U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

58–174 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–141] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE U.S. 

SOUTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 18, 2010 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 

ERYN ROBINSON, Professional Staff Member 

AILEEN ALEXANDER, Professional Staff Member 

CATERINA DUTTO, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, March 18, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization 

Act—Budget Requests from the U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command ....................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, March 18, 2010 ...................................................................................... 35 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. 

NORTHERN COMMAND 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................ 2 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Fraser, Gen. Douglas, USAF, Commander, U.S. Southern Command ................ 6 

Renuart, Gen. Victor E., Jr., USAF, Commander, North American Aerospace 

Defense Command, U.S. Northern Command ................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Fraser, Gen. Douglas M. .................................................................................. 82 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 40 

Renuart, Gen. Victor E., Jr. ............................................................................. 43 

Skelton, Hon. Ike .............................................................................................. 39 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 127 

Mr. McKeon ....................................................................................................... 127 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Lamborn ..................................................................................................... 132 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers .................................................................................... 131 

Mr. Ortiz ........................................................................................................... 131 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE U.S. 

SOUTHERN COMMAND AND U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, Thursday, March 18, 2010. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Morning. Committee will come to order. And today’s hearing is part of our annual series of posture hearings with 

combatant commanders. I am pleased to welcome General Renuart 

of the Northern Command [NORTHCOM] and the North American 

Aerospace Defense Command [NORAD]. And General Doug Fraser 

of the U.S. Southern Command [SOUTHCOM]. 

We welcome you both. Let me express my gratitude and appreciation to all the service men and women whom you each command. They provide an invaluable service to our country, and we 

are certainly in their debt. We are fortunate to have the Northern 

Command and the Southern Command represented here today. In 

many respects these two commands share more than a common 

boundary. 

They take on many similar types of intractable challenges and 

work closely with our partners to provide our regions’ security and 

stability. Recent events including the earthquake that devastated 

parts of Haiti, and drug cartel-related violence near our border in 

Mexico remind us of the many important varied missions of these 

commands. 

At today’s hearing we will look forward to our witnesses’ testimony on these missions, and issues that they face. Starting in the 

Northern Command area of responsibility we would like to hear 

from the general about what progress we are making in helping 

our Mexican neighbors combat narcosyndicates and border violence. 

I also look forward to hearing about how NORTHCOM is continuing to work to improve coordination with local, state, and federal authorities. We would also like to hear about how the recent 

quadrennial defense review recommendations will impact 

NORTHCOM. In particular please address recommendations for 

faster and more flexible consequent management forces and improved awareness in the Arctic region. 
2 

Turning to the Southern Command, we would like to commend 

General Fraser and all those men and women in SOUTHCOM for 

their tremendous effort in Haiti in conjunction with Operation Unified Response. Under the command of SOUTHCOM, American military forces quickly responded to the urgent needs of the Haitian 

people and allowed them to immediately start the relief and recovery process after the devastating earthquake that struck their capital city at Port-au-Prince. 

SOUTHCOM played a critical role in the inter-agency effort in 

Haiti. I am very proud of all those involved. I am also interested 

to hear the General’s thoughts on the future of Haiti and what 

SOUTHCOM’s role and the requirements will be there. 

I continue to be very concerned about the flow of illegal narcotics 

from the South and Central America into our country as well as 

reports of increase in trafficking to Europe and the Middle East. 

We welcome any comments the General might have on those 

issues. 

In addition we would like to hear a frank assessment of the status of our relationship with militaries and governments in the 

SOUTHCOM region. That is important that we know that. Please 

address how the current state of our relationship impacts our ability to conduct counternarcotics and other operations in that area. 

More broadly speaking we would like to hear from both our witnesses today on ideas that you may have for improving your commands’ ability to execute its missions. Once again we thank our 

witnesses for being here. We are proud of what you do. We look forward to hearing your comments today on answering our questions. 

Now I turn to my good friend, the Ranking Member, gentleman 

from California, Buck McKeon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we conclude our series of posture hearings with the commanders from U.S. Northern Command—NORTHCOM, and U.S. 

Southern Command—SOUTHCOM. I would like to welcome General Renuart and General Fraser. Gentlemen, you represent the 

best America has to offer and I thank you indeed for your service. 

And all of those behind you in uniform that are here with you. 

General Renuart, you have the dual responsibility of overseeing 

two commands, NORTHCOM and the North American Space Defense Command—NORAD. There are several issues within your 

AOR I hope that will be addressed today. But I would like to take 

this opportunity to focus on one of the most eminent national security challenges on our nation’s doorstep—the narcocriminal enterprise operating in Mexico. 

As both the ranking member of this committee as well as a representative of Southern California, I am deeply concerned with the 

scourge of violence fueled by the ongoing battles among powerful 

cartels. The recent killings in Ciudad Juarez illustrate the danger 

and reach of the escalating drug war. Soon after he took office, 
3 

President Obama honed in on this issue endorsing the Merida Initiative which was passed by Congress in 2008. But that interest 

seems to be flagging even though the violence is not. 

Mexico cannot win this war without America’s help, and we cannot afford for Mexico to lose. From your perspective where and how 

should we build upon the momentum initiated by Merida and 

translate that effort into a lasting partnership? What role do you 

see NORTHCOM playing in terms of building the capacity of the 

Mexican military to counter the threats it faces? 

Turning to SOUTHCOM, General Fraser, first I must commend 

SOUTHCOM for its efforts to assist Haiti in its time of need. The 

success of Operation Unified Response speaks to the professionalism of your forces and to the command’s efforts to enhance 

its inter-agency relationships. Your forces brought comfort and 

hope to a devastated people, and have helped to put Haiti back on 

a road to recovery. 

While our engagement in Latin America is often focused on disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, we must not forget that 

the region faces many pressures that make it vulnerable. Narcotrafficking continues to undermine regional stability and bring violence to the countries it touches. Authoritarian regimes seek to reduce U.S. influence and engagement in the region while other outside influences from terrorist financing groups to Iran seek to make 

further inroads. 

Given our commitments in other areas of the world, most notably 

the CENTCOM [United States Central Command] AOR [area of responsibility], I am concerned that we may not have the resources 

needed or the focus to appropriately engage our Latin American 

partners on a military level. And that security and stability in the 

region will suffer. How is SOUTHCOM addressing the region’s 

many challenges, and where do you need our assistance? 

In closing let me take a moment to comment on the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. One issue related to the work of 

the joint task force that concerns me is how it manages the interaction between Gitmo detainees and their habeas lawyers. My understanding is that lawyers are prohibited from giving detainees 

information relating to military operations, intelligence, arrests, political news, and the names of U.S. government personnel. There 

have been reports in the press recently that some habeas lawyers 

have violated and continue to violate DOD procedures and possibly 

the law. I think these issues merit serious attention. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my entire statement be included for 

the record where I address other issues facing the combatant commands testifying here today. Once again I thank you for being here 

this morning, and I will look forward to your testimony. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 40.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And without objection your prepared 

testimony will be placed in the record. 

We thank you gentlemen for being with us. General Renuart, you 

are on. 
4 

STATEMENT OF GEN. VICTOR E. RENUART, JR., USAF, COMMANDER, NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

GENERAL RENUART. Well thank you, Chairman Skelton, Congressman McKeon, members of the committee. Great to be with 

you this morning. I say that with a true smile on my face in that 

I am approaching 39 years of service to our nation, and my wife 

has said, ‘‘It is time to do something different.’’ 

And so we will be retiring after I change command in this office 

here later this spring—early summer. And I must say I want to express my thanks while I may not have the opportunity to come before you again. I want to express my thanks to the committee for 

all the support you have provided to our two commands over the 

previous three years of my command. And certainly as we have 

grown and developed over the last few years. 

The safety of the nation is our paramount concern. And you 

share that with us every day. And we appreciate that quite a bit. 

It is good to have the opportunity to talk about the successes that 

our two commands have achieved over the past few years, and to 

talk about some of the challenges you mentioned today. Certainly 

the difficulty in Mexico. The integration with our state and federal 

partners as we look at events that may occur in the homeland. Discussing the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and ballistic missile defense [BMD] and other issues. The Arctic and clearly how we 

and SOUTHCOM collaborate in combating narcocriminalism in 

this hemisphere. 

So these are all topics that I look forward to having a good discussion with you today. As I start it is important for me also to extend my thanks to the men and women who wear the cloth of our 

nation each day. They defend our homeland certainly in the battlefields far away from the United States. But they also defend our 

homeland every day here as a combined team of active Guard and 

Reserve military members ensuring that our families and our communities are safe and secure. 

In particular I would like to recognize the service of our enlisted 

personnel of each of our services, and recognize them through our 

senior enlisted leader at U.S. Northern Command and NORAD 

today. 

I am pleased to have Chief Master Sergeant Allen Usury here 

with me today. He is my senior enlisted leader. And of note, Chief 

Usury is the first National Guard senior enlisted leader selected for 

duty at U.S. Northern Command. And I looked at all of the competitors, and Allen clearly was head and shoulders above active 

Guard and Reservists who competed. So I am pleased to have him 

with me. 

Also great to share the table with my friend Doug Fraser. Over 

the past months our commands have partnered substantially 

across a broad spectrum of interest areas to our nation. 

First, in the fight against narcoterrorism and the drug trafficking 

organizations in our hemisphere. We have partnered substantially 

in a broad variety of areas. And whether that is sharing of intelligence information, combined operations in the Caribbean and in 

the Pacific, or collaborating with Mexico in order to make them 

more capable of countering the challenges that they have in their 
5 

nation, SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM truly have stood as partners. And so, it is a treat to be able to sit here and have the discussion today with Doug. 

We have also partnered to ensure that the U.S. efforts to support 

the victims in Haiti have been successful. And I am pleased to have 

been able to assist and partner with Doug’s team in terms of planners and air operators and a number of other skill sets that we 

have provided in order to assist in that effort. 

Chairman, as you mentioned, our missions are twofold. One, the 

NORAD mission, a bi-command mission to ensure the air and 

space sovereignty and security, and the maritime sovereignty and 

security of our two nations is maintained. 

In our NORTHCOM role, to provide for U.S. forces to defend the 

homeland from a variety of external threats, as well as to support 

law enforcement as we defend ourselves against security concerns 

inside the borders of our country. 

We are careful to keep a line between both. We understand the 

Constitutional limitations of use of the military in the homeland. 

We also understand how the military can support our law enforcement and other federal partners in the homeland. 

Across a broad spectrum of missions, from air sovereignty, to 

maritime domain awareness, to homeland defense, to ballistic missile defense, to support to law enforcement, our team—and that is 

a team of over 60 agencies with this government—works every day 

hand in hand to ensure we can be successful. 

From warning to consequence management, that broad spectrum 

is in our job jar every day. And I will be pleased to answer the 

questions—those questions—with you as we get further into today’s 

session. 

We work hard with each of those teammates. We have worked 

hard to develop and integrate planning system that does in fact incorporate state and local and federal agencies in a coherent process. 

And I think the examples of Hurricane Gustav and Ike, last 

year’s floods in North Dakota, all give good examples of ways that 

we have been helpful and successful with, and at the same time, 

understanding the unique nature of each of the federal partners 

that we participate in any operation with. 

