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 

58–172 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–126] 

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 REQUEST FROM THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 25, 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 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

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 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

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 

MARK LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN WASON, Professional Staff Member 

CATERINA DUTTO, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, February 25, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act—Budget Request from the Department of the Army ......................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, February 25, 2010 ................................................................................. 47 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT— 

BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

Member, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................ 3 

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

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

WITNESSES 

Casey, Gen. George W., Jr., USA, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army ............................... 9 

McHugh, Hon. John M., Secretary of the Army .................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

McHugh, Hon. John M., joint with Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. .................... 51 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[The information was not available at the time of printing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Ellsworth .................................................................................................... 126 

Ms. Giffords ....................................................................................................... 127 

Mr. Jones ........................................................................................................... 121 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers .................................................................................... 126 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 121 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 128 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 125 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 123 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, February 25, 2010. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 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. Good morning. 

Today the House Armed Services Committee meets to receive 

testimony on the fiscal year 2011 budget request of the United 

States Army. 

Our witnesses are the Honorable John McHugh, Secretary of the 

Army, and this is his maiden voyage on that side of the table, and 

John, we welcome you. 

[Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Needless to say, we are very, very proud of you, 

and you are off to a great start leading the Army. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Chairman, can I just say—I have been here 

a lot, and this is the first time we have ever started with a round 

of applause. It won’t last long. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Your day is coming. 

We have with us the Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, 

and we thank him for his outstanding leadership, as well. 

We appreciate and express gratitude to those that you lead. Active duty, Reserve, National Guard, as well as the civilian members 

of your team. We are grateful for what they do for our country. 

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to drive at a relentless tempo, although we hope to see some relief soon. The pace is 

not slacking. 

To support the level of activity, the Administration has requested a $2.5 billion increase over last year’s base budget level for the 

Army. This would support a 1.4 percent across-the-board military 

and civilian pay raise and support the Army’s continued focus on 

providing support to military families, and that is so very important. 

I am pleased to see the continued and sustained attention paid 

to the well-being of our soldiers as well as to their families. 

The Army expects to enter fiscal year 2011 with an end strength 

of 562,400 with a potential growth to 570,000 to compensate for the 
2 

wounded warriors and other soldiers who are not presently 

deployable. This will ensure units that are being deployed of 100 

percent being filled. 

If all goes well, the number of soldiers deployed in Iraq recedes 

and Afghanistan maintains a steady state, I hope the Army will be 

able to provide units with a reasonable amount of dwell time, and 

we will discuss that during our questions. Between deployments, 

dwell time is important as it gives time to recover and to train to 

a full range of tasks required of them, something I fear we have 

neglected in. 

We will like to hear, General, if we have had several discussions 

over the full spectrum of training, and I hope you would touch on 

that in your testimony today. 

I remain concerned that the temporary increase in end strength 

is not enough to solve the problem. We saw this before when the 

Army began its temporary growth back in 2005. In the end, we 

made that temporary growth permanent. 

With regard to the Army’s readiness levels, I am deeply troubled 

by what I see. While units deployed overseas are, for the most part, 

properly equipped, manned, trained, this deployment readiness has 

come at the expense of the rest of the Army. 

Despite billions in additional funding provided by Congress, 

these elements of the U.S. Army that are not deployed overseas remain woefully unprepared should another conflict arise on short 

notice. 

I have mentioned before that since I have been in Congress, since 

1977, we have had 12 military conflicts, none of which were foreseeable. And that is, hopefully, not the future for us, but we must 

be prepared for it. 

The Nation is assuming a great deal of risk, while ensuring the 

Army should eventually be able to deploy the required forces, I 

worry that it may take so long to do so that critical national objectives in future conflict may not be achieved, or can only be achieved 

at a much higher human and financial cost. 

Just as important, I am concerned that the Army’s unreadiness 

for another conflict reduces our strategic deterrence. Any leader 

considering a conflict with the United States must be assured of a 

swift and decisive response. Yet, in terms of land and combat 

power, I fear that a response may not, today, be what we expect 

or require. 

So, let me be clear that my concerns do not lie in the area of the 

professionalism or the skill or the devotion of duty of our Army. 

Those qualities have never wavered in 235 years, and they are not 

wavering now. 

However, troops, no matter how experienced and dedicated, must 

be properly equipped, must be properly trained, in order to carry 

out the mission. Improvisation can only take a military unit so far. 

I do not raise this issue to level criticism at anyone. I raise the 

issue because I want to understand what more can be done to reduce the risk that our Nation faces. 

Before I turn to the ranking member, I wish to speak about a 

valued friend, a great Member of Congress, one who will be leaving 

us very shortly to pursue another position of responsibility. Today 

is the last full committee hearing for one of our most long-standing 
3 

and acting members, the gentleman from Hawaii, Congressman 

Neil Abercrombie. 

