue, even if they personally are unable to avail themselves of the privilege.

Their support is essential to the Total Force. Congressional support is essential if

they are to be accorded the privileges that are commensurate with their increasing

contributions to the good of the nation. ROA urges the Congress to support increased space available travel privileges for eligible members of the Ready Reserve

and to their dependents.

Concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans compensation.—Currently

military retirees receiving veterans disability compensation have the amount of that

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
782

compensation deducted from their military retired pay, while other federal retirees

receive their full retirement in addition to whatever disability compensation they

may be receiving from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Congressman Bilirakis

has introduced legislation to help remedy this situation and grant relief to veterans.

ROA continues to deplore this inequity and urges the Congress to remedy the situation by enacting legislation authorizing concurrent receipt of both military retirement and veterans disability compensation.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Reserve Officers Association’s

views on these important subjects. Your support for the men and women in uniform,

both Active and Reserve, is sincerely appreciated. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENERGY SERVICE

COMPANIES

The National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO) appreciates the

opportunity to submit the following written testimony in support of the Department

of Defense (DOD) fiscal year 1999 budget request for energy efficiency contracting

and other energy efficiency project support services.

NAESCO is a trade association of energy service companies (ESCO’s) and their

trade allies, including utility and manufacturing companies. NAESCO’s current

membership of over 140 organizations includes firms involved in the design, manufacture, financing and installation of energy efficiency equipment and services in the

private and public sectors, including Federal buildings.

The thousands of energy efficiency retrofits installed by NAESCO member companies to date enable energy consumers to save an average of 25 percent of their previous building energy costs. NAESCO’s energy service company (ESCO) members

offer capital constrained customers the opportunity to upgrade their facilities without any up-front capital expenditures. In addition, ESCO’s assume the performance

and technical risk so that repayment for project costs comes only from measured

and verified energy savings generated by a successful, ongoing project. In this way,

the cost of an energy efficiency project is paid entirely from energy savings, requiring no additional budget outlay to support the capital investment.

SUPPORT FOR DOD’S 1999 BUDGET REQUEST FOR COMPETITIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

SERVICES

NAESCO supports DOD’s 1999 budget request for energy conservation programs,

to the extent that those programs encourage and support the competitive procurement of private sector energy efficiency services. In addition, NAESCO supports the

DOD’s centralization of support services for energy savings contracting to enable implementation that creates more efficient and expeditious contracting procedures in

all cases, by the provision of site-appropriate levels of support.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INITIATIVES IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL BUDGET SAVINGS

THROUGH ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING

The DOD has an excellent history of reliance on the private sector to provide energy efficiency services. In many cases, DOD has relied upon utility sole source energy supply contracts for these services, even though specific legislation was passed

by Congress, in the 1992 Energy Policy Act, creating competitive Energy Savings

Performance Contracts (ESPC’s).

During the Senate Energy Committee’s hearing on competitive energy efficiency

procurement, held on September 25, 1997, DOD representatives argued that Congress did not need to pursue legislation to promote competition in the federal procurement of energy efficiency services. According to the DOD, competition already

is on the increase in this area and the use of sole source utility contracts is on the

decline. NAESCO respectfully requests that the Subcommittee strongly encourage

DOD acceerate the trend and to ensure that the Government receive the benefits

of competition for procurement of these services.

CENTRALIZED CONTRACTING INITIATIVES

The DOD has taken the initiative, ahead of other Federal agencies, in developing

centralized contracting offices, in particular at the Huntsville Army Base and at

Tyndall Air Force Base. NAESCO supports this move since it offers the potential

to decrease the administrative costs of implementing Energy Savings Performance

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
783

Contracts (ESPC’s) by creating centers of procurement and contract management

expertise. Therefore, NAESCO fully supports specific line item (‘‘fenced’’ funding) for

energy conservation necessary to support this infrastructure. Without such fenced

funding, the monies generally allocated to operations and maintenance simply go to

other mission-related functions.

However, NAESCO would like to suggest that some flexibility in the organizational structure be encouraged. In the experience of our member companies, each

project site identified for an energy efficiency retrofit tends to have unique characteristics. The level of knowledge, understanding and skills related to energy efficient

equipment, the potential for energy and cost savings, and the facility upgrades

available through energy efficiency retrofits varies widely among facility managers

and contracting officers. Also, there is a broad range of capability in terms of the

contracting tools available for procuring these services. At some project sites, facility

engineers, contracting officers and legal counsel may be poorly equipped to oversee,

procure and develop these highly cost effective projects. In cases like this, the centralized offices can offer invaluable support services to help make energy efficiency

projects possible.

At other sites, however, facility staff and their on-base support personnel may be

the most qualified to bring such a project together. In cases such as this, mandatory

exclusive use of centralized office personnel has the potential actually to increase

the cost of these projects through the duplication of efforts and the inefficient use

of personnel time.

We strongly encourage the DOD and Appropriators to ensure that the centralization of support services for energy savings contracts creates more efficient and expeditious contracting procedures in all cases, by the provision of site-appropriate support.

ALL QUALIFIED ENERGY SERVICE PROVIDERS SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL ACCESS TO THE

FEDERAL MARKET

Federal agencies have adopted the view that sole-source contracting with existing

regulated utility companies is a preferred method of obtaining energy efficiency

services, when compared with the competitive procurement of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC’s). This reliance on the use of utility sole-source contracts

violates Federal requirements for full and open competition. Utility power services

historically have been procured on a sole-source basis due to the traditional recognition of the utility franchise. The national trend toward both wholesale and retail

competition in the utility industry weakens this traditional unilateral relationship

and there are questions about whether such a sole-source relationship is appropriate

or beneficial in the changing marketplace. In addition, it has never been clear that

the statutory authority for this sole-source power supply extended to the provision

of energy efficiency services. The policy that DOD and other agencies have adopted,

absent public review or comment, is that federal facilities may contract directly with

utilities for energy efficiency services, but that all other providers must engage in

a competitive procurement process.

The use of non-competitive procurement practices in energy efficiency contracting

denies the Federal government and U.S. taxpayers the benefits of competition in the

market for energy efficiency services. Furthermore, it is not supported by any rational justification. Therefore, NAESCO strongly encourages the DOD and Federal

Appropriators to prescribe the use of competitive procedures for all providers when

DOD is engaged in the procurement of energy efficiency services.

THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES, THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN REDUCE THE ENERGY COSTS BORNE BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS

In the Federal sector, cost savings through energy efficiency investments enable

agencies to pursue their missions while reducing budget outlays through reductions

in infrastructure costs. However, the full benefits of energy efficiency investments

will not be realized by the Federal Government or by the taxpayers if Federal agencies continue to pursue non-competitive practices in acquiring these services.

By using energy efficiency investments to reduce the costs of operating the federal

infrastructure, Congress and the agencies will reduce the long term tax burden required to support federal operations.

CONCLUSION

The competitive procurement of privately funded energy efficiency investments in

Federal facilities offers a win-win budget initiative for the Congress and the U.S.

taxpayer. These initiatives will increase energy productivity by reducing the energy

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
784

consumption and therefore the dollar cost of operating and maintaining Federal facilities.

NAESCO supports DOD’s 1999 budget request for energy conservation programs,

to the extent that these programs encourage and support the competitive procurement of private sector energy efficiency services.

NAESCO supports the DOD’s centralization of support services for energy savings

contracting to the extent that it can be implemented in a way that creates more

efficient and expeditious contracting procedures in all cases, by the provision of siteappropriate levels of support.

NAESCO strongly encourages the DOD and the Congress to continue to support

a Federal-private sector initiative for reducing energy costs in Federal facilities. We

further encourage the Congress and Federal agencies to provide U.S. taxpayers the

maximum budget savings and other benefits available through these investments by

employing competitive procedures for their procurement.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. Our next hearing will be on May 13. At that

time the committee will hear from the Secretary of Defense, the

Hon. Bill Cohen. The hearing is recessed.

[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., Monday, May 11, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 13.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY11.002
(785)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Specter, Domenici, Shelby, Gregg,

Hutchison, Inouye, Hollings, Bumpers, Lautenberg, Harkin, and

Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. COHEN, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary, ladies and gentlemen, my apologies for being late. I had a little session on what has happened to

the money that we used to have in this Appropriations Committee

and why we do not have enough to respond to your needs.

Secretary COHEN. Well, I gave a brilliant opening statement in

your absence. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen and ladies, I do apologize. We welcome you as a former colleague and a great friend.

Yesterday the Secretary met with a delegation that went with

Senator Inouye and me to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and the

NATO headquarters, and it gave us an opportunity to report to him

and the Joint Chiefs some of our observations and recommendations concerning the impact of deployments on our forces and the

views of our allies on the presence and the roles involved in these

activities.

I know that we probably left a lot on the table there, but we are

determined to work with you and the Chiefs to ensure that we

meet the needs of our troops and respond, to the greatest ability

we can, particularly to the problem of morale in the forces, to ensure that we have the capability to meet the security challenges

our Nation faces around the world.

Last year we commended you and General Austin for the presentation of the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR]’’. It is the right

plan to take our military into the 21st century. Many of us have

worked hard to ensure that in the bipartisan budget agreement,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
786

the White House would agree to spending levels needed to implement the QDR recommendations.

Despite the good faith effort on all sides, I think we should all

recognize that the amounts we agreed to are not sufficient to meet

the needs for operations, quality of life, and modernization of our

military. Deployments to Bosnia and Southwest Asia have consumed, in my judgment, the savings achieved through force reductions, lower inflation, and base closures. Environmental remediation and health care costs continue to grow. We cannot achieve

the balance in spending we must secure for the future if we singularly pay the costs of maintaining the blockade of Iraq and the

status quo in Bosnia.

I do not want to go into what we said to you yesterday, Mr. Secretary, but 1999 will be the fifth year for our deployment in the

Bosnia region. Now we feel these costs must be included in our

budget.

The committee understands the implications of the military having to pay for Bosnia out of the funds requested in the budget, and

what we are trying to do is find out if the White House and the

Office of Management and Budget in particular understand those

implications. I believe there should be an increase in the caps so

that we can take care of that problem and we should face it squarely.

But you have the tough job, my friend. We were pleased to work

with you on the supplemental. I think it was a little bit late but

it was in time to prevent the devastation that could have taken

place as far as our armed services if we had not passed it.

Every member of this committee has worked with you to meet

the needs of our forces. We are a bipartisan committee, and I think

Senator Inouye and I pride ourselves in that fact.

In my judgment the administration and Congress must reconsider the spending levels set for defense in the balance of this period leading to the balanced budget in 2002. We cannot treat the

missions, for which we are planning to stay for many years, as annual emergencies. We must have a new approach to our position

in the world and on what the commander in chief decides to do

with regard to carrying out our roles overseas.

I have taken too long. Despite the fact that I was late—I again

apologize to you, but I want you to know that we are very sincerely

trying to find some way to adjust this budget so we can meet the

needs that you face.

Senator Inouye.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask

that my full statement be made part of the record.

Mr. Secretary, during the past many months, we have held many

hearings, and throughout these hearings certain key words and

phrases have been heard quite often: modernization, quality of life,

deployment. But the one word that just about every witness seems

to be concerned about is readiness, and that to me is the key to

what we are discussing today. I can assure you that this committee

is prepared to do whatever we can to make certain that our forces

maintain the highest level of readiness.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
787

Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Good morning, I want to join our chairman in welcoming you here this morning.

I must note, Mr. Chairman that it has been several years since a Secretary of Defense has testified before this subcommittee. And, I for one am very glad we could

find a time that our current Secretary was able to join us.

For several years, this subcommittee has had as its practice a policy of hearing

from the Secretary of Defense last, after all the other witnesses had testified. It has

been our aim to take the information we have gathered and raise it to your attention. We have found this to be a very useful way to proceed for all of us.

During our hearings this year, one subject which has been raised repeatedly is

readiness. There appears to be great concern with our ability to maintain a ready

force in the future.

From our military leaders we learned that while modernization is still a key element of interest, it is readiness that is of greatest concern.

From our subcommittee members we have learned about items in which they are

particularly interested. Many, but not all, are included in DOD’s funding request.

I am sure we will find today’s session most instructive and I look forward to your

insight.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Hollings.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Lautenberg.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

Senator LAUTENBERG. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this opportunity to hear from the Secretary and commend

him for the job he has done. We are very proud of the work that

you have been doing.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, because you brought it up, and

you do set just the right kind of tone I think of bipartisanship. We

want to work together to accomplish our goals.

I do have some concern as a member of the Budget Committee,

the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, about breaking

the caps because we worked like the devil to get ourselves a balanced budget.

Senator STEVENS. Senator, I did not say break them. I said lift

them. [Laughter.]

There is a difference.

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. About changing the caps.

And here is the chairman of the Budget Committee just on time.

Senator DOMENICI. I am for raising the caps on defense. [Laughter.]

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, I do not think it would be reasonable

to lower them right now, but anyway I do not want internecine

warfare here to take over.

I think that we ought to examine very closely the proposition

that we finance the Bosnia operation on an emergency basis. I

think we ought to struggle with the prospect of adding to the budget. I for one want to hold the caps where they are. That was almost

a solemn promise that we made to the public, and I would like to

see it maintained.

So, with that, I am ready for the debate to begin.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. I understand that Senator Dorgan was next.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
788

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement. I

am to go to the floor to speak at 10:30 on the national missile defense, and then I will return.

But thank you for the hearing.

Senator STEVENS. My apologies for being late.

Senator Harkin.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN

Senator HARKIN. I again join in thanking the Secretary for his

great leadership at DOD. I know we are going to be talking about

budgets and next year, but I hope, Mr. Secretary, we can spend a

little bit of time talking about the recent events in South Asia

while you are here this morning. Maybe we can get your insight

and a little bit of overview of how you see things developing in

South Asia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Gregg.

Senator GREGG. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a minute

and say that while I personally could favor and probably vote for

the money requested by the President as an emergency for the Bosnian effort, I really believe when you are 5 years into an effort, to

continue to call it an emergency and to not face up to the realization that it is part of the defense budget and in some way claim

that we are enforcing caps, when it is almost as day follows night,

that as long as you are there, the money will not be put in the

budget, it will be called an emergency, is making a mockery of the

caps.

Now, there are other mockeries of the caps occurring regularly,

and that is to create new entitlements that used to be appropriated

accounts. That is a very interesting kind of approach.

Then to run around and say we have not broken the caps, we

have just found a new way to spend the taxpayers’ money that we

had expected not to spend when we put the caps in seems to me

to also be something that the American public would understand.

From my standpoint, I believe the time has come to be more realistic about the Defense Department’s budget. If they cannot meet

their responsibilities in Bosnia and the Middle East where we have

these front-line engagements, if they cannot meet them without

harming the defense budget that the President and we are approving, then we ought to be realistic and add it to the budget.

Frankly, I can recall—my friend, Senator Hollings, sitting right

there, do you recall the last time we were confronted with a hollow

military? Now, I am not saying we are there yet. How did we fix

it? In the middle of Jimmy Carter’s campaign for a second term,

we put 5 percent real growth in a budget and it stuck. That was

the first time we had a significant turnaround in what was moving

dramatically toward a hollow military. Maybe it was already there.

You know, I do not say we are there yet, but you, Mr. Chairman,

and others that know more than I, including Senator Inouye, are

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
789

worried about what is going on in terms of scavenging one airplane

to keep another one going, and those kinds of things.

So, that is what I have to say about it, and I thank you for giving

me a couple of minutes.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator Bumpers.

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask you——

Senator STEVENS. These are opening statements.

Senator BUMPERS. You mean we are just now to opening statements? [Laughter.]

Mr. Secretary, you just got saved by the bell.

Senator STEVENS. I was late. I am sorry about that.

Senator BUMPERS. I have one but I will forego it.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Secretary Cohen.

Secretary COHEN. Thank you for saving me, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter.]

SECRETARY COHEN’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be back before this committee, and let me say a couple of words before talking about my

opening remarks.

When President Clinton asked me to serve in this capacity, the

first thing he said to me is that he wanted to develop a bipartisan

consensus in this country for a strong national defense and that

was the principal reason he was asking me to forego my plans of

becoming a private citizen and take this position.

It was that proverbial offer that could not be refused because the

opportunity to represent the men and women in uniform in this

country is one that everyone should extol and esteem, and it is

something that I have held in the highest regard. And I did not reject that offer. I quickly accepted.

I must say that during the past 18 months, I have tried to maintain a very strong relationship with Members on this side of Capitol Hill as well as the other. You came down to the Pentagon with

your CODEL that recently returned from Southwest Asia and from

Bosnia to have a breakfast whereby you could convey to me and

to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other

members—give them the benefit of your observations. That is precisely the kind of relationship that one should always have.

When we talk about if the Pentagon cannot meet its obligations,

it is not the Pentagon. It is we, the country. So, what we have tried

to do is to work not looking through one end of the telescope to the

other side at the other end of the telescope, but rather looking at

our national security needs from one perspective. I appreciate the

friendship and the close cooperation we have had.

The QDR last year was really an effort, mandated by Congress,

for the Department to examine itself, saying, where are we going

as a strategy, what is going to be our strategy for the future, for

the next 4 years but well beyond that? We came up with three

words to define it: shape, respond, prepare.

The key aspect of that shaping is being forward deployed. I

hosted a defense attache ́s’ meeting last night at the State Department, and it was a remarkable experience to see some 86, 88 counU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
790

tries represented by their defense attache ́s walk through that receiving line and the enthusiasm they had, the admiration they

have for this country. We are admired and, to some degree, envied

the world over. I sit in the Pentagon and receive defense ministers,

prime ministers, presidents, heads of state, foreign ministers, and

frankly they come and we discuss ways in which they can replicate

the quality of the people that we have in our service, the high

standards that we have, the kind of technological superiority that

we have demonstrated over the years. They want to be more like

the United States and they want to have an association with us.

So, we are doing a lot of things right. We tend to open the morning paper and we can see the defects or the deficiencies, but I must

tell you, having been in this position for 18 months, the overwhelming majority of the cases we are highly regarded and respected and we deserve that respect, I must tell you, by the quality

of the people we have serving us and the leadership that they have.

So, it is within that context in terms of shaping the environment,

we are shaping the environment of being forward deployed over in

the Asia Pacific region. I think that redounds greatly to our benefit.

We are shaping the environment in Europe, and we can talk about

Bosnia and I am sure we will in a few moments. So, we are having

an opportunity to shape world events in ways that are, nonetheless, favorable in spite of what we may see in the morning headlines, and we can discuss that in a moment. But overall, we are

doing an outstanding job.

With respect to today’s testimony, I have submitted a very brief

opening statement. Let me just try to summarize a couple of quick

points.

First of all, I want to thank you for your assistance on the nonoffset supplemental for fiscal year 1998. That was important to

help us continue the operations in Bosnia until the end of this fiscal year. It was obviously enormously helpful as far as continuing

operations in Southwest Asia as we continue to try to contain Saddam Hussein.

I also want to thank the committee for the efforts it is making

to resolve the disparity or dispute that we have in terms of the outlay problem as far as CBO’s analysis and that of OMB. The outcome of that will have a major impact upon how we are able to

fund the various programs that we have.

OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET

With respect to the 1999 budget, we have tried to place before

you a very balanced and detailed laying out of the responsibilities

we have as far as maintaining operations and maintenance, maintaining readiness, which Senator Inouye has just mentioned, and

also preparing for the future. The shape-respond-prepare is part of

that paradigm that we have that we have to be able to respond to

a variety of crises all the way from the very small neo-operations,

noncombatant evacuation operations, all the way up to a major

conflict, be it in Korea or with a country like Iraq, in addition to

defending our country’s national security here at home.

The preparing part is one that I have taken as a specific challenge for myself. I recall that many times General Shalikashvili

used to come before the Armed Services Committee, and he had a

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
791

chart that he put up and it showed what had happened to procurement since the height of the cold war and the level of funding that

we had for purchasing modernized equipment. The line kept going

down, and the promise was we would start going up. We would

reach $60 billion. Well, the problem was every time that General

Shalikashvili kept coming up, he would show the line moving out.

We cannot make it this year or next year. The line kept moving

because we did not have enough money to put into procurement.

So, one of the things that I really pledged to myself that I would

do is make that line go up, consistent with the representation that

we were making to you each year that we come before you. Last

year I said in fiscal year 1999 we would have $49 billion for procurement. I was a little bit off. It is $48.7 billion, but we are close.

We expect to hit the procurement level of $60 billion by the year

2001.

I can only do that if, in fact, the other aspects of the program

are achieved, savings that I am looking for. I know that base realignment and closure [BRAC] is a four-letter word, but it is something that we have to look forward to in terms of getting some efficiencies and eliminating some of the overhead that we have is very

costly.

In addition, I have done a number of things as far as trying to

reform the way in which the Pentagon does business. We have the

defense reform initiative that is headed up by Dr. Hamre, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. That is underway.

So, we are doing our best to live within the caps that you, Mr.

Chairman, have talked about. When I went to the Pentagon, I said

it is unlikely that we are going to see major increases in defense

spending for the foreseeable future in the absence of some significant conflict. I had to at least project that. I have no way of knowing. All of us would like to see more, but it was my judgment,

based upon my experience sitting on that side of the table, that we

were unlikely to see any significant increases in defense spending.

So, I had to try to predict and project what do I have to work with

and how do I balance operation and maintenance, readiness, the

need for procurement.

The budget we have submitted for 1999 is a well-balanced proposal, and there are some efforts underway on the other side of

Capitol Hill on the House side to take significant sums out of the

operation and maintenance [O&M] accounts. That will have a

major impact on either quality of life, on readiness, and perhaps

even on procurement. So, I would hope that you would see the wisdom and look at the proposal that we have before you in terms of

the delicacy of the balance.

FUNDING FOR BOSNIA OPERATIONS

A final word perhaps on the supplemental for Bosnia. I have listened to you, Mr. Chairman, and also Senator Domenici in terms

of whether you can call this an emergency. Frankly, I had hoped

and had argued that we should have a termination of our efforts

in Bosnia by the end of June of this year. I had hoped that that

would be the case and I worked toward that end, but I also kept

an open mind.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
792

I travel frequently to Bosnia. I met with my counterparts

throughout NATO, and I also became convinced that if we left at

June of this year, that it would take a turn for the worse and we

were likely to see a loss of everything we have achieved to date.

So, I think the President made the correct decision to say that

it is going to take longer, not to set fixed time lines because we

cannot really determine on a monthly or a day-by-day basis how

much progress we are going to make. I can say—and I believe that

those of you who have been there would say—there has been a dramatic change for the better that has taken place in Bosnia as a result of our being there.

We have tried to shrink down the size of our force. We have come

down from 20,000 to 15,000 to 12,000 to 10,000 to 8,500, and we

now are going to go down to 6,900. So, we are coming down even

as you are seeing a fairly significant change on the ground in terms

of economic development, changes in attitudes, the election of more

moderate members certainly coming in the Serbian portion and

quarter.

So, there are a lot of positive things taking place, and yes, it is

still expensive.

But we had no way of knowing in putting our budget together

for fiscal year 1999 that we would be there beyond June of this

year. That decision was not made until January of this year. So,

in that sense, it is emergency. There is a wedge that has been put

in the budget of some $3 billion plus, and what we are asking for

is the $1.9 billion to come out of that wedge for contingencies.

I will agree also that for the next budget that I present to you,

we have to find a way to deal with it. It no longer can be called

an emergency. The President has made a decision, which we are

supporting, that there should be no definite, fixed time line, that

we will try to continue to move in the direction we are going, but

not setting artificial deadlines to only raise expectations and then

dashing them.

So, it is incumbent upon me now to go back for the next budget

that I am preparing for next year to say we are going to have to

absorb the cost of Bosnia in some fashion. That will raise the issue

of whether or not there can be increased funding for defense or

whether we are going to have to make some kind of modifications

in terms of what we are going to have to give up or efficiencies

achieved in order to have the money for it.

But I would ask you that you would continue to look at this as

a nonoffset emergency in the sense that there is money that has

been set aside for contingencies and this is a contingency that we

have to meet. In the event that we do not get the money, it is $1.9

billion I have got to take out of somewhere. If you look at the way

the budget is put together, there is not much room for give. We

have been talking about the question of readiness, and we are

starting to see signs of some erosion certainly on the edges of

things.

And you heard from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the

Vice Chair. We have put into place mechanisms now to try to

evaluate what are we doing with a number of units that are low

density, high demand, as the chairman has described it, those units

that you saw over in Southwest Asia, who are concerned about the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
793

amount of deployments. You talked to one individual who had 11

deployments in the past, I think, 5 years. We have got to deal with

those issues of reducing the level of operational tempo and

PERSTEMPO in order to make sure that we do not contribute to

the exodus out of the Air Force by way of specific example.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, Mr. Chairman, I said I was not going to be long. Let me cease

here and yield to your questions, but again, thank you for the support you have given to the Department over the years.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. COHEN

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here to discuss

President Clinton’s fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense (DOD) budget.

Before focusing on next year’s budget, I want to thank you for your strong support

of the President’s fiscal year 1998 emergency nonoffset supplemental appropriations

request. The approved funding will enable us to cover unbudgeted DOD costs for

the extension of operations in Bosnia beyond this June, for the increased tempo of

our military activities in Southwest Asia, and for recovery from natural disasters

earlier this year. Your prompt action allows us to avoid the damaging diversion of

funds from readiness-related accounts and from other important programs in our

budget.

I also thank you for your intensive efforts to achieve a satisfactory resolution on

the CBO/OMB dispute on fiscal year 1999 outlays. The outcome of this issue will

substantially influence our shared goal of protecting force readiness and other military priorities in next year’s budget.

OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 DEFENSE BUDGET REQUEST

Details submitted to the Congress on our fiscal year 1999 budget depict a plan

carefully balanced between meeting current needs and preparing for an uncertain

future. Our emphasis on keeping that balance, and how best to pursue it, is the result of last year’s comprehensive Quadrennial Defense Review. The fiscal year 1999

budget begins implementation of our plans to keep our military ready to meet current missions, while transforming America’s defense posture for the future.

To preserve today’s military readiness, the fiscal year 1999 budget provides strong

support for training, exercises, maintenance, supplies, and other essentials. In preparing their new budgets, the military services followed my direction that they fully

fund their readiness-related accounts. Traditional operational indicators of readiness—e.g., tank miles and flying hours—are projected to remain stable. When adjusted for today’s lower troop strengths, fiscal year 1999 O&M funding is well above

levels during the 1980’s. Still, the intensity of military activities and other pressures

require the Department to remain vigilant and ensure that major readiness problems do not develop.

To ensure our long-term battlefield superiority, the budget substantially increases

procurement funding for weapons modernization—and meets the Administration’s

goal of providing $60 billion for procurement by fiscal year 2001. Additionally, the

Department’s RDT&E request is carefully targeted to fund the technologies and programs offering the greatest potential payoff for American’s future security.

My department’s long-term defense plans are achievable only if we streamline and

reform our infrastructure and support activities. Much of the needed effort is underway, but we cannot succeed without congressional backing.

FISCAL YEAR 1999 O&M FUNDING AND THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET AMENDMENT

Your strong support of the President’s fiscal year 1999 defense request is crucial

to ensuring its continued balance and sufficiency. I especially want to stress the importance of fully funding the Department’s Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

budget and approving the nonoffset budget amendment for Bosnia as proposed by

the President. Together these requests provide the O&M funding that is absolutely

essential to sustaining the readiness of our armed forces while protecting America’s

security interests and enabling our global leadership.

During discussions of our fiscal year 1999 budget request, your committee heard

compelling testimony from our nation’s military leaders about the readiness conU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
794

sequences of inadequate O&M funding. Our forces are in good shape now, but funding shortfalls would quickly erode readiness by forcing cuts in training, unit and

depot-level maintenance, supplies, and other essentials. If fiscal year 1999 O&M

funding falls below the President’s total request, we would have enormous difficulty

sustaining adequate readiness and could only hope to do so through highly undesirable measures such as personnel furloughs and major reductions in programs vital

to the quality of life of our military personnel and their families.

Key members of Congress have stated that they consider the President’s O&M

budget to be the minimum needed to maintain readiness. I agree with that assessment, as does General Shelton and the rest of our military leadership. We therefore

urge in the strongest terms the full funding of our O&M appropriations. If the Congress makes major cuts in our O&M budget request, the readiness of our forces will

be severely threatened.

Regarding the Bosnia budget amendment, I cannot overstate the importance of

your approval. This amendment was required because last year’s bipartisan budget

agreement did not anticipate an extension of Bosnia operations beyond June 1998

and because plans for that extension were not finalized with our NATO partners

until a month after the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget submission. The fiscal

year 1999 budget amendment, with its request for $1.9 billion to continue our operations in Bosnia, will enable the U.S. to sustain the considerable progress achieved

in that critical region over the past 3 years. The President’s budget included an allowance, separate from the DOD budget, for contingencies like Bosnia. That allowance should facilitate your approval of this plan for covering DOD’s unbudgeted Bosnia costs.

Without approval of the budget amendment, the Department’s only recourse

would be to submit a fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations request. Such

a supplemental would require us to identify and carry out rescissions once the fiscal

year 1999 DOD budget becomes law. That course would be terribly disruptive,

threaten force readiness, and undermine the morale and well-being of our troops.

The far superior option is to build upon recent passage of fiscal year 1998 supplemental and complete congressional funding for extending Bosnia operations by approving the fiscal year 1999 amendment. Otherwise, the Department of Defense and

its oversight committees would once again face the damaging burden of dealing with

unbudgeted costs for an ongoing operation.

In closing, let me say how important to our nation’s armed forces is the strong

support of this committee. I look forward to ongoing cooperation as together we

work to reinforce America’s military strength and global leadership.

Senator STEVENS. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Without objection, we will run the clock, 5 minutes on each person, and we can try to share the time with you this morning.

IMPORTANCE OF PACIFIC REGION

Let me start off right by being provincial. Senator Inouye and I

are really from the Pacific. My home is closer to Tokyo than it is

to Washington, DC. We travel often westward.

We find that less than 10 percent of our forces are deployed in

the Pacific and even less a percentage in terms of total costs of operating the military. Today we witness India testing nuclear weapons. We see the seven largest armies in the world exercising in the

Pacific, and yet when we go to Europe, we find a demand that we

are going to have more and more nations come into NATO. There

just seems to be an overwhelming compulsion of our country to

spend more and more money on the continent and less and less of

our defense dollars in terms of the rest of the world.

What does the QDR really tell us about that deployment strategy? Are we adequately deployed in the Pacific for our defense?

Will we be able to maintain our defense and our position as a guarantor of really peace in the Pacific?

I steal one of his lines by saying four out of five of the wide-bodied cargo planes that leave this country go west, not east. Our inU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
795

creased trade that has given us a free market for agriculture is in

the Pacific, not in Europe. And I do not understand why we cannot

have more emphasis on our security forces in the Pacific.

Secretary COHEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would agree with you

in terms of the importance of the Pacific. We are not only a European power—I believe that to be the case—we are also a Pacific

power.

One of the most, I think, pleasing things that I have seen is the

reputation that we enjoy throughout the Pacific. Last year, for example, we negotiated with Japan for updating the defense guidelines, something that is still controversial as far as its impact within domestic politics in Japan, but also in terms of the Chinese

being concerned about what does it mean for them. But that is a

very solid bilateral relationship we have with Japan. We have

strengthened that. So, we have a really enduring relationship with

Japan and the modernization of those guidelines is something that

I think is in our mutual interest.

When I was in Singapore a few years ago, I heard from some of

the more senior leaders of Singapore who thought that the United

States was in a state of decline and that we had lost our bearings,

no longer could deal with our budgetary difficulties, and frankly

were a declining power.

That is no longer the perception in that part of the world. They

see that we have, in fact, gotten control over our spending habits,

that we are coming into balance, that we are still a super power,

and that we have been invited by the defense minister of Singapore. To give you an example, they are building a pier that will be

completed next year, 1999, and they invited our aircraft carriers

and any other ships to come and visit as often as possible. So, that

is another signal of our position in the Pacific.

BURDENSHARING WITH ALLIES

Senator STEVENS. Can I interrupt you? When you look at the Pacific and look at Europe, our host nations pay substantially for our

presence in Korea and Japan. When we go to Europe, we pay the

major portion of the total cost of defending Europe. There is virtually no host nation support over there any longer, and yet we are

being asked to increase our presence, increase our role in Europe.

Bosnia is a good example. NATO would not have gone in there

without us.

Secretary COHEN. Which is correct.

Senator STEVENS. Yes; which means we are in charge of the defense of Europe, but we are doing so I believe at our peril in terms

of representing our interests truly in the Pacific. We are stretched

so thin in the Pacific. I do not believe we have a credible, real defense force there. We have a presence but we do not have a credible

force like we do in Europe.

Secretary COHEN. Well, there are other types of restrictions I

might point out in the Pacific as well that many of the countries

with which we have good relations and strong relations also do not

wish to have a large presence on the part of the United States

which means we have a naval presence much more than a landbased presence. So, that also raises the issue of how much we are

going to have in the way of a naval presence in that region.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
796

I think we have a sufficient presence to maintain a strong influence over events in that part of the world. I believe that our relationship with Japan, with Korea, with Singapore, with Malaysia,

with Thailand—all of these countries have been very——

Senator STEVENS. Go ahead. I have got 1 more minute.

Secretary COHEN [continuing]. Beneficial, and also I might add

with China.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD] MISSILE STATUS

Senator STEVENS. What happened to THAAD? Before I lose you,

what happened? We have the fifth failure now. What happened?

Secretary COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I am no expert in the field of

technology that I can give you an informed answer to that.

I would point out that looking at this morning’s papers, I think

it was USA Today. I am not sure which paper it was, but it showed

the failure of THAAD, but right next to it it had Ford recalling I

do not know how many hundreds of thousands of its——

Senator HOLLINGS. 1.7 million.

Secretary COHEN [continuing]. 1.7 million of its pickup trucks.

The irony sort of struck me. Here we are talking about a major

manufacturer having to recall a pickup truck because of the danger

of the wheels falling off.

Now, we are now talking about something different in terms of

a—and I am not being critical of Ford in this regard, but to show

you that technology can be very complicated as far as designing a

missile system to intercept another missile system, the combination

of the two traveling at a combined speed of 8,000 miles a minute.

That is something that is an extraordinary effort on our part.

So, we are bound to have failures. Each of the failures has been

for a different reason. Hopefully, if we continue to conduct the testing, we will overcome the technological defects that we have experienced. But I am not in a position to tell you what exactly went

wrong. I have had it described to me, but I do not have the expertise to give you a full explanation.

Senator STEVENS. I thought maybe you had the answer.

Thank you, my friend. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, if I may follow up my chairman’s line of questioning. In Alaska just a few days ago, the commander in chief of the

Pacific announced that he is developing a theater contingency response brigade in Alaska. It will be a fine organization, ready to

move and ready to carry out the will of our Nation. But we have

no airlift stationed in Alaska.

We have the 25th Division minus one brigade in Hawaii ready

to move, well trained, but no airlift stationed in Hawaii.

We have a marine expeditionary force in Kaneohe. They are

ready to go, but no amphibious ships in Hawaii. They are all on

the west coast.

I would hope that you and your staff would look into this because

if you want fast response, the troops are ready, forward deployed,

but we do not have the vehicles to provide lift. So, that is my only

concern.

Secretary COHEN. I will follow Senator Inouye’s advice.

Senator INOUYE. Very well.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
797

Senator STEVENS. Senator Hollings.

Senator HOLLINGS. I do not know where these fellows find all the

enemy out in the Pacific. [Laughter.]

I hope you deploy in accordance with the threat.

Senator STEVENS. What is the threat in Europe to the United

States today?

Senator HOLLINGS. Bosnia and that tinderbox. I will go along

with Senator Hutchison and withdraw our troops there if you want

to.

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. I will sign you up.

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. [Laughter.]

That would be a good question. Before I get to that though, you

said that we have great respect for today’s military. However, it

seems to me that within DOD there seems to be a seed of disrespect toward our military relating, especially relating, to health

care.

I will never forget serving on the Grace Commission. Commission

members said that commissaries, post exchanges, and CHAMPUS

health care were all waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission

members had absolutely no understanding of the commitments

that had been made to military men and women when they enlisted.

Now, I happen to have been for the draft and still am, but we

must support and pay for the All-Volunteer Army. That is the policy. That is why I have introduced Senate bill 2020, to keep the

promises that have been made to those who served. This legislation, entitled the Military Health Care Equity Act, would require

that DOD provide all military retirees with health care comparable

to the care provided by the Federal employees health benefit plan,

or failing that to make FEHBP available. The bill would also require TRICARE to be improved to the FEHBP level. I have also

joined the chairman of the Veterans Committee in sponsoring a bill

to allow Medicare to reimburse veteran’s hospitals when they treat

a veteran.

Now we force retirees who turn 65 out of TRICARE and into

Medicare. That is not the commitment we made. My best estimate

is that my bill, Senate bill 2020 will cost about $2 billion to honor

the commitment that the military has made to provide quality, lifetime health care to military retirees.

Looking at the morning paper, other members are also concerned. You can take the $2 billion out of the intelligence budget.

They always are surprised. That crowd needs to simmer back

down, and I say that advisedly. I served on the Hoover Commission

investigating them back in the 1950’s. They have too much bureaucracy. They should read the New York Times and find out

what is going on. [Laughter.]

Otherwise, why not find a couple of billion there or elsewhere,

not out of your budget, but give us a plan to really comply with

the promises that have been made, and not a Philadelphia lawyer

who says now that he is really wanting a commitment. Do you not

believe we have made a commitment? You and I grew up on this

side and not in the Pentagon, but that is what I have always understood. I believe that the military serving in and about us in

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
798

South Carolina, and elsewhere, were promised health care for

themselves and their families.

TRICARE

Secretary COHEN. Senator Hollings, you are correct. TRICARE I

think is in the process of at least maturing and being refined in

a way that will be beneficial ultimately. There have been a number

of problems with it. It has not been the quality of the medical people. We have some of the finest physicians serving in our military.

The problem has been access and also in terms of payment.

As part of this DRI I talked about, defense reform initiative, I

created something called the TRICARE management activity, and

we are in the process of finalizing now getting a retired admiral

who is also a physician to be the executive director of this agency

to deal with those two issues, and that is access so you do not have

the long lines that they have been experiencing and also the lack

of payment—being made quickly.

Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Secretary, you should hire a recruiting

sergeant to be the executive director. Recruiting sergeants know

what they promised the recruits in order to convince them to join

the services. A recruiting sergeant could best explain how

TRICARE should be organized so as to care for beneficiaries.

Secretary COHEN. Last year, you may recall, we were about, as

I remember, $500 million short on the funding of the health care

programs, and we rectified that. We are still going to have to deal

with the issue that you have raised here. It may take some additional funding.

But the principal problems have been the lack of access and the

lack of prompt payment, and those are the two we are focusing on

right now.

Senator HOLLINGS. I wish you would look at our bill and give

your comments when you have time.

With the limited time, going right to Bosnia, I visited there with

our majority leader. We got around the table with the three heads,

Moslem, Croat, and Serb presidents, and everything was going

hunky-dorey. It sounded just like one of those Vietnam briefings

that we would get tell us the light could be seen at the end of the

tunnel, and whoopee. Then, Senator Hagel asked, what about the

war criminals? Well, the Serb president straightened up. He said,

now, Mr. Senator, no one is a criminal until they are tried and

proved guilty of a crime. He said, the offenses you charge against

our leader, you can charge against the other leader, pointing to the

Moslem leader.

I can tell you right now I kept asking everybody, not just at

Tuzla where we stayed, but at Sarajevo and at Tuzla and at Brcko,

the GI and the general, is this thing working? They said, sure, they

are fine, I mean, as long as you are going to pave their roads and

reinstitute lines of communication, repair the airports, and clean

up the hospitals, and everything else. But as soon as we leave, they

are going back to war again.

They are bound to get along as long as we are pouring in the

money and cleaning the place up. But unless and until the Europeans are ready to take over, what is the cutoff date? Asked anU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
799

other way, from your experience, when will the job be accomplished?

THE WAY AHEAD IN BOSNIA

Secretary COHEN. Senator Hollings, I think you would agree that

if you looked at Bosnia 3 years ago or 4 years ago and you saw it

today, you would see a dramatic change that our presence has

made. I think that we have to simply continue the process. As I

mentioned before, we are coming down in size. I would like to come

down further. I also have to take into account what our European

command, SACEUR, General Clark, has to say in terms of force

protection to make sure that as we are coming down, we do not see

an enlarged mission. I know that some of you were concerned about

that, that as we shrink our forces, we do not expand the mission.

So, it is balancing the mission and the manpower. But we are coming down.

One thing that I have urged upon my European counterparts is

to create a specialized unit, something that would serve as a buffer

between the S4 forces and the local police who have yet to be

trained to professional standards. So, we are making a lot of

progress in that regard. We have got a number of European countries who have committed not only money to the international police task force [IPTF], but they have also contributed manpower to

this specialized unit.

So, I cannot give you a definite answer. All I can say is I think

we are going in the right direction and we are coming down. Ultimately, all of us will have to decide. It is not just this administration or our next administration. It is Members of Congress who

have an equal role in deciding whether or not it is in our overall

interest to be there. I think it is as of this time.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Harkin.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, Mr. Secretary, my compliments to you on your great leadership of the Department of Defense.

I just publicly again want to thank you for being the first Secretary of Defense to visit the Rock Island Arsenal. I have been

hearing wonderful things from the people out there who are very

enthused by your visit, and I am thankful that you took the time.

I wanted to ask you to assess for us what has happened in South

Asia in the last couple of days. I do not know how much you want

to talk about that.

But under the existing law, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention

Act of 1994, certain sanctions are automatic. It says that under the

sanctions, the U.S. Government shall terminate sales to that country—that country being a country that would explode a nuclear

bomb—of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services, and licenses for the export to that country of any

item on the U.S. munitions list, and the U.S. Government shall terminate all foreign military financing for that country under.

So, a two-part question. One, can you assess for us in military

terms what this might mean, what India has done in exploding five

nuclear bombs now in the last 2 days, what this may mean for the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
800

entire region of South Asia, and second, what your Department is

doing or will be doing to implement this section of the law?

DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Secretary COHEN. Well, first of all, I was looking for a clock, but

apparently it is behind me, but I believe around 10 o’clock this

morning, President Clinton did have a press conference in Germany in Pottsdam. He has indicated that the nuclear testing is unjustified, clearly creates dangerous instability in South Asia. He is

imposing economic sanctions against India as an unambiguous response that would make clear our categorical position concerning

the testing. So, I have not seen the details in terms of how broad

those sanctions are going to be, but I know that he is deeply concerned about it and has responded quickly to the invoking of the

sanctions under the law.

I think that it is fair to say—I am not sure it is the right metaphor or the right wording to be used, but there will be a chain reaction. That is the potential of this, a chain reaction of other countries following suit. It is one of the reasons why we have worked,

when I was a Member of the Senate and the House, so hard to try

to keep the nuclear genie as far into the bottle as possible, as far

as other nations participating in developing nuclear weapons. But

as everybody knows, there will be pressure on Pakistan we are

hoping, and we are urging Pakistan to exercise restraint and not

to follow suit.

But there will be other countries who will see this as an open

invitation to try to acquire the technology. We know that there are

a number of countries trying to acquire it. I filed a report last fall

showing that there are roughly 25 countries now who either have

possession or are in the process of acquiring nuclear, chemical, or

biological weapons. So, we have a real proliferation problem that

is taking place globally.

This is only going to contribute to that. I think it is going to

cause other countries to find a rationale, much as India has found

its rationale for showing that it has a nuclear power. So, I think

it is going to set off that kind of potentiality at least. Hopefully,

we can encourage and be successful and encourage the Pakistanis

not to follow suit, that we can continue to urge the Russians not

to transfer nuclear technology to the Iranians, by way of example.

I was in China earlier this year and I met with all of the top

leadership of China. They made a pledge that they would stop selling and transferring nuclear technology to Iran. Hopefully, we can

continue to maintain these kinds of bilateral relationships with

major countries such as China and Russia to discourage them from

having this technology fall into the hands of other countries. But

it is a potential that we will all have to look at.

Senator HARKIN. If I can just use your analogy a little bit further. Chain reactions can be stopped technologically speaking.

Secretary COHEN. Hopefully, politically speaking.

Senator HARKIN. And, hopefully, politically speaking too, which

I think argues that the toughest possible sanctions of the law must

come down on India to show other countries that we mean business

on this. Hopefully, we will work with our allies to do the same.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
801

Secretary COHEN. I have been told—at least I learned on the

news this morning—that Japan has agreed to impose sanctions,

that France has indicated it would not. Beyond that, I have not

heard what the international community’s reaction is.

Senator HARKIN. Typical of France, anyway. [Laughter.]

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

That is my statement. You do not need to nod or say anything

else. Typical of France.

The one way again to try to stop this chain reaction, it seems to

me, is to push ahead on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

[CTBT] signed by 149 nations. We know that in August 1996 India

opted out. Now we begin to understand why. But again, looking

ahead, a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty I believe is one way of

putting in those graphite rods and begin to stop this kind of a

chain reaction.

What I read in the paper is that our majority leader said that

the test ban treaty probably has been set aside as a result of India’s action. I hope that is not the case. I would hope that we would

continue to push as hard as possible to get all countries to sign on

the CTBT because that would be the way to stop the nuclear chain

reaction.

Any comments you might have on that I would appreciate it.

Secretary COHEN. Senator Harkin, I agree with you. I think the

fact that India has taken this action should not ease our concern,

but rather accelerate our effort and we ought to be more determined than ever. I am hoping that we will continue to press other

countries and get the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty and especially take it up in the Senate.

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Gregg.

Senator GREGG. Thank you.

INDIAN NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES AND SANCTIONS

Mr. Secretary, does India have the capacity to deliver a nuclear

weapon? Do they have aircraft or missiles which could deliver a nuclear weapon?

Secretary COHEN. Senator Gregg, I would not want to comment

in terms of what India’s capacities are in terms of delivering nuclear weapons at this point. I think it is something that we certainly ought to look at but not at this time.

Senator GREGG. Is the administration going to send up any legislation relative to extending sanctions against India beyond those

which might be available already in the law such as sanctions

which we can pursue under the IMF, but will there be language

sent up that might track, for example, the Pressler language which

applies to Pakistan?

Secretary COHEN. The answer is I do not know. I have not had

a chance to talk to other members of the President’s Cabinet or

with the President himself. He is traveling and I have not had occasion to talk with him. But certainly we will look at that and I

will get back to you as soon as possible.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
802

Senator GREGG. Do you think it is appropriate that we put limitations such as the Pressler language on India? After all, if we are

going to say to Pakistan, which has not exploded a nuclear device,

that we are not going to sell you F–16’s which you paid for, should

we not apply the same sort of standard at the minimum to a country which has so flagrantly violated the norm on nuclear weapons?

Secretary COHEN. I am sure the administration is going to look

with the most severe and critical eye at this particular testing. I

cannot say at this point what will be recommended, but I believe

that the President is going to recommend strong reaction to it. I

cannot tell you at this time what exactly that would entail.

But with respect to Pakistan, let me say that I felt, as a Member

of the Senate when I served here, that Pakistan was not being

treated in an evenhanded fashion in terms of the sale of the F–16

and how we dealt with that issue, which is one reason I supported

the Brown amendment to the Pressler amendment.

Senator GREGG. What other options do we have as a Nation to

address this type of action by a nation like India? I mean, if we

use economic sanctions against a nation like India which is inherently destitute, we would probably end up taking it out on their

people more than on their government which is responsible for this.

What are our options?

Secretary COHEN. I think sanctions really can have an impact if

they are multinational or multilateral in nature. If it is a question

only of the United States taking action, we have found that usually

it does not produce positive results because other countries are

rushing to undercut the impact that we would have.

But I do believe that a broad imposition of economic sanctions

can have an impact upon the leadership, political leadership, of a

country, and I believe that to be the case with respect to India as

well. If it is just the United States or one or two other countries,

then I think the impact will be marginal and the political result

will be inconsequential.

Senator GREGG. Do we have any information which is available

to the public as to whether or not India’s representation that this

was the last of a series is an accurate representation or is that——

Secretary COHEN. I have no information on that subject whether

it is the first or the last or whether there will be other attempts

to either lead or mislead the United States. I am not in a position

to comment.

Senator GREGG. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Bumpers.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, first of all, let me thank you and the administration for your very strong stand on the national missile defense deployment issue. The three-plus-three plan is an eminently sensible

one, and I just want to express my thanks to you. God knows you

do not get very much thanks these days for much of anything else.

Let me just say that I am very sympathetic with your problems

and particularly when you have 535 micromanagers to tell you

what you ought to be doing. So, as 1 of the 535——

Secretary COHEN. Let me tell you. [Laughter.]

Senator BUMPERS [continuing]. I will now proceed to do just that.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
803

First of all, we make decisions around here based on the most

credible intelligence we can get. You served on the Intelligence

Committee for a long time and I was speaking downtown last

night, and I said apparently the $28 billion to $30 billion we spend

on intelligence in this country did not help out in the case of India

exploding underground nuclear weapons. So, sometimes our intelligence can be flawed and cause a great deal of difficulty. Apparently that was totally missed, according to the paper this morning.

Nevertheless, we do have to depend on the intelligence community to determine what the threat is and we have to build our defense forces based on the most credible evidence we can get as to

what the threat is. I happen to disagree with the chairman and the

ranking member on the Pacific. I do not see any threats from the

Pacific. That is not to say they are not there or that they will not

be there.

But my basic question is—about the only thing I have to ask

you—when you consider the technological explosion in this world in

the past several years and we try to translate that into our weapons systems, it seems to me that we do not need to replace existing

weapons one for one. Take fighter planes, one of my favorite subjects. You know I am crazy about the F–22.

Secretary COHEN. It used to be battleships I remember. [Laughter.]

Senator BUMPERS. Battleships and a host of others. But in any event, here we are getting ready to spend $300 billion

on fighter planes. The F–22 is one of them. Why we would put this

much money into one fighter plane with no obvious threat. I mean,

right now the F–22 would be valueless to us unless we had the

bases, for example, in the Middle East to deploy those fighter

planes.

It seems to me that we ought to buy fewer than the 339 we plan.

I know that one of your biggest problems and every defense chief

before you is readiness. I never heard a Secretary of Defense come

here and testify that he was not more worried about readiness than

anything else. When we continue to spend—for example, procurement is going to go up about 30 percent over the next 5 years;

while personnel will go up only 6 percent; and operations and

maintenance only about 7 percent. It seems to me like that is an

inordinate amount for procurement.

So, I have to ask why are we putting about 27 ships in mothballs

that have, most of them, 15 years’ life left in them? The CGN–41

Arkansas, $300 million when we launched it in 1978 with a firm

solemn promise that it had a 35-year life expectancy. Today that

same ship costs $1 billion, but we were assured at that time that

nobody would be able to match it and in my opinion nobody can

match it. The only thing I can figure is that this is keeping the

shipyards busy.

Back to the point—and it is a philosophical one, one you have to

deal with all the time—it troubles me that we are buying—I favor

the E/F, but it troubles me that we are buying as many E/F’s as

we are.

The F–16. Obviously, we just found out in the last couple of days

the United Arab emirates thinks the F–16 is superior to the

Eurofighter or the French Rafele.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
804

So, you understand the gist of my question. I would just like to

hear your general comments on that.

AIRCRAFT MODERNIZATION

Secretary COHEN. With respect to the aircraft, Senator Bumpers,

you may recall back in 1984, I think it was, along with Senator

Nunn at that time I introduced a concept called the guaranteed

build-down, and I deliberately used something that sounded like a

complete oxymoron by combining the two words. It was I believe

Alton Frye who was with us at the time and sort of our guru about

how that could work. But using the build-down concept, we said we

were going to modernize our systems and make them more survivable by taking two of the older ones out for every new one we put

in.

In a way, that concept is inherent as far as the modernization

of our tactical air is concerned. We have six different types of tactical air right now. These three new systems, in fact, will replace

six that we currently have. They will be more capable and they will

be fewer in number. I cut one-half, as a matter of fact, the number

of F–18E/F’s from the original projection. I reduced that number almost by one-half.

Senator BUMPERS. What is that number now, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary COHEN. It has come from 1,000 down to, as I recall,

548, and with an opportunity to go up as high as 750 roughly in

the event that the joint strike fighter does not come online at a cost

that we can afford. So, I have tried to use some balance here. I did

not want us to find ourselves in a situation where you had one

plane that all the services were buying into that suddenly had

started to go off the charts as far as costs were concerned and a

lack of performance. So, it gave me an ability to say I am going

to use the E/F model of the F–18 to give me a hedge against the

joint strike fighter in the event that it does not really pan out.

With respect to the F–22, that is going to replace some aging aircraft, F–15’s. It is going to give us a multirole stealth aircraft that

I think will keep us superior in the years to come. One of the reasons that I supported the F–22 is that much of that stealth technology that is being developed for the joint strike fighter is going

to be evolved from the F–22. So, there is a real synergy involved

in those three programs.

I know that it looks to you and to others perhaps as if we do not

need that, but there is a rationale behind it in terms of what each

plane can do and will do with the balance it gives us for restraining

costs in the future and also keeping us well ahead of any other

competitor. There are other countries out there who are seeking to

develop better aircraft than we have. So far, we are still ahead and

we want to keep it that way.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for your answers today.

I am going to talk about three subjects very quickly. Mr. Secretary, I believe that from the economic standpoint that the status

of the American economy has a bearing on the quality of life and

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
805

the retention policies of this country. Now, let me explain what I

mean.

If, in fact, we are going to have an economy that has unemployment at below 5 percent with a very significant increase in the pay

rates across this land for working men and women, it would appear

to me that the U.S. military is going to have a more difficult time

both recruiting and retaining. Now, there are a lot of other reasons,

but it is pretty clear to me that in the area of Kuwait and Saudi

Arabia, especially as to the Air Force—and I apologize for not

knowing about the Navy or the Army—but it seemed to me that

the economic situation in America is a tremendous draw on technically qualified men and women.

That leads me to think that we cannot wish that away because,

on the one hand, we wish the economic situation to continue indefinitely, and that leads me to ask of you that you seriously look at

the entire commitment to the All-Volunteer Army as to their personal lifestyles. I believe quality of life cannot just be a phrase anymore, that you have to look at every aspect of our commitment,

when we passed an all-volunteer military. Essentially it was that

we will make sure you get paid the equivalent of the marketplace.

We said that. That was the debate on the floor. That is how we

passed it. If we do not continue to upgrade that, then it would

seem to me that the premise upon which we build the All-Volunteer Army is missing. We had men and women tell us they were

not going to stay in for a lot of reasons, excessive deployments,

away from their families, but also in each case they were saying

there are great jobs for us out there in anything to do with airplanes.

So, I would urge, Mr. Secretary, that you be not the least bit

abashed about reviewing what the appropriate commitment to a

way of life, quality of life, pay, pensions, and certainly health care.

If we cannot live up to our commitments, we are going to risk losing many, many recruits who are not going to join today because

they see another opportunity and we are going to lose people in too

short a period of time to make the All-Volunteer Army work.

Now, I approach it a little differently than some, but I believe economics is a very important thing. We heard these men and women

over there tell us that we cut their pensions. Well, they are aware,

even though it was a number of years ago—and it was.

Secretary COHEN. 1986.

Senator DOMENICI. We ought to take another look at these

things. Some of us never understood that it really impacts on them,

especially I say again in an economic environment where jobs are

plentiful and pay is high. So, that is my first observation, and I

hope you will give us your views at some point. I want to move on

to a second one and make sure we are clear.

Mr. Secretary, when you speak of having a reserve fund in your

budget, the truth of the matter is it is a reserve fund called in advance an emergency. So, it is not in the budget. So, it seems to me

that if you are now beginning to look at budgets where you are

going to have to have a contingency fund—and I would doubt that

you will have very many budgets without it—it would seem to me

that we ought to start talking about more and more of that being

in the regular budget because to manage it otherwise is very tough

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
806

on readiness, because you are robbing from one for another while

you wait around for an emergency allocation of money.

I offer to you my full support in an effort to make the budget

more realistic in that regard. We now have very big surpluses. Everybody and his uncle are figuring out ways to spend it. I have not

heard anybody say, well, what about defense. I am saying it right

now. They want tax cuts. They want all kinds of new programs. If

we have got a big surplus and we do not have to be worried so

much, I am for increasing defense. I do not like to see what you

have to do when you have an emergency. It is not fair to any of

you, including the generals. Very tough on them.

Now, my third question—would you like to comment on those

two, please, just for a moment?

Secretary COHEN. Why do you not ask your third one and I will

comment on all three.

Senator DOMENICI. All right. My third one is much more precise.

In the DOD authorization bill, Mr. Secretary, which is on the floor,

it is interesting that when it comes to missile defense—we have a

bill on the floor. We are going to vote on cloture on the missile defense bill. In the armed services bill, the airborne laser program is

cut $100 million. Now, that airborne laser program, from what I

understand—and I would like you to corroborate this—is totally

supported as one of the most significant programs we have. It

clearly might work. It is ahead of everything else. I wonder whether you would agree that we ought to fund it, as you requested it,

or should we take away funding for a platform that they want in

order to take the second phase of this on?

Senator STEVENS. Knowing that we have a vote at 10:30, Mr.

Secretary, perhaps——

Senator DOMENICI. My time is up.

Secretary COHEN. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

I meant no disrespect by asking you to go to your third question.

I was looking at the timer, and we were already on the yellow

light. I figured if I took the time to answer your first two questions,

you would never get to ask the third one.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

Secretary COHEN. So, in any event, let me try to move very

quickly.

QUALITY OF LIFE AND PENSIONS

I agree with you with respect to quality of life.

The pension aspect, you are quite correct. We changed that back

in 1986. We made a change in order to try to provide an inducement for people to stay longer, not to leave, so they would stay 30

years and not leave at the end of 20 years.

Now it is having just the opposite effect. Right now people who

have between 10 and 11 years and are looking at the future—and

they know all about pension plans. I think at our respective ages

at that time we were not too concerned about pensions. Now they

are looking very closely, what does this mean as far as their future

is concerned. And they are looking and they are going to see a rather significant reduction from those who signed up in 1980, by way

of example, almost a 25-percent reduction.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
807

So, we have to address the issue on pensions and health care. I

will not take more time right now, but I will tell you that is an

issue that we will address in the near future.

MISSILE DEFENSE

With respect to missile defense, we submitted a budget for the

airborne laser program because we think that is the right way to

go. So, money was taken out to put into a different platform. It is

going to be up to this committee to make a judgment. We support

the airborne laser program.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Hutchison.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator HUTCHISON. I would just like to follow up on what Senator Domenici was asking and the chairman of the Intelligence

Committee will follow shortly. I am sure he is going to address the

issues of intelligence on the Indian missile testing.

But I am very concerned about what Senator Domenici has just

mentioned in light of not only India actually testing, which we

know, but North Korea also today threatening to renounce its

agreement and to refuel its nuclear reactors. We know that China

has now been sold some of our technology. We have fought a war

over Iraq having ballistic missiles with at least chemical and biological weapons and perhaps nuclear. Iran is gearing up.

Now, I am just saying how can we say that all we need to do is

wait to see if someone is successful and then within 3 years we will

be able to deploy our defenses? It just seems to me that we ought

to be putting this ahead in the priority list, especially in light of

what has happened just in the last 5 days.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM AND THAAD

Secretary COHEN. We are spending billions of dollars for research

and development for a national missile defense system. I helped to

broker that compromise that was reached on the Three-Plus-Three

Program, but a judgment we made in just another 11⁄2 years in

terms of whether or not it is time for the United States to move

forward on a National Missile Defense Program. Intelligence will

play an important factor. We could either dismiss it saying it is not

reliable, but I tend to think that we only focus on the intelligence

community when there is a failure, not when there are many successes. But in this particular case, you will make a judgment, we

will make a judgment in terms of another 11⁄2 years, do we go forward and deploy a system, assuming we have developed the technology that would allow us to do that.

The THAAD Program raises an issue of the difficulties, the technological complexity involved in one missile hitting another missile

traveling at those speeds. But we are devoting billions of dollars to

the research and development so that we will be in a position to

deploy a system should the intelligence warrant it or should the determination be made by political leaders at that time. Whether we

want the intelligence to be a factor in our minds or not, that is always something that policymakers can make that determination.

But I think that we are proceeding prudently. Some would argue,

as a matter of fact, we had one team that said we are not proceedU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
808

ing prudently, that we are moving too fast. So, we are trying to

take into account congressional concerns about this, as well as our

own. We are moving as fast as we can, and for some it is too fast

and for others not fast enough.

Senator HUTCHISON. What would make you relook at that decision of waiting for 11⁄2 years to make a final decision? Is there anything that would make you put that on a higher priority list?

DECIDING ON MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT

Secretary COHEN. What I am saying is it is on a very high priority list right now. We are devoting billions of dollars to this research. This is a technically challenging task to build such a system, but we are talking about 18 months and we will be in a position to make a determination whether or not we have the technology to go forward and at that point whether we should deploy

it. It will take into account other arguments. Senator Dorgan just

went to the floor to talk about the national missile defense system,

but you do have other factors involved.

It may be that there will be a determination made at that time

that the ABM Treaty is no longer relevant, but that is not a decision that has been made to date. We do not know, for example,

whether we have the technology that you could deploy a system

that will be ABM compatible by the year 2003 or sooner. Do we

have such technology and is that not a consideration? If it is not

a consideration, then you may decide on a different type of technology that will be required. So, those are factors I think we all

have to address.

But right now we are proceeding with our theater missile defense

systems, developing it, failing in the THAAD Program most recently, and also with the national missile defense system. We now

have a systems integrator who has been selected who will be integrating all the various tests that have been done to try to put together a system that would be deployable in the event the decision

is made to deploy.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ADDRESSING MULTIPLE THREATS TO U.S. SECURITY

Let me ask two questions. I share the Senator from New Mexico’s interest in the airborne laser program, and I just spoke on the

floor about the National Missile Defense Program. There are a

whole range of missile threats and different kinds of threats. If the

Congress were to force the deployment as soon as technologically

possible of a National Missile Defense Program, notwithstanding

cost and other factors, could that in the intermediate or long term

hinder funding for such things as the airborne laser [ABL]?

Secretary COHEN. I do not disagree. I think we have got a balanced program right now and I think we should proceed with it.

It is one of the reasons why we have tried to weigh all of the

threats, all of the challenges we face. I think national missile defense is an important program. I also tried to point out that the

spread of biological and chemical weapons also presents a threat to

this country and to the world at large which we are, at this point,

not prepared to cope with adequately.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
809

I think that you will see more and more countries developing

biologicals. It is much easier, much cheaper, and equally as dangerous. I took the time to point out during a recent address that

if you took 100 kilograms of anthrax in the right weather conditions and proper dispersal, it would have something like two to six

times the destructive power of a 1 megaton nuclear bomb.

So, there are a lot of threats out there. We are trying to have

a balanced program.

Senator DORGAN. And that is the point of my question, that if

you respond to one threat exclusively, it may well be at the expense

of responding to other threats.

Secretary COHEN. We have a whole panoply of threats we have

to contend with in the future and we have to try to weigh what is

the most likely, not only what is the most likely, but what is the

most devastating as well. You might say that a nuclear exchange

is the least likely, but, of course, it could be the most devastating.

By the same token, we are looking at the spread of biological technology and that can prove equally destructive. So, we have a number of threats we have to contend with.

Senator DORGAN. One might make the point that a less likely

threat would be someone developing or getting a hold of an ICBM

tipped with a nuclear device. Cruise missiles are probably much

more readily available and easy to work with.

BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

Let me also ask you about base closings. You, Mr. Secretary, suggested some while ago that if not given the authority, you might

consider allowing some bases just to wither. I think you used the

term ‘‘wither,’’ which might or might not be a term of art here.

What exactly do you mean by that, and are you serious about that?

Secretary COHEN. I do not think I suggested that as a viable option. I said that that could take place. It would be the least desirable of any option for a Secretary to exercise. It is possible to say

that those facilities which no longer are deemed to be essential to

carry out a mission would simply not receive the kind of attention

that they otherwise might receive. That would not be fair. It would

not be fair to the people who work there, to the men and women

in uniform, and the civilian counterparts, and it would not be fair

to the community in my opinion. That is the least fair of all the

options because the community does not benefit from such a situation.

BRAC, whatever its deficiencies, is a much fairer process. I can

recall if you leave it up to the Pentagon and say, OK, let us just

pick the bases that should be closed, the first thing that would happen, Members would say, wait a minute, it is political, let us not

let that happen. So, you say, now we have BRAC. You say, well,

that is political. We cannot let that happen. So, if you reduce all

of the options, you are left with an option way down here that says,

well, we just cannot afford to keep that going. We will let it not

be upgraded. So, I think it is the least desirable.

Senator DORGAN. I understand that, and I understand the issue

of overcapacity, although there are some 40 to 50 bases that have

been ordered closed but are not yet through the closing process. I

am one of those who believe that once you start a BRAC round,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
810

there is a bull’s eye on the front gate of every military installation

and you begin to stunt the economic growth of every community

until the round is complete.

Could there not be a more focused approach to this? If you have

overcapacity, for example, in certain areas, could you not do some

kind of closure approach that does not put every community at risk

or does not put every base in question? That is one of the reasons

you are having problems getting authority from the Congress for

another two rounds.

The second questions is, could you not do it in one additional

round at some point with a more focused set of objectives?

Secretary COHEN. Let me respond very quickly.

First of all, we found out that within 2 years of a closure of a

base, about 75 percent of the employment has been regenerated.

So, I can point to a number of great success stories where bases

have been closed but they have far more employment. Most recently, at Pease Air Force Base, they have three times the employment they had when it was a military facility, now that it is in private hands.

But, second, with respect to a more focused approach, if the Congress were to decide that you were to leave it up to me as Secretary

of Defense to take a more focused approach and pick and choose

those facilities that should be open and closed, I could certainly accept that, but I think the minute you were to say that, there would

be other Members who would say, wait a minute. That is too political. We are not going to give one person the opportunity to shut

down our facilities and make that kind of recommendation.

So, it is one of those where I think the BRAC process is the fairest of all, where you have an independent panel that receives the

recommendations of the Pentagon, and then they make a recommendation. I think that is the fairest. It is not certainly foolproof in terms of its equity, but I think it is the fairest of all the

choices.

Senator DORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby.

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I have several questions for the

record regarding procurement spending and the cost of operations

in Bosnia that I would like to ask the Secretary for the record and

that it be part of, if that would be permitted.

NUCLEAR TESTING BY INDIA

Having said that, I would like to get into the problem on the subcontinent of Asia. Mr. Secretary, you served a long time as a member of the Armed Services Committee. You spent a lot of time on

the Intelligence Committee. I have worked with you on a lot of

issues. Were you surprised or shocked at what happened in India

and us not knowing about it, our intelligence?

Secretary COHEN. I think my characterization would be the same

as any of yours. It did come as a surprise. There were a number

of statements apparently that were quite misleading on the part of

political leaders. There was, from a technical point of view—and

again, I have only been looking at this very artificially so far—or

superficially I should say. I have not had any briefings on it as of

yet, but it appears that we have the technology to see that someU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
811

thing was taking place, but the analysis was not there. But there

is going to be an internal investigation by the CIA.

Senator SHELBY. Perhaps the analysis was not done.

Secretary COHEN. Analysis not done.

You are going to be conducting hearings——

Senator SHELBY. Tomorrow.

Secretary COHEN [continuing]. Into the subject matter, and you

are going to be in a far better position than I am at this point to

comment.

Senator SHELBY. I believe it was your term—and I thought it

was very appropriate—that we have now a real proliferation problem.

Secretary COHEN. We do.

Senator SHELBY. We knew it was looming. You mentioned that

there were 25 nations in the world—I believe it was 25 that you

said—that have either nuclear, biological, or chemical capability.

Secretary COHEN. Or seeking to acquire it.

Senator SHELBY. Or seeking. Is this going to set off the arms

race? I believe the phrase was a ‘‘chain reaction.’’ There has got to

be a response to this either by China, Pakistan, or someone else,

unless we can hold the line somewhere. I do not know how we are

going to get the genie back in the bottle. I would like to see us get

it in the bottle, and I know you would. Would you want to comment

on that?

Secretary COHEN. The danger is that there will be this proliferation and reaction. I used the phrase ‘‘chain reaction.’’ It can, in fact,

be precluded or stopped, as Senator Harkin pointed out from a

technological point of view, but I think also from a political point

of view. We need to bring to bear all of the political will not only

of this country, but certainly all of our allies to come down very

hard on India and to discourage Pakistan from following suit or to

giving any kind of incentive to any of the other nations who are

seeking to acquire this technology, pointing to India as an example

of a country that is now boasting it has a nuclear power status

which gives them new political prestige in the world. I might take

issue with that and I think many will, but that is part of the rationale, as well as their own determination——

Senator SHELBY. But it also makes the world more dangerous as

we know it today. Is that correct?

Secretary COHEN. It makes the world more dangerous. It means

that other countries will try to follow suit unless we are able to intervene politically and persuade them that they should not do so,

and that may take a combination of economic sanctions and also

some solidarity on the part of the world to condemn the action and

not only condemn it verbally, but to take actions to voice this concern with material actions taken on their part.

INTERNATIONAL REACTION TO INDIA’S TESTING

Senator SHELBY. Are you optimistic on getting our allies and

friends to be part of that solidarity with us, including the French

and others who at times go their separate ways?

Secretary COHEN. The answer is I do not know at this point. We

have had Japan say that they would impose sanctions. The French

apparently, according to the report I heard on this morning’s news,

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
812

said it would not, but that may change as well. I would hope that

with President Clinton taking strong action quickly, that there will

be solidarity of response on the part of our allies. I cannot predict

how that will turn out, but that is what is necessary if we are

going to dissuade other countries from following suit.

Senator SHELBY. But the bottom line is the detonations in India

have changed the equation tremendously. Have they not?

Secretary COHEN. It has a significant impact on other countries.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Specter.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is nice to have you back, Mr. Secretary, if only temporarily.

I have two questions for you and I will ask them both.

Secretary COHEN. Could you tell me why the yellow light is on

before you started?

Senator STEVENS. That is to caution him. [Laughter.]

Senator SPECTER. I am going to use up the balance of Senator

Shelby’s time, Mr. Secretary.

We all know about the nuclear explosion in China. We have seen

already the immediate ramifications of Pakistan, likely to do the

same. North Korea may follow suit. China is going to be jeopardized. Just how important is the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty for the

world security, for world peace? How hard will the administration

and you be pushing to see to it that the Senate takes it up and at

least considers ratification?

The second question I have for you relates to the current controversy with Israel. We had a briefing last night from Secretary

of State Albright, and while she did not discuss the specific figure,

there has been a lot of publicity of 13.1 percent withdrawal, further

deployment, and it seems to me that the question of Israeli security

is something which has to be determined by the Israelis just as a

fundamental matter.

But I do wonder. I did not have a chance to ask her this question

yesterday. You know the sessions in Senate bill 407. There is not

a whole lot of time to ask her whether there had been an analysis

made by our military people, by the Secretary of Defense, for example, as to whether the proposal pushed by the United States would

at least in the eyes of experts in defense adequately assure Israel’s

security.

I do not say that that would be a substitute for Israel’s independent judgment, but I would be interested to know, Mr. Secretary,

whether you or the Department of Defense or anybody that you

know of has made an independent analysis of the United States position on what Israeli redeployment should be as to whether at

least the United States conclusion is, from a knowledgeable point

of view, that there is adequate security for Israel.

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

Secretary COHEN. With respect to your first question, Senator

Specter, I am a strong believer in the Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty. I think the Senate should take it up. I think you should

ratify it as quickly as possible, and I believe that is the position

of President Clinton and the Secretary of State. We have all called

to try to see if that cannot be scheduled as quickly as possible. We

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
813

would like to see it as soon as possible. There are not many legislative days left in this session. So, we place a high priority on it.

ISRAELI SECURITY

With respect to Israel, I must say that I have not made an independent analysis of any formulation pertaining to Israeli security.

I was recently in Israel and we cooperated very closely, I might

add, during the buildup of the Iraqi crisis starting last October, November, right through February. We worked very closely with

Israel. I continue to work closely with them to make sure that we

have satisfied that we are doing whatever is necessary to help

them in defining their own security needs, but I have not made an

independent analysis of any formulation.

Senator SPECTER. I thank you for the succinctness of your answers. It gives me a chance for a third question.

NATO EXPANSION AND RUSSIA

I voted against the NATO ratification for expansion and I did so

because of the concern that I have that the inclusion of the other

three countries may give radical elements in Russia a political toehold and that they may come to power. We all know that the Russian army has disintegrated very materially but that they have

enormous nuclear capability. I would like your assessment to a

question as to whether there was any—to what extent do you see

at all, 1 percent, 2 percent, because the consequences are so cataclysmic if a radical comes to power and uses the nuclear force—to

what extent at all do you see any risk that the radical elements

in Russia might come into power as a result of NATO expansion

and pose any risk at all of a nuclear confrontation?

Secretary COHEN. Well, my personal judgment is that the expansion will not contribute to radical elements coming into power. We

have maintained very strong lines of communication. As a matter

of fact, just yesterday morning I spent about 45 minutes on the

phone with Marshall Segeyev, the defense minister of Russia, talking about ways in which we can continue to cooperate. I was asking

about ratification of START II and what that will take.

We have, for example, a delegation coming from the Duma next

week. One of the complaints I have found from the Duma members

is they do not have enough contact with you, meaning you, the Senate. Senate Members no longer travel to Moscow as much to meet

with them. I am not talking about you, Senator Specter, but they

do not feel that they are getting the kind of reciprocal attention

that would be warranted.

So, when this delegation comes, I am going to meet with them.

I hope as many Members of the Senate and the House can meet

with them to build upon the relationships that are important, to

make sure, as best we can, that we will not have any kind of a radical element coming to power relying principally upon nuclear

weapons.

I think the Nunn-Lugar funding, for example, the cooperative

threat reduction funds, should be approved. A very important program. When I was in Moscow in February, I went out with Marshall Segeyev to one of the sites where we are, in fact, helping

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
814

them to reduce their nuclear weapons. We want to continue those

kinds of programs.

But I think as far as this enlargement is concerned, it will not

contribute to that kind of a risk.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you for your answers, and thank you for

the fine job you are doing.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Secretary, I was late because we had to have a meeting of

the subcommittee chairmen of this committee to determine what

we are going to do about the budget. We are substantially under

the budget. Primarily that comes about because the President assumes a whole new series of revenue streams coming into the

budget process, but none of them are available to this committee

until they are approved by Congress and become law.

I have asked each of the subcommittee chairmen to review his

or her budget and tell me whether there is anything we can eliminate or reduce in any function of Government. Since I am chairman

of this subcommittee, I am looking at that myself.

I am reminded that when I got that Forrestal Award the other

night, my staff and I went back and reviewed Forrestal’s life and

Forrestal’s recommendations for change at the period at the end of

World War II.

We are coming into a new century now, and you are Secretary

of Defense at a very propitious time. So, I want to ask you some

unfair questions that I do not expect you to respond to now but

perhaps we can discuss them later.

What has been done in the Pentagon as we have closed base

after base? I do not see ring after ring in the Pentagon being

closed. Do we see need for a service Assistant Secretary, Under

Secretary, and Assistant Secretaries for every service? Do we still

need the redundant systems in the Department of Defense itself,

the Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries? Do we need as

many CINC’s as we have got in the country?

In other words, have we closed down the management structure

as we have closed down the structure for housing our forces, and

do we really need to think about changing the whole system? We

are in a different period now. We are going into a new really space

age type of warfare. Maybe we ought to have a Secretary for communications and one for intelligence and one for deployment policy.

It seems to me we are structure bound in the Department, and

the only option you have right now is to close more bases. I think

we ought to really look at this system and see what we need for

the next century in terms of defense. I tell you, my poet friend, you

are the one to do it if we are going to do it.

Now, we need another Forrestal and I do not think I have the

position he had. You have. I think it is time you answered some

of our questions. What can we do to eliminate some of the costs of

managing the military so that we can preserve the force we need

to defend our country?

Now, with that, my friend, I will listen to your comments and

then I will go vote. All right?

Secretary COHEN. OK, and how much time before you have to

vote?

Senator STEVENS. I have got at least 15 minutes to listen to you.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
815

STREAMLINING AND REFORMING DOD

Secretary COHEN. OK. Let me give you a 15-minute dissertation

on what is taking place.