We have two great partners in our international portfolio and we 

are growing a third. Canada has the best and most capable partnership with the U.S. Navy of any nation in the world. They stand 

shoulder to shoulder with us in the battlefields of Afghanistan. 

But they also sail with us, fly with us, and stand with us in disaster response here in the northern hemisphere. The success of the 

Winter Olympics is a testament to certainly the Canadian approach 

to a great world event, but also underline that support of NORAD 

and support of NORTHCOM to our Canadian partners was a real 

model of bi-national cooperation. 

With Mexico, we continue to help grow their capacity. We will 

talk about that in some more detail, but I would tell you that our 

relationship with the government of Mexico and the military of 

Mexico is as good as it has ever been in history. We still have work 

to do, as do they, and we are continuing to work on that aggressively each day. 
6 

Finally, as we grow our newest partners in the Bahamas, we are 

assisting in operations in the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos that 

have focused primarily on criminalism and countering drug trafficking. We work closely with NORTHCOM in that area as well, in 

addition to the team at JIATF–South [Joint Interagency Task 

Force South] and our Coast Guard. 

So across our area of focus we are engaged, we are continuing 

to improve, and we look forward to telling you that story today. 

Finally, I would like to close as I opened a little bit with 39 

years-plus of service, I want to say thank you on the—for the 

record—to my wife Jill and our sons Brian and Andrew, who have 

quietly, mostly, supported our career, the many moves. 

We will move out of our 28th household here at the end of this 

tenure. And I will tell you that truly I would not have been able 

to succeed without her great support. And so, I would like to publicly say thanks to her and to the military families of all of our 

servicemen around the world. They pay a price that is often untold, 

and we do appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering your questions here 

this morning. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Renuart can be found in the 

Appendix on page 43.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you. And as your career draws to an 

end, we can say in a good old-fashioned Missouri, ya done good, 

General. So thank you. 

General RENUART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. But we know you will run hard to the finish line. 

General Fraser, please. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. DOUGLAS FRASER, USAF, COMMANDER, 

U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

General FRASER. Chairman Skelton, Congressman McKeon, and 

the distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to have 

this opportunity to appear before you today and provide my assessment of the United States Southern Command. 

It is also my great privilege to share this table with my good 

friend and mentor, General Gene Renuart. Our appearance together, as Gene mentioned, represents the close coordination, alignment, and relationship between our two commands. And I also 

want to congratulate him on almost 39 years of distinguished service to our Air Force and to our nation. 

Finally, I want to thank the members of this committee for your 

continued strong support of United States Southern Command, and 

of your outstanding soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast 

Guardsmen, and civilian personnel it has been my privilege to lead 

and represent. 

I have personally seen these outstanding men and women in action during the United States response to the earthquake in Haiti. 

The devastation was tremendous. The U.S. response was swift, coordinated, and aggressive. Within 24 hours, elements of United 

States Southern Command, the United States Air Force, the 

United States Navy, the United States Army, as well as the United 

States Coast Guard were supporting relief efforts. 
7 

Air Force and Army elements began surveying the international 

airport. A Navy P–3 aircraft conducted aerial reconnaissance, and 

an aircraft carrier and an amphibious group were ordered to make 

best possible speed to Haiti. 

Over the next 3 weeks, the military response to the relief effort 

grew to a peak of just over 22,000 personnel, supported by all of 

the combatant commands, including U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. Joint Forces Command, and every branch of our armed 

forces. 

Our forces dramatically expanded the Air Force capacity and 

opened the seaport to enable the vital flow of supplies. They distributed water, food, medical supplies, and provided critical medical care. They worked diligently to meet the immediate needs of 

the Haitian people. 

As relief capabilities of the government of Haiti, USAID [U.S. 

Agency for International Development], the United Nations, and 

NGOs [non-governmental organizations] have increased, and as relief needs of the people of Haiti have been met, we are 

transitioning many of our functions to these capable partners, and 

are conducting a deliberate conditions-based drawdown of our 

forces. 

I think it is important though, Mr. Chairman, to state that we 

will stay very involved with Haiti in supporting U.S. government 

efforts, international efforts, to support for a long time. So this is 

a transition of forces to those forces that will be needed in the future as we continue to support the effort in Haiti. 

Less than 2 months after the catastrophe in Haiti, tragedy 

struck once again in the region, when an 8.8 magnitude earthquake shook Chile. Within a day of the earthquake we distributed 

imagery of the affected areas to the Chileans, and sent satellite 

phone. Additionally, we supplied Chile with transport aircraft, a 

field hospital, and a port survey team. We stand ready to provide 

further assistance if additional support is required. 

Beyond these two disasters, Southern Command continues to address other challenges in our area of responsibility. Illicit trafficking, narcoterrorism, gangs, and the potential for the spread of 

WMD [weapons of mass destruction] are the principle security 

threats within the region. The region remains very dynamic. 

Brazil continues its rapid emergence as a regional leader with 

global influence. Competing ideologies within the region are stressing democratic and human rights advances, and the increasing engagement of external players, such as China, Iran, and Russia, continue to broaden regional outlooks and positions. 

Addressing the challenges of our region requires a truly wholeof-government approach in which United States Southern Command plays a supporting role. To that end, we work not only to 

strengthen partner military capacity, but also to build important 

relationships throughout the region, foreign and domestic, military 

and civilian, public and private. 

One of the institutions providing critical support to our mission 

is the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. I 

want to thank this committee for your continued strong support of 

WHINSEC [Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation]. I also want to acknowledge my fellow board members, or 
8 

board visitor members, some who sit on this committee, for your 

active involvement in overseeing WHINSEC’s activities. 

As a customer of WHINSEC, I can attest that it is critical role 

to our security cooperation efforts, especially its focus on human 

rights, is essential. It is one more reason why our military-to-military relations throughout the region remain strong. 

Let me close by saying the tragedy in Haiti reminds us of the 

challenges we face in this region. The cooperation we have developed with our partners over the years, relationships built through 

enduring and consistent engagement, have paid big dividends in 

Haiti during Operation United Response. 

Thank you for your continued interest and your continued support in Southern Command. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Fraser can be found in the 

Appendix on page 82.] 

The CHAIRMAN. General Fraser, thank you very much. 

General Renuart, Mexico. Has the violence increased in the last 

year? What is the answer to the horrific violence and murders in 

Mexico, General? 

General RENUART. Mr. Chairman, the short answer is yes, the violence has increased. We see increased competition among drug 

trafficking organizations for—in my terms—market share, distribution network, and profit margin. 

And they have used violent means to attempt to achieve that. At 

the same time they use those same types of measures to intimidate 

local law enforcement and government officials. 

The government of Mexico is keenly aware of that increase, and 

in fact, has taken a series of steps to attempt to stop and then reduce that violence. Sadly, we saw here in just the last week three 

individuals killed in Mexico, in Juarez, three U.S. citizens associated with the American consulate there. And I think it continues 

to remind us that the drug trafficking organizations will be violent 

and we need to continue to do all that we can for Mexico to assist 

them. 

To your second question about is there a way forward, and I 

would mention a number of issues where the U.S. government is 

continuing to assist Mexico to grow capacity, as you may know, 

Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates will lead a large delegation 

to Mexico next week. This will be the central point of discussions 

for them. 

But in the near term and over the last six months, U.S. Northern 

Command has been working very aggressively with the Mexican 

military and with the Mexican Federal Police to help them vet new 

candidates and to increase capacity by providing focused training 

to Mexican special forces units, who, in fact, are given the mission 

of going out and conducting some of the operations against drug 

trafficking organizations. A lot of work to do. There is not a fast 

solution in this process because in many ways Mexico has to rebuild the law enforcement and justice infrastructure in order to 

take on these organizations. 

And I think the important element here is persistent partnership. We need to continue to show the Mexicans that we are part 

of their team, that we support their efforts and that we will con-
9 

tinue to assist them whether it is in equipment or training or in 

many cases teaching, allowing them to learn the lessons of our integrated operations in other parts of the world. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. General Fraser, first, we compliment 

you and your team on your efforts in Haiti. It was very apparent 

from watching the news and also from briefings we have had. So 

thank you and be sure to thank all the—— 

General, in your area of responsibility, are we gaining or losing 

influence as a country? 

General FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I think we are gaining and it is 

a relationship that I think we need to continue to pay a lot of attention to. And because I focus on that region, I obviously have a 

very specific interest in it. My concern is we look to it as—with the 

era of globalization, there are a lot of other factors that are now 

starting to come in and influence. 

And so the way that we have approached the region in the past 

I think needs to change as we look out into the future. And we 

need to continue to engage very robustly within the region to continue to build those partnerships. There was a Latino barometer 

survey done. It is a Chilean organization that shows the regard for 

the United States leadership. The United States has grown from 58 

percent to 71 percent. That to me is a very good indicator of the 

engagement and the continued engagement and the representation 

that we have within our region. 

The CHAIRMAN. How are our relations with the country of Colombia progressing? 

General FRASER. Mr. Chairman, our relations with Colombia are 

very good and they continue to grow on a continual basis. There 

has been over the last 8 years since 2002 roughly $5.0 billion of 

United States money invested in the fight to help and support Colombia in their fight against the FARC [Revolutionary Armed 

Forces of Colombia] as well as illicit trafficking. That continues to 

grow. 

The Colombians have a very successful effort continuing. They 

have been able to kill or detain 12 mid-level to senior FARC members this year. They have a very comprehensive consolidation plan 

to go out and continue to take over and solidify control within various regions and remove the illicit trafficking capability from their 

country. And more than that, they are starting to reach out. And 

working with the United States Northern Command, they have 

agreed to train some Mexican helicopter pilots in their facilities 

within Colombia. 

Within Haiti, we had great relations with the supplies that they 

have sent, with a field of medical capability that they sent and integrated very easily within our operation there. So overall, I see 

our relations with Colombia strong and I see them continuing to 

grow. 

The CHAIRMAN. Buck McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Renuart, congratulations on your 39 years. As we visited the other day, we got 

a chance to talk about some of this and—very interesting, but 

when you mentioned this morning that you had had 28 residences, 

I started counting up the number we have had in our 47 years of 

marriage and we came to exactly half of that. And I know what the 
10 

strain that put on my wife and I commend Jill for putting up with 

it, for being such a great support to you. 

As I stated earlier, I am deeply concerned with the levels and 

reach of the violence generated by the narcocriminals. I think the 

threat on our border requires a plan of strategic cooperation of 

finding areas where we can help Mexico fight back. Being from 

Southern California, we see some of the spillover. We have had it 

in my community. And so it is something that we are really concerned about. 

Last weekend, as it has been mentioned, two American citizens, 

an employee and an employee of the U.S. Consulate in Mexico were 

murdered. How do you see the threat of the narcocriminals in Mexico changing? And in addition to Merida, how does the 

NORTHCOM use 1206 to train and equip and 1000 for counternarcotics funding to build the capacity of our Mexican military 

partners? 

Congressman McKeon, we share that concern and as you know, 

that violence, while it may sporadically spill directly across the border, it certainly permeates our country in a number of cities as we 

see the increase in drug-related gang violence in cities across our 

country. So that distribution network is really the focus of these 

drug trafficking organizations. And they will be violent to try to expand their market share, if you will. 

Having said that, along the border, you are exactly correct. We 

do need to have an integrated process among all the partners and 

players. And as you know in Southern California, the Customs and 

Border Patrol host the Air and Maritime Operations Command and 

Control Center. We participate in that through our Joint Task 

Force North. We share a common air picture with them to continue 

to expand the information sharing that we have with the Mexicans 

and we are looking to continue to grow that. 

On the ground, in fact, in a week, I will host a meeting at our 

headquarters with the leaders of Customs and Border Patrol with 

the drug enforcement agencies, with the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and many others to talk about a more integrated strategy along our southwest border to both support—in other words, 

for DOD to provide support to law enforcement on the north side 

and coordinate that with the DOD support we provide to the Mexican military on the southern side. 

You may be aware we have twice yearly border commanders conference and in that conference, the Mexican district military commanders and our U.S. military commanders get together to help 

share common tactics, techniques and procedures and increasingly, 

now, to share intelligence. That effort will continue and continue 

aggressively. 

With respect to direct support to military in Mexico via a variety 

of different funding streams, certainly Merida and 1206, the counternarcotics money, all provide us valuable resources. One of my 

concerns is, as you know, Merida was a term limited, if you will, 

set of money. We need to continue that effort beyond the terms of 

Merida. Both Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton are very supportive of that. We would request the help of Congress obviously 

as we move forward, but these things provide invaluable tools to 

Mexico. 
11 

Their challenge is the fusion of intelligence and the agility to 

move highly qualified teams from one target, if you will, to another 

to be able to exploit the vulnerabilities that they may find with 

good fused intelligence. And so we have expanded our efforts in 

terms of training their special military teams, in terms of training 

on the integration of law enforcement and military in an operation 

much like we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Those avenues that provide funding that allow us to do that are 

critically important to us. And so is 1206, the CN money, sort of 

whatever the son of Merida may be in the coming years, because 

this really is an eight to ten year problem. It is not a one year solution that we can come up with. And while we regret the casualties, 

we have to continue to stay persistent in our partnership with 

Mexico. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you very much. General Fraser, is the increased narcotrafficking violence in Mexico a direct result of positive gains in counterterror—counternarcotics efforts in Central and 

South America? What can SOUTHCOM do to assist Mexico and 

NORTHCOM’s efforts especially given that many countries in your 

AOR are restricted from different types of assistance? 

General FRASER. Congressman McKeon, I think there is a result 

of the drug trafficking and that has influenced the concerns within 

Mexico. I see it as a much larger regional issue and I see it as a 

regional what we are terming an illicit trafficking enterprise. An 

illicit trafficking enterprise to include not only drugs, but trafficking and weapons and fund both cash as well as humans and 

other articles. 

And that network extends throughout Latin America and Central 

America. In through Mexico, the primary avenue right now of especially cocaine entering the United States is through the isthmus of 

Central America into Mexico and then into the United States. So 

there is a direct relationship out of there and we see some of the 

drug trafficking organizations, especially the Mexican drug trafficking organizations, now moving into the northern part of Central 

America. So that causes me concern also. 

You asked what we can do about it. We continue to engage with 

Colombia. We continue to support the efforts in Mexico with General Renuart. Our Joint Interagency Task Force South responsible 

for coordinating the detection and monitoring and the maritime domain is supporting that effort. It supports not only Southern Command, but Northern Command to Mexico on both coasts, the Caribbean and the Pacific. So that is a very integrated effort and works 

very well with all the nations in the region, if you will. 

We continue to support along with 1206 funding as General 

Renuart talked about to support capabilities in the maritime environments and continue to work with them on counternarcotics 

[CN]. And that is with each nation along the way. We are looking 

at how we build a broader strategy if you can that doesn’t just look 

at it just nation by nation, but looks at us and how we can integrate our collective efforts to address the illicit trafficking issue. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. General Fraser, can you describe the 

procedures that JTF GITMO [Joint Task Force Guantanamo] has 

in place to manage the interaction between the habeas counsel and 

the GITMO detainees? Are you aware of instances where lawyers 
12 

have given detainees information relating to military operations, 

intelligence, arrests, political news, and the names of U.S. government personnel? Is this still happening? And of yet what steps has 

the JTF GITMO taken to prevent this from happening? 

General FRASER. Thank you, congressman. The process for directing and the engagement between habeas counsel and detainees 

was prescribed under a protective order that was issued by the 

United States court—federal court here in the District of Columbia. 

They are the ones who have jurisdiction. And so it prescribes very 

specifically how we do that. We have a very specific procedure that 

I would like to put into the record to—to give you that more specifically on how that works. But let me describe briefly how that 

works. 

There was a protective—or a privilege team set up that is U.S.— 

or contractors who work for the federal court here in District of Columbia. They provide, and they monitor both the incoming and outgoing mail associated with habeas counselors, and their interaction 

with detainees. 

If a counselor wants to visit a detainee in Guantanamo, there is 

a very specific location where they meet. They are able to meet 

there. We monitor it visually either with someone watching, or 

someone watching on a videotape. But no audio associated with 

that. And that is primarily for security that we continue to watch 

visually. And so that is controlled under that means. 

Any messages that are—or letters, or correspondence that is left 

with a detainee is reviewed by that privilege team before it is sent 

to Haiti. And so that remains there. If a counselor wants to talk 

with a detainee, but not visit, then that is conducted first over a 

secure means if we can do that so that they can connect directly. 

If there is an insecure means there, then someone from that privilege team monitors that conversation. 

No one at JTF Guantanamo monitors any of the conversations 

between counsel and the detainees. And so briefly that is the way 

the process works. 

Mr. MCKEON. When was that put into place? 

General FRASER. Congressman, I will have to get back to you 

with a specific date. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 127.] 

Mr. MCKEON. Okay. Thank you. 

General FRASER. But I have heard of a couple of instances of— 

where information was passed primarily on potential movement of 

detainees in the future. But that is the only—between habeas counsel and—and the detainees, that is the only instances of concern 

that I am aware of. Any instance that the people at Guantanamo 

may be concerned about, they raise that up to DOD [Department 

of Defense], and we, in turn, turn that over to the Department of 

Justice [DOJ]. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKEON. That is the first time we have had two fighter pilots sitting here together. 

The CHAIRMAN. And they do well. 
13 

Mr. MCKEON. They sure work together well. Thank you. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. Taylor yields to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And I want to say good morning to you, gentlemen. 

General Renuart, or Renuart, you have served admirably for— 

may as well just go on and say 40 years. And you are to be congratulated for the achievements, and—the personal achievements 

as well as the job that you have done for America and its citizens. 

General RENUART. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And we appreciate it. And you are leaving us with 

General Fraser who you have mentored throughout the time that 

you all have been together. I think that is such a special relationship to have. And I know that General Fraser will make sure that 

you do not forget him. He will be calling upon you from time to 

time perhaps. 

But I do want to ask this question, General Renuart. As far as 

the Arctic region, if there was a let’s say a military vehicle that got 

stuck and the ice shifted, and it got stuck, and this happened tonight, how would we go about extracting our people and the equipment from the Arctic region? 

General RENUART. Congressman, that is actually a very good example of the kind of activity that we need to continue our momentum on within the Arctic region. All the scientific evidence tells us 

that there is increasing navigable water in the Arctic. But that can 

change literally overnight. We saw just in the last few months over 

100 vessels stuck in the Baltic Sea where they were caught by a 

very rapid freeze. 

So this is a real concern in the Arctic region. Today if that had— 

if that occurred, I—the answer is we and the Coast Guard would 

partner with a rescue force. But today that rescue force would be 

primarily the ability to go in and extract the crew from that vessel, 

because we do not have the capabilities necessary for major ice 

breaking operations in the Arctic, nor do we have the vessels positioned in the Arctic that could provide a rescue vehicle for—with 

ice hardened hulls. 

And in fact, at the time Admiral Keating and I—he was the Pacific Command Commander—have written both to the secretary 

supporting the Coast Guard’s desire to grow additional ice breaking 

equipment. And since then, other combatant commanders have 

added their support to that. That is a capability that is vitally important to the nation. So that you can in fact have the capacity to 

go in with a large vessel and in fact rescue or break free a ship 

that is caught in the ice. 

Last year there were a number of cruise ships that actually took 

advantage of the navigable portion of the year to transit in the Arctic. And clearly at some point one of those will encounter a difficulty whether it is stuck in ice, or a maintenance problem, or the 

like. And we have got to grow a capacity to conduct rescue of those 

kinds of forces in that very harsh region. 

So the Arctic is an area that has great promise, but it also is an 

area with great—that has great difficulty in day-to-day operations. 
14 

We partner both with our NORAD and our NORTHCOM teams 

with Canada on collective search and rescue. The other point I 

would make is that Canadians also have an ability to help in a rescue like that as well. And they will always come to our assistance 

should that be required. 

But the bottom line, sir, is we have got to grow capacity in the 

Arctic whether it is navigation, communication, or in fact rescue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Thank you, sir. 

And General Fraser, you mentioned Colombia—you mentioned 

FARC, a left-wing group, a terrorist group. There is also proof that 

there are right-wing terrorist groups that—the death squads. What 

kind of progress has been made in reigning in those organizations? 

General FRASER. Congressman, Colombia has actually made 

quite a bit of strides in reducing that. They have had an ability 

to—I can’t think of the right word, but to bring those folks in and 

bring them—make them part of the society. And so they have actually been able to repatriate about 30,000 of those types of individuals as they have worked over many years to do that. And those 

efforts continue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Including the right-wing militias? 

General FRASER. Yes, sir. That is where the focus has been. In 

militias. It also has been on the FARC. And so that is an effort that 

continues. One of the negative sides of what is happening is some 

of those individuals have chosen to take on criminal activity if you 

will and become parts of criminal gangs focused on illicit trafficking. So there is one area where they are transferring, and they 

haven’t been successful in that effort. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you both. And enjoy your retirement, General. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Before I call on Mr. Bartlett, let me ask. To your knowledge is help, aid, and assistance 

from Venezuela coming to the FARC in Colombia? 

General FRASER. Chairman, I am not sure I understood your 

question. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is a group known as FARC in—— 

General FRASER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Colombia. Are they receiving help, 

aid, and assistance from anyone in or out of government in Venezuela? 

General FRASER. Congressman, we do see a—or Chairman, we do 

see a long-term relationship that exists between the Government of 

Venezuela, and the FARC. That has been evidenced if we go back 

and look at the computer records that came out of the Rafael Reyes 

detention—or capture of that computer. That continues on. There 

is safe haven. There is financial logistic support. There is safe 

haven for the FARC provided. 

And that—all the evidence I have says that continues. The evidence I have doesn’t say that it—that I can explicitly say it is continuing. But I can’t say it is explicitly not continuing. So based on 

the evidence up to date, I would say that that support still continues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is the FARC getting smaller or larger? 

General FRASER. Over the time that plan Colombia has been in 

existence, the FARC has been reduced. They are about half the 
15 

level that they were when Colombia relief focused their effort. 

Right now we estimate about 8,500 FARC members. So the fight 

is still very much there. The FARC has been pushed to a defensive 

role. They are changing their tactics, but they are still very active. 

Colombia had to take on a very active role in making sure they 

were not able to disrupt the recent congressional elections held. 