I agree with you in terms of reforming the way in which we do

business in the Pentagon. That is principally the reason that we

initiated the defense reform initiative, the DRI. You have a copy

of that, and I might point out to you that when I went to the services and said, I want you to start taking some people out, we have

got to get the manpower levels down because that is where I can

get the savings to put into the procurement, I said I am going to

take it out of hide as well.

I expected and we will cut roughly one-third of the people in

OSD, my office. That is 1,000 people will be eliminated from the

positions in an 18-month period. It does not translate into big dollars, but I want it to be a big symbol that we need to change the

way in which we are doing business.

A lot of the structure that has accumulated over the years has

been political in nature. If I could reform the system on my own,

I could make a number of changes. Unfortunately, I would not have

the authority to do that. But I can tell you that working with Dr.

Hamre, we do have a very strong blueprint about changes that we

are conducting now and making in the way in which we do business. We are moving to a paperless society. We are eliminating

thousands of pages of regulations. You now have to go to the Internet in order to get those regulations. We are contracting through

the Internet now and will be almost wholly by the year 2000, 2001.

So, we are making a number of changes as we are moving into this

cyber age of ours and it will be reflected in the way in which we

are going to manage the Department differently.

But I will need political support. I cannot change the structure

of the operations of the Pentagon globally in terms of the Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and CINC’s and so forth without considerable support from the Congress. So, I will call upon you for

changes I will need to have made statutorily.

Senator STEVENS. You draft me the law to give you that authority, a command consolidation commission, or whatever you want to

call it, and I will introduce it. If we cannot get it out of the authorizing committee, I will put it in your bill. We need to have that

kind of reform to lead, and if you do that—if you do that—if we

get you the authority, I will support your Base Closure Commission.

Secretary COHEN. I will even give you the proposal in blank

verse. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Bill.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

By the way, the Secretary used to come first and we changed

that because there are developments through the period of time

after we review all the departments of your Department, and we

brought you last. So, you get more heat than your predecessors did,

but you do well. Thank you very much.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
816

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

DD–21 ACQUISITION STRATEGY

Question. Mr. Secretary, recent news reports coming out of the Pentagon have

highlighted that the Navy and the Department of Defense may be considering

changes to the current DD–21 acquisition strategy due to a perceived lack of competition. I understand that Dr. Hamre met with Defense Acquisition Officials to discuss this issue as recently as yesterday.

As you are aware, the Navy issued a request for proposals (RFP) that requires

potential offerors to respond by May 22, 1998. I understand that the RFP requires

offers to establish a process for ensuring competition and innovation throughout the

DD–21 program. Also, I’ve been informed that over 80 percent of the systems and

subsystems provide opportunities for competition and innovation.

Is there anything in the RFP that prohibits any other potential offeror from bidding on this program?

Answer. The Navy sought up to three independent offerors for Phase I of the DD–

21 solicitation. The RFP was drafted and issued with the clear intent of having at

least two offerors submitting bids. There was nothing in the RFP that prevented

other potential offerors from bidding on the program.

Question. Doesn’t the existing DD–21 acquisition strategy provide ample opportunity and incentives for industry participation and competition, and benefit significantly from the Government’s large investment in the Arsenal Ship Program?

Answer. Yes. The opportunity exists for industry to bring forward several teams

capable of making acceptable bids for DD–21 development. Some individual companies interested in bidding on DD–21 are having difficulty making acceptable business arrangements with other companies which would lead to formation of a second

or third DD–21 team. The Navy is discussing the issue with industry in order to

determine the range of possible solutions to this problem.

Question. Is it fair to say that the strategy permits two very important matters

to go forward: shipyard teaming to maximize the return on Government and industry investment in common design and production process; and, a shipyard as prime

contractor?

Answer. Yes. The current strategy (as of May 13, 1998) would allow for those particular matters to be included in an industry team bid proposal for DD–21 development, should an industry team choose to do so. However, the Navy is concerned

about the apparent inability of industry to form a second team to compete on DD–

21 development. The Navy believes that intense industry competition at the system

level is required in order to meet the aggressive cost and performance goals provided in the DD–21 Operational Requirements Document. As of May 13, 1998, the

Navy is discussing its concerns with industry and interested Congressional staffs in

an effort to craft an acquisition strategy that will meet all of the Navy’s requirements for competition in the DD–21 program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Question. Mr. Secretary, I commend your personnel commitment to achieving the

Department’s investment goal of $60 billion in annual procurement spending. I am,

however, concerned that the QDR planning assumptions to achieve this goal are unrealistic considering the historic migration of procurement funds to other accounts,

the rejection of another BRAC round, and the uncertainty of savings from acquisition reform. If these savings do not materialize, how do you intend to reach this

goal?

Answer. The Department is on track to achieve the goal of $60 billion in procurement by fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 1999 we increased procurement by $3.6 billion over the fiscal year 1998 funding level, which was within $300 million of our

$49 billion goal for this year. Even in the absence of more rounds of BRAC we hope

to continue this track to hit the $60 billion target in fiscal year 2001.

But, without congressional approval of BRAC rounds in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal

year 2005, we will not be able to sustain this procurement program into the next

decade. The $3 billion in savings that two BRAC rounds will provide is critical to

our longer term modernization plans. The Department has a number of significant

programs that will be entering procurement in the next decade, including the Joint

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
817

Strike Fighter, the DD–21 destroyer, the Comanche helicopter, various missile defense programs and a number of new generation satellites.

Question. Does the Department have a comprehensive plan to address the rapid

and massive aging problem of its major warfighting equipment, including aircraft,

tanks, and ships? To what extent are life extension programs being considered? At

what point does aging equipment make an impact on the decision to use force?

Answer. The Department is executing an integrated plan to mitigate and reverse

the aging of our major warfighting equipment. This plan encompasses the following

elements: Reinventing our logistics processes to enhance equipment sustainment

while reducing O&M costs in order to provide increased funding for modernization;

increasing procurement funding to $54 billion by fiscal year 2000; reengineering our

acquisition process to reduce costs, enabling more rapid modernization; and adopting modernization of spares to enable rapid technology insertion into existing platforms.

These DOD-level initiatives complement ongoing efforts within each Service to assess their capabilities and projected modernization requirements.

The Department relies on each Component to determine their equipment and systems requirements. They also determine when new procurement programs or life extension programs are necessary to meet their requirements. Life extension programs

are primarily considered for their cost savings or cost avoidance attributes. In some

cases, life extension programs are used to ‘‘fill the gap’’ prior to delivery of new

equipment or new systems.

Ongoing ‘‘life extension’’ programs include efforts by the Services to modernize

equipment to meet current threats. Examples include the remanufacture and modernization of the 2.5 ton truck (M35A2) under the Extended Service Program and

the AV–8B remanufacturing program.

As part of the normal programming and budgeting process, the Department and

the Service Components review readiness related areas and modernization efforts.

Through this process, the Department can ensure that the current and future condition of warfighting equipment and systems will not impact a decision to use force.

Question. How much does the Department expect to spend before completion of

its operations in the Balkans?

Answer. An estimate of total expenditures is not possible since we do not currently have a specific end date. Rather than focus on a specific end date for operations in Bosnia, the goal is to achieve a secure environment without further need

for a NATO-led military force. NATO is pursuing a transition strategy with the goal

of progressively reducing force levels, taking account of the security situation in theater and the progress toward implementing the Dayton Agreement. NATO’s intent

is to review tasks, the security environment, and risks at about 6-month intervals

with reductions in force size beginning, if possible, after the national elections in

September 1998.

Question. If the fiscal year 1999 budget request for Bosnia, which you are requesting that Congress designate as emergency spending, is insufficient to cover actual

peacekeeping expenses there, will the Department need to seek supplemental appropriations that also are considered ‘‘emergency’’ spending?

Answer. The fiscal year 1999 request is designated an emergency because the requirement was not identified before the budget was submitted. Given the current

assessment of forces required to support operations in Bosnia, the fiscal year 1999

estimate of $1.9 billion will be adequate to meet our requirements. However, if an

unforeseen situation should develop that the Department could not accommodate

from available funding, then alternative methods of financing would be explored, including an emergency supplemental request if the situation warrants.

Question. What are the opportunity costs associated with the prolonged peacekeeping operations in Bosnia? Specifically, what additional weapon systems would

the Department have been able to procure if it had not been forced to execute the

deployment to Bosnia?

Answer. It is the Department’s responsibility to be ready to respond to crises that

threaten the nation’s interests. The situation in Bosnia is such a crisis and we have

made a commitment to help lead the NATO peacekeeping effort. To avoid serious

impact on other defense needs the Department proposed financing the fiscal year

1998 Bosnia operations with an emergency supplemental appropriation. I am very

grateful for your cooperation and assistance in providing these critical funds to the

Department in a timely manner. In a similar vein, the Administration submitted

a budget amendment to finance the projected fiscal year 1999 costs from a reserve

established by OMB for this and other emergent requirements. If this amendment

is not approved, it will have a devastating effect on our efforts to achieve the readiness and modernization goals outlined in our budget request.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
818

Question. Despite extensive anecdotal reports that near-term readiness is eroding,

many unit commanders and regional CINC’s contend that they do not have accurate

or reliable statistics that reflect the true state of their forces. What is the status

of the Department’s efforts to provide a better gauge of readiness? Do you believe

that it is possible to develop a system that is capable of identifying trends and

therefore could be used for predictive modeling?

Answer. We are continually improving our ability to assess readiness and detect

problems and have made great progress to ensure that readiness issues receive top

management attention. The Senior Readiness Oversight Council, called the SROC,

was created to provide a monthly forum where the senior DOD leaders can review

and discuss readiness issues. The SROC is chaired by the Deputy Secretary, with

membership including the Vice Chairman, the Under Secretaries of Defense, the

Service Chiefs, and the Under Secretaries of the Military Departments.

We have instituted and evolved a monthly in-depth readiness assessment process

by the Joint Staff, the CINC’s, and the Services called the Joint Monthly Readiness

Review (JMRR). The JMRR, is a monthly forum led by the Vice Chairman, JCS,

to assess our readiness to meet the spectrum of missions as defined in our National

Military Strategy. We continue to refine both the SROC and JMRR processes to help

identify, evaluate, and resolve major readiness concerns.

DOD is also sponsoring several initiatives to improve current readiness reporting.

The Joint Staff is working to develop an improved readiness assessment system that

uses the power of information technology to improve the timeliness of the reporting

process and integrate the many aspects of force readiness. Our Military Departments also continue to improve and refine their unit reporting systems to ensure

accurate and timely information.

Section 322 of the 1998 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary

of Defense to expand the scope of the readiness reports submitted to Congress.

These readiness reporting system enhancements are currently underway, and DOD

is preparing to submit its first expanded report to Congress in October 1998. This

expanded readiness report will include thirteen additional readiness reporting categories comprising over two hundred and fifty additional readiness indicators designed to provide Congress with a more in-depth view of DOD readiness status and

trends.

The Department already uses numerous indicators as warning signs of pending

readiness problems. We routinely monitor indicators of personnel, training, and

equipment readiness. Some examples of personnel indicators include measures of recruit quality, training retention, personnel turbulence, force manning, critical skill

manning, and PERSTEMPO. Equally important are the equipment and training indicators. We routinely follow trends in maintenance backlogs, equipment capability

rates, Operations tempo, named deployments, and spares funding. Several of the indicators, such as mission-capable rates, have been monitored for many years and

have proven their usefulness in assuring ready forces. Others—such as our efforts

to capture the effects of deployment tempo on our personnel—are relatively new,

and we are analyzing the data to assess its ability to predict trends in personnel

readiness. Although no readiness system can guarantee accurate predictions, the

Department does use such indicators to help prevent readiness problems. For example, in a Senior Readiness Oversight Council meeting last year, the Air Force noted

that the aviation bonus ‘‘take rate’’ for Air Force pilots was showing a marked decline. This was one of the first signs of the emerging pilot retention problem. As

a result of this indication, the Department proposed additional aviation career incentives and other significant actions to help mitigate the problem.

The Department is committed to having a trained and ready force and to minimizing any risk in employing that force should the need arise. It is to that end that

the Services, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense continue to

refine their readiness reporting systems.

Question. In any of your discussions regarding BRAC or alternative approaches

to reducing excess infrastructure, have you considered consolidating primary helicopter pilot training? Would you agree that the consolidation of primary helicopter

training furthers your goals of reducing excess capacity in infrastructure, promoting

jointness, and eliminating duplication of effort?

Answer. There has been no consideration subsequent to BRAC 95 concerning the

issue of potential consolidation of primary helicopter training. Consolidation of undergraduate helicopter pilot training (UHPT) has been reviewed over time and in

previous BRAC deliberations as an area of potential interest. These reviews considered many variables, including operational effectiveness, promoting jointness, and

cost effectiveness (reducing excess infrastructure, eliminating duplication of effort,

etc.). Current practices have the Navy and Marine Corps conducting consolidated

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
819

UHPT at Whiting Field, Florida, and the Army and Air Force training together at

Fort Rucker, Alabama.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

LEGACY PROGRAM

Question. Conferees for the fiscal 1998 Defense Appropriations Bill included

$100,000 of the $10 million Legacy Program account to develop a management plan

for the 1776 Revolutionary War gunboat recently discovered in Lake Champlain.

This work is being carried out through the Underwater Archeology Branch of the

Naval Historical Center. It is my understanding that approximately $7 million in

Legacy funds have been released and the initial Underwater Archeology allocation

amounted to some $200,000. While the Department has made a strong commitment

to the 1776 gunboat initiative, I remain concerned since the total fiscal 1998 requirement for Underwater Archeology is closer to $400,000. Would you support the

release of the remaining $3 million in fiscal year 1998 Legacy appropriations with

an additional $200,000 allocation to Underwater Archeology?

Answer. I am pleased to inform you the Department recently released the additional $3 million in fiscal year 1998 Legacy appropriations. Of this amount, the Department provided an additional $272,000 to the Naval Historical Center for its Underwater Archeology program. This means the total fiscal year 1998 Legacy funding

for Underwater Archeology from the Legacy program is $472,000.

UNDERWATER ARCHEOLOGY PROGRAM

Question. Would you support permanent funding for the Underwater Archeology

program in future fiscal years?

Answer. The Department of Defense recognizes the importance of preserving its

cultural heritage, including its underwater archeological resources. The Navy Historical Center is the Department of the Navy (DON) command responsible for oversight of those resources. The Department, however, is currently faced with significant competition for limited funds from many areas, including mission essential programs, modernization initiatives, and quality of life projects. While we expect to be

able to fund our underwater archeology program at an appropriate level to meet our

needs, these constraints currently require us to remain flexible and therefore prevent us from supporting permanent funding for the Underwater Archeology program.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator STEVENS. If there is nothing further, the subcommittee

will stand in recess.

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., Wednesday, May 13, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY13.000
(821)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Shelby, Inouye,

and Bumpers.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

STATEMENTS OF:

HON. ROBERT M. WALKER, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

GEN. DENNIS J. REIMER, CHIEF OF STAFF

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, General Reimer.

I understand this morning, General, we are honored by your spouse

who is here. We welcome that. I do not know whose shoulder she

is looking over, yours or mine.

General REIMER. She is here to protect me, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. We extend greetings to you, Secretary Walker,

as your first appearance as Acting Secretary. We are going to mark

up this bill on June 2, and we have many of the problems still that

we encountered in the 1999 supplemental. Those funds came in as

an emergency, and now we have a real problem on the 1999 budget

to balance readiness and modernization.

You two gentlemen face the ongoing challenge of achieving a true

partnership between the Active Army and Reserve components,

and I think we have witnessed considerable progress this past year

in the budget and in the efforts to build new bridges within the

Army.

With the new Army Guard director, the new Chief of the Guard

Bureau to be named, Congress will give you time to implement the

initiatives started this year and let the new Guard leaders establish their priorities working with you.

I was pleased to have that conversation with you, General, as we

left the Secretary’s office the other morning.

The actions that you take in formulating the Army’s fiscal year

2000 budget and the out-year budget plan will be proof of the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
822

Army’s commitment to realize the sort of partnership that must

exist in the Army as it does in the Air Force and the Air Guard.

I do want to welcome my friend here, and see if he has an opening comment first. Senator Inouye.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary and General Reimer, I join my chairman in welcoming you here this morning and I appreciate your forbearance

and willingness to appear. I know that this is the third time we

have made this attempt.

Mr. Secretary and General Reimer, some say that the Army is

at a crossroads, that you are preparing yourselves for the 21st century. Over a 2-year period from 1997 to 1999 your forces will be

reduced from 495,000 to 480,000. You are also spearheading an effort to digitize the battlefield and modernizing your forces.

You have added an emphasis to reduce the infrastructure by

trimming the civilian workers. I applaud your efforts, noting that

just a few years ago the Army insisted it could not reduce its manpower below 495,000.

Others are questioning whether a smaller force structure will be

sufficient, and there are some who criticize your modernization programs, pointing out that the Comanche helicopter, which has already been in development for more than 15 years, is still nearly

a decade away from production.

Others question whether the weight of the Crusader is too heavy

for the battlefield, and argue that it no longer is planned to incorporate state-of-the-art technologies.

There is one thing about this city. This city is filled with critics,

and I suppose there will always be critics, so this is your opportunity to discuss these and many other issues of interest to this

committee, and we look forward to listening to your views.

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by thanking Secretary Walker for

the fine work he has been doing. As you know, Mr. Walker was selected to be the Under Secretary of the Army, but has been Acting

Secretary for several months. I should also point out that during

this time there has been no Assistant Secretary for Acquisition,

none for Civil Works, and no one to replace him in his previous job

as Assistant Army Secretary for Installations.

I note this because this week the Senate confirmed the nominee

for Acquisition Matters, and finally, Secretary Walker, you will get

some help.

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. So again, General Reimer, Secretary Walker, I

look forward to your testimony.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Cochran, do you have a statement?

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I join you and Senator Inouye

in welcoming the Secretary and the General to our committee, and

thank them for their cooperation with us as we try to review the

budget request and make decisions about the level of funding for

all the various programs in the Army. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby, do you have any comments?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
823

Senator SHELBY. I do not have any statement, but I want to join

you, too, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming General Reimer here today

and Secretary Walker.

Senator STEVENS. Gentlemen, we will print your statements in

the record in full. You may use the time as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I spent

15 good years working on this committee, and they were the best

years of my life, until I went to the Army, and I have got to tell

you that being able to work with America’s soldiers——

Senator STEVENS. There is life after the Senate if you are young

enough, Mike. [Laughter.]

Go ahead. Sorry about that.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I turned 50 this year, so I have

been thinking a lot about that.

But working with America’s soldiers has been for me absolutely

the best experience of my life. It does not get any better than that,

and serving as their Acting Secretary for these past 5 months has

been a tremendous honor, and I very much appreciate the support

and good words that you and members of this committee have

given me, but I especially want to thank you for the strong support

that you give to our soldiers. It is recognized, and it is deeply,

deeply appreciated.

A good example of that support was the extraordinary effort that

this committee made to secure the supplemental. Without those

funds Army readiness would have broken, because we could not

have absorbed over $1 billion in the last quarter of the fiscal year,

so we thank you very much for this committee’s leadership in securing the supplemental.

Mr. Chairman, at risk of sounding like that old adage, ‘‘What

have you done for me lately,’’ I am here this morning to ask you

for a little bit more help. As you know, when the Army put its

budget together the decision had not been made to extend the Bosnia deployment and, as a result, there are no funds in the fiscal

year 1999 Army budget request for contingency operations.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot maintain readiness in the Army next

year without the additional allowance for contingencies which the

President has requested in the 920 function of the budget. Now, I

understand the concerns of this committee on this issue, but I must

report to you that we cannot manage the Army without those additional funds, so I respectfully ask the committee to give this request very careful consideration before the appropriations process

is complete.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Army is very busy these days.

In 29 deployments since the end of the cold war, the Army has provided more than two-thirds of the personnel to those deployments.

We are doing that heavy lifting for about one-fourth or about 25

percent of the Defense budget, so America is getting a great bargain from her Army.

Today, almost 33,000 soldiers are deployed in 76 countries

around the world, and to help ease the tempo of the Active Force,

over 6,000 of those soldiers are from the Guard and Reserve, so the

total force is hard at work.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
824

Now, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the total force, I thank you

for your comments earlier about the efforts that are being made,

and I know how important this issue is to you and to the entire

committee. Frankly, no other issue has commanded more of my

time since I have been the Acting Secretary, and I want to assure

you and the committee that we are doing our best to faithfully implement Secretary Cohen’s total force integration policy.

General Reimer and I are personally committed to reestablishing

a trusting relationship. We just finished work on the program objective memorandum [POM], and the Guard and Reserve were at

every meeting. They were equal participants, and that is the right

way to do business, so we will continue to make decisions as one

seamless Total Army team.

Now, Mr. Chairman, these are tight budget times for the Army.

It is difficult, making ends meet, and I must report to you that we

must secure full funding of our operations and maintenance [O&M]

request for fiscal year 1999. It is the absolute minimum that we

will need to keep the Army trained and ready during the next fiscal year.

As you know, last year Army O&M was reduced $450 million

below the budget request. That reduction did have an impact on

the field. We essentially had to levy a tax on the major commands

to pay for it and, as a result, operating tempo [OPTEMPO] paid for

much of the shortfall, leaving less flexibility for commanders to

take care of other readiness-related bills as the year progressed,

and we still have a shortfall.

To make up for that shortfall, we will soon be sending you a reprogramming request to ensure that we can maintain readiness for

the rest of the fiscal year. My concern for fiscal year 1999 is that

we have absolutely no margin for error.

The budget request before the committee includes over $1,300

million in efficiencies and savings. We did that to shift resources

from operations and support to our investment accounts, and that

was the right thing to do. But if those efficiencies are slow to materialize and if the O&M budget is also cut, then readiness will be

impacted. So I ask the committee to support full funding of our

O&M request for fiscal year 1999.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to our procurement account, since the

end of the cold war we essentially took a procurement holiday in

order to pay for high levels of readiness. We have reached the point

where we can no longer do that, so this year we made a deliberate

decision to begin a revitalized modernization program. The procurement request before this committee today is 17 percent higher than

last year as a result of that.

We simply cannot put modernization off any longer. Our equipment is aging and wearing out, and technology is growing by leaps

and bounds. But today, 80 percent of our fielded weapons systems

have technology that is 1970’s technology, and our soldiers are

driving trucks that are older than they are, so we must get on with

the task of modernizing an information-age Army. So I ask for the

committee’s support for our procurement request.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know this is not the authorizing committee, but I completely agree with Secretary Cohen that we will need

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
825

additional base closures if we are to secure the funding that we will

need in the future to modernize the Army for the 21st century.

I understand how difficult base closures are. When I was an Assistant Secretary, I was the Army’s base closure official. It was one

of the hardest things I ever did. But as difficult as base closures

are, they do save money—money that we will desperately need to

invest in the Army of the future. By the year 2001, we will be saving almost $1 billion annually

from our four previous rounds of base realignment and closure

[BRAC], even after we account for the cost of environmental cleanup. But after those four rounds of BRAC, we still have excess infrastructure. So to help fund future modernization and future force

structure, to help fund the future readiness of the Army, the next

generation of Army leaders will need us to make some difficult decisions, and they will need us to begin to reduce our excess infrastructure now. So I would ask the committee for your support for

additional rounds of BRAC.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, when I became Acting Secretary, I

said that every decision I made would be made with soldiers in

mind. We do have the best Army in the world today for one reason,

because our soldiers are the best of America. We owe them not only

our respect and admiration, but we owe them a good quality of life

and an opportunity to achieve their personal goals and aspirations.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I believe very simply that if we get it right with soldiers, all of

these other issues will fall into place and we will be able to take

care of the Army.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. WALKER

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear before you

today to report on the state of the Army and to talk about the Army’s proposed

budget for fiscal year 1999.

A STARTING POINT

Since the birth of our Nation, America’s Army has served the United States with

honor, courage, and distinction, both at home and abroad, in peace and in war. At

the threshold of the 21st century, the Army is a Total Force, an institution with

people at its core—Active, National Guard, Army Reserve, civilian employees, families, and retired members. The strength and character of the Army’s soldiers and

civilians are the linchpin in maintaining our Army as the finest in the world.

The soldiers, civilians, and family members who comprise America’s Army continue the legacy of superb service to our Nation with an exceptional mix of professionalism, selfless service, and personal sacrifice. With over 100,000 soldiers stationed overseas and, on any given day during the year, with another 30,000 soldiers

of the Total Force deployed to more than 70 countries on joint and combined operations and exercises, America’s Army continues to be a key player in our Nation’s

efforts to help shape the international security environment. You, and the entire

Nation, can and should be proud of their achievements.

WHERE WE ARE TODAY

A new global security environment exists as a result of social, political, and military changes that have occurred during the past decade. No longer a world in which

two hostile super-powers face each other, today’s environment includes threats—and

opportunities—in a wide number of areas.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
826

While we no longer face the immediate threat of a rival superpower, there are

states and other transnational actors who can still challenge our interests militarily

and, increasingly, by asymmetric means such as weapons of mass destruction and

cyber-terrorism. Make no mistake about it; we live in a very complex and still dangerous world.

America’s Army has evolved to meet the challenges of this post-Cold War world.

We are a strategically relevant member of the joint forces America can deploy to

meet the challenges of today’s world. Executing missions now requires a mobile

Army that can be deployed rapidly wherever and whenever needed. In the last eight

years, we have transformed the Army from a forward-deployed force to a capabilities-based force. The Army has reduced and redistributed its forces, closed and realigned bases, improved integration of Active and Reserve Components, and reorganized and redistributed its equipment pre-positioned overseas.

The Army is strategically relevant and has an important role in helping to shape

a new international environment to bring about a more peaceful and stable world.

While fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous major theater wars remains

the foremost task, we must also respond to a wide variety of other potential missions. For example, we are fully involved in the Asia-Pacific region, an area of increasing importance to the American people. By building strong relationships

through engagement activities in this region of the world, the Army helps foster

trust and confidence, as well as contributes to the political security and economic

stability of our friends, allies, and other countries. Our involvement in bilateral and

multinational exercises, exchange programs, information sharing, and other contacts

with militaries throughout the Asia-Pacific region are active methods for shaping

the strategic environment in ways favorable to America’s interests. In this vitally

important area of the world, the Army has provided demining training in Cambodia

and Laos; and shelter, processing, care, and security for Kurdish evacuees in Guam.

Army soldiers have trained with their counterparts from Thailand, Japan, Korea,

Australia, and other nations in a number of combined exercises.

Additionally, Headquarters, U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) co-hosts the Pacific

Armies Management Seminar with the army of another Asia-Pacific nation on a biennial basis. This is a non-political effort with the purpose of providing a forum for

discussion of common military issues in a professional environment. Additionally,

this is the only regular gathering of the chiefs of armies in the Asia-Pacific region

and is a major element of USARPAC’s Expanded Relations Program.

In Europe, consider the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch, Germany. Since

its foundation in June 1994, the Center has been at the forefront of pioneering efforts to build an active environment for the growth of democracy and democratic institutions within the diplomatic and defense bureaucracies of the newly independent

states of the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Central Europe. The primary teaching

vehicle used by the Center is an 18-week course for senior foreign civilians and military officers from these countries.

The content of the course includes such subjects as western methods of defense

organization, planning and budgeting, civilian oversight of the military, civil-military interaction, and the democratization process. Because of the synergy created

within the Center, the Army trains all of our Eurasian regional specialists there.

In addition to an excellent curriculum, study at the Center provides these American

officer-students an opportunity to establish personal contacts within the various

Central European and FSU governments. These contacts have reaped enormous

dividends and strengthen a very successful program that produces our Army’s Soldier-Diplomats.

The National Guard State Partnership Program, which began in December 1992,

is another example of Army shaping activities. The program links U.S. states and

emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Latin America

through ties between the state governor and state National Guard with the ministry

of defense and the soldiers of the partner country. Our goal is to demonstrate,

through the example of the citizen-soldier, the role of the military in a democratic

society. The program seeks to build long-term institutional affiliations and peopleto-people relationships while simultaneously assisting in the effort to establish

democratic military organizations.

In Latin America, for example, the Army supports the U.S. Southern Command’s

efforts to bolster the emerging as well as more established democracies of the region. The area’s past history of military intervention in politics and the instability

created by narcotrafficking threaten Latin American democracies.

With regard to Latin America, the Army supports the National Security and National Military Strategies, as well as the Regional Strategy of the Commander-inChief through a variety of programs. Most important among these is the U.S. Army

School of the America’s (USARSA), where we seek to convey to our Latin American

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
827

neighbors the know-how to conduct effective security operations while respecting

democratic principles, especially the human rights of their people.

USARSA is truly relevant to the challenges we face in Latin America. The curriculum is derived from the Southern Command strategy, and emphasizes supporting democratic institutions, combating narcotrafficking, and respecting human

rights. Last year, 60 percent of USARSA students came from the Andean Ridge and

Mexico, key countries in our war on drugs; 20 percent were police.

USARSA is critical to our efforts to develop closer ties with Latin American militaries. The school effectively conveys our values to our southern neighbors. We carefully screen prospective students and are equally careful about what we teach. I

have heard the concerns raised about this school, and I want you to know that today

USARSA is teaching the technical skills and promoting the democratic values that

support American policies and values.

The combination of Active Army participation in joint and combined exercises,

army-to-army contacts, and humanitarian assistance and civic action projects

around the world provide our allies a deeper understanding and appreciation of the

U.S. Army’s roles, missions, and capabilities. Additionally, these activities improve

interoperability, increase the warfighting capability of our combined forces, and

demonstrate to any potential aggressors our determination to maintain peace and

stability around the world. Finally, these activities provide our leadership an opportunity to build and strengthen personal and professional relationships while providing valuable insights into the needs and hopes of our friends and allies.

As we take on these diverse missions, we continue to focus on our core competence: to fight and win the Nation’s wars. Throughout history, forces on the

ground have won wars and brought final conclusion to conflict. Only soldiers on the

ground can take and hold territory. America’s Army is able to project its forces and

establish direct, continuous, and comprehensive control over land, resources, and

people in order to achieve victory and ensure an enduring peace. Whatever the mission, one thing remains as clear today as it has throughout history: committing the

Army commits the Nation. There is no greater expression of national resolve and

will than to put our soldiers—America’s sons and daughters—on the ground.

The inherent versatility of America’s Army makes it the force of choice for the

majority of military operations in support of the National Security Strategy. In 28

joint military operations since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Army has repeatedly

done the Nation’s heavy lifting, accounting for over 60 percent of the forces committed to these operations, while consuming less than one-quarter of Department of Defense’s budget.

The force levels recommended in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) are the

minimum necessary to carry out the National Military Strategy. We cannot reduce

our capabilities below that level and still respond to two major theater wars. Further, we must begin to transform the Army by exploiting technological advances

that will change future warfare. To do this with forces that remain committed to

operational readiness, contingency operations, and engagement activities requires a

predictable investment program and a fundamental re-engineering of support infrastructure. It is clearer than ever that we require additional rounds of base-closures

to maintain force structure and ensure readiness in the 21st century. Both the Chief

of Staff and I are in full agreement on this. We recognize how painful base closures

are, but we must reduce our infrastructure to meet the requirements of the future.

For fiscal year 1999 and beyond, the world security environment will continue to

be unpredictable, volatile, and dangerous; America’s Army will remain ready to respond rapidly and decisively to any crisis around the world. Accordingly, we will

continue the integration of Active and Reserve Components, enabling the Total

Force to perform an increased number of missions more efficiently and effectively.

Each component of the Total Force—Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian—provides

essential capabilities that give the National Command Authorities a range of options when dealing with contingencies.

FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET

President Clinton has submitted an Army budget for fiscal year 1999 of $64.3 billion. This budget is the result of a very careful assessment of our needs and priorities and reflects today’s fiscal realities. More importantly, this represents a real increase over the fiscal year 1998 budget. This is the first increase since 1985, excluding Desert Storm.

Between fiscal year 1989 and fiscal year 1998 the Army’s buying power has been

reduced 37 percent. The greatest challenge facing the Total Army is balancing readiness, quality of life, and modernization within available resources. In addition, since

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
828

1989 the Army has seen the number of operational deployments increase 300 percent from the Cold War period.

Maintaining this delicate balance between requirements and resources is increasingly difficult. Funding must be adequate, sustained, predictable, and synchronized

to meet the readiness, force structure and endstrength, quality of life, and modernization requirements of today and the uncertain future.

ARMY PRIORITIES

As we look to the future, the Nation’s interests require America to continue to

field the best Army in the world. Our priorities are to maintain current high levels

of readiness, to resource priority modernization requirements, and to maintain a

good quality of life for all members of the Total Force.

Last year’s budget request assumed that U.S. forces would complete the mission

in Bosnia by the end of June 1998. As the committee is aware, the President has

determined that an extension of the U.S. mission is required to ensure continued

compliance with the Dayton Agreement. The Administration will submit a non-offset

budget amendment, designated as an emergency under the Budget Act, to provide

for the required funds during the remainder of fiscal year 1998. In addition, the fiscal year 1999 President’s budget includes an allowance for undistributed funds to

cover contingencies such as the Bosnia mission and natural disasters.

I strongly urge the committee to approve the President’s requests. The Army cannot absorb these costs within current budgets. Timely passage of the fiscal year

1998 supplemental is necessary to prevent severe readiness problems in the Army.

Without the approval of these funds, Army commanders will be required to curtail

training and the readiness ratings for Army combat forces could slip below that required to support the National Military Strategy. Failure to receive required nonoffset funding in fiscal year 1999 would also reduce readiness below acceptable levels in the next fiscal year.

Readiness

Readiness continues to be our number one priority. The fiscal year 1999 request

provides adequate funds to maintain readiness and ensure the Army’s ability to fulfill the National Military Strategy. High-quality people, both soldiers and civilians,

in all components of the Total Force are the defining characteristic of a ready force.

Today’s strategic environment demands highly capable and flexible soldiers and civilians, able to adapt to complex, dangerous, and ever-changing situations throughout the world. Many factors contribute to readiness; however, three key contributors

are recruiting, training, and leadership.

Recruiting.—Today’s recruits continue to be the best educated and disciplined in

our Army’s history. To succeed now and into the future requires that we sustain

the high quality men and women serving in the Army today. They are the indispensable and decisive element in any strategy.

During fiscal year 1997, the Army was able to overcome many significant challenges and successfully recruited 82,087 soldiers to meet end-strength requirements.

Quality marks for these soldiers meet established Department of Defense goals.

More than 90 percent possessed high school diplomas; over 68 percent scored in Test

Score Categories I–IIIA on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery; and

fewer than 2 percent scored in Test Score Category IV. The ten percent without high

school diplomas possess a GED or equivalent high school education and must score

in the upper half of the aptitude test. During fiscal year 1997, the Army also improved retention and decreased attrition.

The Army is on track to meet its fiscal year 1998 accession mission. Our success

in the current fiscal year and the out years will be to some extent, a reflection of

the extraordinary efforts made during fiscal year 1997—increased enlistment bonus

and educational benefit funding; increased maximum enlistment bonus payments

for selected military occupational specialties; increased maximum college loan repayment; increased educational benefits (a combination of the Montgomery GI Bill and

the Army College Fund); increased numbers of production recruiters; and increased

funding for advertising and recruiter support.

While the Army continues to enjoy success in recruiting, the strong domestic economy and tight labor market have created an extremely challenging recruiting environment. Despite these challenges, the Army’s professional recruiters are doing a

masterful job in both quantitative and qualitative terms. We must support them

and continue to give them the tools, including the resources, necessary to guarantee

their success.

Training.—Quality training is essential to maintaining a decisive battlefield edge.

Readiness is directly related to our ability to provide realistic and relevant training.

However, our military commanders indicate that the quality of training is not necU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
829

essarily related to the quantity. In today’s operational environment, soldiers and

families are already under significant stress from operational deployments. Leadership is the key to ensuring that the training schedule is not overcrowded and that

the focus is on providing high quality training events to maintain readiness.

Realistic and relevant training—conducted at the proper frequency—is the glue

that bonds the Total Force together as an effective fighting force. In the coming

year, we will examine how we train at our Combat Training Centers in order to ensure that they offer the full range of threats we anticipate our soldiers will face in

the years ahead. This includes weapons of mass destruction, increasing urbanization, and the presence of noncombatants on the battlefield.

We are toughening the training of our recruits to improve ‘‘soldierization.’’ This

year we will expand basic training by one week. This will enable us to focus on the

values of America’s Army and to institute a three-day warrior field exercise designed to challenge recruits to meet their full potential as soldiers.

Leadership.—A ready Army is not only well trained, but also well led. Our Force

XXI process of change has already taught us much in terms of equipping and training the force for the future. Likewise, this year will see significant developments in

our Force XXI leader development programs. We have initiated a new Officer Efficiency Report and have implemented Officer Personnel Management System XXI.

The backbone of our Army is the world’s finest non-commissioned officer (NCO)

corps. Today’s strategic environment requires disciplined, well-trained and ready

forces. Our NCO corps is the key to success. From the flooded streets of America’s

cities to the strife torn regions of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Army’s NCO’s demonstrate courage and commitment on a daily basis. In the classrooms and motor

pools, on the firing ranges and at our Combat Training Centers, the Army’s noncommissioned officers exemplify professional competence. They demonstrate a willingness to take prudent risk, the boldness to seize the initiative, and the determination to do their best; qualities that have been the hallmark of America’s soldiers

since before we were a nation. On a daily basis, both at home and abroad, our

NCO’s serve as role models for our soldiers, as well as people around the world,

standing as an example of American values and as the embodiment of a professional

military.

Modernization

Modernization is the guarantor of future readiness. Far too often over the last

several years, we have been forced to mortgage our future in order to preserve nearterm readiness. When supplemental funding for the Gulf War is excluded, fiscal

year 1998 was the thirteenth consecutive year of declining Army resources. During

that period modernization declined 65 percent while we lived off the drawdown. By

fiscal year 1998, Army procurement comprised only 15 percent of all Defense procurement.

The Army modernization strategy prioritizes investments over time and reflects

the linkage of our modernization plan to the operational concepts described in Joint

Vision 2010 and the patterns of operation outlined in Army Vision 2010. The Army

Modernization Plan is a comprehensive program of improvement designed to ensure

that America’s Army remains the world’s preeminent land force.

Our modernization efforts are designed to provide America’s soldiers with the best

weapons and equipment available; weapons and equipment that are suitable for operations at all levels of the operational continuum. We are focused on maintaining

our current combat overmatch and achieving Information Dominance in the nearterm. In the long-term, we seek to field an Army capable of achieving Full Spectrum

Dominance. Our revised modernization strategy investment goals are designed to

achieve five major objectives:

—Digitize the Total Army by 2010.