And the armed forces and the national police did a very good job 

of doing that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. General Renuart, before Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense he chaired a commission study of the emerging 

ballistic missile threat. That study concluded the threat was real, 

was growing, and was far more imminent than we had anticipated. 

Our response to that has been a very aggressive development and 

deployment of anti-ballistic missiles. A major focus of that has been 

in the Arctic. 

I hope that that will never be used, because I think the only 

country that will ever launch over the pole today may be China tomorrow. But the only country ever to launch over the pole today 

will be Russia. And our meager defenses there would be almost immediately swamped by the shear numbers of the weapons that they 

could release. 

Other adversary—potential adversaries like Iran and North 

Korea may be evil. They are not idiots. And I think that there is 

a very small probability that they would ever launch from their 

homeland, because that launch would be detected. And they know 

that they would be almost immediately vaporized. And so if they 

attack us, sir, it is not going to be from their homeland. So we don’t 

need to wait until they have a missile which will reach us. 

If they attack us, it is going to be from the sea. And so I have 

two questions. One is what is our capability of defending our coast 

from ship launched missiles? And by the way, with any trans 

steamer and a scud launcher which they can buy for about 

$100,000 and a crude nuclear weapon, they can attack us. That attack will almost certainly be where we are most vulnerable, which 

would be an EMP [electromagnetic pulse] attack. And if they miss 

their target by 100 miles, it is as good as hitting it dead on. 

Iran had a missile test which we said failed, because the thing 

was detonated in space. That is exactly how you would produce an 

EMP attack. So my second question is how much of your fighting 

capability would remain after the EMP attack, and what would be 

the situation in our country? 

General RENUART. Congressman Bartlett, let me take the second 

question first. You and I have had a discussion about two years ago 

actually as—with respect to Cheyenne Mountain on EMP issues. 

And I promised you at the time that we would continue to work 

this very aggressively. And I am pleased that we have been able 

to continue a very aggressive funding line to ensure not just the 

systems in Cheyenne Mountain, but the systems in our headquarters every day have the appropriate EMP protection against 

just this kind of event. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Can you tell us, sir, at what level you are protecting? Is it 30, 50, or 100 kilovolts per meter? 
16 

General RENUART. Congressman, I think I expressed ignorance 

back then of the specific number. And I am afraid if I gave you one 

I might not be telling you the truth. So let me—but I will get you 

the number back—— 

[The information referred to is classified and retained in the committee files.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Appreciate that. Thank you. 

General RENUART [continuing]. If I could after the hearing for 

the record. But your point is very well taken. The threat is not the 

traditional threat that we saw during certainly those cold war 

days. And even today certainly the Russians and the Chinese maintain a substantial intercontinental range system that our missile 

defense system was not designed to protect us against. But rather 

those rogue nations. 

And I would say that that system is working very well against 

that very limited threat. But enemies that we have today don’t necessarily follow the normal rule book. And so as you mentioned, one 

of my very real concerns is the ability of a nation state, or non-nation state actor to gain access to a lower tech missile that could be 

launched from somewhere off our shore. 

We have been working a number of programs to give us better 

situational awareness that that may occur. Not—in the areas of 

maritime domain awareness we partner with the Navy and the 

Coast Guard as well as our science and technology laboratories to 

create a better maritime domain awareness picture. So that today 

we have fielded a system that allows us to monitor the commercial 

shipping traffic as well as the military shipping around the world 

as it approaches our shores. And we could be made aware of a vessel well off our coast—hundreds of miles if not 1,000 miles off our 

coast. 

The next piece is what do you do about it? And there I have a 

concern in that our ability to detect what I will call cruise missiles 

or crude cruise missiles is limited to the existing radar systems 

that we have today. 

We are investing in numbers of follow-on technologies through a 

program called, ‘‘Command and Control Gap Filler,’’ which would 

combine certainly some fixed sites as well as over the horizon technologies which have proven relatively effective in certain areas 

against a cruise missile-sized target. To give us the sufficient warning that we could then take advantage of existing alert sites or others to try to provide us some defense. 

But this is an area we have concern, and we are continuing to 

work within the department to expand. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And generals, thank you for your service and your leadership at 

a very pivotal time in our nation’s history. 

General Renuart, the governor of Texas recently stated that he 

is concerned about imminent border violence spillover into the U.S. 

border. Yesterday, the two senators from Texas urged President 

Obama to act on spillover border violence. From your perspective 

as NORTHCOM commander, do you believe that there is an immi-
17 

nent threat of military—militarily significant violence spilling into 

the United States homeland? 

General RENUART. Congressman, I think we need to ensure that 

we are prepared if something like that were to occur. As the governor mentioned, there has been evidence of spillover violence, and 

that does occur, and I would say episodically. It is not a consistent 

series of events across all of the border. But it has happened some 

in California. Certainly some in Arizona, and as we have seen most 

recently in Juarez. But also along the south Texas border as well. 

Mr. REYES. But, General, one of the things that concerns me, and 

I represent El Paso, which is the second safest city in the nation, 

right across from Juarez. I think we have to be very careful what 

we characterize as spillover violence. For instance, when you mentioned Arizona, some months ago they were reporting the 

kidnappings as a direct result of the ongoing violence in Mexico. 

It turned out to be that these were alien smuggling organizations—human—— 

General RENUART. Yes. 

Mr. REYES [continuing]. Smuggling organizations. 

General RENUART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. REYES. Nothing to do with the cartels or the Mexican government’s efforts. Part of the problem that we are seeing today is that 

perception becomes reality. When in effect what happened in 

Juarez this past weekend, which now is—we are being told may be 

a case of mistaken identity that those acts were taken in Juarez. 

But when the governor talks about his concern for imminent 

spillover, and he talks about activating some secret plan that he 

has to bring additional resources, that naturally raises the angst 

in people that live along the border that are very concerned. Even 

in the second safest city in the country people are calling my office 

wanting to know what is the governor’s plan? Why is he activating 

it? And what is it that he knows that they don’t know. And that 

I think is a disservice to border communities, because it tends to 

affect not just the people, but also the business community, the 

commerce, and the trade. 

So we need to be careful. And that is why I ask you that question. And secondly you—are you aware of the secret plan that Governor Perry has? And have you been briefed, because we haven’t? 

General RENUART. Yes. Congressman, and you said it in much 

more eloquent terms than I would have. But the point I did want 

to make is we do have to be extremely careful about how we characterize actions south of the border, which in many cases are cartel 

on cartel violence, or intimidation tactics. And obviously to emphasize, and El Paso is a great example the very safe environment 

that we have in most of our cities. 

So I too am very careful in how we characterize anything that 

is described as spillover violence. Because I think the preponderance of evidence is that the violence is certainly there south of the 

border. But that actually our border security folks are doing a very 

good job of keeping that—and our law enforcement on the north 

side are working that as well, I think. And secondly, I am not 

aware of a secret plan. And so I have no idea what that may be 

referring to. Certainly the governor can use law enforcement National Guard to be involved in counternarcotics operations. But I 
18 

know of no plan that would be sort of kept in a drawer that he 

might use. 

Mr. REYES. But on the flip side Customs and Border Protection— 

the Northern Command—we all have contingency plans in case 

something happens, correct? 

General RENUART. Absolutely, sir. And in fact, most of those 

plans center around growing capacity with the Mexicans to help 

them deal with the problems on the south side of the border. And 

in fact we have a senior leader meeting on this topic in about two 

weeks’ time at my headquarters. 

Mr. REYES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, 

for your service, and for being here. I want to touch on WHINSEC 

for a minute. It is the Western Hemisphere Institution for Security 

Cooperation. As you all know, they use WHINSEC to train folks 

from other countries, and go back to those countries, and then help 

those countries deal with whether it is narcotics or narcoterrorism 

or other things. 

During the past couple of years an amendment has been offered 

to the House Defense Bill which would authorize publication of personal information of WHINSEC students. From your perspective, 

what would be the impact of releasing that information of those 

students that we have trained here to the international public? 

General FRASER. Congressman Hunter, let me take the first try 

at that. As you know, the Senate Armed Services Committee asked 

the Department of Defense to do an assessment of the release of 

names. That assessment is still working its way through the system. 

That said, while we are waiting for that, and I don’t know the 

specifics of the response yet, but I don’t support the release of 

names. We have a great relationship with WHINSEC with the 

partners there. It is not only partners with the U.S. and our partner nations, but with one another. And so, they return and they 

continue to engage with one another throughout the region. 

So my concerns are that we continue to have this capability 

available. That we continue to not only respect the rights and desires of the nations who provide those people, men and women, to 

those facilities, but we also look to make sure from a privacy standpoint we protect the U.S. citizens also, who are the instructors and 

the people who man that at WHINSEC. 

General RENUART. Congressman, if I could just add a couple 

points? First, we too are avid users of the WHINSEC capabilities 

and are very supportive, and I echo General Fraser’s comments 

about the importance of maintaining the security of the individuals 

attending, as well as the faculty. 

And let me give you an example of what can happen when information is in fact released. You may recall recently the Mexican 

military, the navy in particular, was successful in the raid on 

Arturo Beltran Leyva. 

One of the naval individuals that was part of that raid was 

killed. And you might recall later that as his identity was made 
19 

public—and this was not WHINSEC-related—just made that information public, his mother and wife and children were killed. 

We cannot afford to have the information that is held in 

WHINSEC released because it will have that kind of effect potentially for the individuals who are extremely valuable to us. 

And so, I echo Doug’s comments that we need to be very careful 

about the release of that information, and we would oppose that. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, gentlemen. I concur with both of you. 

Lastly, just in the last minute and 30 seconds here, is there anything that we can do to enhance the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency], the Coast Guard, you all, DOD, CBP [Customs and Border Protections], everybody working together, because I know in San 

Diego, for instance, we have the border fence there. 

It pushes stuff west, whether it is smugglers, criminals, gang 

members, terrorists, coming across the border. The ocean is now 

being used more than anything—excuse me—the Coast Guard 

talks about wanting more UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]. And 

you know, being DOD, you are the experts on it, they aren’t. 

So, is there anything that we can do here to make everything 

work more seamlessly together between all the different agencies? 

General FRASER. I think, Congressman, that the Joint Interagency Task Force South provides us with a good model for how 

to do that. They are operating today with all the agencies that you 

mentioned, from DEA to CBP, as well as our partner nations. They 

have liaisons from 17 different partner nations who are also working this. 

So it is a great collaborative effort, who everyone understands 

their capabilities and their authorities and they work seamlessly to 

make sure they focus and continue on the mission. 

As we look more broadly than that, through the interdiction committee, and I think there is an opportunity that we expand that capability on a broadly, more national basis, if you will, to further integrate that capacity, not only at a tactical level, but at an operational level. 

General RENUART. And just very quickly, I know we are out of 

that time. I think supporting the existing budgets is certainly critical to that. And then finally, this concept of this national task 

force focused on integrating all of those efforts is an area with 

great merit, and we are working at both our commands, as well as 

each of the agencies you have described, through the interdiction 

committee. And I think that will be more ready for prime time in 

the coming months. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. Really appreciate it. Congratulations on your retirement. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for being here and for your extraordinary 

service. We appreciate it. 