—Maintain Combat Overmatch.

—Recapitalize the Army.

—Fully integrate the Active and Reserve Components.

—Focus Science and Technology (S&T) efforts on leap-ahead technologies required

for the Army After Next.

Military hardware, operational concepts, doctrine, and command initiatives are

neither absolute nor static. Change is constant. The armies of the past have all required reorganization and restructuring to meet then current requirements. The

Army of Desert Storm must likewise change to meet the challenges of the future.

The fiscal year 1999 budget reverses the decline of the past. We are proposing a

17 percent increase in the procurement accounts. We must sustain this trend to

transform an Industrial Age army into an Information Age army.

Today’s Army leads the way in acquisition reform. By continuously evaluating the

way it does business to ensure our soldiers always have access to affordable and efU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
830

fective leading edge technology in equipment and service, the Army has achieved

considerable success with acquisition reform.

For example, we have launched a major effort, called Modernization through

Spares, to insert commercial technologies and reduce the cost of spare parts. Additionally, in attaining savings through credit card purchases, the Army was the first

federal agency to exceed one million transactions for micro-purchases in fiscal year

1996, and broke that record with 2.4 million transactions in fiscal year 1997. By aggressively implementing better business practices at all levels, the Army is taking

advantage of the Revolution in Business Affairs to help fund modernization, readiness, and quality of life programs. But, we must continue to emphasize the benefits

of acquisition reform.

We must also continue to work to remove the structural barriers to achieving the

most efficient Army possible. We are working hard to ensure that we have one

Army—not an operational army, a support army, and an acquisition army. As we

continue down this road, I ask for your support in these and other initiatives we

are pursuing. It is imperative that we look at innovative ways to reduce overall support costs, improve spare parts availability, maintain weapon system readiness

rates, and provide funds for modernization. In particular, I would mention the

Prime Vendor Support program (PVS). This is an initiative whereby prime contractors could assume full responsibility for total system performance while achieving

savings in operations and support costs and modernizing the weapon system

through the integration of contemporary spare parts. At the same time, these innovative concepts must be effective in peacetime, during contingency operations, and

in war. We strongly believe that PVS is an initiative that will leverage the best commercial practices that industry has to offer, maximize rapid distribution, and reduce

stock levels while maintaining readiness. We are confident that it holds the potential for significant savings for our Army. In the next few months, we will finalize

the details for the Apache pilot program as well as the M109 fleet management pilot

program, and then make the final decisions required to move forward.

A New Method of Change

The current process of change is called Force XXI and is designed to reconceptualize and redesign the Army at all echelons, from the factory to the foxhole, in order

to fully exploit the capabilities of Information Age technologies. The product resulting from that effort will be Army XXI, currently scheduled to be fielded from 2000–

2010. Army XXI will be digitized and capable of achieving Information Dominance

over any adversary.

The Force XXI process is a journey, not a destination, however, and Army XXI

is only one step along the way. As a result of the overwhelming success of Desert

Storm, many nations are seeking to obtain and apply modern technology to their

military forces. The result will likely be that the next battlefield we face will be

more challenging than ever before. The Army After Next Project (AAN) is designed

to explore the uncertain world of the deeper future and help ensure that land component operations in 2015 and beyond are fully integrated with those of our joint

and multinational partners. The AAN long-term focus is on obtaining the leap-ahead

technologies required for the Army to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance during the

military operations of the future.

Information Dominance is central to achieving the Full Spectrum Dominance described in Joint Vision 2010. Recent Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE’s)

have revealed that secure information technology can create an order of magnitude

difference in combat effectiveness. Information Dominance, when coupled with revised leader development and training programs, will give the Army the mental

agility required to exploit opportunities on the increasingly complex and dynamic

battlefields of the future.

Digitization is the means by which we will achieve Information Dominance and,

as such, is the key to the ultimate realization of Full Spectrum Dominance.

Digitization is an integral part of modernizing for the Information Age. Digitization

spans the entire Army modernization strategy. It involves the use of modern communications capabilities and computers to enable commanders, planners, and soldiers to rapidly acquire and share information. The resulting improved awareness

will revolutionize the conduct and tempo of all phases of future combat operations.

The cornerstone of this effort is our goal of fielding a digitized corps by 2004, with

an intermediate objective of a digitized division by 2000. Remaining Active Component divisions and selected Reserve Component combat, combat support, and combat

service support units will be digitized by 2010.

The Digitization process involves upgrading or modifying some existing systems;

adding to or ‘‘appliqueing’’ a capability to others; and ensuring future systems have

information technologies built in as an integral part of the system when approU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
831

priate. All these capabilities are being developed in compliance with a common set

of standards to ensure interoperability and enhance efficiency through software

reuse.

The Task Force XXI AWE, completed this past Spring at the National Training

Center, focused on operations at the brigade level and below. Friendly situational

awareness, a top priority for this experiment, was a great success. In preparation

for the experiment, the Army installed and integrated over 4,000 pieces of digital

equipment on nearly 1,000 vehicles of all types. The AWE successfully experimented

with the Tactical Internet, and provided insights that will guide investment decisions in hardware and software technologies. In November 1997, the Army conducted the Division XXI AWE which focused on division and corps operations using

Army Tactical Command and Control Systems. Results will help refine the architecture for the first digitized division (the 4th Infantry Division), which will be fielded

in fiscal year 2000.

The Army continues to pursue many ongoing efforts with the other services and

allies to ensure interoperability and seamless communications throughout the

battlespace. Additionally, the common, minimal set of information technology standards developed by the Army on behalf of digitization is the basis of the Joint Technical Architecture that is now mandated for use throughout the Department of Defense.

Protecting Information

What we are seeking is information dominance. At the same time, however, we

are not alone in our efforts to harness the power of the Information Age. There are

many threats to our ability to gather, process, and disseminate information, some

of them have only just begun to emerge. Protecting our information will be key to

the success of future operations.

Our Advanced Warfighting Experiments have demonstrated that the computers

and other information systems we are developing worked well at all echelons and

provided continuous, enhanced situational awareness. We are able to detect, identify, and track hostile activity in sufficient time to target it with lethal weapons or

maneuver against or around it as appropriate. Likewise, we are able to locate, identify, and track friendly forces.

What we have learned has gone a long way toward answering a soldier’s three

most important questions: Where am I? Where are my team members? Where is the

enemy? That information is powerful and our ability to gather, process, and disseminate more of it than ever before has made a major difference in our conduct of operations.

As we look to the future, however, we know that to be successful, we must also

have information superiority: the capability to collect, process, and disseminate information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same. In all

our developmental and experimental efforts, we are conducting appropriate ‘‘red

team’’ efforts as part of a holistic approach to organizational, materiel, and procedural solutions needed to protect our information from the full array of potential

threats.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION—FISCAL YEAR 1999 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET

[In millions of dollars]

Category

Fiscal year—

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Basic Research .................................... 175 180 201 211 216 221 227

Applied Research ................................. 542 654 511 526 541 557 569

Adv Tech Dev ....................................... 654 657 484 556 515 480 475

Dem/Val ................................................ 540 563 466 449 330 203 248

Eng Manufacturing Dev ....................... 1,146 1,162 1,269 1,361 1,728 1,993 1,801

Management Support ........................... 1,145 1,129 1,076 1,054 1,001 953 942

Operational Sys Dev ............................. 716 679 773 596 569 479 623

Total RDTE .............................. 4,916 5,025 4,781 4,754 4,900 4,887 4,885

The fiscal year 1999 RDTE request provides funding for Science and Technology

efforts that are focused on affordable options to achieve capabilities envisioned for

Force XXI, Army Vision 2010, and Army After Next. This will ensure the timely deU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
832

velopment and transition of technology into weapon systems and system upgrades

and to explore alternative concepts in future global, capabilities-based warfighting.

The Army S&T program emphasizes technology insertion via upgrades to existing

platforms, support of Joint Chiefs of Staff future warfighting capabilities and Force

XXI AWE’s, early reduction of risk in material development programs and management through the Army Science and Technology Master Plan.

It also provides for the continued funding for the Force XXI Initiatives begun in

fiscal year 1997, a program that uses the Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program

(WRAP) as a vehicle to jump start technology and put proven technology into the

hands of soldiers, while achieving significant time and dollar efficiencies.

The fiscal year 1999 RDTE budget provides for the continued development of

major programs such as Comanche, Crusader, Follow-on to TOW, Brilliant AntiArmor Submunitions (BAT) and Army Battlefield Communications System. The

budget does not provide for any major system new starts.

PROCUREMENT APPROPRIATIONS—FISCAL YEAR 1999 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET

[In millions of dollars]

Appropriation

Fiscal year—

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Aircraft ................................................. 1,329 1,323 1,325 1,372 1,456 2,007 2,074

Missiles ................................................ 1,003 744 1,206 1,432 1,414 1,488 1,285

Weapons/Tracked Cbt Veh ................... 1,419 1,291 1,434 1,566 1,615 1,794 1,911

Ammunition .......................................... 1,143 1,020 1,009 1,157 1,232 1,495 1,664

Other Procurement ............................... 3,178 2,563 3,199 3,602 4,204 4,456 5,327

Total ........................................ 8,071 6,941 8,173 9,128 10,022 11,239 12,260

The fiscal year 1999 President’s budget request for the procurement appropriations is $1.2 billion higher than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1998. This

increase reflects the Army’s continued emphasis on modernization for the Total

Army. The budget request increases funding for Reserve Component modernization,

specifically in Air Defense, Combat Service Support Systems and Blackhawks (for

the Army National Guard). Critical modernization programs such as Longbow

Apache, Abrams Tank Upgrade, Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, Bradley Upgrades, ATACMS and first year funding for the BAT are also funded.

The digitization of the force is another key investment focus with increased funding for the Army Battle Command System, which encompasses Command and Control Systems and the Warfighters Internet. These systems are key to the Army’s

ability to digitize the first division in fiscal year 2000.

The ammunition program consists of Training Ammunition, War Reserve Modernization Ammunition, Ammunition Industrial Base Funding to include the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARM’s) initiative, and Ammunition Demilitarization.

The President’s budget funds Training Ammunition to the C–1 Readiness level.

It buys four of the Army’s ammunition modernization priorities, funds a strong ammunition demilitarization program and provides modest funding for Ammunition Industrial Base including the continuation of ARM’s through the end of fiscal year

1999. It provides partial funding for the continuation of depleted uranium production. The President’s budget supplies sufficient ammunition for the Army to conduct

two major theater wars with moderate risk relying on substitutes. It meets defense

guidance on the Industrial Base for replenishment and environmental concerns with

moderate risk. It provides a small fund for continued ARMS incentives, and a continuation of the loan guarantee program. The budget does not provide for new production of any new major systems.

Civilian Drawdown

The Army’s civilian workforce of 243,000 has been reduced about 160,000 people

since the drawdown began in fiscal year 1989—a 40 percent decrease. To shape the

Army of the future, current plans are to further reduce manpower to about 237,000

by the end of fiscal year 1999 and to about 218,000 in fiscal year 2003. Overall this

is a reduction of 46 percent since fiscal year 1989. The civilian manpower reductions

are attributed to functional transfers to agencies outside of the Army, force strucU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
833

ture downsizing, base closures and consolidations, reengineering and efficiency studies, privatization, and funded workload and affordability decisions.

We are committed to making these changes to the size and composition of the

work force, while maintaining the capability to adequately support and sustain a

ready force. Current congressional guidance is to manage the civilian work force

based on funded work load and we support that guidance. Initiatives are underway

to correct some problems in our manpower requirement determination process, and

they will help us to better size our work force as well as keep down the costs of

labor. We need continued congressional support to provide flexibility to manage the

work force throughout the remaining phase of the drawdown.

Human Relations Environment

The cornerstone of the Army’s human relations philosophy is that every soldier

is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, without regard to that soldier’s

gender or race. The Army’s commitment to equality is a matter of historical record

in which we take great pride and which we are determined to uphold.

The Army is dedicated to improving its human relations environment and understands the impact of the human dimension on combat readiness. The Army continues to work hard to reduce sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and sexual

misconduct. In response to incidents in the Fall of 1996, Army leadership directed

a thorough assessment of the Army’s human relations environment.

Secretary West initiated two critical self-studies. First, he formed the Senior Review Panel, with a charter to examine the human relations environment Army-wide,

placing emphasis on sexual harassment. Second, he directed the Inspector General

to conduct a special inspection of equal opportunity and sexual misconduct policies

and procedures at initial entry training organizations. This was an honest look, and

we learned a great deal about ourselves.

The Army’s Human Relations Action Plan addresses the findings and recommendations of both reports in order to make the Army a better place for soldiers

without weakening standards. The Action Plan contains ongoing actions and actions

to be taken with dates for completion. Both the Chief of Staff and I receive periodic

updates on the progress of the Action Plan. Commanders in the field, as well as senior Army leaders, have already initiated many of the needed corrections.

We have begun to restore soldier’s trust and confidence in the Army’s Equal Opportunity system as a means to improving our overall human relations environment.

The Army remains ever vigilant in its quest to maintain fair and equitable treatment for soldiers while being well aware that without this treatment, readiness ultimately suffers.

Quality of Life

We must take care of our soldiers and their families. An ‘‘iron logic’’ connects

quality of life, quality installations, retention, and readiness. To recruit and retain

quality people, we must provide challenging careers and a quality of life comparable

to the society they are pledged to defend. Our men and women know that they are

well trained. They have the tools to put that training into practice. And, most importantly, they believe that their efforts around the world are making a difference.

Our soldiers sacrifice greatly to serve their country. It is our responsibility to ensure

that the Nation adequately recognizes that sacrifice. Fair pay and compensation, a

stable retirement system, accessible quality health care, a predictable duty and

service environment, and an improved military living environment remain top priorities. We must adequately fund community and family support programs and continue our progress toward meeting morale, welfare, and recreation funding standards. As we further integrate the Reserve Component (RC), integration and funding

of RC quality of life programs becomes equally critical to overall readiness.

Adequate compensation is a fundamental requirement for maintaining an all-volunteer force. This year’s budget includes a request for a 3.1 percent pay raise for

our military and civilian personnel, as allowed by law. Quality housing is another

important element of the quality of life for our soldiers. The fiscal year 1999 President’s budget contains $307 million for the Whole Barracks Renewal Program. Construction of these new barracks will improve the living conditions of 2,316 single soldiers in the United States, as well as 1,278 living overseas. The budget also provides

$68.5 million for 506 new family housing units, and $28.6 million to provide four

Whole Neighborhood renovation projects containing an additional 514 units.

Through the Capital Venture Initiative, the Army is pursuing privatization initiatives to increase housing availability and to improve housing conditions. This initiative will convey current housing units to private entities that will, in turn, revitalize

the housing for our Army families. The first of these initiatives is scheduled to be

awarded early this year at Fort Carson, Colorado. Our plan is to use these authoriU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
834

ties wherever feasible and economical in the U.S. We are applying lessons learned

from the Fort Carson project in the development of 26 additional family housing privatization projects.

The Army’s soldier, family, and community support programs are essential for an

Army facing the demanding OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO requirements of the current strategic environment. In fiscal year 1999, we have requested $388.4 million

to support these customer driven programs that provide integrated, major educational, preventive, and support services that directly affect soldier readiness and

foster self-reliance. They assist soldiers and families with transition to the Army,

frequent relocation, deployments and other soldier absences, as well as life within

the military community. Sports, fitness, recreation, library, leisure, and business

programs foster mission readiness, offer opportunities for social interaction, support

professional and personal development, relieve stress, and provide ways for deployed

soldiers to fill off-duty hours. Family support, child, and youth programs provide options and resources to reduce the conflict between soldiers’ personal and family responsibilities and their mission requirements.

THE WAY AHEAD

The Army Vision

Our Vision for today and tomorrow is straightforward: The world’s best army, a

full spectrum force—trained and ready for victory. A Total Force of quality soldiers

and civilians is:

—A values-based organization.

—An integral part of the Joint Team.

—Equipped with the most modern weapons and equipment the Nation can provide.

—Able to respond to our Nation’s needs.

—Changing to meet the challenges of today, tomorrow, and the 21st century.

The Total Force

Our best judgment is that the National Security Strategy and the National Military Strategy, with their integrated approach to Shaping the international environment, Responding to crises, and Preparing now for an uncertain future, will protect

the Nation and its interests, and promote a peace that benefits America and all likeminded nations.

To execute this strategy, the Army requires forces of sufficient size, depth, flexibility, and combat power to defend the U.S. homeland; maintain effective overseas

presence; conduct a wide range of concurrent engagement activities and smallerscale contingencies, including peace operations; and conduct decisive campaigns

against adversaries in two distant, overlapping major theater wars, all in the face

of weapons of mass destruction and other asymmetric threats.

That force is a Total Force, an 18 division Army—a force that combines the

unique capabilities of its Active and Reserve Components and its civilian employees.

All elements of the Total Force must be appropriately resourced, organized, modernized, trained, and integrated.

Active Component—Reserve Component Integration

The Guard and Reserve are important links between the Armed Forces and the

American public. Mobilization of the Reserve Component has always been an important indicator of the commitment of national will. Guardsmen and Reservists are

not only integrated into war plans, but also provide critical skills in carrying out

contingency operations, as well as augmenting and supporting active units during

peacetime.

Today, the Reserve Component is fully engaged, providing critical support to the

National Military Strategy. Every operation America’s Army conducts today is a

Total Army effort, involving Active duty personnel, members of the Army National

Guard, and Army Reservists working side-by-side to accomplish the mission. We do

not see this changing. Approximately 55 percent of the Total Army’s combat arms

are in the National Guard. Likewise, the Reserve Component contributes over 60

percent of the Combat Support forces and over 70 percent of the Combat Service

Support forces to the Total Force.

The Army has and will continue to mobilize Reserve Component units and individuals to provide essential support during contingency operations. For example, we

have mobilized more than 500 Reserve Component units and more than 15,000 soldiers in support of Operations Joint Endeavor and Joint Guard. More than 5,000

RC soldiers have augmented or backfilled staffs and units in Germany, Italy, and

the United States by providing functional support in the following areas: postal,

military police, movement control, logistics, aviation, finance, personnel administraU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
835

tion, and maintenance. More than 7,000 have been deployed directly to BosniaHerzegovina to perform a wide variety of missions.

Currently, the Army is working to implement 31 separate initiatives that will integrate components at all levels across the entire spectrum of combat, combat support, and combat service support. Using a phased approach, we are in the process

of placing two Active Component division headquarters; one heavy at Fort Riley and

one light at Fort Carson, with six enhanced Separate Brigades. This approach will

allow the Army to maintain combat capability throughout the transition to a fully

integrated warfighting division.

Individual integration into selected Active and Reserve units is also a high priority. The intent is to develop officers with cross component experience as a way of

bridging the culture gaps between components. Other ongoing AC/RC initiatives include the conversion of Army National Guard (ARNG) divisional structure from

combat to combat support and combat service support structure. This will significantly reduce the shortfall in combat support and combat service support that has

been identified as a systemic problem.

Additional new AC/RC initiatives include: increasing the number of composite

(multi-component) units which have AC and RC soldiers blended into a cohesive

unit; using ARNG Man-Portable Air Defense System teams to support AC Patriot

battalions deploying to Southwest Asia; and involving ARNG rotations in support

of Able Sentry in Macedonia, as well as the Multinational Force and Observers missions in the Sinai.

The Secretary of the Army is the Executive Agent for implementation of the

Nunn-Lugar II program. Emergency first responders in 120 cities across the United

States will be trained to respond to the potential use of weapons of mass destruction

(WMD). A new initiative in fiscal year 1998 is our plan to resource and employ the

Guard and Reserve in an integrated response to domestic terrorism incidents involving WMD. At the request of Secretary Cohen, I formed a Tiger Team of subject matter experts to identify the functional model, forces, funding, and direction required

to integrate the Guard and Reserve into WMD response. As a result of these efforts,

DOD is requesting $49.2 million in the fiscal year 1999 budget to begin preparations, including: fielding ten Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection elements; conducting various interagency exercises; and other initiatives. As the Secretary of Defense’s Executive Agent for this mission, we will establish a Consequence Management Program Integration Office to manage the effort, take the actions necessary

to implement the program in fiscal year 1999, and plan for future program initiatives.

The U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) is testing a program called the Reserve Associate

Support Program (RASP) which will attach USAR soldiers to Active Component

units upon completion of their initial entry training. After completing the remainder

of a two-year Active Duty for Training tour, the USAR soldiers are then returned

to their USAR unit. RASP will provide fully trained soldiers in critical skills to highpriority Active Component units and USAR Force Support Package units. A test of

RASP will commence with 100 soldiers this year, with the potential to expand to

4,000 soldiers if it is successful.

The USAR is also testing a Proof of Principle at three universities with Reserve

Officers Training Corps battalions. This program replaces Active Component officers

and NCO’s at the battalions with qualified drilling reservists from USAR Troop Program Units. This initiative is intended to maintain effective ROTC instruction while

providing potential personnel efficiencies to be reinvested in the Active Component

force structure.

These are just a sampling of the 31 initiatives currently underway to enhance the

integration of the Total Force. The recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review

and subsequent effort by the National Defense Panel have each included several recommendations to strengthen the Total Force. Each effort has reinforced the need

for all components of the Total Force to work together in an atmosphere of mutual

trust. The foundation of our approach to future operations must rely on Total Army

solutions that make the best and most appropriate use of each component’s individuals and organizations. We are fully committed to the Secretary of Defense’s four

principles on Total Force Integration to ensure that each component is properly

resourced, structured, and utilized to best support the National Military Strategy.

Those principles are:

—Clearly understood responsibility for and ownership of the Total Force by the

senior leaders throughout the Total Force.

—Clear and mutual understanding on the mission of each unit—Active, Guard,

and Reserve—in service and joint/combined operations, during peace and war.

—Commitment to provide the resources needed to accomplish assigned missions.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
836

—Leadership by senior commanders—Active, Guard, and Reserve—to ensure the

readiness of the Total Force.

While much has been done to achieve integration, much more needs to be done

in the area of assigning relevant missions to all units. The Army senior leadership

will work closely with the leadership of the Army Reserve and the Adjutants General to ensure that units are assigned realistic and relevant missions in support of

the National Military Strategy.

With your support, we have made significant progress in many areas, which has

resulted in enhancing the capabilities of the Reserve Component. Over time, as the

Army has increasingly called upon the Reserve Component for support, its share of

the Army budget has increased. Over $21 billion has been invested in modernization, including cascading equipment, for Reserve Component forces in the last six

years. Today, the Reserve Component’s share of Army operations and support is the

highest it has been since 1962.

We are fully committed to Secretary Cohen’s four principles for Total Force Integration. A seamless Total Army is absolutely necessary to meet the Nation’s requirement for forces that are effective, efficient, and strategically relevant in today’s security environment.

SUMMARY

As America’s Army shapes and responds to the world today and prepares for an

uncertain future, it will confront many challenges. In the new century, the Army

must remain actively engaged, while continuing to change to meet the challenges

of an ambiguous world. Balancing readiness, modernization, and quality of life while

continuing to meet the needs of the Nation poses the greatest challenge to Army

leaders today.

The Total Army is going forward together—one team of Active, National Guard,

and Army Reserve soldiers and civilians—committed to the idea of one fight—an integrated joint force working in concert to provide for the common defense—and

working together for one future—a secure America in a safe and prosperous world.

To meet all these challenges, the Army must stay focused on some guiding principles that will serve us well today and prepare us for tomorrow.

First, we must always keep our focus on people. Soldiers are what make the Army

work. So, soldiers must take care of themselves, take care of their soldiers, and take

care of their families. In return, the Nation must take care of her soldiers. The

American Army will only be as good as its people. Today, America is asking a great

deal from the Total Army team. So, Army leaders at all levels must always make

decisions with people foremost in mind.

Second, America’s Army must always be strategically relevant to the needs of the

Nation. It must continue to be trained and ready to fight and win the Nation’s wars

while helping to prevent conflicts, shaping the international environment, promoting

our national interests abroad, and influencing democratic values around the globe.

Third, we must modernize the Army now for the 21st century. Warfare in the information age requires new weapons, new doctrine, organization, and training. Our

modernization program will focus investments on securing the capabilities needed

to evolve today’s Army into Army XXI and the Army After Next. We are committed

to providing the soldier—our most precious resource—with the best chance to prevail quickly and with minimum casualties on the battlefields of today and tomorrow.

Fourth, the Army must always be a disciplined force where men and women from

all races, religions, and backgrounds serve together with dignity and respect. We

must be an Army of soldiers and civilians who exemplify the values and character

of the Nation. An Army of citizens who are also soldiers, but first and always Americans.

Fifth, our Army must be a Total Force where each component—the Active force,

Army National Guard, and Army Reserve—contributes to a seamless team. Our

leaders must work together and trust each other and seek to understand the

strengths that each component provides the Nation. Together, we must tirelessly

work to leverage the capabilities of all the components into one Total Force for

America.

Sixth, our Army must be a full partner in the Nation’s joint military force. A combined team where each service provides complementary capabilities in support of

the National Military Strategy.

As the Acting Secretary of the Army, I assure you that the Army senior leadership is committed to following these principles as we lead the Army into the 21st

century. Leadership, of course, is the key to achieving our goals. Our leaders must,

and will, lead. We will take care of people, ensuring that their needs are met. We

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
837

will embrace and promote innovation while continuing to maintain the warrior ethic

and the culture and traditions of our Army.

Training will become even more important as we transition to Information Age

warfare and deal with the threats, challenges, and uncertainties of an increasingly

ambiguous world. We must continue to train to standard, concentrating on

warfighting skills, while preparing soldiers and units for operations across the spectrum of conflict.

Managing the Army’s budget is another key to achieving our goals. While the fiscal year 1999 budget is sound, we must continue to balance our resources to meet

today’s challenges while preparing for tomorrow’s. The Nation demands that we be

good stewards of the limited resources we are provided. We are committed to carefully determining requirements and reengineering our organizations and processes

to achieve the savings necessary to finance future needs. As Secretary Cohen has

said, a revolution in business affairs is necessary and will lead to a more efficient

Army, focused on our core military competencies, and operating with reduced overhead and support costs.

The Army has made every effort to be as efficient and as effective as possible. We

have programmed $10.5 billion in efficiencies over the Future Years Defense Program, with $1.3 billion of that programmed in fiscal year 1999. This approach assumes a degree of risk, which we will carefully manage.

CONCLUSION

Strategically relevant and cost effective at less than 25 percent of the Department

of Defense budget, the Army is America’s force of decision. The fiscal year 1999

budget reflects the Army’s commitment to our Nation. Our soldiers are proud to

carry out that commitment, which began even before we were a Nation and has led

America to a position as the dominant leader of the community of nations. As an

Army, we thank this committee for your support in the past and look to you for continued wisdom, guidance, and support as we fulfill our commitment to the Nation.

With America’s sons and daughters always at the forefront of our efforts, I am confident that we will make the decisions today that will enable continued success tomorrow.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

General Reimer.

STATEMENT OF GEN. DENNIS J. REIMER

General REIMER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the

committee, I am delighted to be here and appear before this committee. I have a prepared statement which I would ask be included

for the record, and I would just like to make a few remarks.

First of all, I am delighted to be able to represent all the soldiers,

the active and Reserve component soldiers, in the U.S. Army, and

on behalf of them, I say thank you for your efforts in getting the

supplemental for us in 1998. That has made a big difference. You

have led the charge in this particular area, and I am deeply appreciative, as are they.

I would like to talk a little bit about the 1999 budget and put

it in perspective of the overall Army plan. If you go back to 1991

to 1997, that was a drawdown period for the Army. We took out

over 600,000 people, active and Reserve component soldiers and

Army civilians, and we closed over 700 bases worldwide, and in

doing that, we carried a risk in future readiness. We used the modernization account to help take care of our people. That was the

right thing to do, and we knew that at the end of that drawdown

period we had to move more money into the modernization account.

The 1998 budget, which you have appropriated and is out in the

field now, reflects the transition year, and the 1999 budget, which

we have submitted to you, continues that change. It continues the

change that Senator Inouye talked about, a very fundamental

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
838

change to the U.S. Army, but at the same time, it allows us to keep

units trained and ready.

I want to talk a little bit about the specifics of that particular

budget. That budget increases the investment account from 21 percent in 1998 to 22 percent. It keeps our major programs, the Comanche and the Crusader, on track. Those are really the only new

programs that we have. It keeps the effort in digitization, which

leads us to a new organization, on track, and so it really reflects

what I was talking about in terms of modernizing for the future.

It retains a balance between near and future readiness.

I have been involved with the Army budget process—as either

the Vice Chief of Staff, the Forces Command Commander, or now,

as the Chief of Staff—since 1991. This is the most finely balanced

budget that we have submitted. It really reflects our efforts to

move money from current readiness to future readiness, and that

is pretty difficult when you are facing 15 years of declining buying

power.

There is no magic about it. We have relied heavily on efficiencies,

and we have taken some force structure end strength cuts in order

to do that. That is the only way we had of making sure that we

brought the modernization account up and allowing us to address

that window of vulnerability that we think we will experience in

the 21st century if we do not do that.

This budget, I think, also reflects the Total Army perspective.

Fifty-four percent of the U.S. Army is in the Reserve component.

The percentage of total obligation authority [TOA] going to the Reserve component in 1999 is 3 percent higher than it was in 1989

as a percentage of Army TOA.

Now, I would also tell you that it is higher than what you appropriated in 1998. We did the best we could, but at the same time

the Reserve components will tell you that they have 962 million

dollars’ worth of unfunded requirements, and that is true, but

again, as I said, it is a very finely balanced budget.

The budget allows us to continue the momentum of change. We

have programmed a digitized division by 2000. That is the division

at Fort Hood that has gone through the advanced war-fighting experiment. That is on track. That will lead to a new corps by 2004.

The Army after next wargame that we conduct at Carlisle each

year has become more robust, and it helped drive science technology investment, our research, development, and acquisition

[RDA] program, and I think it is really doing what we wanted it

to do.

While the Army will fundamentally change from the cold war

Army in the 1980’s to a different type of Army in the 21st century,

one thing that will not change are those quality soldiers we have.

We owe them a predictable and adequate quality of life, and that

is what we have asked in this particular budget.

We emphasize four things which have been our priorities from

the very start: adequate pay for them, adequate medical benefits,

decent housing, and a retirement and benefits system that is solid

and does not keep getting eroded over time.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
839

PREPARED STATEMENT

And on their behalf, let me say thank you for your support—your

support that you show with your appropriations and also your support with your visits. I know members of this committee who traveled through six different countries in 4 or 5 days, and you visited

our soldiers, and I can just tell you that means an awful lot to

them.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee, for your support. I look forward to your questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEN. DENNIS J. REIMER

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to

speak to you about America’s Army and the magnificent soldiers who proudly serve

our Nation.

PATH TO THE FUTURE

The best way to understand the state of today’s Army is to envision our path to

the future. This path is marked by signposts corresponding to the three pillars of

our national military strategy: respond, shape, and prepare. To be ready to ‘‘respond,’’ we focus on ensuring near-term readiness so that our forces are ready to

react to requirements worldwide. We also ‘‘shape’’ the global environment, increasing international understanding and cooperation, diminishing threats, and securing

America’s place in a free and prosperous world. Finally, we ‘‘prepare’’ for the future,

transforming the Army so that our soldiers will be ready for the national security

tasks the Nation will face in the next century. In my testimony, I will address our

progress in each of these areas. The assessment I offer today is cautiously optimistic. I am convinced today’s Army is trained and ready. I am equally optimistic about

the course we have laid out for the future. However, we do not live in a risk-free

environment and in order to balance all the pillars of the National Military Strategy

we have to take risks. I believe these risks to be prudent. With continued congressional support, I am confident that when America’s soldiers are needed, they will

always be there.

A STARTING POINT

Every path has a beginning. The Army’s path to success starts with the support

of the American people represented by your concern and commitment. I want to personally thank you for your continued support to the American soldier. Coincidentally, exactly 200 years ago we faced a series of difficult decisions not too unlike

those we see today. Our new republic was in an era of transition, facing a future

filled with ambiguity, potential problems, and unprecedented opportunities. The

Spring of 1798 saw new and unexpected threats. President John Adams could not

see the future, but he knew that Americans lived in a dangerous world, and he understood well the cost of unpreparedness. The President turned to Congress for support in strengthening the armed forces, and congressional leaders responded to the

call. They reestablished the United States Marine Corps under the newly created

Navy Department, added companies to the Army’s regular regiments, and enhanced

the federal government’s ability to call on the militia to supplement national defense. These were difficult decisions made for the common good, putting the needs

of the new nation above regional issues and a thousand other concerns. Two centuries later, our nation’s leaders are no less vigilant. Our country has a remarkable

history, a powerful legacy of commitment to the common defense. Many of you have

recently traveled around the world, meeting, talking, and listening to America’s soldiers. They were deeply appreciative of your concern and interest. On behalf of all

of them—men and women of the Active force, the Army National Guard, and the

United States Army Reserve—I want to offer you their sincere appreciation and

thanks.

A TURNING POINT

There is no question that since the end of the Cold War, the Army has undergone

an unprecedented transition. Today, we are at the turning point in creating a very

different army. We have become a globally engaged force, handling a broad range

of military missions. The need for land power during peacetime is greater than ever.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
840

The Army has participated in 28 of the 32 major post-Cold War deployments by U.S.

forces, providing over 60 percent of the personnel involved in those operations. In

1997, on average, the Army deployed about 31,000 Active, Reserve and National

Guard soldiers away from their home stations and families, spread across 70 countries around the world. Backing them up were approximately another 62,000 men

and women preparing to deploy, deploying, or recovering from operations. During

the year, a significant portion of the Army’s soldiers were on the move, supporting

active operational commitments, while others were training and preparing for the

full spectrum of military operations, from conventional combat to teaching chemical

and biological detection and defense to civilian agencies. The requirements of America’s post-Cold War defense have made the U.S. Army busier than ever.

All of the activity of the past few years has taken place in conjunction with one

of the most significant force reductions in our Nation’s history. We have taken more

than 630,000 active and reserve component soldiers and civilian employees out of

the force. We have closed over 700 bases. In Europe, for example, we reduced the

force from over 215,000 soldiers to about 65,000. The total drawdown in Europe

would be equivalent to closing 12 major installations in the United States. While

these reductions took place, the number of Army deployments has increased by

more than 300 percent. Despite the magnitude of our efforts and the everyday pressures and stresses on the force, our soldiers continue to perform magnificently. They

have the willingness to take prudent risk, the boldness to seize the initiative, and

the professionalism to do their absolute best—trademarks of the American Army for

223 years.

As you do, I recognize that the service of our soldiers has not come without cost.

We are not perfect. Many are concerned whether the Army can maintain the tremendous progress we have made since the end of the Cold War. Some worry that

a ‘‘zero defects’’ mentality might resurrect itself and that opportunities for assignments and promotion will diminish. Others fear a return to what some refer to as

‘‘the hollow army,’’ where requirements far outstripped resources. Some are concerned that the high pace of operations will detract from training to the point that

units will lose their warfighting edge. These concerns are understandable and bear

watching because they highlight an important constant that we can never compromise—at its core, the Army is about taking care of people—because they are and

always will be our greatest asset. In my remarks, I will address what we are doing

and what needs to be done to ensure our soldiers are prepared to go in harm’s way

today and at every point along the path to the future.

RESPONDING TO OUR NATION’S NEEDS—ENSURING READINESS THROUGH RECRUITING,

RETENTION, AND REALISTIC TRAINING

Responding to the needs of Americans at home and abroad has always been a

tenet of our military strategy and the Army’s time-honored task. Every American

who has watched an Army National Guard truck deliver a load of sand bags to help

shore-up a levy holding back a raging flood, or an Army convoy plow through an

ice storm to deliver lifesaving supplies, understands what we mean by the ‘‘respond’’

pillar of the national military strategy. In like manner, people across the earth—

from a Korean War veteran in Yongsan to an impressionable young Hungarian

meeting his first American at the Army headquarters in Kaposvar—have experienced first hand the meaning of the presence of U.S. ground forces and America’s

resolve in responding to crisis worldwide.

Recruiting

Supporting the ‘‘respond’’ pillar of the national military strategy requires above

all else, a trained and ready force. Meeting this responsibility starts with recruiting

high quality soldiers. The Army continues to enjoy success in attracting and retaining high quality recruits, but enticing young people to serve, in the numbers that

we need, is becoming increasingly difficult. As you know, history shows that the difficulty of recruiting increases as the jobless rate declines, and unemployment figures

have been at their lowest point in a decade. Nevertheless, the Army is blessed with

an outstanding corps of professional recruiters who have done a tremendous job of

bringing young men and women into the force. We fully expect to accomplish our

recruiting mission this year. The importance of this mission continues to increase

as the drawdown concludes and we begin to replace losses on a one-for-one basis.

The Army’s recruiting effort in the next few years is crucial to maintaining readiness. In particular, we have placed increased emphasis on recruiting in critical combat military occupational specialties. This should give commanders confidence that

they will continue to have high quality soldiers, in sufficient numbers, to fill their

ranks.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
841

Every soldier who joins the Army is an important and a valued member of the

team. As you know, in the recent Secretary of the Army’s Senior Review Panel Report and the Report of the Inspector General, the Army took a hard look at what

needs to be done to ensure each recruit is treated with proper dignity and respect.

This work resulted in the Army’s Human Relations Action Plan. The plan fully recognizes that initial entry training (IET) is a critical step in the ‘‘soldierization’’ process, and we are aggressively implementing the recommendations of both reports. We

are expanding Basic Combat Training (BCT) by a week to ensure every recruit is

thoroughly grounded in Army values, teamwork, and discipline. The changes we are

making in the training base are not about lowering standards. In fact, we are working to make IET even more challenging and physically demanding, ensuring we

produce highly motivated, confident young men and women graduates.

At the direction of the Secretary of Defense, we have reviewed the report by the

Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues (the

Kassebaum-Baker Report). Many of the committee report’s findings mirror the conclusions in the Secretary of the Army’s Senior Review Panel and the Report of the

Inspector General. These concerns are being addressed by the initiatives outlined

in the Army’s Human Relations Action Plan. The committee also makes additional

recommendations that we carefully considered. I can assure you my response to the

Secretary of Defense focused on three objectives: (1) enforcing the highest standards

in discipline and training; (2) ensuring every soldier lives and trains in a safe and

secure environment where they are treated with dignity and respect; and (3) building the cohesion, confidence, and teamwork that will prepare soldiers for success in

their units. We are committed to following an approach to training that will provide

the most efficient and effective military force, while realizing the full potential of

the young Americans who serve our country.