General Renuart, I know that there has been discussion about 

Mexico and the violence spilling over. I wonder if in your work with 

the Mexican government that there has been any concern as well 

that some of the civilian—you know,—that there is—will be a 
20 

counterreaction I guess to overreach on the behalf of the Mexican 

Army? 

Is there any concern that human rights abuses or other abuses 

might impact the ability of the services? And how are we working 

on what is a very sensitive issue? 

General RENUART. This is actually a very real concern that the 

Mexican government has. They understand that the challenge that 

they placed their military in by using them in effect to replace law 

enforcement in the cities. 

General Galva ́n, their secretary of defense for the Army and Air 

Force, and I have had a specific discussion. He has asked us for 

our assistance in providing unique training on the integration of 

real operations and law enforcement and justice and human rights. 

And in fact, to Mr. Hunter’s question a moment ago, WHINSEC 

is helping us create this team that we will then take to Mexico and 

provide very unique training to not just the schools, but to the 

units in the field on how they best integrate their operations with 

the rule of law and human rights. 

So I am very pleased at that progress. We will begin working 

that in earnest in the coming months. Having said that, it is very 

difficult for the Mexican military to be put in that law enforcement 

role for an extended period. 

And General Galva ́n has been working aggressively as the federal police has been essentially all removed and now rehired and 

vetted and trained. He is working aggressively to help them build 

capacity so that they can take on the appropriate roles in the cities. 

And in fact, in Juarez that transition has recently occurred and 

the federal police is taking more of a leadership role. So I think 

they are very sensitive to this issue. I think President Caldero ́n 

clearly knows he has a limited type capability to affect things and 

he is using all the best way he can. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

General Fraser, and I am going to ask you a question we had an 

opportunity to speak about this briefly the other day, but on the 

dwell time for our men and women in uniform we know that they 

performed tremendously in Haiti and yet for some of them, that did 

take away some of their dwell time. 

So I am just wondering what we can do to really ensure those 

men and women have enough time at home before they go back on 

deployment. Is there anything that we should be doing or looking 

at in terms of helping them out, I guess not unlike we have done 

in other cases? 

General FRASER. Congresswoman, thank you for that question. 

And our men and women did a marvelous job and they responded 

very, very quickly. A lot of them who were not scheduled to sail, 

not scheduled to participate, to include the comfort that, and they 

sortied in very quick fashion to go help the people of Haiti. 

It has made it so that there are some of those individuals who 

will probably not get the full dwell time between, because they 

are—some of them more in prep for future transition or movement 

to ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of them had just 

come back. 

So the Department of Defense throughout the operation in Haiti 

has put a considerable focus on making sure we understand the 
21 

limitations of that. And in all reality, there has been some impact 

to it, but it has been fairly minor impact, relatively minor, in all 

of that. 

What can we do to help? I think it is your continued focus on 

helping our men and women and supporting them. We will go back 

and look at specifically what you are looking at, because it could 

impact on us in other parts and other operations within Department of Defense. So let me take that back and we will get back to 

you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 127.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate that. What you are saying 

is that in fact there may be relatively few people affected, but that 

there may be other programs in which we are not able to open up 

some of these issues for them as well? Is that basically the concern 

that if you do it for this group, you might—you would run into a 

problem in other ways? 

General FRASER. No, ma’am. I think it is an issue that we are 

talking on worldwide. And there is a very concerted effort whenever this happens to make sure that we focus on the families of our 

deployed men and women. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for your service. 

And General Renuart, I trust that you will retire in the state of 

Colorado and remain there as a good citizen of our state. Can I get 

your commitment on that? Okay, very good. 

My first question is, General Renuart, you said—talked about 

sharing intelligence with officials from the Mexican government. Is 

there a concern, and I have heard it expressed before, that some 

of that intelligence is being leaked to some of the cartels, and that 

is compromising our capability? 

General RENUART. Congressman, I think I am not so concerned 

that direct information is being leaked to the cartels. I think that 

one of the challenges of any kind of an operation that would target 

a high value individual or an organization, has the potential for 

some of that information to be leaked in the execution. 

In other words, operational security of that information, once you 

begin to act on it, becomes a challenge. And this is one of the areas 

that we are working very closely with our Mexican partners to 

share with them the lessons we have learned about operation security once you actually begin to find and fix a target to be able to 

take action. 

We have worked very hard in the broader intelligence-sharing 

arena with both the Mexican Navy and the Army and Air Force to 

secure information in a way that it can be protected. So is there 

a risk? Absolutely. Have we seen instances? Yes, sir, we have. We 

have also seen the trend where the Mexican military understands 

the importance of operation security and has continued to work on 

that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, General. And a follow-up question, the 

Merida Program, are you—is there a concern that some of the 
22 

weapons—military weapons that we are giving to the Mexican military, Mexican security forces in general, that some of those soldiers 

or some of the police officers are walking with those weapons and 

join in the cartels? 

General RENUART. Sir, I would say no. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

General RENUART. I have no concern with that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Very well. To both of you, is there any evidence in—of some in the past to say Hezbollah has been engaged 

in the drug trafficking business to raise money for some of its operations in the Middle East? Are any of you—either of you aware of 

that or any reports to that effect? 

General FRASER. Congressman, there have been within the 

Southern Command region. There had been some reports of 

Hezbollah is starting to get engaged within the illegal trafficking 

area. So I have that indication. We are looking for beyond that, but 

it is primarily right now a focus on logistics support, financial support to their apparent organizations in the Mideast. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. And, General Fraser, to you as well, there 

have been media reports about Iran being involved in Nicaragua, 

I think, building a mosque or something, but sponsored by the Iranian government. Are you aware of that and to what extent is that 

a concern to you, if it is true? 

General FRASER. Congressman, Iran has been engaging on a political and a commercial level throughout much of Latin America. 

Over the last 3 to 4 years, they have increased the number of their 

embassies from seven to 11 going to another one this year. They 

have engaged very directly with Venezuela. They are also engaging 

consistently with Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, as you mentioned. 

Also with Brazil. So they are actually working across the region to 

engage in both a political and a commercial endeavor. 

Our concerns aren’t just watching to understand what those—the 

relationships are and I don’t see any evidence that they are beyond 

that right now, but we are very skeptical and watching very closely. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Very well. I think both of you to some degree— 

General Fraser mentioned the issue of Venezuela. How would you 

assess Venezuela right now as a destabilizing force in the region? 

General FRASER. Congressman, they continue to have a very 

anti-U.S. stance and look to try and restrict U.S. activity wherever 

they have the opportunity to do that. They are continuing to engage with the region, if you will, and continuing to pursue their socialism agenda. So that continues to be a concern. They remain a 

destabilizing force in the region. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. General Renuart, in looking at our southern 

border with Mexico, is there any evidence that those other than 

seeking the status of being a laborer in this country, i.e., any Al 

Qaeda elements, any terrorist elements, is there any evidence that 

any of those folks are crossing our border? 

General RENUART. Congressman, right now, there is no evidence 

that they are crossing the border. In fact, it is something we work 

very closely with the Mexicans about to try to keep track of that. 

And so far, I would say not seeing any successful attempts. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
23 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larsen of Washington. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, 

for coming today. I will start with General Renuart regarding page 

16 of your testimony on the Olympics. 

I actually got to go to the hockey game that we won. A great time 

up there. But that week I was home, I also visited the Olympics 

Coordination Center in Bellingham, Washington, where for the— 

possibly for the first time brought together most, if not all, of federal, state and local and international agencies necessary to sort of 

take care of security on our side of the border. And you referenced 

that in your testimony with regards to some of the work you do 

with Canada. 

Can you though—can you give us perhaps maybe the top three 

lessons or the top three takeaways from that experience for 

NORTHCOM that are perhaps different than what you had going 

into this experience? 

General RENUART. Congressman, I would be happy to. And the 

biggest failure was the final game. 

Mr. LARSEN. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

General RENUART. I predicted it terribly wrong and we came up 

on the other side. 

Mr. LARSEN. I know. And there is nothing we could have done 

at NORTHCOM to fix that. And so—— 

General RENUART. We tried. 

Mr. LARSEN. I know. 

General RENUART. Congressman, I think—and very quickly, first, 

it was a success story beyond, I think, even what the planners had 

hoped. You mentioned the great interagency cooperation at the operation center there in Bellingham and that really did go from local 

all the way to federal and everybody that had a part to play. 

The same was true in Vancouver with the Vancouver Olympic 

Committee and the Integrated Security Unit, our partnership, 

NORAD and NORTHCOM, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Organizing Committee and the others were extraordinary. 

I think there were—there was a very positive result in that we 

found a way to integrate air and maritime operating pictures in a 

better fashion than we had been using thus far. And so we are 

going to adapt that model or adopt that model in our current operations for NORAD and NORTHCOM. And the key with that is it 

got the picture down to the local authorities at the same time we 

saw at the federal. So that was a very positive element. Second, the 

collaboration between the Navy and the Coast Guard in the Straits 

and the approaching areas was also a real model for success for the 

future. In terms of things we would like to do better, I believe the 

final piece would be we clearly were in a position to provide support to Canada should it have been required in a crisis. 

I think the procedural process of that, for example, moving quickly across the border, we have got to still work closer with our 

friends on both sides to ensure access in a crisis. And we are working a couple of projects with Canada Command, our NORTHCOM 

equivalent, to rapidly integrate the militaries of either country to 

support in a civil event or a disaster event is really the right way 

to describe it that occurred, but those are—frankly, that is in the 

noise level. That really was a successful event. 
24 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Yes. In my visits to the Coordination Center, 

I spoke with some of our Washington State National Guard folks 

and asked them what experience they were having. They actually 

ended up—it is kind of funny when you think about it because they 

actually ended up finding the phone number of the people at NSA 

or NGA to get the maps that they believed existed, but didn’t know 

existed and it took this Coordination Center for them to connect 

with folks to find the people to call to get that stuff. 

I mean, as simple as that which now our National Guard will 

start utilizing that tool much more aggressively in the future for 

any number of things that they are doing. Also in your testimony— 

in your written testimony, you talk about seeing the counternarcotics side of things as well in reference to northern border. And 

I appreciate that. I appreciate the increase of attention. 

There is a lot of tension in the southwest border for obvious reasons, but Interstate 5 is not only a great pipeline for travel, for 

tourism, for trade, economic growth, it is also the number one pipeline for drugs that come out of Canada, sometimes originated in 

Canada, sometimes originated elsewhere and coming through Canada. And that partnership that we need with our Canadian partners is extremely important and I think there are lessons from 

the—on the CN side of things. 

Can you talk about that, the counternarcotics side of things on 

the border, northern border? 

General RENUART. Congressman, let me provide you some very 

specifics, but we have conducted two good exercises in Washington 

State, collaboration with both our U.S. law enforcement and Canadian law enforcement to help identify transit points and allow information so they can be interdicted. 

There is a great deal more to that. We are going to conduct that 

exercise again this year. In the interest of time, let me pass that 

to you and I will put that in the record as well, but I will get that 

back to you specifically for some opportunities that we had this 

year. 

[The information referred to is classified and retained in the committee files.] 

Mr. LARSEN. I appreciate that. And Mr. Chairman, just quickly, 

these drugs wouldn’t be coming into the U.S. from Canada if there 

was not a demand in the U.S. So I don’t want to put this on our 

Canadian friends. There is a demand in the U.S. that we also need 

to take care of. 