Retention

Ensuring the Army’s near-term readiness and America’s ability to respond to any

crisis worldwide also requires retaining the world’s best soldiers. The increased frequency of deployments combined with concerns over inadequate pay for our enlisted

personnel, benefits, health care, and retirement have the potential to increase uncertainty and adversely affect retention. I think the very high reenlistment rates

among units that have conducted the most frequent operational deployments under

harsh and dangerous conditions say a lot about the professionalism of American soldiers. Our men and women know that they are well trained. They have the tools

to put that training into practice. Most important, they believe their effort and sacrifice is making a difference, saving lives, protecting property, and contributing to

freedom and prosperity in places where these words had no meaning until an American soldier stood behind them. Our soldiers sacrifice a great deal to serve their

country. It is our obligation to provide them and their families with fair and adequate pay, quality medical care, safe and affordable housing, and stable retirement

benefits. Maintaining a high quality of life for both married and single soldiers remains a top priority for the Army.

Realistic Training

Near-term readiness is also about providing realistic and relevant training. The

Army’s senior leadership has an obligation to give leaders and soldiers a reasonable

expectation that they’ll have the time and resources they need to train. ‘‘Slowing

down the train’’ is an important part of this effort. More training is not always better training. I do not think we can do more with less—but we must get more out

of what we have got. Fewer and higher quality training events are more important

than ensuring every moment on the training schedule is chock full of activity. For

starters, as you know the Joint Chiefs of Staff have committed to reducing joint

training and exercise requirements by 25 percent. This reduction is designed to

eliminate the least effective training events and should help to reduce the burden

on commanders who, all too frequently, meet themselves coming and going, racing

from one training exercise to the next.

We are also fine-tuning the Army’s training programs. In the coming year we will

relook how we train at the Combat Training Centers (CTC’s). The CTC’s remain the

‘‘crown jewels’’ of our training system, and we need to begin to look at expanding

their role in training for the asymmetrical threats we anticipate our soldiers will

face in the years ahead. This training will not dilute or detract from our warfighting

focus, but it will place additional emphasis on emerging threats, such as urban combat, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the greater intermingling

of combatants and noncombatants on the battlefield. The sophistication of the CTC’s

has increased by ‘‘an order of magnitude’’ since the end of the Cold War, but continues to be focused on tough, realistic high intensity combat. Our efforts at the CTC’s

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
842

will be paired with an increased, more cost effective and balanced use of live training, distance learning and simulations at home station. We have made tremendous

gains in learning how to mix new training technologies with traditional field training. As a result of this effort, I think we will be adequately positioned to provide

a support base for realistic, relevant training in the years ahead.

Realistic, relevant training remains the glue holding the force together. If I have

one concern, it is that commanders at major commands and installations who face

tighter budgets and diminished resources have fewer and fewer options in managing

the assets at their command. We need to empower these creative, innovative, and

highly competent leaders. In that light, we are looking at programmatic solutions

and the potential of proposing revisions to legislation to provide commanders some

relief and flexibility in how they structure and support their missions. I ask for your

consideration and support with these efforts.

Responding to the diverse and often unforeseen mission requirements of the postCold War world requires disciplined, well-trained and ready forces. I believe the

steps I have outlined here will ensure that we will continue to have those forces

as we walk the path to the future.

SHAPING THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT—WITH TOTAL ARMY SOLUTIONS

In recent years, the Army’s shaping responsibilities have become the most demanding aspect of our mission. The Army has truly become America’s premier shaping force—from our forward-presence forces in Korea and Europe; to stability operations in Bosnia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Haiti, Ecuador, Peru

and the Sinai; to international programs, such as the Partnership for Peace exercises and military-to-military contacts with friends and allies around the world. In

addition, visits with my counterparts in Asia, South America, and Central Europe

lead me to believe strongly that there is more the Army could and should do, particularly as part of an interagency approach, to promote regional stability, provide

strategic early warning of global change, and mitigate threats before they become

acute. The Army’s utility in the post-Cold War world is vast, and we are being increasingly called upon to work with the other instruments of national power to help

shape the international environment.

Managing the high operational and personnel tempo required to sustain our efforts represents one of the most significant challenges we will face in the year

ahead. Ongoing stability operations in Bosnia are a case in point. Recognizing the

need for an extended commitment in this region, we are now looking at ways to

avoid consecutive tours. Our soldiers remain committed to the mission and are

proud of the fact that they have saved thousands of lives and mitigated human suffering thorough their efforts. We are, however, beginning to see soldiers conducting

‘‘back to back’’ deployments. To lessen the burden of high tempo operations, we must

develop new, creative operational and personnel policies specifically tailored to recognize the reality of conducting business in the post-Cold War world.

The foundation of our approach to future operations must rely on Total Army solutions that make the best and most appropriate use of a mix of active, United

States Army Reserve, and Army National Guard soldiers. As you know, 54 percent

of the Army’s force structure is in the Guard and Reserve. Recent experience clearly

demonstrates that any significant deployment requires a robust mix of component

capabilities. About one-quarter of our force in Bosnia, for example, consists of soldiers from the Army National Guard and United States Army Reserve, while other

soldiers from the reserve components have deployed to Europe to ‘‘backfill’’ active

duty soldiers serving in the Stabilization Force. Providing sustained support to

shaping activities across the globe, while continuing to meet the requirements of the

other two pillars of the national military strategy, requires Total Army solutions.

We are using the four principles outlined by the Secretary of Defense in his recent

letter on Total Force Integration to focus our efforts on ensuring that each component is properly resourced, structured, and assigned missions to support our Nation’s strategy. Let me briefly outline here the principles and some of the key initiatives we have undertaken.

The first principle highlights responsibility. We recognize that responsibility for

the Total Army can only be taken through energetic leadership and effective communications. The Army has moved to improve communications. Our Reserve Component Chiefs presented their budget issues personally to the Defense Resources

Board during the fiscal year 1999 budget preparation process. They are more frequently and routinely in my office and others to ensure there are no filters. I have

had several meetings in small groups of state Adjutant Generals. The Secretary of

the Army has established an Army Forum on Integration of the Reserve and Active

Components to ensure Army leadership involvement in Total Army integration

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
843

issues. The Secretary has placed renewed emphasis on our Army Reserve Forces

Policy Committee, composed of Active, Guard, and Reserve general officers. The Vice

Chief of Staff has reenergized the Reserve Component Coordination Council to address tough policy and resourcing issues.

The second principle outlined by the Secretary of Defense relates to the relevance

of missions. This principle recognizes the importance of establishing clear and mutually understood missions for each unit. We believe missioning all units is essential

because it establishes the purpose and relevancy of the force. Currently, the Army

is converting up to 12 combat brigades of Army National Guard structure to meet

the combat support and combat service support requirements identified in the National Military Strategy. There is, however, much more work to be done in the area

of assigning relevant missions. Currently, there are eight Army National Guard

combat divisions and three separate brigades that have no defined operational mission in the Defense Planning Guidance. Nevertheless, the Army needs these forces

to help meet its worldwide commitments for shaping the conditions that will enhance America’s global interests and responding to the threats that endanger our

peace and security. Our task is to define the role of these forces and embed their

missions clearly in the defense planning guidance. An implied task is to gain consensus in the Department of Defense and with Congress that recognizes the need

to resource these missions.

One option for enhancing the utility of Reserve Component forces might be to create ‘‘dual-capable’’ units that have the potential to perform traditional combat missions but can also meet a range of requirements. In this area, we are looking at

a number of innovative concepts. These concepts range from forming multi-component units that could augment or replace other forces, to giving new missions to the

reserve components that they could assume within their existing force structure.

One of the most important areas for potential ‘‘collateral’’ missions is the area of

homeland defense. These missions could include responsibilities for National Missile

Defense, protection of critical infrastructure, and response to domestic emergencies,

including the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Another potential area of emerging requirements is earmarking commands as ‘‘bridging forces’’ for

working with our friends and allies around the world. These forces would serve as

important links to facilitate combined and multinational operations. They could

form habitual training relationships with allied nations. Training would put special

emphasis on the linguistic and liaison capabilities that facilitate multinational operations.

The Army senior leaders must work closely with the Army Reserve leadership, the

National Guard Bureau, and the Adjutant Generals to explore these new requirements and initiatives, realistically defining what can and should be done. Our objective must be to get the greatest utility out of every element of the force. At the same

time, our goal should be to add predictability and stability to the force. Rapid and

unplanned force structure changes place additional stresses on the force, complicating not only resourcing decisions, but long-term professional development of officers

and soldiers. Where possible, we must make smart decisions that minimize turmoil

while providing the most effective and responsive force possible. This is an achievable goal, but only if we make a concerted effort to complete the missioning process.

The Secretary’s third principle recognizes the importance of training, maintaining,

and modernizing all the components of the force. In the last few years, the Army,

with congressional support, has made significant progress in creating an integrated

approach to enhancing the capabilities of the Army National Guard and the United

States Army Reserve. New initiatives continue to be developed. The Reserve Associate Support Program, for example, will provide enhanced training for United States

Army Reserve soldiers and enhanced readiness for Reserve combat support and

combat service support units. After individual entry training, soldiers are attached

to an Active Army combat support or combat service support unit for 24 months of

active duty. These soldiers then return to their United States Army Reserve unit

experienced and fully trained. The Army has approved a pilot program to test the

feasibility of the concept. Another significant initiative is the development of the Integrated Division. Over the next year, the Army will create two integrated divisions,

placing three Enhanced Separate Brigades under a headquarters commanded by an

active duty major general. Upon mobilization, the brigades would deploy as separate

forces while the headquarters serves as a center for training follow-on forces.

The Secretary’s fourth principle emphasizes that Total Force integration programs

must culminate with a commitment to resource forces adequately to accomplish

their assigned missions. Despite the Army’s declining share of the Department of

Defense budget, the Reserve Component’s share of the Army budget has risen commensurately with their increased use. The Reserve Component’s share as a percentage of the Army’s budget is the highest it has been since 1962. In addition, over

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
844

the last six years the Army has invested an unprecedented $21.5 billion in modernizing Reserve Component forces, including cascading equipment. In the future,

more can be done to ensure the efficient and appropriate distribution of resources.

For example, we are expanding Reserve Component participation in Total Army

Analysis (TAA) process, using their expertise to help validate Army warfighting requirements and allocate resources within the Army’s budget.

We have also reviewed the successful integration of both the Air Force and the

United States Marine Corps. We think there are opportunities for the Army to use

the underlying principles of these models. Using them, we are currently refining

concepts that provide for even greater integration of the Active, National Guard and

Reserve soldiers with emphasis on rounding out units up to the company level. At

that level, soldiers and leaders focus on a single system and the challenges of integration are the most manageable.

We are fully committed to managing the Total Army in accordance with the Secretary of Defense’s four principles for force integration. We believe that the result

will be Total Army solutions that allow the U.S. Army to conduct prolonged, responsive shaping operations today, tomorrow, and into the next century.

PREPARING FOR THE CHALLENGES AHEAD—EXPERIMENTING WITH THE FORCE,

READYING THE LEADERS, REENGINEERING THE INFRASTRUCTURE

As you know, the Army has been preparing for the future through our Force XXI

process. The process is designed to spearhead the development of Army XXI, a product-improved force that will see the Army into the next century. Army XXI is primarily concerned with enhancing our current systems with information age technology. In addition, Force XXI is directing our explorations into the Army After

Next (AAN). AAN is a future force designed specifically to meet the national security requirements of the 21st century. It will most probably include organizations

and systems which do not yet exist. The objective of Force XXI is to synchronize

modern equipment, quality people, doctrine, force mix, training, and leader and soldier development—the six Army imperatives—ensuring that the United States

Army can conduct a variety of missions in diverse environments, from today until

well into the next century.

The centerpiece of the Force XXI process has been a series of Advanced

Warfighting Experiments (AWE’s) designed to test new systems and operational

concepts. In the last year, we conducted two pivotal experiments: the Task Force

XXI AWE at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, and the Division

AWE at Fort Hood, Texas. These experiments have provided a range of insights into

future force design. In particular, they validated the importance of ‘‘spiral development,’’ synchronizing the evolution of new systems with organizational, training,

leader, soldier, and doctrinal developments. The experiments also reaffirmed the importance of situational awareness and information dominance provided by new technologies. As a result of the AWE’s, I am convinced more than ever that developing

and fielding digitized divisions and a digitized corps is both feasible and absolutely

essential for providing the competent, capable forces we will need in the future. But,

the AWE’s are more than just technology. They are about spearheading the cultural

and institutional change that will prepare the force mentally for the challenges of

the next century.

Through the lessons learned from Task Force XXI and Division AWE experimentation and wargaming, we will develop the insights we need in order to make the

programmatic decisions to carry us through the year 2005 timeframe. This year we

will invest considerable effort in fine tuning our modernization programs for the

decade ahead. In particular, we must make sure we have in place the backbone of

systems we need to conduct information based operations. We must also focus our

Research and Development efforts and pinpoint potential AAN capabilities that can

be brought forward and developed now. We cannot yet clearly define the timeline

for fielding an AAN force, but it is time to think about taking AAN initiatives out

of the theoretical stage and begin looking at potential applications. In particular, future experimentation will focus on the capabilities of light forces and increased joint

experimentation. We continue to work closely with the United States Marine Corps

on the development of land warfare. Recently, the Air Force and the Army have

agreed to begin planning on a cooperative warfighting experiment, which I hope will

serve as the precursor for a truly joint experimentation program that will inform

and energize a fully integrated joint modernization process.

In addition to the tremendous progress we have made in experimentation, this

year marks a significant development in our Force XXI leader development programs. The Officer Personnel Management System (OPMS) XXI and the new Officer

Efficiency Report (OER) are important components of our future-oriented programs.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
845

Though these are officer programs, they are intended as a start point for institutionalizing leader programs for the 21st century across the Army. OPMS XXI restructures how active duty officers will be managed, developed, and promoted over

a career of service. The changes it introduces are significant. The new system will

not only open new opportunities for advancement, command and education, but will

better serve the Army’s demanding and diverse needs for officer leadership in the

21st century. We developed OPMS XXI hand-in-hand with the revision of the OER

system. The new report places special emphasis on ethical attributes and the ability

to share and instill those qualities in subordinates. These initiatives, in conjunction

with our other Force XXI efforts, are important steps in growing the soldiers and

leaders of the next century.

While we continue our Force XXI process, we are reviewing the findings of the

recently completed work of the National Defense Panel (NDP). The panel’s report

has far reaching implications that deserve to be discussed and considered. On the

whole, I find the report’s findings as a vote of confidence for the path we are on

and see nothing that leads me to believe we should significantly alter our path. We

must take a prudent course; each pillar in our national strategy carries great importance. We would be ill-advised to assume undue risk in one area for the sake of

speeding developments in another. A balanced approach to the future—responding

to and deterring threats when they present themselves, shaping the strategic environment to mitigate potential sources of instability before they become acute, and

preparing in a disciplined, deliberate manner for the challenges we know we will

face ahead—remains our best hope for ensuring Americans peace and prosperity

from today to tomorrow.

One finding of the NDP report with which I fully agree is the recommendation

to eliminate excess infrastructure. I fully recognize that this is a contentious and

controversial issue. Yet, I believe it is one that we as a Nation must address. As

you know, the Army has made every effort to be as efficient and effective as possible. The Army has programmed approximately $10.5 billion in efficiencies over the

Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). While we have assumed a degree of risk

through the aggressive pursuit of efficiencies, we believe the risk is known, balanced, and manageable. I am concerned, however, that these efficiencies alone will

not be enough to balance readiness and modernization in the out years. Reducing

excess infrastructure and increasing our flexibility in directing resources and management reform is the surest, most efficient means for improving the value of America’s investment in defense.

THE STRATEGIC BALANCE—REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES

The Army is not only an invaluable strategic force, it is also cost effective, accounting for less than 25 percent of the Department of Defense budget. We are justifiably proud of the return we provide for the American citizen’s investment. Yet

as I testified last year, we remain a force under stress. The greatest potential threat

to Army readiness is the medium- and long-term impact of an increased operational

pace and insufficient modernization funding. By failing to modernize and update our

equipment, we put tomorrow’s soldiers at risk. I cannot overestimate the risk we

take by failing to modernize. The continued threat of weapons proliferation can

allow even no-tech nations to field high-tech armies in the flash of an arms deal.

Though no nation may be capable of fielding a force that can compete with the

United States in a conventional war, any nation can develop a ‘‘niche’’ capability

that will cost American lives in a future conflict. At the same time, sacrificing force

structure and undercutting quality of life programs are equally unacceptable. Our

requirement for ground forces to shape and respond will not diminish. In fact, the

changing international environment will probably increase the requirement for the

sustained forward presence of our forces and enhanced power projection capabilities.

Any option other than maintaining the balance between current readiness and prudent modernization places our ability to effectively implement the national military

strategy at undue risk.

As you are aware, as requirements for shaping and responding have expanded in

the post-Cold War years, the Army has relied on modernization accounts as the primary bill payer. In fiscal year 1998, Army procurement reached its lowest level

since 1960. Quadrennial Defense Review personnel reductions, savings from better

business practices, and congressional supplemental appropriations have off-set

somewhat the drain on Army modernization, but these initiatives alone are not sufficient to mitigate the risk that the Army will be unprepared for the national security challenges of the future. The proposed fiscal year 1999 Army budget only begins

to bring our requirements back into balance. The fiscal year 1999 President’s Budget for the Army totals $64.3 billion. While this is a $3.3 billion increase over the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
846

fiscal year 1998 budget, it follows 13 years of decline (except for Desert Storm) in

real terms and reflects the continued decrease in the Army’s percentage of the Department of Defense’s budget from 27 percent in fiscal year 1989 to 24.9 percent

fiscal year 1999. Implementing the budget requires the Army to assume risk in certain areas and make tough choices to balance requirements and resources.

ONE TEAM, ONE FIGHT, ONE FUTURE—AMERICA’S SOLDIERS

Balancing priorities is never an easy task. Our first congressional leaders learned

that lesson well 200 years ago, and very little has changed. There are no easy answers, no silver bullets, no magic solutions. Inside the Army, we have done our best

to provide the right balance among readiness, endstrength, modernization, and quality of life. We are one team, United States Army Active, Reserve and National

Guard. We believe in one fight conducted by an integrated joint combat force in concert with other federal agencies—providing for the common defense. We are working

for one future: a better, more secure place for America in a safer and more prosperous world. At the heart of this commitment are American soldiers, prepared and

ready to serve whenever and wherever our nation calls. Supported by these exceptional men and women, we can and will face the tough choices ahead and make the

right decisions to safely travel down the path to the years ahead.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The U.S. Army Posture Statement, Fiscal Year 1999 can be

found on the Department’s website at http://www.army.mil.]

REPROGRAMMING REQUEST

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, General.

Mr. Secretary, what is this reprogramming you are going to give

us? Is this for 1998?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir; we have a reprogramming request pending

in the Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD] which is undergoing

OSD review now to ensure readiness funding for our divisions for

the rest of the year. In fact, all the services will be having an omnibus reprogramming presented sometime later in June.

Senator STEVENS. I thought we did that in the supplemental.

Mr. WALKER. That only took care of the Bosnia-related cost.

Senator STEVENS. All right. I think we all hear you in terms of

this request. We have a $1.9 billion request for 1999 on an emergency basis. It is very clear that that cannot be approved by the

House and I am not sure it will be approved over here in terms

of being offbudget, so that is going to exacerbate our problem, and

Mr. Cortese and I are just thinking about some of the things we

might do to try and deal with that issue. That is as I understand

it about an 80-percent outlay, very difficult to handle, to bring that

back onbudget.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, of that $1.9 billion, the Army share of that is approximately $1.4 billion. We cannot absorb that kind

of cost in 1999.

To put it into perspective, that is well over one-half of the ground

OPTEMPO training cost for the Army during the fiscal year. It

would be impossible to absorb, so I do not know how we can pay

for it any other way.

Senator STEVENS. When we get this bill to the floor it faces some

amendments that will require a mandatory phasedown in deployment, and I am sure when it gets to the House it will face an even

more difficult problem in terms of cutting off funds for being in

Bosnia altogether. It is a difficult thing to cross the bridge and

make it an emergency after 4 years.

I really do not know how we can deal with that, except we will

try to be as—I think the best thing is innovative as possible in

terms of trying to look at the outlays and to see if there are other

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
847

items in the bill that would be truly considered an emergency that

we might shift emergency designation there.

I want to confer with you on that.

Mr. WALKER. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Let me ask you——

Mr. WALKER. Senator, may I assure you that it will be an emergency for the Army come October 1.

Senator STEVENS. It will be an emergency if you have to take the

money out of other accounts, that is true.

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. However, you know, we got that in March, for

September being an emergency. It is a tough row to hoe.

YEAR 2000 PROBLEM

Where do you stand in terms of the Army on that, what we call

a year 2000 problem? It would seem to me that is a difficult thing

too. We are having a hearing here when we get back and we have

just allocated $2.25 billion to our special committee, and that is on

an emergency basis now. Are you affected by that, and what can

we look forward to? That has to be dealt with before December 31,

1999.

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir; we have estimated through the year 2000 over $330 million that we will be spending to deal with the year

2000 problem. It is a serious problem, and we have got to deal with

it. Particularly, we have to make sure that our critical systems are

taken care of. This is something that is carefully watched in the

Army. Both General Reimer and I meet with Lieutenant General

Campbell, our Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers, on a regular basis on this

issue, and it is carefully monitored at the Department of Defense.

There is a great expense and a great deal of work to be done.

There is a concern that is not just for the Army and the Department of Defense, but what are our allies doing as well. So the concern extends beyond the Federal Government and the United

States, but also those that we have to interoperate with and our

allies around the world.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I would hope that we would find some

way to cooperate between what you are doing and our special committee. We have had some briefings from some of the experts in the

area, and I am led to believe that some of the chips that were put

in the systems had kept capacity far beyond the system, because

it is less expensive to acquire chips that have an expanded capacity

than it is those that have just a very narrow capacity.

And if you are dealing with a system that had a series of models

and one was a super-duper model and the plain model, the plain

model has the same chip, and many people may not understand

that the functions on that chip are those that would be affected by

the year 2000 problem.

I hope that we have a way of interrogating those people who sold

us the equipment as to what type chip they used, and it is going

to be a very serious thing.

Mr. WALKER. We found a new aspect of it every week that had

not been considered. We just hope we find out all the aspects of it

before the year 2000 comes around.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
848

Senator STEVENS. Well, you could suddenly find out that the one

chip that makes the treads go on the tank is the one that is hidden

down there under the tank and no one knows it is there.

Mr. WALKER. Well, those critical systems are being very, very

carefully managed to make sure we do not have that problem.

BOSNIA

Senator STEVENS. Very well.

I am really worried about the Bosnia situation, gentlemen. We

were told by General Clark that the Army is going to be deployed

in Bosnia for several years, and we have obviously the statement

of the President. I was there at Christmastime, the same thing.

Do we have budgeting in here for the contracting support? Is this

$1.9 billion for the Army—what did you do about contracting support?

Mr. WALKER. It would include the Army’s share of the support

to the contractors that we have there, which provide the quality of

life support to the deployed soldiers.

Senator STEVENS. All right. Well, I appreciate it. I may have

some questions later, but let me go to Senator Cochran.

BUDGET REQUEST

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In looking over the statements that you submitted, I am encouraged first of all that the Army seems to have been able to obtain

approval for asking the Congress to appropriate an increased

amount of funding for this fiscal year compared with last, and this

is something new. We have been seeing cuts every year since 1985,

except for Desert Storm, so there is an increase in this budget request, and that is encouraging.

Mr. WALKER. We hope that trend continues, Senator.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Senator COCHRAN. I am curious also to see your upbeat appraisal

of recruiting at a time when some of the other services are telling

us that because of the operational tempo and other attractions of

civilian life compared with the military now that they are losing

highly skilled people. The Air Force is worried about having

enough pilots to fly the planes and perform the missions.

But you suggest in your statement, Mr. Secretary, that recruiting

has been doing well, more than 90 percent of the soldiers you recruited last year had high school diplomas, that you are not under

any real stress there.

Do you anticipate this continuing, or do you see any problems

with the prolonged deployments to places like Bosnia and elsewhere around the world and the operational tempo having a negative impact on future recruiting goals?

Mr. WALKER. Senator, let me say this about recruiting. If we had

been testifying this time last year, it would not have been as rosy.

But with the help of this committee, you helped us to increase allowances, bonuses, to increase the number of recruiters, and to

take other actions which turned our recruiting problem around,

and we were particularly having a problem which, if left

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
849

unaddressed, would have led to a readiness problem in terms of the

number of unfilled squads, particularly in infantry and armor, that

we have turned around, and we are now recruiting larger numbers

of both infantry and armor. So we believe the recruiting aspect of

it, with the help of this committee, is going in the right direction.

With regard to retention, the Chief and I were just looking at the

figures. It is coming in at 104 percent of our goals. When we look

at the 1st Armored Division and those divisions that have been deployed to Bosnia, we are surprised to find numbers of 120 and 130

percent. It appears that currently soldiers like doing their job.

What we do not know is, how many times can you keep asking,

particularly families, to undergo the stress of multiple deployments? We do not know the answer to that yet, but we have the

same concerns that you suggest in your question.

NATIONAL GUARD INTEGRATION

Senator COCHRAN. There is another question I would like to hear

your reaction as well as General Reimer’s, and that is on the plan

to redesign the National Guard and integrate them into the Total

Army concept. I understand that is undergoing some changes, and

that some plans are being made to transform some of these combat

troops to support units.

Tell me what you are planning to do with the funds that are

made available in this budget in that regard, and have you been

able to develop support among the National Guard Adjutants General [TAG’s], for example, and bring them along with this program,

or are we looking for a collision that is about to happen?

Mr. WALKER. With regard to the specific issue that you bring up,

there was for the first time unanimous support of the 54 TAG’s for

that approach. What we are doing are converting 12 combat brigades to combat support and combat service support, which will

help us reduce a significant longstanding shortfall that we had in

combat support and combat service support. That is on track. I will

provide you for the record the amount of money that is in this

budget and how much is in the POM for that redesign, but that

is one of over 30 initiatives that are underway that are being reviewed both in the Active Army and the Guard and Reserve.

[The information follows:]

NATIONAL GUARD REDESIGN

In the President’s budget for fiscal year 1999, $87 million is programmed for the

Army National Guard Redesign Study (ADRS).

As of the President’s budget submission, the Future Years Defense Plan contained

the following funding for ADRS equipping and training:

In millions

Fiscal year:

1999 .................................................................................................................. $87

2000 .................................................................................................................. 114.4

2001 .................................................................................................................. 145.6

2002 .................................................................................................................. 180.6

2003 .................................................................................................................. 366.3

Total ............................................................................................................. 893.9

Of the total, $843.9 million is programmed for equipment, and $50 million is programmed for training.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
850

As we continue to assess and validate the ADRS, requirements are subject to

change.

General REIMER. May I just say, Senator, there are a number of

initiatives that basically work to bring the Total Army together and

make it a more seamless Army. That is what it has got to be in

the 21st century, and we have got to move in that direction.

The Secretary has mentioned the conversion of combat units to

combat service support units, and that makes great sense from

both a warfighting mission and a State support mission, and I

think that has been accepted. The other part that has been accepted are the two integrated divisions that basically combine active

component division headquarters with three enhanced brigades.

We will develop that concept to its fullest.

There are others that we are discussing in terms of teaming concepts between one division of the National Guard and an active

component division. More integration—the whole issue is to develop the trust and confidence among all members of the Total

Army. That is what we are trying to do, and we are trying to do

that through open communication, having everybody’s opinion

heard and evaluated, and also by working together to integrate

wherever we possibly can.

Currently, we have three active component commanders commanding National Guard organizations, and that is fully accepted

by all TAG’s.

At the same time, we are looking at an exchange program where

we would have active component officers commanding Reserve component units and Reserve component commanders commanding active component units.

I think the idea of bringing everybody together is absolutely

what we have to do. That is where we put a lot of effort in the past

year.

Now, there will still be discussions on that. There will be different opinions on how to go about doing it. These issues are complex. The discussions are rooted in the Constitution of the United

States, but we are addressing them, and in addressing them, we

are trying to do what is right for the Army and what is right for

America.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE [THAAD]

Senator COCHRAN. There has been a good deal of attention focused on the failure of a test of your Theater High Altitude Area

Defense Program, the THAAD missile, so-called. Tell us what the

current status of your views are about this program. Does this test

mean that that is going to be an unsuccessful program and you are

going to cancel it or something, or is this just one of a series of numerous tests, and you learn something from each one and proceed

to stick with your plan of figuring out a way to make this system

work?

Mr. WALKER. Senator, we are looking very carefully at the cause

of that last failure. Let me say, we have a tremendous requirement

that must be filled by THAAD, and that is the right platform to

fill a requirement that our commanders in chief [CINC’s] out in the

field have identified to protect our forces.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
851

We believe that the latter part of your statement is correct, that

it is the right approach, and we are going to work those bugs out,

and we are going to continue with that program.

General REIMER. Let me just add, Senator, if I could, the requirement is absolutely solid. The threat is there. This is not some

threat that might come about. Tactical missiles are there, and we

have to protect our troops. This is about protecting those quality

soldiers that I talked about. So we are very, very solid in support

of that requirement.

We have had a series of eight tests with THAAD. Of the five

intercept attempts, we have not been able to achieve the results

that we wanted totally. There has not been any systemic fault that

we have been able to identify, and we are continuing to work the

system.

The contractor has been given a cure notice and will come back

in with a program this week with corrective action that will be

taken. We are not falling off of the requirement. We are going to

keep the pressure on the contractor and make this thing work. We

need it for our soldiers.

Senator COCHRAN. We were over in Korea with the chairman 1

year ago, a little over 1 year ago, and it became very clear to us

when we started asking what the threats were for our troops there,

one of them was missiles, and the fact that you were at point-blank

range there, but not only that, with North Korea developing longer

range missiles our troops in Japan were being singled out by the

North Koreans as potential targets, we were told.

So the fact of the matter is, we have troops all around the world

who are under the gun now. We lost 28 in Dharhan during the gulf

war to a Scud missile, and we know things have not gotten any

friendlier in some parts of the world. They have gotten more hostile, with threats being made by leaders of some of these nation

states against the United States.

So it is a matter of great concern to me, and I hope that we can

take hope in the different programs that are under development by

the services, and this is the system that is under development by

the Army. This is the one the Army selected as the best approach

to missile defense for its troops in the theaters.

So we wish you well. We are going to continue to provide, I hope,

the level of funding necessary to get the job done. We need to have

that missile system developed and deployed sooner rather than

later, in my view.

Mr. WALKER. I think we need to stick with it, Senator, because

of the other systems being considered, the THAAD is 5 years ahead

of any other system that could compete.

We have a real threat now that we need to be dealing with. If

we had it today, it would be deployed.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Shelby.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you.

General Reimer, following up on Senator Cochran’s questions

dealing with THAAD, this is just a question regarding tests. You

know, I believe they have had five tests.

General REIMER. They have had a total of eight with that system, Senator.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
852

Senator SHELBY. What if they had 50 tests? I know you would

learn a lot more. I just throw that figure out, because if the basic

concept of a system is good, which people tell me it is, the more

tests, the better chance you work it out, and then you say, well,

gosh, we are going to do another test in 4 months, or 6 months,

and everything is relying on that one test, whereas our real aim

is to work the bugs out, is it not?

General REIMER. I think you make a very valid point. This is a

system in the early stage of its development, and as we get more

tests, we certainly learn more about it.

We have tried, and I think the contractor, working in conjunction

and partnership with us, has tried very hard to make sure each of

those tests is successful. So we have gone through that to try and

really fine-tune it as best we could.

As the Secretary pointed out, it is still far ahead of any other

system right now, and it offers the greatest opportunity to put the

missile on the ground faster than anything else, so we are going

to stay with it.

And you are right, we need to run more tests, and we need to

run them as fast as we can, but we have got to make sure they

are successful, too. That is the balance we are trying to achieve.

Senator SHELBY. General, you can just go back a few years, a

good many years back when the M–1 tank was coming on line and

there were all kinds of articles out there, it will never work, it is

terrible, it is nothing, and you did have a lot of little glitches to

work out, and you work them out little by little, and we know the

history since then, do we not?

General REIMER. Absolutely.

SPACE CAPABILITIES

Senator SHELBY. I would like to get into something else, General

Reimer. The Air Force recently has emphasized that it is undergoing a transformation into a space and air force, whatever that

means.

The Army, as you well know, has also had a long and distinguished legacy in space. Given this heritage, what is your vision for

the Army contribution to space operations, and how do you believe

the Army can tailor space capabilities to support land force and

joint missions, which is what you have done? Is that a real lively

thing today?

General REIMER. I understand the question, and it is a very contemporary topic that needs to be discussed and is discussed a lot.

The Army after next wargames that I mentioned in my remarks

really have emphasized the importance of space.

Space is the high ground in the 21st century. We understand

that. We are really very dependent upon space for the global positioning systems, for communications, and for intelligence, and so

our effort has been to increase the emphasis in terms of Army involvement in space.

We have done that primarily through the U.S. Army SMDC, the

Space and Missile Defense Command. That is headed up by Lt.

Gen. Ed Anderson, and has been really the Army vehicle to emphasize space. We believe very strongly that we have a very strong fuU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
853

ture in space, and the Army needs to be involved, and we will stay

involved in space.

ENHANCED FIBER OPTIC GUIDED MISSILE

Senator SHELBY. General, both the House and the Senate authorizing committees zeroed-out the enhanced fiberoptic guided missile

program. General, does the Army still support the Enhanced Fiber

Optic Guided Missile [EFOG-M] Program?

General REIMER. Senator, the EFOG-M program is a program

that we have in the advanced concept technology demonstration

[ACTD] model, and I do not think both committees zeroed it completely. They cut, it is my understanding, pretty close to zeroing

out, but not quite.

We brought the EFOG-M in as a hedge against the uncertainty

of light forces being caught in a situation like Desert Shield and

not having as many systems to kill tanks as they should have. So

EFOG-M was seen as one of the potentials for the future.

To answer your question, we want to stay with the ACTD to continue to evaluate it. We are running some tests on it.

Senator SHELBY. It has come a long way, though, has it not?

General REIMER. It has come a long way. We have not gotten all

the results out of it yet that we want, but it is coming along, and

we want to stay with it through the ACTD phase and then make

a decision at that point.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Senator SHELBY. General, what level of inhouse competency in

Army labs and research centers is necessary to ensure that the

Army develops technologies needed to achieve divisions of Force

XXI, or Army after next?

General REIMER. In terms of level, I do not know exactly how to

describe that, except to say we put about $1 billion into the science

and technology [S&T] base.

Senator SHELBY. It has paid off, too, has it not?

General REIMER. It has, and you identified a few programs that

have been brought along by that.

We are using the Army after next wargames, which look at what

the Army needs to be in the 2020 timeframe and the technologies

we need to drive that S&T base, and so we are focusing our investments in S&T in that particular area. I think S&T will continue

to be very important as we change to a fundamentally different

Army in the 21st century.

Senator SHELBY. General, do you believe that if there is a

downsizing strategy that results in Army scientists and engineers

with high grade pay—in other words, high competence—to be

placed in lower grades or lower performance positions, do you believe that would be good public policy or bad public policy?

General REIMER. Well, I do not think that is necessarily good policy. I think that is a reflection of the way we have had to reshape

the civilian work force.

Senator SHELBY. If you had a downsizing, a gradual downsizing,

trying to keep the best and the brightest would make a lot more

sense, would it not?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
854

General REIMER. It would. I worry about the shape of the civilian

work force, because I do not think we have done a very good job

of bringing new people in and growing the middle management we

will need in the 21st century, but your basic thrust is right, Senator.

M–113

Senator SHELBY. I have one more question. The M–113 family of

vehicles, getting into that for a moment, is the procurement and

O&M funding profile now stabilized to accomplish the upgrades in

a reasonable timeframe at the lowest cost?

In other words, it is my understanding that the modernization of

the M–113 family of vehicles is funded in several different lines,

and I am concerned as a result of funding requests for upgrades

to the M–113 that are not consolidated or coordinated the Army

may be upgrading these systems—you know, we want to do it at

the lowest cost. Could cost savings be achieved by a consolidated

and coordinated conversion plan for the M–113 family of vehicles?

General REIMER. We believe they are, Senator. There is a partnership between United Defense Limited Partnership [UDLP] and

Anniston, and that is the most cost-effective means of doing it. I

think most of it, if not all of it, is done in Alabama, as a matter

of fact, but we think it is a very cost-effective program. It is as cost

effective as we can make it.

Senator SHELBY. But it is moving along and saving money, is it

not?

General REIMER. I think so, Senator, yes. I would like to provide

more detail for the record on that one if I could.

[The information follows:]

M–113 PROGRAM

M–113 upgrade modifications are done by Anniston Army Depot in compliance

with the depot workload law. Beyond that requirement, upgrades are also performed

under a partnership agreement between United Defense Limited Partnership and

Anniston Army Depot. Chassis inspection and repair is done at Anniston Army

Depot, then United Defense Limited Partnership applies the upgrade kits. This

partnership is the most cost-effective method of applying the upgrades and saves approximately fifteen percent of the cost to upgrade each unit.

Senator SHELBY. Secretary Walker, do you have a comment?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, Senator. Sixty percent of that work is done at

Anniston. It is a great partnership, and it is working, yes, sir.

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PINE BLUFF ARSENAL

Senator STEVENS. Senator Bumpers.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Walker, I note that General Wilson, who is commander

of the Army Materiel Command [AMC], has stated that he wants

to cut AMC installations from 62 to 39. I have no objection to that

as long as Pine Bluff is not one of them. [Laughter.]

Incidentally, Mr. Secretary, I do not have any objection to another base realignment and closure [BRAC] as long as Little Rock

Air Force Base is not on the list.

But having brought this question of Pine Bluff Arsenal up, the

thing that was mildly troublesome to me about that, first of all

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
855

they are already scheduled for 138 personnel cuts, which is about

16 percent of the personnel cuts that General Wilson is proposing,

whereas the others are only taking a 3- to 7-percent cut, so I have,

I guess, two questions.