General RENUART. Well, important to say that the flows are coming in from the sea into Canada as well. So this is not just a north 

to south issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank—and 

thank both of you for being here. Thank you for your service. General Renuart, I will especially thank you for your lifetime of service 

on behalf of my children, you know? People like you have held the 

line and you have given your whole life to the cause and thank you 

very, very much. 

General RENUART. Thank you very much, sir. 
25 

Mr. FRANKS. General Renuart, I want to take off on a question 

that Mr. Bartlett posed earlier related to the potential homeland 

attack, EMP attack, I think that all of these challenges, of course, 

point to a very critical need to have the most robust layered missile 

defense capability that we can have. And NORTHCOM, I understand—you understand better than anyone—is trying to develop 

the global force management plan to address the Phased, Adaptive 

Approach. 

And, you know, we are certainly very hopeful that that will be 

successful. I guess my question is one of timing. I know that our 

offensive capabilities has not dissuaded people like North Korea or 

Iran from moving forward with their program, but I am hoping 

that that indicates to us that they value these programs so greatly 

that they are willing to take a great deal of risks in order to obtain 

them. 

And if our defensive capability were such that it would nullify or 

devalue their system that it might play into their calculus. That is 

the idea. So I guess my concern here about the approach is the timing. And so I guess my question to you is what is the timeline for 

the development of the global force management plan that addresses the Phased, Adaptive Approach not only to protect us against 

things that Mr. Bartlett mentioned, but I guess the host of other 

threats? 

General RENUART. Mr. Franks, I know you had General Chilton 

and Mr. Miller in front of the committee just in the last day or two. 

I saw their comments, and I guess I would say in terms of time 

line the unknown here is the speed at which a country like Iran 

for example may be accelerating its efforts. Certainly what we 

know is through the entirety of the Phased, Adaptive Approach we 

would expect to have that fully capable in—potentially in the year 

2018. 

In the meantime, the existing ground basement course systems 

that we have I think provide us reasonable capability against any 

developing threat that may occur between now and then. I think 

importantly in all of this is that we continue to focus on an integrated air and missile defense capability for the nation. And that 

is an integration of sensors, many of which General Chilton owns, 

and shooters, many of which I own. And we are working aggressively to pull all of that. 

So we don’t just think about homeland defense in terms of a missile, or an airplane, or a UAV, or a cruise missile, but rather we 

create the architecture that allows us to address all of that. And 

we are making good progress on that. And that is the area where 

the Congress always helps. Is that we continue the support for 

those programs and the funding lines that we see through the secretary’s budget so that we can remain on track. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I guess that—you know, that makes a lot of 

sense. But it brings me to the question as far as the upgraded sensors, and the real time discrimination capability that I think is essentially included in your answer. What do you think the timing 

is on being able to implement those kinds of improvements that 

will—— 

General RENUART. Sir, I think the sensor situational awareness 

is actually moving faster than some of the elements of the shooters. 
26 

In the Phased, Adaptive Approach, the SM–3, Blocks 2–A/2–B are 

out in a few years showing great capability and potential. But still 

in development. Our sensor network is actually growing. 

As you may know, we will launch our first geosynchronous 

SBIRS vehicle this year. It had been delayed, but now the program 

is going on track. That will continue the investment in a very robust sensor package. C–2 BMC, which is the command and control 

system that allows us to integrate those sensors into coherent decision quality information is also now moving along nicely. 

So I am actually comfortable that the sensor piece is working. I 

am still focused on the cruise missile part of that sensor. And we 

are continuing to work with the department. And I think we have 

a way ahead, and I am not uncomfortable with the direction. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. I guess I will leave this last question up to either one of you. I know that, you know, being a general 

it is going to be in your mind about the potentiality of a nuclear 

Iran. What if there is one thing that you could suggest would be 

critical to this country from your point of view—from the 

warfighter’s point of view of preventing Iran from gaining that nuclear capability, what are we doing right? What are we doing 

wrong? 

General RENUART. Could I say we have three seconds left, and 

I will have to talk fast. Sir, I think the key is the aggregate pressure that we are putting on Iran through diplomatic, through military strength, through the partner nations that we have in the region, has to be continued. And that will hopefully dissuade Iran. 

Because I think they have got to change their strategic intentions. 

And I think that effort is really the focal point for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Bordallo, the gentlelady from Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I realize 

this is a little bit out of my jurisdiction. But I am assisting my colleague from Puerto Rico in asking this question. 

I have hopefully a simple and quick question for either General 

Renuart or General Fraser. As you know, a fiscal year 2006 budget 

action by the Air Force programmed for the retirement of all 8 C– 

130s that are currently stationed at San Juan—Luis Mun ̃ oz International Airport with the Puerto Rico Air National Guard. 

Now I understand that Puerto Rico is technically in Northern 

Command area of responsibility, but in many cases military units 

stationed in Puerto Rico assist with missions, humanitarian and 

otherwise, in Southern Command’s area of responsibility. So I 

think we need to hear from both of you. First I would like to understand what type of operational impact the retirement of the C–130s 

in Puerto Rico will have to respond to humanitarian, natural disaster, or other matters in the Caribbean, Central and South American region? 

General FRASER. Ma’am, thank you for that question. We have 

along with the Puerto Rican National Guard—the C–130s. There is 

a set of four other C–130s—we call them ‘‘Coronet Oak,’’ that are 

provided as a ready capability to respond for an immediate need 

within the Southern Command region. And so those are the aircraft that we have on immediate recall basis if you will to respond 

to those issues. 
27 

So those are being supplied broadly from the Air Force capability. So right now that is where we have. And so Puerto Rico’s 

ability to contribute to that I think is really what will make a difference for Southern Command. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And General. 

General RENUART. Congresswoman, I would like to just first say 

that the Puerto Rican Air National Guard did certainly provide 

great support during Haiti and flew a number of missions within 

the overall transportation system of—that is operated by U.S. 

TRANSCOM [Transportation Command]. 

In terms of the specific Puerto Rican Air National Guard units, 

I think the chief of staff of the Air Force has made some necessary 

decisions as we recapitalize our units. And I think that for me and 

my AOR, and as you say Puerto Rico is in my area of responsibility, it is important that we maintain a capacity to move material 

around the region. 

But I have to defer to the Air Force to make decisions on specifically which units do that. I continue to maintain a requirement to 

provide some of that lift for a variety of reasons. So we will work 

closely both with the territory as well as the Air Force—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Right. 

General RENUART [continuing]. On the in state there. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I have a further part of that question. Now I 

have seen the proposed bed down of C–130s across the U.S. for fiscal year 2012. And without C–130s or some sort of air lift out of 

Puerto Rico I fear we have a dangerous capability gap in the Caribbean region. So I fear this will send the wrong signal to our partners in the Caribbean and Central and South American nations. 

Could you address the strategic importance of Puerto Rico in 

terms of our operational plans and capabilities for that region? And 

how important is Puerto Rico to your commands, and having the 

right assets to conduct missions? 

General RENUART. Ma’am, I would say Puerto Rico is actually a 

very strategic location for us. In fact if you look at the flow of illicit 

trafficking from south to north. As we put pressure in one particular area, the traffickers move to another. And certainly that 

area in the eastern Caribbean has been a flow route in varying volumes for quite some time. So in terms of its strategic importance, 

Puerto Rico offers a unique location. And in fact we have taken advantage of that to put surveillance radars and some other things 

that assist law enforcement in conducting those operations in that 

region. 

So for me it is a very important area. 

Ms. BORDALLO. General Fraser. 

General FRASER. Ma’am, I agree. It is a very important area. Especially also because it is a partner within the Caribbean—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. 

General FRASER [continuing]. Confines. And so it makes a big difference in our ability to interact with the Caribbean neighbors as 

well as our Latin American neighbors. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well I will pass this message over to the representative from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I have—Mr. Wilson, Mr. 

Wilson, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lamborn have not asked questions yet. 

And I believe the scheduled votes for 11:30 have been rescheduled 

for 12:30. So I think we are in pretty good shape to finish. Before 

I call Mr. Wilson, let me ask General Renuart concerning the wind 

turbines that are being erected in various places—and I think 

there is a field in the state of Missouri on that is being considered 

as well. Do you have a concern about the impact of wind turbines 

on radar in your AOR? 

General RENUART. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. 

Absolutely. I have real concerns. Having said that, I also recognize 

the real importance and value of alternate energy sources to our 

nation. And so we have begun a collaborative effort with the FAA, 

certainly the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of Interior, to provide assessment tools that developers may use to determine if their particular radar siting may 

have an affect. 

The science in this is that the turbines themselves have a very 

real effect on the radars. They distort the radars. In many cases 

block the picture, and put at risk the air safety—the traffic safety 

of our—in our national airspace system, as well as create risk for 

the defense of our U.S. 

There are a number of sites around the country that have repositioned the physical siting in order to minimize the affect on our radars. There are some sites today that we have concern over. And 

we are working with those developers to try to mitigate the effects 

of these radars. But this is a very real concern. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Generals, thank you very much for your service. And I want 

to thank both of you and your troops for what a difference—what 

was made for the people of Haiti. It was extraordinary. The American military was so successful in helping the people there. And I 

know I have a lot of constituents who have done volunteer work 

over the years in that country. And they just were so proud of the 

American military coming immediately to the rescue of the people 

of Haiti. 

So thank you so much. Additionally, General Fraser, I have a 

keen interest in the country of Colombia. I serve as the Honorary 

Chairman of the Partners of the Americas program. We are associated with the country of Colombia. And we have hosted students 

from Colombia at our home in high school. And then two of my 

sons have gone to high school in Colombia. A great ally and friend 

of the United States. 

Can you review further the current state of FARC in Colombia. 

And also is there current evidence between FARC and the government of Venezuela? 

General FRASER. Thank you, Congressman Wilson. Having grown 

up in Colombia, I also have an interest there as well. That said, 

Colombia and the support and their efforts to fight the FARC are 

continuing to be successful. This year, they have been able to kill 

or capture 12 mid-level, high-level, leaders within the FARC. 
29 

They have a continuing effort to reduce the illicit trafficking and 

their consolidation plan is continuing to grow and foster. And that 

consolidation plan enables them to have the military go in, secure 

an area, then bring in other parts of the government to change the 

capacity there so the illicit trafficking and the FARC cannot reside 

there. 

I think the FARC is on the defensive. We are starting to see a 

change in the tactics, but they are still at about half the size and 

the level that they were previously. And so, the fight continues so 

I ask for your continued support of our efforts to support the Colombians as they continue that fight. It is an important fight. 

Mr. WILSON. And that is part of the success story of Plan Colombia. Can you bring us up to date further in regard to the counternarcotics efforts in addressing the production and transport of illegal narcotics in your AOR? And your plans for addressing illegal 

narcotics in the future? 

General RENUART. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman Wilson. 

Colombia has been successful in reducing the numbers. Especially in 2008, there was a 14 percent reduction in the amount of 

cocaine produced within Colombia. Those efforts continue. They 

have done and worked on manual eradication. They are also—and 

those efforts, although smaller this last year just because of budgets and capability, they have still remained successful, also. 

So that has—if you want to look at it on a regional basis—starting to have an impact more broadly. The traffickers, because there 

is resistance to the growing of cocaine within Colombia, are starting to look for other places. And they are starting to look at other 

places in Colombia, headed toward the northwest part of Colombia, 

but also into Peru and Bolivia. 

So we see the traffickers adjusting to successes that we are seeing within Colombia. I think we will that same as Mexico continues 

to pursue their efforts, and so the traffickers will adjust. We are 

working to build awareness across the region of that illicit trafficking enterprise, so that we can understand it better, and understand how to coordinate our efforts, government-to-government, 

military-to-military, law enforcement-to-law enforcement, to really 

put a pressure across the board on the illicit trafficking enterprise. 

Mr. WILSON. General Renuart, in 2008 your area of responsibility 

now includes some extraordinarily beautiful areas of the Caribbean. But as General Fraser was mentioning, narcoterrorism, trafficking, now is a threat in that area, too. So what is being done in 

your area? 

General RENUART. Congressman Wilson, this is a growth industry for us. As you mentioned, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, became part of our area of focus as well in that 2008 timeframe. 

And candidly, I am also considering moving my headquarters 

there, because—— 

Mr. WILSON. I would. BVI comes to mind. 

General RENUART. I am sorry, Congressman Lamborn, I am not 

going to do that, but we may have an alternate headquarters. 

I think that area is also a key transit area and we are continuing 

the efforts that NORTHCOM had been involved in, and expanding 

to include some modernization of facilities, expansion of the Royal 

Bahamian Defense Force capabilities, to allow them to address this 
30 

in their region as well. They are a valued partner and we are growing that relationship. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of you 

gentlemen. 

General Fraser, I guess three questions. Number one, when Morales was elected the president of Bolivia, it is my understanding 

that his political party was actually called the Cocaleros, that a significant part of his platform would be reduced emphasis of coca in 

Bolivia. So I guess the follow-up to Mr. Wilson’s question is, is it 

safe to assume that as cocaine production went down in Colombia, 

it increased dramatically in Bolivia? As it went down in Colombia? 

General FRASER. Congressman, I can’t make a direct linkage. I 

do know that cocaine production has grown within Bolivia. It is 

now the third largest cocaine producer within Latin America, within South America. 

And that President Morales has expanded the legal amount of 

land available for the legal amount of growth of cocaine within Bolivia for indigenous use and their own internal use. So it has grown 

within Bolivia. 

Mr. TAYLOR. At some point could you have someone give me a 

follow-up on that? I know I am catching you cold on this. I should 

have given you some warning. 

General FRASER. Yes, sir, Congressman. I would be happy to do 

that. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Are there any missions, surface combatant missions, 

off in your AOR that the frigates in the fleet we have today cannot 

perform? 

General FRASER. Congressman, they are performing all those 

missions. In fact, we rely very heavily on not only the U.S. Navy, 

but the U.S. Coast Guard to provide us with that capacity. And so, 

it varies on a routine basis on what we are doing. We are working 

with the Navy to expand some of the capabilities to help us further 

that. 

The other thing that we are working with the Navy on is one of 

the things that will help us get more station time for the ships is 

to have oilers available. So it is not a capacity on the ships itself, 

it is the capacity of keeping those ships on station. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, my follow-up is I was looking at a study yesterday that because of the delay in the LCS [littoral combat ship] 

program, and because of the scheduled retirement of the frigates, 

that we are looking by 2015 at having something in the neighborhood of over a dozen fewer small service combatants than we have 

today. 

What does that do to your mission? And presumably most of the 

small service combatants are in your AOR, so what does that do? 

What gets done now that won’t get done then? 

General FRASER. Congressman, our demand for surface capability 

runs at about 14 ships at a time. And that is to reach the goal of 

denying 40 percent of the traffic, if you will, cocaine, in the maritime domain. On a normal basis, we get eight of those ships. So 

it is a 14 to 8. 
31 

So it will depend, as other demands on the Navy equate, how 

they resource us with those ships. Actually, the LCS ship, as you 

know, the USS Freedom, is in the SOUTHCOM region right now, 

and it has been doing very well. It has already had two successful 

interdictions of trafficking. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, the question was just looking at the numbers, if we don’t extend the life of the frigates, then they go away, 

the LCS is way behind schedule, there is always the possibility 

that the loser in this competition protested, so we end up with a 

tanker-type situation, where years from now the LCS’s are finally 

getting delivered. 

So again, given that scenario, the lack of those surface combatants, what do you lose in your AOR if they are not there? 

General FRASER. Congressman, I will lose some presence, as we 

have talked about. The number of ships that are available to conduct the mission. But depending on the need, that can be adjusted 

based on the needs of the Navy. And I use not only frigates, but 

there are Coast Guard ships who provide that capability, as well 

as destroyers. So it is a mix of capacity that we use to provide the 

mission assets. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman from Mississippi. 

I have Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Johnson, and then we can wrap it 

up. 

Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both of you for your years of service, and Mr. 

Renuart, to you in particular I want to say I agree with Mike Coffman. I hope that you stay in Colorado after you retire. You will be 

missed. 

And most of all, I hope that you will continue to somehow lend 

your experience and your expertise to some kind of assistance as 

we go forward with our nation’s defense. I am hoping those opportunities are available to you and I look forward to that as well. 

General RENUART. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Let me bring up a topic, before I talk about missile defense, to something that we have had this conversation on 

before, and that is building two in Peterson. And as you know, 

there is strong local concern, and even some on this committee, 

about making sure that building two is sufficiently fortified and 

strengthened and hardened against any kind of incident or threat. 

Can you update us on where we stand with building two, and 

what has been done, and what may still need to be done? 

General RENUART. Yes, sir. Thanks. As you know, we have had 

a series of projects put in place over the last three years to grow 

that security capacity as we have transitioned some of the routine 

operations from Cheyenne Mountain into building two. 

That funding is all in place. The projects are ongoing. We have 

continued to grow additional physical, additional electronic barriers. We are in the process of completing a physical security modification to our building that will provide for biometrics as well as 

for physical security by armed security forces. 

Standoff to the building exceeds the standards that we would 

have for any high priority building, and I am very comfortable that 
32 

as we complete these projects—in the next year and a half is about 

the timeline—that we will have a world-class facility that does 

have all of the security issues addressed that we have talked about 

in a variety of formats. 

I will just make one other point. And that is that in addition to 

making that particular building more secure, we are also discovering that—our mission growth and other things has—is allowing 

us the opportunity to reassess additional facilities. 

And so, we are in the process of a long-term study and investment study that will look at expanding the headquarters campus 

in a way that will allow us to absorb all of the missions that we 

have in a single area. 

And that is a more long-term issue, but I think that too will incorporate certainly all the security issues that we have discussed 

in previous meetings. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, thank you very much. I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I know the committee does as well, 

and your successor, on these important issues. 

On missile defense, last year the administration made a decision 

to reduce the number of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and 

California from 44 projected to 30 because it concluded that the 

long-range threat was not materializing as rapidly as was once 

thought. However, since then we have seen an acceleration in developments and threats from North Korea and Iran that were not 

evident at the time. 

At what point, General, do you think that the department needs 

to reevaluate its previous reductions specifically from 44 to 30 

ground-based interceptors in light of changing threats? 

General RENUART. Congressman, you are correct. The day-to-day 

operational deployed number of missiles was reduced down to 30. 

I concurred with that based on the intelligence that we saw and 

the progress of some nations to develop a threat to the U.S. But 

I also asked the Secretary to hedge a bit if we saw increased 

growth or more rapid growth and he has done that in that we have 

an additional small number, but additional number of missiles, 10 

that will be designed for tests and four that will be, what I will call 

operational reserve, that we could bring into the operational capabilities. 

And as you know, we are, in fact, continuing with the construction of Missile Field 2 up at Greely that will allow us to house 

those missiles should we need to do that. And I think that provides 

us a good hedge with potential acceleration in a particular threat 

and, of course, we also see the Phased, Adaptive Approach developing and hopefully the two will continue to show the progress and 

potential that they seem to have. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, General, on testing, do you think that we 

have scheduled enough testing? Because I think that we were only 

planning two intercept tests of the two staged GBI over the next 

couple of years. Do we have enough tests scheduled and resources 

for testing including missiles? 

General RENUART. Yes, sir. I think the test program is rigorous 

and a good one. I think we do need to maintain flexibility to adjust 

the tests so that if we see an emerging threat we can accelerate 
33 

some of those should that be required. We work very closely with 

the Missile Defense Agency on that particular issue. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. We have Mr. Johnson, 

Mr. Coffman with additional questions. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Under the radar obstruction—well, with respect to that issue, radar systems are interfered with by wind turbines, General Renuart, as noted in the written materials. Private 

wind farm development could interfere with Department of Defense 

or NORAD surveillance networks or the network, if you will, and 

there is not anyway currently to know about a private development 

of wind turbine farms. And I know that some measures are being 

taken to kind of get out on—in front on that issue. 

Are there any federal—is there a federal permitting process that 

has to be followed by these wind farm developers or state or local 

regulations? 

General RENUART. Congressman Johnson, I think there is a federal program to cite these kinds of activities and there is a planning tool that is made available actually through the FAA where 

a developer can go onto that—into that planning tool, it is a Webbased tool, and essentially put their proposal into the tool and it 

will tell them whether there is risk or not of their citing affecting 

either the FAA or defense-related facilities. 

The challenge has been that the—it is not widely known by some 

that they need to go into that tool and start this process. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So it is not a mandatory rule? 

General RENUART. In fact, it is a recommendation from the National Wind Generation Association. That is not the correct term, 

but their industry association—to advise them that they should go 

into these. In some cases, developers have and, in fact, we have 

worked closely with some to reposition those sites, but I would hasten to say also that it is not just wind farms. In fact, we have had 

a couple of instances where the construction of a new resort hotel 

has impacted the field of view of one of our radars. 

And so this is an area that Secretary Lynn was asked in some 

testimony in front of the Senate a few days ago and he has directed 

the formation of an executive group within the Defense Department to partner with the FAA and the industry so that we can ensure that anyone who might be undertaking one of these projects 

knows how to go to get this information before they enter into contracts or expend money that might be put at risk. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Should it be mandatory that they do certain 

things, developers in general? 

General RENUART. Congressman, it makes sense to me to do 

that, but not being a legal expert on this, I am not sure what is 

in place for certain today and what might need to be amended. So 

I think I would have to defer an expert answer on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Johnson 

asked the questions that I was going to ask. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. If there is no further 

questioning, we wish to thank each of you for your excellent testimony, for your wonderful service. And General Renuart, we wish 
34 

you well to the finish line. And General Fraser, we shall meet 

again. 

General RENUART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 18, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 18, 2010 

(39) 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 18, 2010 

(127) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON 

General FRASER. The interaction between ‘‘habeas counsel’’ and GTMO detainees 

is governed by a series of protective orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, which has jurisdiction. The first such order was issued by 

Judge Joyce Hens Green on November 5, 2004. The order has been modified somewhat over the following years but remains essentially unchanged regarding habeas 

attorneys and GTMO. [See page 12.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

General FRASER. Congresswoman Davis, on January 19, 2007, the Secretary of 

Defense directed that a program be established to recognize members who are required to mobilize or deploy with a frequency beyond established rotation policy 

goals. In response to that direction, the Under Secretary of Defense provided policy 

direction on April 18, 2007, to establish a new category of administrative absence 

entitled ‘‘Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence.’’ This category of administrative absence was incorporated into the next scheduled DOD Instruction 1327.6, 

‘‘Leave and Liberty Procedures.’’ This new program compensates or incentivizes individuals in both the active and Reserve components who are required to mobilize 

or deploy early or often, or to extend beyond the established rotation policy goals. 