No. 1, why has Pine Bluff been targeted for such an inordinate

share of the cuts, No. 1, and No. 2, why he arrived at a magic figure, General Wilson arrived at a magic figure of 39. That makes

me think he has a list in his hip pocket, and I would like to see

that list.

Mr. WALKER. Senator, I have not heard that number 39 from

General Wilson, and I will certainly take that up with him and discuss it with him.

With regard to the additional reductions that you refer to, that

is part of the ‘‘Quadrennial Defense Review’’ [QDR] reductions that

are going on throughout AMC and throughout the Army. General

Wilson and the AMC staff have worked very diligently to keep

those reductions to a minimum at all locations, but they still had

reductions which were required by QDR that they had to meet, and

that is the result of that requirement.

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Secretary, I consider you a friend and I

have the utmost respect for you, but I did write to you on March

10 on this item and, as they say in Arkansas, I ain’t had no hearing.

Mr. WALKER. Really. You will get one today.

THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you.

Now, General Reimer, back to Senator Cochran’s line of questioning on THAAD, let us take Korea, for example. Let us take the peninsula. North Korea apparently has a big stable full of Scud’s,

about 600 of them.

We have been told by General Lyles that the improved Patriot

can handle that, but my question is—and I am not questioning

whether or not it can or not. Of course, I think PAC–3 would come

closer to handling it, but for just purposes of discussion, do we have

a sufficient number of interceptors there, either the Patriot or

PAC–2, to handle that kind of arsenal in the hands of the North

Koreans?

General REIMER. Well, we have forward-deployed, as you indicated, a Patriot battalion to cover a number of different installations over there, and it basically provides the low altitude point defense for that particular threat.

What we need, though, is the high altitude defense to complement, and that is why THAAD is so important. Patriot will

allow you to kill a certain percentage of the threat, but to get the

assurance that we want for our soldiers, we need that high altitude

piece.

As you indicate, we are updating the Patriots over there from the

standard Patriot to the GEM missile, which is an enhanced missile,

and ultimately to a PAC–3. They will be one of the first to receive

the PAC–3, so we recognize the criticality of Korea and are doing

everything possible to increase its protection. But I would feel a lot

better if we had THAAD over there right now, and I think General

Tillelli, the CINC, would feel the same way.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
856

Senator BUMPERS. You would not feel better if we had THAAD

in its present state over there, would you, which has not been able

to hit anything yet.

General REIMER. No; but I have a lot of confidence THAAD will

do it.

Senator BUMPERS. I do, too. That is another kettle of fish.

But let me ask you about the North Korea No-Dong with a 600-

mile range, and while that is still under development, they have

not tested it since 1993, is that correct?

General REIMER. Senator, I do not know. I would have to go back

and provide that for the record, because that is something I just

do not know.

[The information follows:]

NO-DONG MISSILE

[Deleted.]

Senator BUMPERS. Well, I think the PAC–3 could handle that

missile, and I understand development of PAC–3 is moving along

very well, but I think the improved Patriot could probably handle

that too.

General REIMER. Well, the PAC–3 is your improved Patriot. It

gives you a greater coverage.

Senator BUMPERS. Do we not have a Patriot 2?

General REIMER. We have a Patriot 2 and a GEM missile, which

is an enhanced missile that we are fielding over there right now,

which gives you increased coverage over what we had in Operation

Desert Storm. The PAC–3 will increase further the coverage, but

it only gives you a low altitude coverage. You have to go up into

the high altitude, and that is why THAAD is so important, to get

into the high altitude in order to get the assurance that you want

for your soldiers in terms of protection, and I think that is very appropriate for the No-Dong missile.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator BUMPERS. General Reimer, let me make a comment, and

then just ask you to comment on mine.

I have not supported Senator Cochran’s amendment. It is mildly

troublesome to me. No. 1, Senator Cochran is a thoughtful person

and I do not cavalierly take issue with him. We work together well,

and he is a friend, and I think he has studied this issue very carefully, so that made it difficult for me to vote no on that.

On the other hand, I do not see any point in deploying before we

have to until the intelligence community tells us that the threat exists, because the longer we go—first of all, we have had a very difficult time with THAAD, and we are going to have an even more

difficult time with a ballistic missile defense, but be that as it may,

stick with THAAD for the time being, as I say, I am most reluctant

to deploy something that we do not have the kind of assurance in

the effectiveness of that we have a right to expect.

So I want to put that off as long as possible, and in order to do

that, I have to have a lot of confidence in the intelligence community to tell us what the threat is.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
857

In other words, if there is no threat for the year 2003, 2004,

2005, I think we ought to continue improving the THAAD until we

have a high degree of confidence in its ability to perform.

Having said that, and this will tell you why I was so troubled

about Senator Cochran’s amendment, the intelligence community

did not know India was getting ready to explode a bomb, either,

and every time we turn around we find these big intelligence gaps.

Senator Cochran and some of his cohorts made the point on the

floor, which was a perfectly legitimate point, and that is, we do not

often know what the threat is, but if we are going to spend $25 or

$30 billion on intelligence, we either ought to quit spending it, or

we ought to put some confidence in what they tell us.

All I am saying is, that is the reason this whole thing is so troublesome to me. If you have any comment on that, I would be interested in hearing it.

General REIMER. Senator Bumpers, what I would say is that the

THAAD is a theater missile defense system. There is a threat out

there that requires that right now. I do not think the intelligence

community differs on that. I think we would say that the threat in

theater missile defense is there. We need THAAD now.

As you get into national missile defense, then I think you start

to get into question about whether the threat is there, whether we

need 3 years to develop a system, and that kind of thing.

Senator BUMPERS. I mixed up apples and oranges there, General.

Your point is well taken.

General REIMER. As far as the THAAD is concerned, I am convinced the threat is there. I think we ought to deploy THAAD as

soon as we can. I agree with Secretary Walker, if we had THAAD

now, we would deploy it in Korea, and we would feel a lot better

about that.

FOOD STAMPS

Senator BUMPERS. Well, back to THAAD. You know, I take

strong exception to buying 40 interceptors when we have our first

hit, which is the present plan. To me that would be the height of

folly. One hit might be a random hit, and to go all out to deploy

that missile based on that I think would be foolish.

But let me ask you one other question, and then I will quit. In

the New York Daily News there was an article by Lars Eric Nelson

quoting a General Russell—is it Honore?—he says, I have got a

tank commander who has a wife and three kids living in a trailer

park down in Killeen, TX, and he is on WIC, and I might say, that

would be most interesting, since WIC is a women’s and infant’s and

children’s program. That is interesting for a tank commander to be

on it.

But I think what he meant was, he was on food stamps, or his

family was getting food stamps, because as I say, WIC is a program

for pregnant women. This tank commander would hardly qualify.

But the point he was making is, he talks about a welfare Cadillac, and he calls the M1A2 a welfare Cadillac. Here you have got

a guy who is commanding a $4 million tank and he goes home at

night and eats food bought with food stamps, and I must say, that

point is well-taken. That point has been made in this committee

time and time again.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
858

Can you tell me how many of our servicemen qualify, not actually draw food stamps or any form of welfare, but how many people

qualify?

General REIMER. We can give you that number, and I will be

glad to provide it for the record.

[The information follows:]

HOW MANY ARMY SERVICE MEMBERS QUALIFY FOR FOOD STAMPS

Based on a Department of Defense survey and study, the Army estimates that

9,968 soldiers are eligible for food stamps. For military members to be eligible for

food stamps, their cash pay must be less than the gross income eligibility limit for

food stamps. Food stamp eligibility requirements are 30 percent above the poverty

level and are based on family size and total family income.

When estimating the number of food stamp eligibles, we assumed qualifiers based

on a worst-case scenario. We assumed the member’s income was the only source of

household income, while, in fact, more than 60 percent of military spouses work.

However, since their earnings are not known, they are not counted in this analysis.

Second, we assumed members received no other special pays and/or allowances and

no earnings from other sources, such as interest or rent. Finally, we assumed the

other resources of the member are limited and would not preclude his/her eligibility.

While it is unfortunate that there are military members eligible and receiving

food stamp benefits, eligibility for food stamps is largely driven by the rules used

in determining eligibility rather than by soldier compensation. For example, the free

housing service members living on base receive does not count as part of income for

food stamp eligibility purposes. Additionally, households may have up to $2,000 in

countable resources, such as a bank account, and other resources, such as a home

and land. Thus, it is possible for soldiers with above average incomes to be eligible

for food stamps.

General REIMER. From the Army’s standpoint, it has to do with

first of all your pay and then the size of your family.

Senator BUMPERS. Yes.

ADEQUATE PAY

General REIMER. Let me go back to Russ Honore for a minute,

because Russ Honore is one of our better warfighters, in my opinion. He has a lot of experience, and what he is reflecting is absolutely what all of us feel.

We have the best soldiers in the world, the best people, America’s

sons and daughters, and we owe them an adequate and predictable

quality of life. That is why one of the top priorities, and probably

the top priority, is to provide them adequate pay for their services.

Now, that wife may have been on WIC. I do not know whether

it was food stamps or WIC that he was talking about.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, I think he is making a point.

General REIMER. The point is the same. We are not paying them

enough. We need to increase their pay. That is why your support

on the 3.1-percent pay increase that we programmed for this budget is very important, and I would hope that we would continue

that, because those soldiers are about 13 percent behind their civilian counterparts, and we are not catching up fast enough. We need

to take care of them, or else they are not going to be with us that

long.

Senator BUMPERS. General, why don’t the Chiefs, or why doesn’t

the Secretary come over here with a proposal to say, we want

enough money to make sure that no man or woman in the U.S.

Armed Forces is forced to apply for or eligible for any welfare program?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
859

Now, the chairman and Senator Cochran and Senator Domenici

know that I am a little bit of an iconoclast when it comes to defense spending.

Senator DOMENICI. What is the word?

Senator BUMPERS. That is too big a word for them. I am a spendthrift.

But in any event, that is one place where you get no squawk

from me, and I do not understand why the request is not made. In

my opinion the U.S. Congress would respond and respond quickly.

General REIMER. Senator, I have been Chief for 3 years and consistently have said our four priorities are adequate pay, medical

care, housing, and a stable benefits and retirement program. We

continue to push them, given the top line that we have, and we will

continue to do that, but we also have to make sure we keep it balanced.

We have a responsibility to make sure that those soldiers that

we put in harm’s way are trained and ready, and that is what this

budget is all about, achieving that fine balance that I talked about

in my opening statement.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye.

READINESS

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having rushed

out. There was an emergency. Forgive me, sir, for not being aware

of the questions that have been asked. I may be duplicating them,

if I am, please advise me.

Mr. Secretary and General, the one word that concerns all of us

here is readiness, and there has been some discussion that several

of your Army divisions may fall into the category of C–3 by the end

of this year. Is this a problem of readiness or definition? Can you

enlighten us?

General REIMER. I think it is truly a product of readiness in the

future. What we have asked for, and what the omnibus reprogramming that Secretary Walker mentioned in his opening statement is

designed to do, is to make sure that the readiness of those divisions

does not slip.

What has happened is that we have funded them in 1998 at a

certain level of OPTEMPO which has been standard for us, 800

miles, but we have underfunded them in base operations and real

property maintenance [RPM], and also in terms of barracks improvements, so there has been some migration of funds to make

sure we take care of quality of life.

The point that I was making with Senator Bumpers is, if we do

not take care of soldiers in terms of quality of life, then we are not

going to be able to keep these same quality soldiers. So what the

division commanders in the field are doing is to try and work that

balance.

We feel like there is a small omnibus reprogramming requirement for us. We are working that with OSD right now, and, hopefully, it will be on its way over here, and we think that will take

care of any potential readiness problem we have in the fourth quarter with the active component divisions.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
860

Senator INOUYE. Do you have any comment, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. WALKER. No, sir; I will just reiterate what the Chief said. We

would solicit your support for the reprogramming, because we will

need it to ensure readiness for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary and General Reimer, about 10

years ago the Army had about 105,000 troops assigned overseas in

the Pacific. Last year, it was down to 78,000. The 6th Division in

Alaska has been downsized to one brigade. The 25th in Hawaii has

lost one brigade. The 7th at Fort Ord, CA, has been dismantled.

The High Technology Light Division at Fort Lewis, WA, has been

dismantled.

There are some who view these as signs that the U.S. Army continues to focus on Europe and does not care too much about the Pacific. How would you respond to that contention?

General REIMER. Senator, I would say your figures are absolutely

correct. There has been a downsizing in the Pacific, but it has probably been fairly consistent with the downsizing across the Army

overall. The active component has come down about 38 percent in

terms of numbers. If you look at Europe now, for example, and

compare it to Europe in 1989, we had 216,000 soldiers over there.

Now we have 65,000. I do not think the cuts in the Pacific have

been that great.

I totally agree with you; we were probably too oriented toward

Europe during the cold war, because that was the major threat. We

are trying to shift our emphasis to the Pacific and get a more balanced view of both of those theaters, which I think are very important to the United States, and in so doing, we brought down Europe dramatically.

We have 75 percent of the fighting force of the active component

in the continental United States that can go to either region, and

we have a pretty balanced number of soldiers deployed to the Pacific and deployed to Europe, so that is what we have been trying

to do, and tried to work that balance as best we could.

Mr. WALKER. Senator, let me just say, the importance of the

Asia-Pacific region cannot be overstated. We are in many respects

a Pacific nation now because of all of our trade that we do there,

and the Army keeps that in mind, and we will continue to keep

that in mind as we look at the future.

All you have to do is pick up the newspaper and look at what

is happening in Indonesia today to know that there can never be

a lack of attention by the United States on the Asia-Pacific region.

NATIONAL GUARD FUNDING

Senator INOUYE. I thank you for that.

The other words we use today are total force, integrating the National Guard with the active component. However, in providing resources to the Guard, especially in military construction the Army’s

allocation I believe is rather inadequate. Why does the Army not

provide enough funding to support National Guard needs?

Mr. WALKER. Let me say, Senator, I think our military construction budget, in general, is underfunded, because we had to pay for

other competing requirements as we put the budget together.

With regard to the specific amount that is included for the National Guard, there was an agreement as part of the offsite at a

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
861

certain level, and I think it is $50 million in the next several years

would be included in the budget, and that is why you see the level

that is included this year.

Senator INOUYE. I hope you look over some of the requests that

have been coming through from National Guard units throughout

the United States. Looking over them, they seem to be rather urgent in need, and I would hope that you would give them another

look.

Mr. Chairman, I have several other questions I would like to ask,

but may I submit them, sir?

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir; we will submit your series of questions to the gentlemen.

Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Bumpers wants me to yield to him

first.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator BUMPERS. I just wanted to clarify the record on my line

of questioning to General Reimer earlier, when I mixed THAAD

and national missile defense.

Senator Cochran’s amendment goes to a national missile defense

system, and when you said a moment ago—we were talking about

the intelligence community and you were talking about intelligence

admits that there is a threat, there are threats that we do not even

know about, you were talking about theater missile threats, were

you not?

General REIMER. What I was saying is that in the tactical missile

defense arena, the threat is out there to justify the THAAD. It is

not a matter of trying to develop the threat, or worrying about the

threat. It is there.

Senator BUMPERS. I understand that, and I totally agree with

you, but I wanted to make sure that you were not saying that there

was a national missile threat that the intelligence community did

not know about.

General REIMER. I am not aware of any.

Senator BUMPERS. Well, the only thing I can think of that might

even come close, and I think we know as much about it as we can,

is the Taepo Dong-2, which is the only missile I know anything

about that could possibly hit Hawaii, as being a threat to the

United States.

General REIMER. I am a little worried about the classification of

that system. I prefer to provide that for the record, and I would

also like to make sure that I talk with the intelligence community

on their assessment of the threat.

[The information follows:]

TAEPO DONG-2 MISSILE

[Deleted.]

Senator BUMPERS. I just wanted to clarify the record on where

the threat was, or whether there was a threat or not, because as

I said, in the debate on Senator Cochran’s amendment, the whole

debate was that there is no threat, and whether you wanted to

wait until the intelligence community defined the threat and deU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
862

scribed it to us before you deploy, that was the real issue in Senator Cochran’s amendment.

Senator Domenici, thank you very much.

Senator DOMENICI. You are welcome.

General, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Walker, it is nice to see you. I used

to see you a lot more when you were on Senator Sasser’s staff.

Mr. WALKER. It is good to be back.

Senator DOMENICI. I might say, we are all getting more mature.

Even you look older.

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir. I remarked earlier, I turned 50 this year.

I am beginning to think about it.

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

Senator DOMENICI. General, and Mr. Secretary, I was going to

take a little time and talk about White Sands missile range and

the personnel cuts there, but I am not going to do that. I am going

to submit the questions with the background to you. I would very

much appreciate your paying personal attention to it and giving me

some answers.

I also would like you to make sure that Lieutenant General

Lyles, who came up here and testified about the overall missile defense programs—and he said at that hearing that he would check

to see whether the Army’s plans for White Sands missile range reductions were consistent with the overall military plan for using

the range during the next 5 to 10 years because of plans for new

missile activity like THAAD.

I am concerned that you, being a soldier, are following orders on

a budget, trying to get within the 5-year budget plan, and I give

you great credit for trying to do that. No other people in Government have to do that, just the Defense Department. There is nobody else with a 5-year budget in this Government except you guys,

and whenever somebody talks about budgeting you ought to remind

them.

There is no 5-year budget for HUD. There is no 5-year budget

for NIH. They all change as people need more things, and you have

to plan all of these resources for 5 years.

But in any event, I would be very disturbed if we cut back the

personnel at White Sands missile range, our major inland missile

range, and then find that in 3 or 4 years, to meet the national plan,

that we made a mistake and we had to go back and hire them

back. It would be very expensive. I am also concerned that we have

opened the window at White Sands to people getting out of the

service.

I asked them to please wait until we had oversight hearings.

They told me they would, but then they did not, so these people

are going to be gone by the time we decide, with evidence from

General Lyles and yourself, whether it is totally correct.

Now, having said that, I joined our chairman and ranking member on this trip to the Middle East. I do not travel very much, but

I have learned a lot more from it, and so I am doing it more. I did

not get to work with as many Army people on the ground as I did

Air Force. That was just a coincidence of how we broke up our

groups.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
863

IMPACT OF DEPLOYMENTS

But I am very concerned about the impact of so many deployments overseas and so many deployments that leave and then come

back, redeploy. I think the military has to be honest with this committee and with the President and tell us what impact that has on

the lifestyle of our troops and whether they really feel like they are

part of something worthwhile when that happens.

From talking to these people it is so different than the man on

the ground in Bosnia, where they have a mission, and there is a

much better deployment scheme, and you do not bring them in and

out. We talked to a couple of people who were in and out 10 times

or more, 11, in the Middle East in a few years. Well, you can understand that that guy has got a few kids and a wife. He did not

sign up to be in the Foreign Legion.

So I have some questions regarding how you go about asking the

military men and women for their views about their treatment, and

I really would like you to look at them, because I believe we are

in a position where I think you need some outside confirmation of

the attitude of the young men and women, because it is suspect

when overseers ask underlings to answer questions about the overseers.

They are not going to say, ‘‘We do not like our four-star general,’’

right? They believe somebody is going to find out, right?

So I am asking that you take a look at outside polling under your

direction, and that you really get us some answers about what is

going wrong in the quality of life and the rest.

And I want to make one other point. I hope nobody in the military is thinking about trying to give preferential treatment to military people who do not have kids; all we need is an Army that does

not have any families.

Frankly, if I heard such a thing we would have one hell of an

explosion up here, because when you ask men and women to stay

in 20 years, you cannot then say, well, we do not like it, they have

got too many kids. That cannot be our situation, or we will have

acted totally irresponsible in my opinion.

PRIVATIZATION

Now, I also am going to ask you some questions for you to answer about how you are going to get the 20-percent savings over

the next 5 years, each year, from privatization. I am aware that

this is a huge burden on you, that if you think there is one thing

that may not happen in your budget, it is that.

You are, again, good soldiers, you are going to go try to do it. But

you see, we are left with a situation, if the privatization does not

work, and save money, then what do we do to pick up the money

that you already put in your budget as being saved? We are going

to have to put it back in there, or else you are going to have to

cut something that you do not plan to cut, and we did not plan to

cut.

BUDGET SHORTFALLS

My last point has to do with your budget, and I just want, since

you are a member of the Joint Chiefs, I want to tell you, as one

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
864

Senator who works on the budget and tries desperately to keep

ourselves as a Nation from overspending, I do not appreciate the

Secretary of Defense and the President sending us a budget and

then putting $1.9 billion into an emergency pot to pay for Bosnia,

where we have now been—how many years, Mr. Chairman—4

years.

Now, that puts us in a position where if we cannot get that

deemed an emergency, then we are going to be deemed cutting defense more than our President, and that is not right. In fact, I have

been trying to figure out a way to send him his budget back—I do

not know how I am going to do it yet. Maybe it is too late—but

send it back to the President and say, Congress is not going to

agree that this is an emergency. It is 4 years now that we have

been in Bosnia.

So you do us a new budget and tell us about it, and I would urge

that he raise the caps. We may have to do that ourselves. I may

do that in conference when we go to the House. They want to cut

domestic spending. I may surprise them and say, well, while you

are cutting so much, why do you not add $3 billion on the defense

side.

I probably would not win, but I am telling you where I stand.

[Applause.]

Having said that, you just heard my spiel about all this, and I

did not let you answer any questions, but you will have a bunch

of them in writing, and I really would appreciate your personal attention, particularly with respect to White Sands.

General REIMER. I will call General Lyles and talk with him myself.

Senator STEVENS. You see how fortunate we are to have as a

member of our committee the chairman of the Budget Committee.

I want you to know he does carry the defense shield wherever he

goes, and we are either going to do it his way, or if we cannot do

it his way, we will do it the stealth way and try to get you some

more money.

Senator DOMENICI. And I will help you.

Senator STEVENS. We will get that money.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, sir.

SOUTHWEST ASIA DEPLOYMENTS

Senator INOUYE. If I may follow up with Senator Domenici on his

trip to Kuwait, he worked with the Air Force personnel and I was

assigned to the Army, and the first question that I was asked by

the assembly was rather stunning. When do we go home?

I did some investigating and apparently those who were there before the recent Iraqi-Saddam Hussein crisis are not feeling that

way, but those who came afterwards, during the crisis, who really

do not know when they are going to be leaving, are quite concerned, and I hope that we will be able to clarify that so they can

tell their wives they will be home for Christmas, or Thanksgiving,

or something like that.

The other matter, which may be out of your area of responsibility, several of the Army people complained that they were not permitted to wear the American flag on their uniform, and they were

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
865

hoping that rules and regulations can change so that they can put

it on.

I realize that the host country in the case of Saudi Arabia is not

too happy with that. Are any steps being taken?

General REIMER. Senator, that is news to me. I am meeting with

the Army Central Command [ARCENT] commander this afternoon.

I will bring that up with him, and we will get into that. I do not

know exactly whether they were permanently assigned there in

Kuwait, or whether they were deployed over there as part of the

3d Infantry Division. The 3d Infantry Division went over there

with the American flag on their shoulders. I will have to get into

the details of that.

But can I also just come back to your question. I think that is

a very natural question. It was a thing that we experienced in October 1990 when I first went over on Desert Shield. The soldiers

wanted to know when they were going to come home. When we

said, you are there for the duration, that question went away. They

understood that, and they accepted that.

I think that is a very natural reaction for the soldiers over there,

and we are working very hard, the Joint Chiefs, to make that determination or recommendation in conjunction with the administration on how we are going to go about rotating them, or what are

we going to do.

Senator INOUYE. Otherwise the men and women were in great

shape. They just want to know when they are going to get home.

General REIMER. I visited them just a couple of weeks before you

did and had the same impression. They were making the most out

of some very austere conditions, and I was very proud of them, as

I always am.

HEALTH CARE

Senator DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield?

General, I failed to mention something about health care. I am

not one who thinks you can introduce a big medical program without some things going wrong, when you all are trying to get out

of the CHAMPUS mode, which was a failure, to a better mode, but

I believe that it ought to be a very high priority of the Joint Chiefs

that somebody finds out the extent to which TRICARE is not working. There ought to be some very stiff penalties imposed on those

who are delivering this system if they make mistakes.

If they are not the ones making them, then that is one thing, but

we ran into one situation where a sergeant, in front of the general,

got up and said, I have had to call home for a private with two kids

because his wife is being hounded to pay health care bills and she

is frantic because she does not have enough money, and that is not

her responsibility to pay health care bills for those two kids. She

is right on a base.

And it struck me that if we hear one—my rule in my office, if

you hear a complaint that people are willing to run up and tell you

about, it is not the only one. My rule of thumb is that there are

usually a lot of them, and I urge that you do everything you can

in that regard.

General REIMER. I think you are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman.

We are really focusing on that. We have transitioned to a new care

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
866

plan called TRICARE, and there have been some bumps in the

road. What we have tried to do, and what we are doing, is go after

each one of those individual challenges like that and figure out

what went wrong and how to fix it.

I think once we have gotten everybody in the Army on this

TRICARE plan, we will start to work our way through that, and

I think we will provide the adequate care that our soldier is so entitled to.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MORALE

Senator STEVENS. Senator Bumpers asked me, what are you

doing signing your mail when we have a hearing going on? I have

to tell you, if you come from a State like mine, you read your mail,

every one. There are so few of us that I know them all, and I apologize for that.

But I also want to tell you that on our visit—we said this when

we met with the Secretary, but I want to make sure that we say

it on the record and publicly. We found such enormous morale in

Bosnia as compared to the morale that we found in Kuwait and

Saudi Arabia. I think, as I said, it is a tribute to General Ellis and

to your whole system that, despite the fact of the questions at

home about deployment, once they are there, those young people

were doing their jobs, and we are very proud of it, and we are

proud of them.

But I have walked around a lot of bases and I have been in a

lot of places with many general officers, and you can tell when the

troops understand who he is and have great respect for him. That

was a great day we spent with him.

172D SEPARATE INFANTRY BRIGADE

Last, let me say to you that I am grateful to you, Mr. Secretary,

for going up to the ceremony when we redesignated the 172d Separate Infantry Brigade for Alaska. That solved a tremendous problem for us. Everybody used to tell me we had an orphan brigade,

and now it has a mission and it has a real definition as part of the

forces that my colleague has out in Hawaii, and we are part of the

Pacific, where we think we should be, and I do thank you very

much for that.

I think General Simpson did a tremendous job in pursuing that.

It is my understanding that the U.S. Army of the Pacific is going

to ask you now to redesignate one officer there at Wainwright to

be a brigadier to solve this problem of north and south of the range

in Alaska.

I am not going to ask you now what you are going to do with

it, but I hope that you will help us really nail down that solution

so that there is not this animosity between our two major cities

over who commands Wainwright.

As Senator Domenici said to us, we have had some real fine trips

here in the last year or so, and a lot of them have been to places

under your command, and we are ex-Army people. I was Army Air

Corps, he was Army, but when you look at the people we have got

out there, they are fine people, and we are really delighted.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
867

RETIREMENT SYSTEM

The only thing I have got to tell you that we ran into that I am

still trying to study was that buzz-saw on retirement, and we are

dedicated to try and find some way to correct that if it was an

error. I do not know yet whether it was an error, but I have talked

to members of the Armed Services Committee about that.

This concept came at us through an e-mail. That also was enlightening, that almost every tent had an e-mail outlet. Now, that

is a new Army, General.

But they were all waving this one little bulletin that came out

of, was it Fort Meade? But it was very critical to the policies of

Congress and alerted people in the Army to the fact that there had

been a change.

That change was made several years ago, as you know. I do not

know if you all have some recommendations for me. If you have

any recommendations for us as to how to fix that problem—we do

not want that problem of retirement to seep in and give you all the

kind of morale problems we found in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, so

keep us informed if there is something we can do, General.

General REIMER. Mr. Chairman, may I just say, on that specific

issue, you are absolutely correct, and to refer to a comment made

earlier, we do a sample survey of military personnel in the Army

each year to really get at this morale issue and how people are feeling. The retirement system is the fastest growing area of dissatisfaction there.

There are three retirement systems in effect for military personnel right now. I am under one. There is another one for people that

are a lot younger than me, and the one that you are referring to

I think went into effect in 1986.

Senator STEVENS. I was the author of that, the Federal employee

retirement system.

General REIMER. The first one is a very good retirement system,

I think, but I think there is a great deal of concern about the last

retirement system, and it is the fastest growing area of dissatisfaction we see out there in terms of morale.

Senator STEVENS. Well, if you could get us some sort of information on it, we will do our best to see if we might confer with the

Government Affairs Committee. As a matter of fact, three of us are

on that committee, so we will confer with them and perhaps we can

find a way in this year’s bill to find a way to make those retirement

systems into one and compatible, and pick up these people who

think that they were harmed by coming in at the time they did.

I did not understand it, because this one young man said he

came in after this other fellow did, and he had a better retirement

system under the new plan, and there was sort of a gap there in

about 1987, I think it was, 1988, but I would like very much to

pursue that and try to iron it out so that it does not eat into the

morale that we saw was so good.

Are there any questions, comments? Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, we did have a hearing on that

the other day in our subcommittee that I chair. The Federal services comes under the jurisdiction of that subcommittee, but it was

really on the civilian system, but it sounds like a similar problem

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
868

on the military system, and I do not know that we have looked into

that yet, so we ought to.

Senator STEVENS. That is why I said, I do not think we did. I

saw that you were onto that. I congratulate you for that, too. There

is a glitch on the civilian side, too.

Senator COCHRAN. One other question I wanted to ask, and that

has to do with this new Force XXI, the modernization. General

Reimer in his statement makes, I think, one of the best most succinct statements about the challenge of the future.

On page 13 in his statement he says:

I cannot overestimate the risk we take by failing to modernize. The continuing

threat of weapons proliferation can allow even no-tech nations to field high-tech armies in the flash of an arms deal.

Though no nation may be capable of fielding a force that can compete with the

United States in a conventional war, any nation can develop a niche capability that

will cost American lives in a future conflict.

I think that is not only eloquent, but it is also a challenge to all

of us to realize and appreciate the importance of modernization,

taking advantage of the emerging technologies of all kinds, whether we are talking about missile defense, communications, radar

systems, all the rest, and how important it is for us to stay up to

date, and that is the reason why we are so secure right now in

terms of the safety of U.S. citizens and our interests abroad are

fully protected, because we do have the best, most modern, most

up-to-date armed force in the world, but we want to keep it that

way.

POSITION LOCATION SYSTEM

One thing that is a part of this, I know, are your plans for position location reporting systems. There is one system that is an integral part, as described in your posture statement, of the future battlefield situation analysis.

Would it be helpful for us to review this carefully to be sure that

in each of these component systems we are providing the level of

funding necessary to keep this whole process moving forward? That

is something that could easily get overlooked, because there are so

many acronyms and names of new things that you are putting into

this battlefield management program for the future that I hope

some of us do not overlook the importance of each one of these systems.

One of them happens to be made in my State. I am kind of like

Senator Bumpers. It got my attention when I saw that we were actually producing in the State of Mississippi one of these component

parts, the enhanced position locating and reporting system,

EPLRS, it is called.

General REIMER. Senator, I think first of all that you are right;

that is a fundamental change for the Army, and basically we set

out to answer the questions: where am I, where are my buddies,

and where is the enemy? We figure that if we could do that, then

we could change the way we do operations on the battlefield and

even during operations like Bosnia.

That has turned out to be exactly what the experimentation has

showed us. We have about $2.6 billion in that particular effort, but

as you say, it is in small lines and kind of hidden. We will be glad

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
869

to work with the committee staff to make sure that you understand

what is in there and how important that is to our efforts to modernize the force, the digitization of the force, as we call it.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much.

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Secretary and General——

Senator DOMENICI. Could I make one observation?

Senator STEVENS. Yes.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman and the two witnesses, I just

want to give you an observation regarding recruiting and retention.

Frankly, we are putting a lot of blame on you all for retention

not being as good in some parts of the service as they were 5 or

6 years ago. I think the reality of it is that you are also in competition with a vibrant, powerful American economy, and the truth of

the matter is, there are not so many kids 17 to 23 or 24 who cannot

find good jobs, and there are those in the military who are being

offered spectacular jobs if they get out and take them.

And I think that is why it is important that you look at whether

our pay is correct, whether our benefits are adequate, because we

do want America’s economy to go on for another 5 or 6 years without a recession. That is not going to make your jobs any easier, but

we surely are not going to have a recession to help you recruit. You

understand that.

Mr. WALKER. Senator, thank you for making that comment, because it is difficult out there just for the reason you mentioned.

Even McDonald’s provides funding, money for college for people

who come to work for them now, young people come to work for

them. That is amazing competition we have out there, so you make

a very important point.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY

Senator STEVENS. We are trying to compete with that right up

here, as a matter of fact.

Gentlemen, I have a few rabbit trails I pursue, and one of them

is medical technology. Now, out there at Walter Reed there is an

angiocat. General, your wife is here, so I do not want to ask you

if you have been there, but I want to urge you to go there and go

through that, and you, too, Mr. Secretary, because we are working

on angiocat 2.

Now, the angiocat 2 is designed for the battlefield if it comes

through, and the two of us have a great interest in that, personal

interest in that, and we want to see that there is an understanding

in the military where that medical technology is going in order to

try and care for a person that is wounded in a modern-day battlefield, the speed with which they have to be handled, and that

angiocat 2 can do it.

But in order to understand angiocat 2, you have got to understand what angiocat 1 does, and then to see what a new version

of that would do in the battlefield structure, so I would urge you

to do it. As a matter of fact, I went out there and went through

it myself. I went out there to California, and went through it where

it was made.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
870

But it does seem to me that this is a technology now that even

in terms of the first version is dealing with preventative medicine

for the military, and we ought to get ahead of the curve and not

just treat the people after they get sick.

This thing can give you an advanced knowledge of what is coming, and we almost ought to send everybody through it before they

are deployed overseas.

It is like my wife’s father said, ‘‘be sure she gets her teeth fixed

before you get married’’? You ought to take care of these guys before they go over. You ought to take care of them, and that

angiocat process could do it.

So if we can get the time down, where it is the timeframe you

can spend to send them through—you literally, on the angiocat 2

it takes 90 seconds. This takes 15 to 20 minutes, but still, it is a

worthwhile thing.

And I would urge you, pursue it and help us make certain that

it is the tool that we believe it will be for the future in dealing with

the military, and when we are talking about the military, we are

primarily talking about the Army in terms of the kind of wounds

that your people will get, God forbid we get into another conflict.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We do appreciate you being here today, gentlemen. It is something we look forward to.

Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your help, and General, it is always a pleasure. Thank you very much.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. ROBERT M. WALKER

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

PRIME VENDOR SUPPORT

Question. I understand that the Apache program may have to ‘‘buy its way out’’

of the current depot and base maintenance structure in order to move to Prime Vendor Support (PVS). Can you tell us how much ‘‘revenue’’ Apache bases will lose

under PVS and how much it may ‘‘cost’’ Apache?

Answer. There are no planned changes to supply and maintenance procedures at

the base level except that the required repair parts will be issued free to Apache

units under the proposed PVS contract. Under PVS, flying hour dollars for parts

will no longer go to the installation, but will be used to fund the PVS contract. All

other field-level funding remains the same. If the PVS program is implemented, we

anticipate significant savings to the Apache program.

Question. How would Congress be notified of substantial modernization efforts

started under the Apache PVS contract?

Answer. It is the intent of the Army to maintain continuous communications with

Congress. Before any PVS contract is signed, Congress will be notified via an Information for Member of Congress memorandum as to why the Army is awarding the

contract and what modernization activities are planned. PVS specifically requires

the contractor to operate within the firm fixed price of the contract and not to expand the performance. Future modernization efforts are an integral part of the basic

contract and will be funded within the negotiated price of the contract. The proposed

contract includes incentives, including loss of profit if planned modernization efforts

are not completed.

Question. How would the Army pay for cost overruns on PVS modernization efforts? Would the Army turn to the Congress or other Operations and Maintenance

programs?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
871

Answer. The proposed contract is a firm fixed price contract to include the

planned modernization efforts. Any cost of overruns will be borne by the contractor

and would not impact any other appropriations.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

PRIORITIES

Question. In its Department of Defense Authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee added about $315 million for ‘‘Base Support’’ and ‘‘Maintenance

of Real Property’’ in the Army Operations and Maintenance account, and it added

about $300 million for additional trucks and helicopters in the Army Procurement

account. Do these add-ons represent the Army’s highest priorities in the 1999 budget?

Answer. The Army’s top unfunded requirement remains the $1,390 million for fiscal year 1999 Bosnia contingency operations. However, this past March, a list of the

Army’s fiscal year 1999 unfunded priorities was forwarded to the committee chairman. That list focused on our top priority of readiness and included unfunded requirements for Base Support, Real Property Maintenance, trucks, and helicopters.

Question. If this committee finds funds to add to the President’s request for the

Army, where do you recommend we put that money? Real readiness issues such as

training and spare parts? Quality of life issues? Which quality of life issues?

Answer. In March, the Army submitted to the committee a list of its top fiscal

year 1999 unfunded priorities. The top five issues support Total Army readiness and

include: fiscal year 1999 Contingency Operations; Army National Guard Military

Technicians; Total Army Real Property Maintenance; Total Army Base Operations

Support; and Army National Guard/U.S. Army Reserve Operating Tempo.

The unfunded priority list was based on some up-front assumptions. First, the fiscal year 1999 budget amendment must include new funding to pay for on-going contingency operations in Bosnia. Second, the Army’s fiscal year 1999 budget would be

funded in the categories we requested. If these assumptions hold, the Army’s first

use of additional funding will be to resource near term readiness shortfalls in training and maintenance.

PRIVATIZATION

Question. What savings does the Army plan from contracting out for 1999 and

1999–2003?

Answer. The competitive sourcing initiative is programmed to achieve net savings

of over $1 billion during fiscal years 1999–2003 by conducting A–76 studies of approximately 48,000 civilian and 8,000 military commercial activity-type positions.

The Army expects to generate gross savings of $48 million in fiscal year 1999. These

programmed savings are based on a 20 percent reduction of the spaces studied along

with the associated salary dollars.

Question. How did the Army arrive at the number of civilian and military jobs

to be eliminated and/or contracted out?

Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense provided programming guidance.

The guidance governing competitive sourcing directed the services to program a

minimum 20 percent reduction in civilian end-strength and dollars. The Army elected to use Circular A–76, Performance of Commercial Activities, as its tool to achieve

directed cuts.

Question. Were specific, individual studies performed to analyze the savings and

appropriateness of activities to compete? Or, was a goal imposed ‘‘from the top?’’

Answer. In 1995, the Commission on Roles and Missions recommended all noncore support activities be outsourced. In its August 1996 report, the Defense Science

Board Task Force on Outsourcing and Privatization recommended the Department

of Defense establish a goal of shifting dollars savings achieved through competitive

sourcing from defense support activities to modernization. Finally, the Quadrennial

Defense Review, in a report released in May of 1997, directed cuts be programmed

in the fiscal year 1999–2003 Program Objective Memorandum.

Question. How did the Army determine that contracting out saves 20 percent?

Why does the Air Force assume different savings? Please provide copies of the analysis you performed to come to the conclusion that 20 percent was the right number.

Answer. The 20 percent savings figure was not the product of a written analysis.

The fiscal year 1999–2003 program guidance directed a minimum 20 percent reduction of the spaces studied along with the associated salary dollars. Historically, average savings based on winning contractor or in-house bid versus pre-study cost has

been approximately 28 percent. Given previous and competing initiatives to reduce

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
872

the civilian workforce, the Army viewed 20 percent a more conservative savings factor.

Question. With fewer military personnel and DOD civilians after all this contracting out, what will be the impact on overseas rotations and ‘‘perstempo’’ problems?

Answer. Rotation and personnel tempo problems related to competitive sourcing

are minimal, because the Army has so few overseas military positions for which rotation base positions have to be preserved.

Question. How will the Army monitor and document the progress in achieving

your outsourcing programs and achieving the planned savings? Will these data be

confirmed by an outside party?

Answer. The Army is developing a database that will track the outcome of these

commercial activities studies to validate savings. In the interim, we have asked the

Army Audit Agency to validate savings. The Army also receives reports on study

progress regularly from its field commands. Savings are documented on cost comparison forms which reflect the results of each study. While the Army has not requested an outside agency to review future A–76 results, historically, many such reviews have been conducted. In fact, the Government Accounting Office is currently

reviewing the Department of Defense’s past A–76 efforts and future A–76 plans.

Question. What actions do you plan if the savings do not materialize as planned?

More outsourcing? Cuts in procurement? Force structure? Readiness?

Answer. If the savings are not achieved, funding planned for additional modernization programs will be delayed or an equivalent savings will be achieved

through economies and efficiencies in other areas. However, we expect to achieve

savings as planned, because our projections are more conservative than the average

savings achieved by the Army and by the Department of Defense in the past. Specifically, we have programmed 20 percent savings compared to the historical average of 28 percent savings. During the last several years, as we have emphasized

the savings that competitive sourcing can produce, we have allowed our commanders to make the local decisions on which specific commercial activity functions to

study. They are in the best position to know what makes sense to compete and

when, supporting readiness as our number one priority. In separate actions, the

Army is already reducing military manpower from 495,000 to 480,000 to comply

with Quadrennial Defense Review decisions.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

CIVILIAN REDUCTIONS

Question. Mr. Secretary, over the past decade the Army has cut its civilian workforce by 166,000 people. Many of these cuts were related to base closings. Over the

next five years, you plan to cut another 21,000 jobs unrelated to base closure. Already there are some members of Congress requesting that civilians should not be

cut from their particular bases. How do you suggest we respond to these requests?

Answer. Reductions in the budget translate to reductions in civilian manpower.

As we face budget reductions and must shift some resources to modernization programs, we look to efficiencies in performing the mission. These efficiencies are based

on decreases in workload or sometimes outsourcing a function if cost effective

through a competitive process. Other adjustments in workload and work force are

made based on changes in force structure.

Question. Mr. Secretary, I have been on the Appropriations Committee for nearly

30 years, and I cannot recall another occasion in which a department was cutting

its workforce this year below congressionally approved levels in anticipation of future cuts. Would you explain to me, from your position, why this is Army policy?

Answer. Army is aligning the workforce to missions and funding levels. We provide Commanders some flexibility in the year of execution to meet mission requirements by increasing or reducing personnel strengths not submitted in the budget.

Commanders in the field from time to time must re-balance resources in order to

protect readiness and soldier quality of life. It is this re-balancing to which you are

probably referring.

COMANCHE

Question. The Comanche program and its forerunner, the LHX, have been in development for 15 years. What possible rationale can you provide for this, and why

should we continue to fund its development for the next eight years to begin production?

Answer. The Comanche program has undergone a number of externally imposed

restructures over the years. What has not changed is the Army’s critical battlefield

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
873

deficiency of armed reconnaissance. Comanche is key to Army modernization and

will replace the Vietnam-era AH–1 Cobra and OH–58A/C aircraft with a survivable,

versatile, lethal, and deployable armed reconnaissance aircraft to meet that critical

battlefield deficiency.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE

Question. Last week, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile

missed its fifth consecutive target. Have you examined this program, its schedule

risk to consider whether it might make sense to require it to hit targets more than

once before we should buy the missiles?

Answer. We are presently looking at several options, one which includes executing

the User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) contingency option after two intercepts, and other options that include conducting additional testing on risk reduction

missiles. We will present our options to the Department of Defense (DOD) at the

Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) meeting this summer. The OIPT will

reach a consensus regarding how many intercepts will be considered adequate to

execute the UOES missile contingency option or whether additional risk reduction

testing is necessary to reduce procurement risk.

Question. Would you support a policy where DOD did not buy any of these advanced ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ missile defense systems until it had demonstrated repeated successes in actual flight testing?

Answer. Current ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ missile defense systems require demonstrating repeated successes in actual flight testing prior to entering the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) acquisition life cycle phase. For example, the

THAAD program’s current requirement is to demonstrate three successes in actual

flight testing prior to entering the EMD phase.

JOINT STARS DATA LINK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Question. I am told that the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

(STARS) aircraft relies on the Surveillance Control Data Link (SCDL) to pass information between the aircraft and ground stations. Can you tell me if the Army is

planning to upgrade this data link and whether there would be significant cost savings by implementing this modernization at a faster pace?

Answer. The Army began the SCDL System Improvement Program (SIP–1) in fis- cal year 1996 with $1 million to solve the Disappearing Military Suppliers (obsolete

parts) problem by converting digital circuit boards to modern software-based Field

Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) boards. Additionally, other technology was inserted to reduce production costs. SIP–2 began in fiscal year 1997 with $12 million

and continues the modernization effort by converting all air and ground digital

boards to FPGA boards. SIP–2 completion is scheduled for January 1999. SIP–3 is

scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2000, but $16 million in fiscal year 1999 would accelerate the start by one year, immediately follow SIP–2, and result in an $84 million life cycle cost savings versus $70 million. SIP–3 will provide a higher data rate

SCDL needed for the Joint STARS Radar Technology Insertion Program and reduce

the size and weight of the SCDL Ground Data Terminal, allowing the addition of

new sensor and communications systems to the Joint STARS Common Ground Station.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GEN. DENNIS J. REIMER

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

DIGITIZATION

Question. Will the entire Army eventually be digitized, or will digitization efforts

focus on providing a ‘‘digital backbone?’’ Which modernization programs are now

being considered as key division assets?

Answer. To achieve the goal of Army XXI by the year 2010 (in accordance with

Joint Vision 2010), nearly all of the Total Army will be digitized. All Active component units and a significant number of Reserve component (Army National Guard

and Army Reserve) units will be digitized by 2010. This equates to five heavy divisions, one composite division, four light divisions, one armored cavalry regiment, one

light cavalry regiment, four corps headquarters and corps troops (most Reserve component units to be digitized by 2010 fit into this category), the training base, and

the Army and Commander-in-Chief headquarters.

The Reserve component slice will be fielded with their Active counterpart units,

primarily combat support and combat service support units, but also some combat

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
874

arms units such as Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery. Current plans call for

the Army National Guard Enhanced Separate Brigades to be digitized with the

‘‘backbone’’ systems and Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2)/

Applique by 2012, with most units fielded by 2010.

The Army does have a ‘‘digital backbone.’’ These systems are the eleven Category

1 Digital Systems: they consist of the five Army Tactical Command and Control Systems, FBCB2/Applique, and five communications systems (most make up the Tactical Internet). A digitized division must be fielded with these eleven systems as a

minimum to be considered a ‘‘digitized’’ unit. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command has also developed a draft list of Category 1 Systems for Light Units.

The ‘‘digital backbone’’ described above and a select number of modernization systems are considered key division assets. The modernization systems include: the

M1A2 System Enhancement Program tank and M2/M3A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle

with embedded FBCB2 or the M1A1D and M2A2 Operation Desert Storm configuration; FBCB2; Maneuver Control System; All Source Analysis System; Advanced

Field Artillery Tactical Data Systems; Forward Area Air Defense Command and

Control; and Combat Service Support Control System.

Question. Will upgrades of Abrams tanks be continued beyond the current

multiyear contract?

Answer. The current multiyear ends in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 1999

President’s budget includes funding for a follow-on three-year multiyear procurement for an average of about 95 Abrams upgrades per year. Advance procurement

for the next multiyear begins in fiscal year 2000, and the last procurement year is

fiscal year 2003.

Question. Will the new command and control vehicle, the C2V, program continue

under the current plan?

Answer. The Army fully supports the fiscal year 1999 President’s budget request

for the C2V program. In fiscal year 1999, the Army will fund $46.7 million, which

will procure ten C2V’s. These C2V’s will be fielded to the 4th Infantry Division.

The C2V provides the Army an essential global communications and command

and control platform. The C2V enables commanders and their staffs to rapidly assimilate the Army’s Battle Command Systems into a single node to plan and execute

heavy force operations on the digital battlefield. The capabilities and unique features of the C2V far exceed the capabilities of the current M577 Command Post Vehicle.

The C2V is in its second year of Low Rate Initial Production. The program is on

schedule and within budget. We used five C2V’s during our Brigade Task Force XXI

Advanced Warfighting Experiment (AWE). The AWE validated the critical need for

the C2V.

Unfortunately, total Army budgetary constraints have forced the Army to consider

restructuring the C2V program. The planned program represented in the fiscal year

1999 President’s budget buys 439 C2V’s, which will field it to all Active heavy units,

war reserves, and the training base. Although we would like to continue with the

program in its current form, a restructuring would allow the Army to pay for other

urgently needed programs. An alternative under consideration will provide C2V’s to

the Army’s First Digital Corps only.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD INTEGRATION PILOT PROGRAM

Question. General Reimer, I understand that the Army is initiating a pilot program called Agile Warrior. Would you explain the concept and explain how it will

improve integration between the Active Army and the Army National Guard?

Answer. While still in the development phase, the Divisional Teaming pilot program (previously known as ‘‘Agile Warrior’’) will pair selected Active and National

Guard combat divisions in a relationship that will cover the entire spectrum of

Army operations. Under the Divisional Teaming concept, partnered divisions will

conduct joint planning, training, and readiness assessments. When called upon to

support operational requirements, the divisions will team their resources for rapid

response. The Army National Guard will augment and assist its partnered command, speeding deployment of the Active division and then conducting their own follow-on, post-mobilization preparations. In the event of domestic emergencies or

homeland defense, the Active division will be prepared to supplement and reinforce

the Army National Guard division’s lead. Integration will be greatly enhanced as

the divisions work together accomplishing specific missions. Through the Divisional

Teaming partnership, both units will benefit, and the Army’s capability to respond

across the full spectrum of military operations will be greatly enhanced.

Question. How many units will be assigned under this concept initially?

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
875

Answer. The specific number of divisions to be teamed under the initial phase of

the Divisional Teaming program is still being determined.

Question. If this pilot program is successful, will all Army divisional forces be

aligned in this manner?

Answer. Yes. If the pilot program is successful, the intent is to establish a

teaming relationship between all eight Army National Guard divisions and eight of

ten Active component divisions.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

READINESS

Question. How do you survey people leaving the Army, and those staying?

Answer. The Army uses the same Army-wide survey (the semi-annual Sample

Survey of Military Personnel (SSMP)) for both those leaving the Army and those

staying in the Active component. This approach allows the Army to compare the responses of those who are thinking about or definitely plan on leaving the Army with

those who are planning to stay past their current obligation and/or to retirement.

Question. Do you use ‘‘blind,’’ anonymous surveys or face-to-face meetings with

commanders.

Answer. The SSMP is an anonymous survey, printed on optical scan paper to facilitate transferring the responses from each soldier to a data file for analysis. The

soldier places the completed survey in an envelope, seals it, and returns it to the

person who distributed the survey or mails it directly to the Army’s central survey

processing point.

At the unit level, commanders conduct informal exit interviews with soldiers who

are leaving. The results of these interviews usually are not sent to a central collection point.

Question. Why would you trust data on these issues if they are based on face-toface interviews?

Answer. The face-to-face interviews with commanders permits departing soldiers

to point out strengths and weaknesses of the unit, without having to be concerned

with the potential impact the comments might have on their future careers. Conducting the interviews immediately before the soldier leaves the unit is one way of

encouraging candid comments. Usually, no ‘‘data’’ or results are compiled on the

basis of these interviews. For commanders, the interviews are one of many tools

used to assess the status of their units.

Question. Do you collect and retain survey data? Please provide the results from

this data.

Answer. The Army Personnel Survey Office (APSO) at the U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences is responsible for conducting the

SSMP, analyzing the data, and reporting the findings to Army activities sponsoring

selected survey topics as well as to top Army leaders. For some topics, APSO has

trend data dating back to the mid-1980’s. Below is a table reporting the percent of

officers and enlisted personnel who are satisfied with various aspects of their Army

jobs and the quality of life in the Army from surveys taken over that last four years.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
876

[In percent]

Officers (percent satisfied, very satisfied) Enlisted Officers (percent satisfied, very satisfied)

S 1994 F 1994 S 1995 F 1995 S 1996 F 1996 S 1997 F 1997 S 1994 F 1994 S 1995 F 1995 S 1996 F 1996 S 1997 F 1997

Access to education/training .................................................................. 68.9 68.7 67.6 68.1 70.4 71.2 70.4 69.8 56.0 58.7 54.3 54.2 57.2 54.3 58.7 59.7Amount of enjoyment from my job ......................................................... 78.1 77.9 77.7 75.7 78.5 77.3 77.3 76.6 60.6 61.6 59.6 57.3 60.5 59.1 61.2 62.1Amount of equipment/supplies ............................................................... 54.7 51.5 54.3 54.1 56.8 54.9 56.1 54.0 39.1 41.1 39.5 38.7 41.0 38.8 42.9 39.9Amount of paperwork .............................................................................. 37.7 35.7 35.5 37.3 40.1 38.6 38.6 38.9 53.7 54.8 53.6 53.4 57.0 53.0 56.0 55.2Amount of pay (basic) ............................................................................ 65.4 61.5 61.4 62.3 61.9 61.0 61.3 58.1 33.1 29.3 29.2 28.1 30.9 28.3 28.9 27.3Amount of personnel available to do work ............................................ 38.2 34.9 33.5 33.3 33.7 32.5 29.9 32.3 40.5 41.3 36.0 35.0 35.7 33.5 35.9 39.2Amount of regulation and discipline ...................................................... 72.2 72.4 71.1 71.1 70.9 70.5 67.6 68.3 63.5 63.2 61.8 60.4 63.6 58.9 61.1 59.2Amount of respect from superiors .......................................................... 80.0 81.7 81.2 80.0 81.5 82.4 81.6 82.7 60.7 61.8 60.1 59.0 61.7 60.6 63.7 63.0Amount of time separated from family .................................................. 60.2 58.5 56.7 51.5 54.0 50.7 51.9 52.8 42.0 45.6 40.2 38.8 40.3 39.1 39.4 40.2Amount of VHA/COLA .............................................................................. 50.2 45.1 48.0 54.7 49.9 49.5 49.7 46.7 37.9 36.8 37.3 38.1 38.4 37.5 38.4 33.2Assignment to leadership jobs ............................................................... 80.5 80.1 79.5 79.0 80.2 81.7 79.9 79.1 62.0 62.6 62.5 61.0 63.5 63.1 64.1 64.0Assignments to jobs offering tech/prof development ............................ 73.3 73.1 71.6 71.4 72.4 71.7 72.0 72.1 47.9 48.8 47.5 45.2 49.0 46.6 48.2 50.7Availability of Army family programs ..................................................... 74.1 73.5 75.0 74.3 76.1 76.7 76.0 74.8 67.3 67.5 65.6 65.2 65.4 67.3 64.4 66.1Availability of family dental care ........................................................... 25.7 27.1 30.4 33.4 32.6 33.3 37.3 36.7 37.9 39.4 38.0 39.3 40.2 39.7 45.0 44.9Availability of family medical care ......................................................... 35.0 32.8 33.6 38.6 39.7 38.7 40.2 40.7 43.4 43.8 42.0 44.2 44.8 41.7 48.8 45.0Availability of government housing ........................................................ 37.9 36.0 32.8 39.4 35.8 37.7 37.6 38.5 29.2 32.2 28.0 30.7 35.2 29.8 37.1 36.4Commissary ............................................................................................. 81.4 80.8 81.9 81.4 81.1 80.5 81.6 81.7 80.6 78.5 77.9 80.0 78.3 77.1 79.1 78.2Compensation for PCS moves ................................................................. 48.5 54.1 51.5 51.6 53.6 52.8 56.2 55.0 50.4 51.5 44.6 47.3 50.4 48.9 51.6 48.8Control over my job assignments ........................................................... 54.5 54.4 52.2 52.8 54.7 55.4 52.9 54.0 43.5 45.5 41.5 40.3 40.6 41.7 43.5 43.2Dependent schools (DODDS) ................................................................... 69.6 71.3 69.2 68.0 71.6 73.3 67.5 68.6 66.7 68.8 69.2 66.0 67.1 66.5 65.8 64.5Fairness of married vs. single pay ......................................................... 77.9 76.8 76.7 76.0 79.2 77.9 79.6 76.8 54.9 52.9 52.5 53.3 55.8 53.8 54.5 53.2Geographic location of jobs .................................................................... 80.7 81.2 79.3 79.9 78.7 78.7 78.3 78.4 69.4 70.5 67.8 68.8 68.3 68.1 69.4 70.4Job security ............................................................................................. 53.1 54.0 53.8 55.6 53.9 56.8 55.8 59.8 62.5 63.4 64.5 61.2 62.5 63.9 65.7 67.6Length of working hours ......................................................................... 65.8 63.6 62.8 58.0 62.1 62.0 61.6 60.1 61.9 62.4 59.1 57.0 61.3 59.9 61.4 63.2Level of competence of co-workers ........................................................ 78.9 79.8 78.4 77.2 78.8 79.3 77.3 77.2 62.9 63.8 60.5 58.1 61.7 60.2 60.7 60.1Level of competence of supervisors ....................................................... 77.3 79.3 77.7 77.2 78.6 80.4 77.8 80.4 62.5 63.8 61.2 59.9 63.8 63.8 64.8 64.5Level of educational benefits ................................................................. 68.9 68.1 68.5 69.8 72.9 71.1 71.4 70.7 59.7 57.2 57.4 55.9 62.0 59.6 61.6 61.4Level of fairness in how my performance is eval ................................. 74.1 73.5 73.1 72.6 73.9 76.2 76.8 78.1 65.0 65.3 64.5 61.7 65.8 64.6 66.2 64.8Level of job fulfillment/challenge ........................................................... 79.8 78.5 79.8 77.3 80.2 79.8 78.3 78.6 60.5 62.8 61.2 60.5 62.2 60.5 62.1 62.5Level of recognition for my accomplishments ....................................... 69.3 68.2 69.1 70.5 70.2 73.1 71.7 72.1 47.2 47.8 45.8 43.5 47.0 46.9 50.3 49.6Living conditions overseas ...................................................................... 65.7 63.0 63.5 60.1 63.5 60.4 56.1 58.7 56.2 54.2 53.2 51.6 50.4 52.4 48.9 49.7Living conditions stateside ..................................................................... 76.9 72.0 71.8 72.9 71.4 69.3 70.9 70.1 54.1 55.0 50.6 51.6 54.9 53.5 56.1 55.1Number of PCS relocations ..................................................................... 72.0 72.3 69.1 69.2 70.0 67.3 68.1 68.0 60.9 62.3 57.8 59.3 63.5 59.4 60.2 61.6

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
877

Number of quick response tasks ............................................................ 45.0 41.8 41.5 39.9 43.6 41.8 40.7 42.2 56.2 56.5 55.4 53.9 56.3 55.1 56.1 55.4Opportunity to select a job, training, or station .................................... 55.1 56.8 54.6 54.7 54.8 56.5 55.0 55.2 30.0 32.5 28.4 30.2 30.3 30.1 32.8 32.2Overall quality of Army life ..................................................................... 74.5 71.2 70.8 68.1 72.3 71.1 68.4 68.7 54.7 53.1 53.0 48.6 52.5 52.4 52.2 53.0Overseas duty .......................................................................................... 82.0 81.9 81.4 81.9 82.2 82.6 80.4 81.5 67.7 70.0 67.5 69.9 69.7 66.9 68.8 68.5Post Exchange (PX) ................................................................................. 75.2 75.5 73.2 70.9 72.4 72.7 73.7 73.5 75.3 71.4 70.9 71.7 70.8 71.8 72.4 72.7Promotion/advancement opportunities .................................................... 71.5 71.8 70.8 69.4 68.4 69.6 71.4 71.5 46.4 48.0 44.5 40.5 42.2 45.0 50.2 51.4Quality of Army family programs ............................................................ 74.1 73.5 74.0 73.4 75.1 76.7 74.7 74.3 66.8 66.1 64.7 63.4 63.8 65.7 64.3 63.7Quality of equipment/supplies ................................................................ 63.1 60.5 61.9 60.5 62.6 61.7 60.7 60.5 43.8 44.9 42.9 41.7 44.3 41.2 45.4 43.8Quality of family dental care .................................................................. 40.7 40.1 42.1 45.5 44.3 42.9 46.8 46.0 42.4 44.5 42.0 41.9 42.3 42.5 47.4 47.7Quality of family medical care ............................................................... 44.7 42.6 42.5 48.9 48.8 47.3 46.4 46.0 44.5 45.5 43.7 44.5 46.3 42.1 47.8 43.6Quality of government housing ............................................................... 50.0 45.8 39.7 41.0 42.1 40.2 41.5 40.1 46.8 44.5 40.7 42.7 46.2 43.3 43.2 45.2Quality of leadership at your place of duty ........................................... 71.7 73.5 71.7 70.6 71.4 73.8 71.2 74.7 53.6 54.9 52.7 51.7 53.4 54.3 56.4 56.5Quality of military dental care ............................................................... 69.7 68.7 69.5 71.9 72.3 71.5 70.7 70.8 63.7 65.4 64.4 66.0 65.5 61.7 68.7 66.9Quality of military medical care ............................................................. 59.1 56.5 56.0 60.9 62.1 61.6 53.8 53.2 50.5 50.3 50.2 50.3 53.6 49.3 51.5 46.9Quality of recreational services .............................................................. 85.9 85.8 84.9 84.1 83.0 83.2 84.3 82.5 78.1 77.1 77.7 76.2 76.3 76.4 76.8 75.4Retirement benefits ................................................................................. 51.7 51.8 48.4 44.8 48.7 44.4 39.0 38.5 42.0 40.5 38.5 32.5 32.9 33.1 28.1 28.3Special pay (such as bonuses) .............................................................. 56.5 53.7 55.1 55.4 58.1 57.1 53.4 49.2 34.2 34.9 33.8 32.0 35.9 33.4 35.0 33.1Spouse career/work opportunities ........................................................... 46.6 45.8 47.7 45.2 45.7 44.6 47.3 46.0 42.2 43.9 39.8 38.5 40.6 40.3 40.7 42.8Use of my skills and training on the job ............................................... 77.8 76.3 77.5 74.6 77.3 77.6 75.8 75.8 63.8 64.5 63.4 61.8 64.0 63.8 64.4 64.0Youth services ......................................................................................... 79.9 80.8 81.2 80.0 82.3 81.8 79.9 78.6 78.7 76.0 77.7 77.2 78.4 78.9 72.7 72.8Availability of recreational services ........................................................ .......... .......... .......... .......... 81.6 81.4 81.2 80.0 .......... .......... .......... .......... 75.4 75.3 75.2 74.0Army Child Care Programs ..................................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 67.8 65.2 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 56.0 55.8

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
878

Question. What do your latest 1998 data show about retention of basic infantrymen, mechanics, cooks, and pilots? Is it getting better or worse? Is it better or worse

for married personnel? With families? What are the socio-economic profiles of the

people leaving? Staying?

Answer. Retention data through the first half of fiscal year 1998 shows overall

retention in the requested specialties to be at or above fiscal year 1997 levels. Rates

for first-term infantrymen averaged 47.9 percent from fiscal year 1994–96, but

dipped to 44.2 percent in fiscal year 1997. They have rebounded to 49.5 percent thus

far in fiscal year 1998. This is largely attributable to increasing the reenlistment

bonus for infantry during fiscal year 1997 at an additional cost of $14 million per

year. Rates for mid-career (reenlisted once with 10 or less years service) infantry

soldiers have risen from 72 percent for fiscal year 1994–96 to 75 percent for fiscal

year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 to date.

Retention for cooks has remained well above Army averages in all categories from

fiscal year 1994–97. However, there has been a decline in cook retention in fiscal

year 1998, compared to fiscal year 1997. Retention rates for first-term cooks were

62 percent in fiscal year 1997, compared with 56 percent in fiscal year 1998. Midcareer rates have fallen from 79 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 74 percent in fiscal

year 1998. It is still too early to tell if this trend is the beginning of a steady decline

or due to other factors.

Mechanic retention for both first-termers and mid-careerists fell substantially during fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996, attributable to budget forced promotion

slowdowns, bonus reductions and a strong economy. Mechanic retention rebounded

in fiscal year 1997 and in fiscal year 1998. Critical mechanic skills were added to

the reenlistment bonus program in fiscal year 1997 and remain for fiscal year 1998.

Mechanics will remain in the bonus program as a hedge against future losses impacted by the availability of civilian employment. Fiscal year 1997 first-term rate

was 52 percent, compared with a 47 percent rate for fiscal year 1994–96. The fiscal

year 1998 rate is 54 percent. Mid-career rates show similar trends.

Pilot retention has remained consistent since fiscal year 1994; however, under

accessioning from fiscal year 1995–97 and opportunities for civilian employment

have hampered readiness and retention. Anticipated pilot losses for fiscal year 1998

are 450–525, with accessions expected to be approximately 350. Pending bonuses for

pilots, if approved, are expected to offset some losses.

Retention of married soldiers with families has declined slightly since fiscal year

1995, particularly among frequently deployed soldiers. Minority soldiers have been

reenlisting at rates (5–8 percent) higher than white soldiers. Married soldiers cite

spousal dissatisfaction and perceptions of benefit reductions as major reasons for

leaving the Army. The socio-economic status of soldiers who depart is nonconclusive.

Soldiers with marketable skills and higher aptitude capabilities have a higher loss

rate than soldiers from lower aptitude groups.

Question. What are the specific complaints of people leaving the Army?

Answer. The Sample Survey of Military Personnel, conducted most recently during the fall of 1997, has identified the following as the most important reasons for

soldiers thinking about or leaving the Army before retirement: amount of time separated from family; amount of enjoyment from job; amount of basic pay; overall quality of life in the Army; retirement benefits; and promotion/advancement opportunities.

Question. What are the reasons for staying of the people who stay?

Answer. The decision to stay in or leave the Army before retirement is very complex, including job satisfaction, quality of life, patriotism, and enjoyment of the

Army way of life. Usually, there is no single reason for staying in, just as there usually is no single reason for wanting to leave the Army. However, the following are

those aspects of the job and quality of life issues which have been rated highest in

satisfaction according to the fall of 1997 Sample Survey of Military Personnel and

are believed to contribute most heavily to a soldier’s decision to stay in the Army:

Officers

Amount of respect from superiors

Quality of recreational services

Commissary benefits

Overseas duty

Level of competence of supervisors

Availability of recreational services

Assignment to leadership jobs

Level of job fulfillment/challenge

Youth services

Geographic location of jobs

Enlisted

Commissary benefits

Quality of recreational services

Availability of recreational services

Youth services

Post Exchanges benefits

Geographic location of jobs

Overseas duty

Job security

Quality of military dental care

Availability of Army family programs

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
879

Question. Which of your ‘‘quality of life’’ programs are working? Which are not?

Answer. All of the quality of life programs the Army offers are working. Soldiers’

satisfaction with the availability and quality of family and recreation programs, as

measured by the Army-wide Sample Survey of Military Personnel, remains high.

The survey measures 55 quality of life and job issues. Satisfaction with quality and

availability of recreation programs ranks within the top five, and all morale, welfare

and recreation (MWR) programs rank within the top 20. To maintain its consistently high ranking, Army MWR tailors its quality of life programs based on populations, locations, and trends. Each installation offers those programs from the

Army-wide mix that its community demands. Commanders consider availability and

accessibility of programs and services off the installation. Both installations and

higher headquarters track new ideas to either modify existing programs or offer new

programs to further improve quality of life. We are currently redesigning our teen

programs to improve the quality of service, better meet the needs of our teens, and

enhance program management. We are fielding an improved outdoor recreation program. We are also exploring ways to strengthen our fitness program with trained

and certified fitness professionals, equipment standards, and centralized acquisition

of equipment.

Question. Which generate the best pay-off in terms of retention? Please provide

the data and analysis to substantiate your answer, or are you using judgment or

anecdotal evidence to assess the degrees of success or failure?

Answer. We know of no studies in the Army or the other services that show which

programs generate the best pay-off in terms of retention. The Walter Reed Army

Institute of Research is conducting exploratory research using existing survey databases to determine program impacts on quality of life and retention. In 1996, Caliber Associates reviewed military and civilian literature for the Army. Their report,

Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Programs and Readiness Links, presents

findings from over 100 studies, mostly military, that tie MWR programs to ‘‘commitment.’’ Commitment is defined as the strength of an individual’s identification with

and involvement in the work organization, including allegiance, determination, and

retention.

Question. Does the Army have any studies of these issues? By independent organizations? Please provide copies.

Answer. We have provided a copy of Caliber Associates’ MWR Programs and

Readiness Links separately to the committee. The report’s bibliography lists the

studies that Caliber Associates reviewed.

Question. What changes have been occurring in spouse and child abuse for the

past two years? Please differentiate between officers and enlisted, length of service,

and among major military specialties and PERSTEMPO rates.

Answer. The rate of substantiated spouse abuse incidents among enlisted soldiers

declined from 12.2/1,000 in fiscal year 1996 to 10.9/1,000 in fiscal year 1997. The

rate among officers also declined from 1.4/1,000 in fiscal year 1996 to 1.1/1,000 in

fiscal year 1997. In the area of child abuse, the substantiation rate among enlisted

soldiers was 8.2/1,000 in fiscal year 1996, and remained unchanged in fiscal year

1997. Among officers, the rate declined from 1.7/1,000 in fiscal year 1996 to 1.3/

1,000 in fiscal year 1997. Given the limitations of the data we collect, we are unable

to differentiate abuse based upon length of service, military occupational specialty

(MOS), or PERSTEMPO rates presumably tied to MOS

Question. What is the role of the current high PERSTEMPO in any changes in

family abuse? Please provide copies of any analysis you have of the relationship.

Answer. We are not aware of any research showing a statistically significant relationship between high PERSTEMPO and family violence.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

CIVILIAN REDUCTIONS

Question. General Reimer, last month I met with Army military leaders in Hawaii, and I learned that they are making large civilian cuts in their work force this

year even though they have funding to pay them, but because they have been told

by Army Headquarters that they won’t have funding to keep them in 1999. Can you

explain why Headquarters is mandating that these cuts be taken now to pay for

shortfalls in the coming year.

Answer. We are not mandating early reductions. The commanders are taking this

action as the most effective and efficient way to use their resources to protect readiness and quality of life. Commanders are attempting to implement these reductions

through voluntary separations to the maximum extent possible. Savings from the

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
880

reductions are being put into other areas that are critical to accomplishing the commanders’ missions.

COMANCHE

Question. General Reimer, 14 years ago the Army wanted to accelerate the development of the Comanche so that it would reach its initial operating capability in

1992. Obviously that didn’t happen. It is now 1998, and we are still eight or nine

years away from starting Comanche production. When do you now expect to have

an initial operating capability, or the first operational unit in the field?

Answer. Low Rate Initial Production will begin in 2004, and we will field the initial operating capability unit, a troop in the divisional cavalry squadron of the First

Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, in December 2006. We plan to complete fielding

the rest of the squadron by the end of 2007.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

ARMY PREPOSITIONED EQUIPMENT

Question. The South Carolina (SC) National Guard believes it could less expensively and more efficiently manage the Army’s prepositioned (PREPO) equipment in

Charleston. I support the National Guard in this endeavor as this mission seems

an ideal one for the National Guard. Therefore, I trust that you will insure that

their proposal is heard and fairly evaluated as you seek a competitive maintainer

of this important war reserve equipment.

Answer. The Army will conduct a fair competition between private industry and

the SC National Guard. The process will begin with a pre-solicitation conference on

July 1, 1998, for all interested parties as well as the SC National Guard. A final

decision will be in accordance with contractual procedures governed by law.

MEDICAL CARE

Question. I receive letters from retirees and active soldiers alike who are concerned that the promise of free, lifetime medical care is being broken. A recent letter

from a Fort Jackson commander expressed concern that a shortage of doctors at the

military hospital caused his troops to be treated off post, costing them money and

taking them away from training for long periods of time. Retirees tell me that it

is more difficult, and often impossible to receive treatment in military medical facilities.

What is the Army doing to improve medical care for soldiers and retirees?

Answer. The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) is concentrating considerable

energy on a number of initiatives to improve medical care for soldiers and retirees,

as well as for their families. These initiatives include the implementation and enhancement of TRICARE system-wide, and Army emphasis on health promotion to

keep our people in an optimal state of health and fitness.

TRICARE is now implemented nationwide and offers our beneficiaries access to

a quality medical benefits package at a reasonable cost. All active duty soldiers are

automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime and, as always, are our top priority for

care. When needed care is not available at nearby medical facilities, our soldiers are

either referred to military medical centers or are assisted in obtaining care from

local civilian providers, with full consideration of duty requirements and at no cost

to the soldier.

The Army has led the way in pursuing meaningful enhancements to the

TRICARE program. Among these, we have succeeded in establishing family-focused

features, such as TRICARE portability and split enrollment, which assure continuity

of the TRICARE Prime health benefit for all beneficiaries and reduce enrollment

fees for our retired families. Also, those eligible under the Civilian Health and Medical Program for Uniformed Services may now elect to use the National Mail Order

Pharmacy Program which offers very low cost prescription service when access to

a nearby military pharmacy is not possible.

The AMEDD is aggressively promoting real health preventive measures such as

patient education, personal behavior changes, and early disease detection. Along

with the other services, we have targeted alcohol consumption, accident prevention,

and tobacco cessation as the centerpiece of our health promotion program.

Although ‘‘the promise of free, lifetime medical care’’ is an understanding currently not supported by the Justice Department and the Courts, the AMEDD is

doing everything possible to provide low cost quality medical care to all our beneficiaries. In cooperation with other Department of Defense elements, we have succeeded in obtaining Congressional authorization and Health Care Financing AdminU:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
881

istration (HCFA) cooperation to conduct a Medicare Subvention demonstration

which we believe will provide the basis for extending military health care to our

military retirees beyond their 65th birthday. Two of our Army demonstration sites,

Madigan Army Medical Center and Brooke Army Medical Center, have recently undergone successful HCFA on-site certifications, and we anticipate initiation of the

demonstration very soon.

ACTIVE COMPONENT/ARMY NATIONAL GUARD INTEGRATED DIVISION HEADQUARTERS

Question. I want to again express my disappointment that the division headquarters of the National Guard division with brigades in North Carolina, South

Carolina, and Georgia has been located in Fort Riley, Kansas, instead of centrally

in South Carolina. I believe this headquarters arrangement shortchanges the National Guard, will cost the taxpayers more in travel funds, and waste precious training time for brigade leaders. I’d like you to evaluate this arrangement during the

first year and provide me a report of your findings. I am convinced that a rational

look at this proposal will result in much needed changes to locate the headquarters

with the troops, preferably with the division forward, not 1,300 miles away.

Answer. The locations for the integrated divisions’ headquarters and their forward

elements were approved on December 2, 1997, by the Secretary of the Army after

a rigorous analysis with on-site surveys of 15 potential sites. Sites evaluated on the

east coast included Forts Jackson, Knox, Drum, Rucker, Campbell, and Stewart.

The weighted criteria applied during the analysis were the availability of division

headquarters facilities, base facilities, simulation centers, motor pools, a transportation hub, and living areas and the ability to support a transition to an alternative

divisional organization for the integrated division. This meticulous evaluation resulted in the selection of Fort Riley with a forward element at Fort Jackson for the

heavy division. Throughout the entire process, the National Guard Bureau, the Adjutants General from states with enhanced Separate Brigades, and Forces Command provided input to and support of the final decisions. The benefits derived from

association with the division and the selected locations far outweigh the minimal

investment of time and money for travel. Fort Riley was selected based on its established heavy maneuver training areas, which currently serve two heavy maneuver

brigades. In addition, the 218th Infantry Brigade of the South Carolina Army National Guard has had an historic training relationship with Fort Riley. Fort Riley

also possesses adequate division headquarters buildings and facilities; an advanced

simulation center; and an established garrison command headquarters supporting

heavy combat forces. Fort Jackson, which is predominately a training installation,

serves as the forward element and would provide the necessary daily command and

control functions. In addition, the forward element at Fort Jackson will be able to

accomplish a significant portion of the tasks for training support and mentoring the

three assigned enhanced Separate Brigades.

One year after the activation of the two integrated divisions, a report will be provided on the effectiveness of this arrangement.

SIMULATORS

Question. What is the Active Army plan to incorporate weapon training simulators? What is the current status of this plan? As background, understand that the

U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and Air Force have successfully used weapons simulation to help maintain skills and also offsetting some of the requirements for ammunition and operating tempo (OPTEMPO) resources.

Answer. Today’s Army (Active and Reserve components) increasingly relies upon

simulators and simulations. A wide range of devices are already in use, and new

ones are being developed (e.g., live—Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System

2000; virtual—Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT); and constructive—

Warfighter’s Simulation) that will create a seamless virtual environment from crew

through combined arms task force level.