[See page 21.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 18, 2010 

(131) 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ 

Mr. ORTIZ. In response to Chairman Skelton’s question about the impact of wind 

turbines on radar systems, you mentioned that there are a number of sites in the 

United States that have raised concern for NORTHCOM. Would you please elaborate on these specific sites and what you are doing to mitigate these concerns? As 

far as collaboration between the various federal departments, are there any steps 

you feel that Congress can take to aid the interagency coordination? 

General RENUART. The specific sites are along the U.S. Southwest border and consist of both ground-based radars and Tethered Aerostat Radar Systems. NORAD’s 

Air Defense and Air Sovereignty missions along with USNORTHCOM’s Defense 

Support to Civil Authorities mission all have been impacted by both the nature of 

the environment along that border and man-made interference such as wind turbines. 

These affects are becoming more prevalent across the nation and in this case have 

created several areas where our ability to see air traffic along the border is degraded. Specifically, our radar at Oilton, TX has several wind energy projects that 

currently exist and others have been proposed within the radar’s line-of-sight. This 

radar provides my command and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invaluable situational awareness, but should the development of wind energy continue 

in that area, the Oilton radar’s capability will become less and less useful. DHS has 

partnered with NORAD and USNORTHCOM to find mitigation strategies in hopes 

that radars and wind turbines can coexist in the same areas. 

Currently, the Department of Defense (DOD) is a small part of a Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) process that was originally designed to review obstructions in 

and around airports. While NORAD and USNORTHCOM have a review responsibility as part of the FAA Part 77, Obstruction Evaluation Review/Airport and Airspace Analysis process, neither the Commands nor the FAA have sufficient authority to stop or prevent degradation to existing radars or other DOD resources as result of commercial ventures across the United States. Additionally, the current process lacks the ability to categorize the risks posed by commercial development along 

training routes, airport corridors, sea corridors, and in line-of-sight of existing surveillance radars. 

A possible solution may be legislation creating an interagency regulatory process 

to assess and mitigate the impact of wind turbine ventures on air navigation safety 

and national security. The governing body needs to include both interagency and 

business partners to help promote alternative solutions while limiting the impact of 

development on training routes, airports arrival and departure routes, ranges, sea 

lanes and surveillance radars. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCMORRIS RODGERS 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. General Fraser, what do you consider to be the greatest challenge within the USSOUTHCOM Area of Focus and does the Command 

have the necessary resources and personnel to accomplish its mission? Relatedly, I 

am concerned with Iran’s intentions in the region. With Iran strengthening its ties 

to Latin America, including opening nearly a dozen new embassies in the region and 

expanding trade relationships with countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and 

other left-wing governments, what is USSOUTHCOM’s response with regards to 

Iran’s spreading influence, and what would be the Command’s role, if any, in this 

emerging security challenge? Thank you for your time, General Fraser. 

General FRASER. The confluence of money, power and the ability to breach the integrity of national borders makes the illicit trafficking problem a significant security 

challenge for nations throughout the Americas. Border insecurity, increased violence, public fear, corruption, weakening support for democratic institutions, and 

heavily burdened local, county and state agencies are the by-products of this illegitimate and criminal activity, which is estimated to cost legitimate economies more 

than $245 billion annually. 

Yes. Our funding is sufficient to enable us to both execute our Theater Campaign 

Plan and maintain us on the path to meet the strategic objectives outlined in our 
132 

Command Strategy. With the current force level provided, USSOUTHCOM must 

prioritize deployments of personnel and equipment, but is able to meet goals for 

stated interdiction rates for counterdrug operations and build Partner Nation capabilities to respond to security challenges. 

In regards to Iran, we are closely monitoring the increased diplomatic and economic efforts in the region. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. General Renuart, I have attached a letter dated March 

2, 2010, from Ambassador Charles Ray to Lieutenant General P.K. Keen, Deputy 

Commander of United States Southern Command. In the letter, Ambassador Ray 

describes the creation and use of the first ever personnel recovery center authorized 

under the Chief of Mission during Ambassador Ray’s post as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/Missing Personnel Affairs. It is my understanding that 

this program has helped in aiding United States Southern Command in preventing 

and responding to search and rescue and humanitarian type of operations in South 

America. Given the extremely volatile situation in Mexico, what do you think about 

replicating this program within the United States Northern Command, including a 

center in Mexico City? Do you mind looking at Ambassador Ray’s letter and letting 

me know if you believe this is a viable model to implement under USNORTHCOM 

in light of the increased violence targeting United States citizens in Mexico? Thank 

you for your time, General Renuart. 

General RENUART. I have reviewed Ambassador Ray’s letter and concur that the 

principles that make the Colombia model so successful are applicable to the security 

challenges we have with Mexico. My staff assessed the utility of the USSOUTHCOM 

approach to Personnel Recovery; specifically, the Rescue Coordination Center in Colombia, and in light of the increased violence, we are confident that those tenets will 

apply to Mexico. 

We recognize that the key to success in developing a coordinated interagency Personnel Recovery Program in Mexico is the ability to understand how the variables 

in Personnel Recovery differ from Colombia to Mexico. Some of these variables include: in-country U.S. Government resources; level of host nation support and cooperation; and host nation recovery capability and capacity. Based on this understanding, we can then apply those principles to the unique circumstances of the situation in Mexico. 

Of course, this effort must be coordinated with all U.S. Government stakeholders, 

and to the greatest degree practicable, with Mexico as we develop an effective program with reciprocal benefit to both of our governments. Key to this effort will be 

coordination between USNORTHCOM and the Department of State personnel recovery office. Our initial challenge will be to construct a framework which effectively 

combines Title 10 and Title 22 authorities (as articulated in the Lugar Report to 

the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) for the development and management 

of a Personnel Recovery Program under the authority of the Chief of Mission. 

We constantly strive to improve our relations with Mexico, and implementing a 

Personnel Recovery and Disaster Response Center would pay dividends to our relationship. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN 

Mr. LAMBORN. General Renuart, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system is expected to have a lifetime of 20 years. How many flight tests do you believe 

are necessary per year to ensure the long-term reliability of the GMD system over 

its 20-year lifetime? 

General RENUART. At this time, it’s unclear to me how many GBI flight tests are 

needed to ensure the long-term reliability of the GMD system. There are a variety 

of factors that need to be evaluated in determining the number of required missiles 

to flight test each year in order to assess the reliability rate of the fielded missiles. 

For example: the total number of missiles in the inventory, expected life of the missiles, differences between missile types (for instance, there are three basic types of 

Tomahawk missiles and each has a different number of test requirements per year), 

subcomponent testing for the rocket/motor, guidance system, attitude control system, warhead, fusing system, etc., and any possible problem areas identified 

through dud missiles or other failures not previously detected or anticipated. 

Additionally, cost is a major factor when determining the feasibility to execute the 

required number of tests. The Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) assistance is required to identify the applicable factors for the GBIs and the engineering analysis 

to determine the required number to test each year. 

Typically, the Services conduct reliability testing of operational missile systems. 

There are lessons we can learn from other missile systems that are already well into 
133 

production like the Air Force and Navy fleet of ballistic missiles, the Patriot and 

Standard Missiles (SM) used for air threats, or Tomahawk missiles used in Strike 

Warfare. The Navy tests on average 35 Standard Missile 2 variants per year and 

11 Tomahawks of all types per year. These tests are done to assess the ability of 

these missiles to meet reliability numbers as defined in their Operational Requirements Documents (ORD). Although our missile requirements are not defined in an 

ORD, we can use the same type of considerations the Services used to define the 

right number to test each year. 

To attain a comprehensive evaluation of the (actual) operational reliability of our 

fleet of GBIs, we require a testing program that includes the random selection and 

firing of GBIs without any additional refurbishment [‘‘as-is’’], except for the addition 

of a telemetry package to assist with post-test analysis. There are numerous lessons 

that can be learned from this approach as the full effect of integrated flight dynamics would be assessed. 

In preparation for spiral development flight tests, there is certainly value in fully 

inspecting the test missiles and replacing worn or suspect parts before test firing 

them, with a full evaluation of the suspect components in a bench-top environment. 

Combining the approaches of as-is and repaired missile testing provides the 

warfighter with a better assessment of the true potential of the remaining GBIs in 

their silos to perform as required. 

Mr. LAMBORN. General Renuart, with the Administration’s policy shift to a new 

Phased, Adaptive Approach for Europe, there is an outstanding question as to the 

future of the 2-stage ground-based interceptor (GBI) that was planned for Poland. 

The 2-stage GBI is more mature than the SM–3 Block 2A and Block 2B interceptors 

that don’t yet exist. A) General, do you believe we should continue to develop and 

test the 2-stage ground-based interceptor (for example, as a hedge against a possible 

Iranian break-out)? B) Has NORTHCOM studied options for deploying a 2-stage 

GBI in the United States to give another layer of defense to our homeland? C) Do 

you believe there should be a competition or clear criteria established for a downselect between the 2-stage GBI and the SM–3 Block 2A and Block 2B interceptors 

which are planned to provide defense of Europe and the U.S. in the new Phased, 

Adaptive Approach? Right now, it would appear that the Department has put all 

its proverbial ‘‘eggs’’ in the SM–3 Block 2A and Block 2B ‘‘basket.’’ 

General RENUART. 

A. Yes, if the Iranian long-range missile threat develops more quickly than the 

current National Intelligence Estimate projections, then the deployment of 2-stage 

GBI missiles would provide a flexible approach in responding to this increased 

threat, a hedge as you stated. Under the auspices of the Ballistic Missile Defense 

Review (BMDR), USNORTHCOM has developed hedge plans within the phases of 

the Phased, Adaptive Approach to enable us to respond in time to counter an emerging threat, should the SM–3 development not meet our capability requirements or 

if the threat develops more quickly than we currently understand. The BMDR clearly states that further enhancements to our BMDS capabilities must be based on 

proven technology. A mix of 2- and 3-stage interceptors falls in line with this guidance and provides proven technology to protect the homeland in the near and far 

term. 

B. Yes, our previous analysis identified that a 2-stage/3-stage mix of interceptor 

capabilities enhances our ability to defend the homeland. Under the guidance in the 

BMDR, we are continuing to evaluate and determine the right mixture(s) in order 

to enhance our ability to defend the homeland. The emerging capabilities discussed 

in the BMDR for the European Phased, Adaptive Approach (EPAA) certainly apply 

to defense of the homeland, and we are continuing to analyze all of those capabilities through our own efforts. 

C. It is our understanding that an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) was conducted 

by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) that included the 2-stage GBI and the SM3 

missile and the down select process indicated the SM3 was best suited for the 

EPAA. We would have to defer this issue to MDA to provide the analysis and details 

that went into both the AoA and down select decision. 

Æ