Our goal is to have repetitive, structured training to standard in tough, realistic,

increasingly difficult conditions across all domains: live, virtual, and constructive. In

some cases simulation training will be used to precede actual live training, thus allowing live training to become more intense and to remain the center piece of the

Army’s training program. In other cases simulation training can substitute for live

training. For example, we have done Division and Corps command and staff training for years using only simulations.

As capabilities in simulators and simulations increase, we will be able to substitute some for live training events to achieve savings in OPTEMPO and reduce

personnel tempo (PERTEMPO) while retaining our commitment to high quality

training. Examples of offsetting live OPTEMPO include: CCTT—Platoon maneuver

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
882

tasks associated with 60 miles of live training can now be performed in CCTT simulators; and Tank Weapons Gunnery Simulations System/Precision Gunnery System—Using these simulators, we have increased gunner and crew proficiency while

also reducing the amount of ammunition we buy. Tank rounds saved—10 Active

component and 5 Reserve component; and 25 mm rounds saved—192 per Bradley

Fighting Vehicle (BFV) and 193 per Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (Active component

only).

Question. What is the plan to use simulation in weapons training in the Army

Reserve? What is the current status of this plan?

Answer. The U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) supports and uses training aids in accordance with the Army’s Training Aids, Devices, and Simulation Systems guidance.

The USAR trains with all simulator systems used by similar Active component

units. The USAR has incorporated the use of weapons simulators as they have become available. Historically, the Weaponeer, Multi-purpose Arcade Combat Simulator and the Fire Arms Training Simulator have been utilized to enhance weapons

training capabilities for small arms. The USAR does not require simulators for

heavy weapons, i.e. tanks, artillery, and air defense. However, it does employ attack

helicopters and utilizes the Combat Mission Simulator for both weaponry and flight

training for its AH–64 Apache helicopters. It incorporates simulators within training

plans subject to the availability of funds for acquisition, travel, and training, particularly train-the-trainer instruction.

Question. What is the plan to use simulation in weapons training in the National

Guard? What is the current status of this plan?

Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) plans to use training aids, devices,

simulators, and simulations to replicate, but not replace, live weapons training to

the fullest extent possible. This includes the spectrum from individual weapons to

crew gunnery and force-to-force maneuver training.

Because National Guard training is inherently constrained by time, distance to

ranges, and range availability, the ARNG is committed to maximizing the use of

simulation. The ARNG is a full partner with the Army Reserve and the Active Army

in supporting the development of simulation in the Total Army training strategy.

The ARNG uses sophisticated simulation devices and models in individual weapons training, vehicle and cockpit crew training, and force-on-force simulations. Simulators and simulated training are, and will continue to be, a critical component of

the ARNG’s plan for maximizing the use of all available resources for training.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

NATIONAL GUARD FUNDING

Question. I am very concerned about the $634 million shortfall in the National

Guard operating budget—the difference between the overall amount recommended

in the Administration’s budget and the funding needs as assessed by the 50 states’

National Guard units. This shortfall could prove detrimental to the 41,000 guardsmen by limiting education, annual training, or even promotions.

I would like to know whether this shortfall implies a fundamental shift in the National Guard’s capability and mission, from war fighting to acting as a war-support

mechanism.

What are the Administration’s—and I assume the Defense Department’s and the

Army’s—policy and mission objectives in recommending a budget with this shortfall?

Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Army National Guard’s (ARNG’s) operating budget is at 90 percent of it’s reported critical requirement, leaving the $634 million reported shortfall. There are shortfalls throughout the Total Army and the $634 million ARNG shortfall represents a part of the Total Army’s overall $3 to $5 billion

funding shortfall for fiscal year 1999. To mitigate the readiness impact of the funding shortfalls, the ‘‘First to Fight’’ funding philosophy was adopted. The ‘‘First to

Fight’’ principle balances risk across all components. The ARNG is adequately funded to support the National Military Strategy.

The identified shortfall does not imply nor has there been a policy or mission

change which was designed to negatively impact the ARNG’s capability. Current

Army resource levels affect every aspect of the Total Army (i.e. personnel, training,

equipment, and modernization). We continue to place increasing emphasis on the

management of our very constrained and limited Total Obligation Authority. These

limited resources force us to make some difficult choices among a number of competing program requirements while attempting to sustain and protect combat readiness. The Total Army budget was submitted with risk apportioned to units in accordance with applicable war-fight requirements.

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
883

GROUND OPERATING TEMPO

Question. With regard to Vehicle Operating Tempo (OPTEMPO), in per vehicle

miles and total dollars:

What were the Army’s budgeted OPTEMPO and the actual OPTEMPO for last

year, fiscal year 1997? How do you account for the difference?

Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the Army budgeted 800 miles for all Active component units, funded at $2,665 million. This mileage is based on what the Army needs

to conduct critical battalion-level maneuver training. The actual miles executed

were 654 miles, with $2,290 million of funding executed.

Commanders in the field have had to balance training requirements with other

programs that also impact on readiness. For example in Base Operations, commanders have been required to divert training dollars to pay for the sustainment of their

training areas and ranges, motor pools, supply warehouses, railheads, airfields, and

other areas that support training. Without these facilities, the units could not train.

Additionally, the Army has been heavily engaged in supporting contingency operations and performing other missions not directly related to its warfighting mission.

The Army has been required to pay for these missions out of its current budget

pending supplemental funding from Congress. If funding from Congress comes too

late in the year, then training opportunities are lost due to the lack of time to execute training. That money will then be spent on other high priority programs. This

accounts for some of the migration and underexecution that is evident today.

The Army has taken several steps in the current budget to bring the programming and execution of resources more in line. We have also taken several steps to

reduce the overall cost of training, to include incorporation of simulation into our

training strategies and use of heavy equipment transports to reduce the number of

miles required to be driven by combat vehicles.

Question. What were the Army’s budgeted OPTEMPO and the actual OPTEMPO

for the current year, fiscal year 1998? How do you account for the difference?

Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the Army budgeted 800 miles for all Active component units, funded at $2,509 million. This mileage is based on what the Army needs

to conduct critical battalion-level maneuver training. OPTEMPO execution as of second quarter of fiscal year 1998 is 311 miles.

While the Army funded OPTEMPO in the President’s budget at 800 miles, congressional reductions to Operation and Maintenance, Army, for fiscal year 1998

amounted to $450 million. About $178 million were in specified areas. Another $272

million in reductions were unspecified in the Appropriations Conference report and

those reductions were distributed on a fair share basis to Army commands.

Congressional direction and Department of Defense implementing instructions required more detailed reporting procedures for fiscal year 1998 that show earlier in

the fiscal year the diversion of OPTEMPO to pay congressional and Headquarters,

Department of the Army, bills. Commanders took reductions in the OPTEMPO accounts because of the fiscal year 1998 level of funding in Base Operations (80 percent) and Real Property Maintenance (62 percent).

After all the reductions were taken and budget realigned, approximately $220 million was paid from OPTEMPO accounts. The net result is equivalent to reducing

OPTEMPO from 800 miles to 652 miles, or OPTEMPO funding at $2,291 million.

Question. What has been budgeted for the Army’s OPTEMPO for the coming year,

fiscal year 1999? What is the basis for any increase (or decrease) in the fiscal year

1999 budgeted amounts compared with the previous years’ actual and estimated

amounts?

Answer. For fiscal year 1999, the Army budgeted 800 miles for all Active component units, funded at $2,489 million. This mileage is based on what the Army needs

to conduct critical battalion-level maneuver training. There has been no significant

increase or decrease in the Active component’s OPTEMPO budget between fiscal

year 1997, fiscal year 1998, or fiscal year 1999.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator STEVENS. This will conclude the hearings on the fiscal

year 1999 budget request for the Department of Defense. If there

is nothing further, the hearing is recessed.

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., Wednesday, May 20, the hearings

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene

subject to the call of the Chair.]

U:\02HEAR\1999\02MY20.000
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Page

Baca, Lt. Gen. Edward D., Chief, National Guard Bureau, Department of

Defense .................................................................................................................. 333

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 336

Blanck, Lt. Gen. Ronald R., Surgeon General, U.S. Army, Department of

Defense ............................................................................................................. 409, 410

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 412

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 456

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri ................................... 48, 134

Brooke, Mildred, vice president, J&E Associates .................................................. 731

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 733

Brown, Tiffany Nicole, student, Georgia ................................................................ 398

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 399

Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, questions submitted

by.............................................................................................................. 312, 331, 563

Burke, Dr. Donald S., member of legislative task force, American Society

of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene ...................................................................... 754

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 755

California Industry and Government Coalition on PM–10/PM–2.5, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 773

Calkins, Charles L., national executive secretary, Fleet Reserve Association ... 697

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 699

Chameau, Jean Lou, dean of engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,

on behalf of the Association of American Universities ..................................... 719

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 720

Cline, Master Sergeant Michael P., (ret.), executive director, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States ............................................... 736

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 737

Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi ............................................ 334

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 133

Questions submitted by .................................................... 298, 326, 336, 559, 816

Cohen, Hon. William S., Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 785

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 793

Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho, questions submitted by ................ 882

Crowley, James M., Ph.D., executive director, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, on behalf of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics ...... 711

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 712

Dalton, Hon. John H., Secretary of the Navy, Department of the Navy,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 131

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 138

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 297

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico..................................... 3, 788

Questions submitted by .................. 37, 115, 120, 298, 315, 327, 604, 871, 875

Dorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota ........................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 135

Questions submitted by .................. 45, 126, 313, 326, 331, 407, 465, 468, 564

Duggan, Dennis M., deputy director, national security-foreign relations division, The American Legion .................................................................................. 653

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 655

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

ii

Ekarius, John C., acting director of government relations, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey ....................................................................... 668

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 668

Engel, Rear Adm. Joan M., Nurse Corps, Department of Defense, prepared

statement of .......................................................................................................... 488

Foil, Martin B., Jr., chairman, Brain Injury Association, Inc .............................. 649

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 650

Gallo, Betty, Dean & Gallo, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey ........................ 668

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 671

Gardner, Capt. Mary Anne, Deputy Director, Navy Nurse Corps, Department

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 485

Question submitted to ...................................................................................... 501

George, Father William L., S.J., assistant to the president, Georgetown University ................................................................................................................... 639

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 640

Gregg, Judd, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, questions submitted

by.............................................................................................. 38, 116, 310, 325, 329

Hamre, Hon. John, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 1

Harkin, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa .......................................................... 788

Harnage, Bobby L., national president, American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL–CIO .......................................................................................... 679

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 680

Hazard, Holly E., executive director, Doris Day Animal League ........................ 758

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 760

Hickey, Sydney T., associate director, government relations, the National

Military Family Association [NMFA] ................................................................. 630

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 631

Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina, questions submitted by ................................................................................................... 42, 311, 880

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas ........................................ 2

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 122

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.......... 2, 132, 409, 570, 786, 822

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 787

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 40,

117, 125, 456, 461, 467, 500, 501, 609, 872, 879

Johnson, Adm. Jay L., Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy, Department

of the Navy, Department of Defense.............................................................. 131, 182

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 314

Johnson, David, Ph.D., executive director, Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences ............................................................................ 622

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 623

Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for government relations, University of

Miami .................................................................................................................... 660

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 661

Koenig, Vice Adm. Harold, Medical Corps, Surgeon General, U.S. Navy, Department of Defense ............................................................................................. 426

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 429

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 459

Kolker, Ann, executive director, Ovarian Cancer National Alliance:

Ovar’coming Together .......................................................................................... 704

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 706

Krebs, Joshua W., Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (retired), manager, legislative affairs, Air Force Sergeants Association ..................................................... 618

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 619

Krulak, Gen. Charles C., Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of

the Navy, Department of Defense .................................................................. 131, 182

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 183

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 326

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey ............................... 787

Questions submitted by ........................................................................ 43, 458, 564

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

iii

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted

by ........................................................................................................................... 819

Lestenkof, Maj. Gen. Jake, Adjutant General of Alaska, Youth Challenge

Program, Department of Defense ....................................................................... 395

Lord, Cmdr. Mike, JAGC, USN (ret.), The Military Coalition ............................. 743

Lyles, Gen. Lester L., U.S. Air Force, Director, Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization, Department of Defense ................................................................ 503

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 517

Maves, Michael D., MD, MBA, executive vice president, American Academy

of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., prepared statement .......... 766

National Association of Energy Service Companies, prepared statement .......... 782

Navas, Maj. Gen. William A., Director, Army National Guard, National Guard

Bureau, Department of Defense ..................................................................... 333, 346

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 347

O’Donovan, Father Leo J., S.J., Georgetown University ...................................... 639

Odom, Jerome, Ph.D., chairman, Coalition of EPSCoR States ............................ 645

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 646

Olanoff, Chief Master Sergeant Mark H., USAF (ret.), legislative director,

the Retired Enlisted Association ......................................................................... 723

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 725

Ouellette, Michael F., Sergeant Major, USA (retired), director of legislative

affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of

America ................................................................................................................. 683

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 684

Partridge, Charles C., Colonel, USA (retired), National Military and Veterans

Alliance ................................................................................................................. 707

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 708

Peters, Hon. F. Whitten, Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Office of the

Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense .................... 47

Biographical sketch .......................................................................................... 81

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 115

Phagan, Joshua Bryson, student, Georgia ............................................................. 398

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 398

Prueher, Adm. Joseph W., U.S. Navy, Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific

Command, Department of Defense ..................................................................... 569

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 576

Quickel, Kenneth E., Jr., M.D., president, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston,

MA ......................................................................................................................... 641

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 643

Raymond, Sandra C., executive director, National Osteoporosis Foundation .... 613

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 615

Reimer, Gen. Dennis J., Chief of Staff, Secretary of the Army, Department

of Defense ......................................................................................................... 821, 837

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 839

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 873

Roadman, Lt. Gen. Charles H., II, Surgeon General, U.S. Air Force, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 435

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 437

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 466

Rubin, Robert W., Ph.D., president and chief executive officer, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, New Mexico ........................................................... 673

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 674

Ryan, Gen. Michael E., Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary, Department

of the Air Force, Department of Defense ........................................................... 47

Biographical sketch .......................................................................................... 81

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 118

Sandler, Maj. Gen. Roger W., AUS (ret.), executive director, Reserve Officers

Association of the United States, prepared statement ...................................... 775

Scott, Charles K., II, Commander, Department of the Navy ............................... 613

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

iv

Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 452

Questions submitted by ......................... 310, 325, 329, 456, 460, 466, 561, 816

Simmons, Brig. Gen. Bettye, Chief, Army Nurse Corps, Department of Defense ...................................................................................................................... 492

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 493

Question submitted to ...................................................................................... 500

Smith, Edith G., citizen advocate for disabled military retirees, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 767

Sparra, Alex J., sophomore, The Citadel, graduate, Georgia Youth Challenge

Academy ................................................................................................................ 400

Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, question submitted

by ........................................................................................................................... 459

Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 569

Questions submitted by .................. 36, 115, 118, 297, 314, 556, 601, 870, 873

Stierle, Brig. Gen. Linda J., Director of Medical Readiness and Nursing

Services, Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Air Force,

Nurse Corps, Department of Defense ................................................................. 471

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 474

Torsch, Cmdr. Virginia, MSC, USNR, The Military Coalition ............................ 743

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 745

Van Cott, Harold P., Ph.D., president, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; on behalf of the American Psychological Association ................................ 626

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 627

Van Nest, Ronald, certified registered nurse anesthetist, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists ................................................................................... 689

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 690

Visco, Frances M., president, National Breast Cancer Coalition ........................ 761

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 762

Walker, Hon. Robert M., Acting Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the

Army, Department of Defense ........................................................................ 821, 823

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 825

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 870

Weaver, Maj. Gen. Paul A., Jr., Director, Air National Guard, National Guard

Bureau, Department of Defense ..................................................................... 333, 370

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 371

Questions submitted to .................................................................................... 407

Weisenberg, Jane, vice president community programs, Children’s Hospital

and Health Center, San Diego, CA ..................................................................... 728

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 729

Whiston, David A., D.D.S., president, American Dental Association .................. 715

Letter from ........................................................................................................ 718

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 716

Williams, Lt. Col. Francis B., Director, Georgia Youth Challenge Academy,

Youth Challenge Program, Department of Defense .......................................... 395

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
(v)

SUBJECT INDEX

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION

Page

ABM Treaty compliance .......................................................................................... 540

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 556

Advance technology ................................................................................................. 515

Advanced Research Center [ARC] .......................................................................... 561

Affordability ............................................................................................................. 507

Airborne laser [ABL].................................................................................. 512, 541, 560

Arrow ........................................................................................................................ 566

Technology ......................................................................................................... 548

Third battery ..................................................................................................... 545

Atmospheric interceptor technology [AIT] ............................................................. 562

Ballistic missile defense:

Mission areas .................................................................................................... 505

Test philosophy ................................................................................................. 538

BMDO costs .............................................................................................................. 549

Fifty States, protection of ........................................................................................ 540

Kinetic kill vehicle hardware in the loop simulator [KHILS] .............................. 561

Lessons learned ........................................................................................................ 550

Long-range air launched target [LRALT] .............................................................. 560

Major programs ........................................................................................................ 508

Medium extended air defense system [MEADS] .............................................. 512, 556

Missile testing .......................................................................................................... 514

Modeling and simulation ......................................................................................... 544

National missile defense [NMD] ............................................. 513, 537, 563, 564, 565

Basing ................................................................................................................ 556

Cost and schedule ............................................................................................. 557

Deployment ....................................................................................................... 536

Siting ................................................................................................................. 565

Threat coverage ................................................................................................ 535

Three-plus-three ............................................................................................... 547

Navy area wide ........................................................................................................ 545

Navy theater wide program [NTW] ................................................................... 511, 564

THAAD .............................................................................................................. 552

Out-year:

Budgets .............................................................................................................. 554

Funding ............................................................................................................. 534

Pacific missile range facility [PMRF] ..................................................................... 545

Patriot advanced capability-3 [PAC–3].............................................................. 546, 558

Patriot effectiveness ................................................................................................ 539

Program deadlines ................................................................................................... 549

Program risks, managing ........................................................................................ 550

Space-based missile defense ................................................................................... 559

Targets and countermeasures ................................................................................. 563

Theater high altitude area defense [THAAD]................................................... 557, 566

Development ..................................................................................................... 537

Navy theater wide defense [NTW] .................................................................. 564

Status ................................................................................................................ 552

Test program ..................................................................................................... 559

Testing ............................................................................................................... 509

UOES ................................................................................................................. 543

Threat:

And countermeasures ....................................................................................... 551

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

vi

Threat—Continued

Development ..................................................................................................... 557

User operational evaluation system ....................................................................... 510

Welch:

Panel .................................................................................................................. 536

Report ................................................................................................................ 565

White Sands missile range [WSMR].................................................................. 542, 543

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 114

Air Force:

Contemporary operations ................................................................................. 57

Role in national security .................................................................................. 56

Space laboratory ............................................................................................... 99

Air Mobility Command upgrades ........................................................................... 108

Airborne laser ........................................................................................ 88, 94, 125, 127

Bomber:

Status ................................................................................................................ 110

Training initiatives ........................................................................................... 101

Bosnia, deployment of United States troops in ..................................................... 122

BRAC planning ........................................................................................................ 97

C–17 support ............................................................................................................ 113

C–130’s, modernization of ....................................................................................... 107

Cannon Air Force Base ........................................................................................... 101

Chairman’s opening remarks .................................................................................. 81

Civil Air Patrol ......................................................................................................... 93

Collision avoidance system ..................................................................................... 111

Contingencies, funding for ...................................................................................... 117

Continuation pay and aviation career incentive pay ............................................ 118

Contracting out ........................................................................................................ 128

Savings .............................................................................................................. 98

Deep attack weapons mix study ............................................................................. 127

Deployment challenges ............................................................................................ 53

Electronic Systems Center, restructuring of ......................................................... 103

Environmental costs ................................................................................................ 84

Environmental impact statement [EIS] ................................................................. 100

Equipment:

Modernization ................................................................................................... 52

Upgrades ........................................................................................................... 54

Evolved expendable launch vehicle [EELV] .......................................................... 105

F–15A’s..................................................................................................................... 85, 86

F–22........................................................................................... 109, 110, 115, 118, 125

F–117 ........................................................................................................................ 100

Fighter aircraft requirements ................................................................................. 124

Flying Hour Program .............................................................................................. 119

Funding request overview ....................................................................................... 83

Guard and Reserve upgrades .................................................................................. 108

Improving efficiency ................................................................................................ 76

In-house software capability ................................................................................... 103

Information security ................................................................................................ 123

Information technology software capability ........................................................... 102

JASSM ...................................................................................................................... 119

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile [JASSM] ....................................................... 104

Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] ....................................................................................... 126

Long-range air power panel .................................................................................... 126

Manned reconnaissance .......................................................................................... 120

National missile defense ......................................................................................... 105

NATO enlargement .................................................................................................. 123

Navigator training ................................................................................................... 127

O&P savings ............................................................................................................. 102

Partnering ................................................................................................................ 100

For peace ........................................................................................................... 116

Pay equity ................................................................................................................. 118

PERSTEMPO ........................................................................................................... 119

Pilot:

Readiness .......................................................................................................... 86

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

vii

Pilot—Continued

Retention......................................................................................................... 90, 127

Training ............................................................................................................. 88

Preparing for the 21st century—strengthening core competencies ..................... 68

Privatization ............................................................................................................. 115

Quality force, maintaining a ................................................................................... 62

Quality of life........................................................................................................... 51, 87

Programs ........................................................................................................... 121

Readiness ............................................................................................................. 120, 123

Impact ................................................................................................................ 125

Recruitment .............................................................................................................. 91

Report status ............................................................................................................ 96

Retention methodology ............................................................................................ 55

Safety enhancements ............................................................................................... 112

Science and technology programs ........................................................................... 117

Shared facility .......................................................................................................... 101

START III and bomber force structure .................................................................. 126

Superbases ........................................................................................................... 114, 128

T–6A .......................................................................................................................... 125

Tanker forces ............................................................................................................ 95

The Tunner ............................................................................................................... 86

Treaty compliance .................................................................................................... 105

Unmanned reconnaissance system, basing of ....................................................... 120

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

A starting point ................................................................................................... 825, 839

A turning point ........................................................................................................ 839

Active component/Army National Guard integrated division headquarters ....... 881

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 870

Army:

National Guard Integration Pilot Program .................................................... 874

Prepositioned equipment ................................................................................. 880

Priorities ............................................................................................................ 828

Bosnia ....................................................................................................................... 848

Budget:

Fiscal year 1999 ................................................................................................ 827

Request .............................................................................................................. 848

Shortfalls ........................................................................................................... 863

Challenges ahead—experimenting with the force, readying the leaders, reengineering the infrastructure, preparing for the ............................................. 844

Civilian reductions .............................................................................................. 872, 879

Comanche............................................................................................................. 872, 880

Deployments, impact of ........................................................................................... 863

Digitization ............................................................................................................... 873

Enhanced fiber optic guided missile ...................................................................... 853

Food stamps ............................................................................................................. 857

How many Army service members qualify for ............................................... 858

Future, path to the .................................................................................................. 839

Ground operating tempo ......................................................................................... 883

Health care ............................................................................................................... 865

International environment—with total Army solutions, shaping the ................. 842

Joint STARS Data Link System Improvement Program ..................................... 873

M–113 ....................................................................................................................... 854

Medical:

Care ................................................................................................................... 880

Technology ......................................................................................................... 869

Morale ....................................................................................................................... 866

National Guard:

Funding......................................................................................................... 860, 882

Integration ........................................................................................................ 849

Redesign ............................................................................................................ 849

National missile defense..................................................................................... 856, 861

No-Dong missile ....................................................................................................... 856

172d Separate Infantry Brigade ............................................................................. 866

One team, one fight, one future—America’s soldiers ............................................ 846

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

viii

Pay, adequate ........................................................................................................... 858

Pine Bluff Arsenal ................................................................................................... 854

Position location system .......................................................................................... 868

Prime vendor support .............................................................................................. 870

Priorities ................................................................................................................... 871

Privatization ........................................................................................................ 863, 871

Readiness ............................................................................................................. 859, 875

Recruiting and retention..................................................................................... 848, 869

Reprogramming request .......................................................................................... 846

Responding to our Nation’s needs—ensuring readiness through recruiting,

retention, and realistic training .......................................................................... 840

Retirement system ................................................................................................... 867

Science and technology ............................................................................................ 853

Simulators ................................................................................................................ 881

Southwest Asia deployments .................................................................................. 864

Space capabilities ..................................................................................................... 852

Strategic balance—requirements and resources ................................................... 845

Taepo Dong-2 missile .............................................................................................. 861

The way ahead ......................................................................................................... 834

Theater high altitude area defense [THAAD]................................................... 850, 873

Theater missile defense ........................................................................................... 855

Where we are today ................................................................................................. 825

White Sands missile range ..................................................................................... 862

Year 2000 problem ................................................................................................... 847

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

A–12 lawsuit, status of ............................................................................................ 298

Adak reuse ............................................................................................................... 202

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 297

AH–1W ..................................................................................................................... 330

Aircraft carriers ....................................................................................................... 314

Amphibious shipping ............................................................................................... 331

APL barracks barge ................................................................................................. 298

Carrier rotation in the gulf ..................................................................................... 184

CH–60 Helicopter Program ..................................................................................... 325

Chemical biological incident response force [CBIRF] ........................................... 329

Coast Guard/Navy ship procurement commonality .............................................. 199

CVN–77 .................................................................................................................... 313

CVX ........................................................................................................................... 297

CVX R&D ................................................................................................................. 314

Department of the Navy 1998 Posture Statement ................................................ 141

Excess infrastructure and base closures ................................................................ 311

F–18E/F....................................................................................................... 304, 308, 320

F/A–18 capabilities .................................................................................................. 193

F/A–18E/F ............................................................................................................ 187, 298

And Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] ....................................................................... 326

Wing drop .......................................................................................................... 308

Hellfire II missiles............................................................................................... 310, 329

Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] ....................................................................................... 331

LHA service life extension ...................................................................................... 326

LHD’s/LHA’s ............................................................................................................. 189

Lockheed and Northrop merger .............................................................................. 313

Missions, capability to perform .............................................................................. 191

Naval Reserve CH–60 aircraft ................................................................................ 310

Navy JROTC ............................................................................................................ 311

Navy theaterwide missile defense program ........................................................... 203

New attack submarine ............................................................................................ 185

NTACMS .................................................................................................................. 312

Nuclear Power School relocation, gymnasium in support of ................................ 312

Operational:

Readiness .......................................................................................................... 310

Tempo, increased .............................................................................................. 296

Operationally ............................................................................................................ 136

Per user fee contract strategy ................................................................................. 298

Personnel .................................................................................................................. 136

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

ix

Personnel—Continued

Problems/statistics ............................................................................................ 195

Pilot retention .......................................................................................................... 200

Privatization ............................................................................................... 298, 315, 327

Outsourcing ....................................................................................................... 196

Programmatically .................................................................................................... 137

Readiness .................................................................................................... 299, 316, 328

Recruiting and retention ......................................................................................... 186

Reserve personnel, fiscal year 1999, Navy [RPN] funding ................................... 311

Retention—exit surveys .......................................................................................... 205

Ship:

Depot maintenance funding ............................................................................. 325

Service life ......................................................................................................... 194

Tactical Tomahawk .................................................................................................. 325

Theaterwide ballistic missile defense ..................................................................... 192

300-ship Navy .......................................................................................................... 188

Trident submarines ................................................................................................. 314

V–22 .......................................................................................................................... 201

Vertical replenishment helicopter .......................................................................... 325

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

A vital force adding value to America .................................................................... 335

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 407

Air National Guard:

Family ................................................................................................................ 374

Operations ......................................................................................................... 373

Contemporary ............................................................................................ 372

Role in national security .................................................................................. 371

Status of ............................................................................................................ 378

Alaska National Guard:

Additional funding for helicopters for the ...................................................... 388

Expanded role in the Pacific ............................................................................ 387

Allocation, balance of ............................................................................................... 335

America, presenting the face of .............................................................................. 340

‘‘America’s vital force’’ defining, ............................................................................. 336

Army National Guard:

Aviation modernization .................................................................................... 382

Funding ............................................................................................................. 379

Pilot retention ................................................................................................... 390

Recruiting and retention versus OPTEMPO .................................................. 377

Shortfall status ................................................................................................. 379

ARNG programs, details of the $634 million shortfall in .................................... 381

Blackhawk helicopter shortfall ............................................................................... 382

C–17’s in Jackson, MS ............................................................................................. 391

Camp Shelby, MS, gunnery range, funding for ..................................................... 392

Capabilities, maintaining a balanced force of ....................................................... 340

Civilian technicians ................................................................................................. 383

Combat-oriented force, sustaining a ...................................................................... 338

Counterdrug mission ............................................................................................... 393

Disaster relief ........................................................................................................... 386

Distance learning and communications ................................................................. 380

Engagement, promoting democracy abroad through ............................................ 339

F–16:

Modernization ................................................................................................... 386

Upgrade......................................................................................................... 383, 385

Fiscal year 1999 posture statement ....................................................................... 348

Funding shortfall ..................................................................................................... 379

Happy Hooligans ...................................................................................................... 384

Homeland defense, remaining the first line of ...................................................... 342

Military affairs, fueling the revolution in .............................................................. 344

Military technicians budget .................................................................................... 384

National Guard, representing the needs of the ..................................................... 381

Operational tempo and retention ........................................................................... 377

Pacific rim operations .............................................................................................. 387

Pilot:

Retention ........................................................................................................... 378

Turnover ............................................................................................................ 389

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

x

Quality of life ........................................................................................................... 390

Readiness, state of ................................................................................................... 388

Real property and depot maintenance ................................................................... 380

Retrograde program ................................................................................................. 392

Schools and special training ................................................................................... 379

The path ahead—total force integration ................................................................ 345

UH–60 helicopters versus cold weather equipment, prioritization of ................. 387

Weapons of mass destruction .................................................................................. 393

NURSE CORPS

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 500

Air Force:

Breast-feeding program .................................................................................... 497

Nurses, entry-level qualifications for .............................................................. 496

Overview of nursing in the .............................................................................. 472

Career professionals ................................................................................................ 498

Entry level degree .................................................................................................... 495

Funding and leadership .......................................................................................... 487

Health care, executing ............................................................................................. 486

Nurse’s role .............................................................................................................. 485

Operational readiness ............................................................................................. 485

Physical training/breast feeding ............................................................................. 497

Reserve forces, utilization of ................................................................................... 486

Telehealth ............................................................................................................ 499, 500

Tri-service nursing program ................................................................................... 492

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

A–76 process for competition .................................................................................. 23

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 36

B–2 bomber .............................................................................................................. 42

Base closures ............................................................................................................ 45

Bosnia—costs, strategy, and number of people involved ...................................... 40

BRAC:

Disapproval, consequences of .......................................................................... 21

Funding ............................................................................................................. 11

Savings—personnel cuts and environmental costs ........................................ 16

CBO reestimate ........................................................................................................ 46

CINC’s, cost control and equipment needs of ........................................................ 19

Contingency funding ................................................................................................ 9

More flexible ..................................................................................................... 26

Counterdrug training .............................................................................................. 36

Defense reform initiative ........................................................................................ 37

Demining .................................................................................................................. 36

Deployment .............................................................................................................. 43

Depot maintenance privatization, restrictions on ................................................. 24

DSWA’s Field Command, function of ..................................................................... 37

Federally funded research and development centers [FFRDC’s] ......................... 33

Reductions ......................................................................................................... 36

Fiscal resources—balanced budget amendment .................................................... 6

Funding:

Allowance, fiscal year 1999 .............................................................................. 27

Constraints ........................................................................................................ 26

Inflation:

Adjustments ...................................................................................................... 45

Savings and outlay forecasts ........................................................................... 29

Introduction by Dr. Hamre ..................................................................................... 4

JROTC, funding for ................................................................................................. 42

Medical care for retirees and FEHBP coverage .................................................... 41

Missile defense ......................................................................................................... 25

Procurement for ................................................................................................ 30

National Guard:

And military construction ................................................................................ 19

Role in consequence management operations ................................................ 38

NATO expansion costs ............................................................................................. 17

New agency, location of ........................................................................................... 37

New defense strategy .............................................................................................. 5

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

xi

Nuclear:

Responsibility, redundancy of .......................................................................... 37

Surety inspections ............................................................................................ 38

Weapons stockpile, management of ................................................................ 38

Operation and maintenance [O&M] funding ......................................................... 9

Personnel end strengths .......................................................................................... 12

Privatization:

And DOD personnel cuts ................................................................................. 27

In DOD, status of ............................................................................................. 22

Selective ............................................................................................................ 31

Readiness initiatives, major .................................................................................... 7

Recruit and retain quality people ........................................................................... 15

Recruiting and retention ......................................................................................... 41

Reserve component initiatives ................................................................................ 13

Shipbuilding ............................................................................................................. 31

$60 billion procurement target ............................................................................... 46

Spare parts ............................................................................................................... 8

Supplemental, SAC hearing on .............................................................................. 22

Theater high altitude area defense [THAAD] missiles ........................................ 34, 35

Tracking infrastructure savings ............................................................................. 45

Veto override, status of spending resulting from .................................................. 32

Weapons modernization .......................................................................................... 14

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 815

Aircraft modernization ............................................................................................ 804

Allies, burdensharing with ...................................................................................... 795

Base closure and realignment ................................................................................ 809

Bosnia:

Operations, funding for .................................................................................... 791

The way ahead in ............................................................................................. 799

Budget, overview of fiscal year 1999 ...................................................................... 790

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty........................................................................ 801, 812

DD–21 acquisition strategy ..................................................................................... 816

Defense:

Budget request, overview of fiscal year 1999 ................................................. 793

Streamlining and reforming ............................................................................ 815

India:

International reaction to testing ..................................................................... 811

Nuclear testing by ............................................................................................ 810

Indian nuclear capabilities and sanctions ............................................................. 801

Israeli security ......................................................................................................... 813

Legacy Program ....................................................................................................... 819

Missile defense ......................................................................................................... 807

Deciding on deployment ................................................................................... 808

National missile defense system and THAAD ...................................................... 807

NATO expansion and Russia .................................................................................. 813

Nuclear weapons, development and testing of ...................................................... 800

O&M funding and the President’s budget amendment, fiscal year 1999 ........... 793

Pacific region, importance of ................................................................................... 794

Quality of life and pensions .................................................................................... 806

Secretary Cohen’s opening statement .................................................................... 789

Theater high altitude area defense [THAAD] missile status ............................... 796

TRICARE .................................................................................................................. 798

U.S. security, addressing multiple threats to ........................................................ 808

Underwater Archeology Program ........................................................................... 819

SURGEON GENERALS

Acute lung injury research ...................................................................................... 460

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 456

Air Force:

Humanitarian operations ................................................................................. 451

Overview ............................................................................................................ 435

Angio-CT ................................................................................................................... 448

Army Medical Department:

Cooperation with sister service medical departments ................................... 424

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

xii

Army Medical Department—Continued

Current status of the ........................................................................................ 412

Blood, freeze-dried ................................................................................................... 459

Building healthy communities—intervention and prevention ............................. 441

Center for Naval Analysis [CNA] FEHBP–65/expansion of mail order pharmacy study ............................................................................................................ 465

Customer focused business process reengineering ................................................ 433

Deploying TRICARE: Better access and more choices ......................................... 439

Facilitating service .................................................................................................. 453

Federal Employee Health Benefits Program ......................................................... 428

Good news stories .................................................................................................... 425

Health care to the deckplates, taking .................................................................... 430

Hepatitis C.................................................................................................. 456, 460, 466

Medical readiness....................................................................................... 456, 461, 467

Medical technology, cost reduction of ..................................................................... 454

Mobile breast care center ........................................................................................ 458

Move information, not people ................................................................................. 430

Personal information carrier [PIC] ......................................................................... 459

Quality and customer satisfaction .......................................................................... 442

Readiness .................................................................................................................. 426

Budget impact on .............................................................................................. 449

Reengineering medical readiness ........................................................................... 438

Research program funds ......................................................................................... 451

Rightsizing our medical facilities and forces ......................................................... 440

Technology and costs ............................................................................................... 453

Telehealth ................................................................................................................. 468

Telemedicine ........................................................................................................ 417, 426

TRICARE .................................................................................................... 418, 427, 468

And Medicare .................................................................................................... 446

Enrollment ........................................................................................................ 446

Making work ..................................................................................................... 432

Medicare subvention ........................................................................................ 445

USUHS........................................................................................................ 458, 462, 467

Graduate retention ........................................................................................... 451

Women’s health:

Research ............................................................................................................ 463

Studies .......................................................................................................... 429, 443

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

Additional committee questions ............................................................................. 600

Amphibious ready groups ........................................................................................ 594

Asia-Pacific Center .................................................................................................. 609

Asian financial crisis........................................................................................... 603, 604

China ........................................................................................................................ 602

Cooperative threat reduction .................................................................................. 589

Crisis response force ................................................................................................ 598

Executive summary ................................................................................................. 576

Five key issues ......................................................................................................... 571

Ford Island development ......................................................................................... 593

International military education and training [IMET] .................................... 592, 601

J-STARS ................................................................................................................... 600

Landmines ................................................................................................................ 610

Looking ahead .......................................................................................................... 581

Missile defense ......................................................................................................... 594

1997 in the Asia-Pacific region ............................................................................... 577

North Korea, situation in ........................................................................................ 610

North Korean:

Ballistic missile threat ..................................................................................... 611

Threat ................................................................................................................ 593

Northern Edge exercise ........................................................................................... 599

Okinawa update ....................................................................................................... 598

Pacific Command readiness .................................................................................... 573

Pacific economics crisis ............................................................................................ 596

Pacific force reductions ............................................................................................ 591

Persian Gulf, impact of deployments ..................................................................... 589

Readiness ............................................................................................................. 605, 608

Strategy, resourcing the .......................................................................................... 582

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB
Page

xiii

U.S. Pacific Command strategy in action .............................................................. 578

Wrap-up .................................................................................................................... 597

YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM

Army National Guard, details of armories in the budget .................................... 406

Education, alternative structure ............................................................................ 401

Students, criteria on accepting ............................................................................... 403

Youth programs:

Support .............................................................................................................. 396

Success of .......................................................................................................... 397

Æ

U:\02HEAR\1999\02WITSUB