And, I wanted to express, on behalf of all us, to our valued 

friend, Neil, for serving Hawaii, for serving our country for more 

than 19 years in this House of Representatives, on our committee, 

the House Armed Services Committee, Neil’s hallmark has been 

making sure our troops have the equipment they need to protect 

our country and keep it safe. 

And he has been an outstanding member of the committee, an 

exceptional chairman, and a leader in the Air and Land Forces 

Subcommittee. 

I am really proud of what he has done. His leadership helped 

prompt the Pentagon to speed up the delivery of life-saving body 

armor and the MRAP [mine resistant ambush protected] vehicles 

to our forces who are on the front line. 

I have been honored to serve with Neil, and I will greatly miss 

his wise counsel, his good humor, and his loyal friendship most of 

all, and I know that Congressman Abercrombie will continue to be 

a forceful and effective advocate on behalf of Hawaii’s needs. And 

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Neil for his service, and 

wishing him the very best in the days ahead. 

[Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, we ask our ranking member, Buck 

McKeon, for his comments this morning. 

Buck. 

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

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary McHugh, General Casey, thank you for being here. We 

are very fortunate to have you serving our country and leading the 

great men and women in our U.S. Army. 

Secretary McHugh, we came to Congress together in 1992. I appreciate you moving to that seat so I could take this seat. I hope 

you enjoyed the view there, as much as you enjoyed it here. 

We are, all of us on this committee, very proud of you and the 

job you are doing, and your new job there with the Army. I know 

you have been a champion of the Army your whole career and probably in the state senate before you came here, so, glad to see you 

carrying on that proud tradition of the Army there. 

General Casey, as you commented, you are also no stranger to 

this committee. A special thanks to you for your continued public 

service. 

I recall that it was in 2007 when you first informed this committee that the Army was out of balance. You stated that balance 

is a state of continual readiness to provide strategic flexibility and 

depth, while sustaining the all-volunteer force and simultaneously 

meeting the current and future demands of the national security 

strategy in an area of persistent conflict. I will look forward to 

hearing from you in regards to how the Army is doing, in terms 

of rebalancing in both the short-term and the long-term. 

You may have heard that a different kind of balance was discussed during our hearing with the Secretary of Defense and the 
4 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a couple of weeks ago. I commended the Department for its laser focus on the wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, but I believe the Secretary of Defense’s efforts to 

make balance a fixture in the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] 

and the out-year budget is short-sighted, and puts the Department 

on the wrong path for the next 20 years. 

Choosing to win in Iraq and Afghanistan should not mean that 

our country must also choose to assume additional risks in the conventional national defense challenges of today and tomorrow. 

The Secretary admitted during the hearing that for the period 

from now until 2015, I believe that we can live within the numbers 

that we have been given and that our forecast for us without sacrificing force structure, but beyond that time, the Defense Department cannot sustain the current force structure without real 

growth on an annual basis to somewhere between 2 percent and 3 

percent. 

Don’t get me wrong. For the Army, there are many good things 

in this budget. This budget request allocates $3.2 billion for the 

Army’s revamp Brigade Combat Team modernization program, and 

provides $6 billion for Army aviation. 

The addition of two aviation brigades is long overdue, and I hope 

the Army is successful with its efforts to go forward with the 

ground combat vehicle program. However, I am concerned about 

the decline in research and development funding. 

From 1980 through today, our investment in basic defense research as a percentage of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] has declined by 50 percent. For the Army alone, advanced technology and 

component funding is 50 percent less in this budget than what was 

enacted in 2008. 

This not only impacts potential future capabilities for our 

warfighters, but also has an industrial base impact. With our technical workforce aging, we are in danger of losing our intellectual 

capital. We need to develop the next generation of engineers and 

scientists that will ensure the world’s greatest innovators reside 

here at home. 

In the defense community, as with this year’s QDR, we focused 

on what went wrong in the last war, or the war we are currently 

fighting. Who is thinking about the war of 2015? And what about 

the war in 2030? Is our country doing what it needs to do today 

to win the wars that we may confront in 2015, or 2030? 

Finally, let me address one controversial policy initiative that the 

President has raised in recent months—repealing the law prohibiting service by openly gay and lesbian personnel. 

Before the President or special interests force a change in the 

policy or law, Congress deserves to hear directly from the individual services. I am disappointed that the decision has been made 

not to let the service chiefs testify before the Military Personnel 

Subcommittee’s hearing on ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’’ but, we will get 

a chance to hear from you today, and a chance to get the record 

on that. 

That decision limits the ability of members to fully understand 

and explore the concerns of the service chiefs about a repeal of current law, and I would hope that we could continue that discussion. 
5 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say a little bit about Mr. 

Abercrombie. 

I am from California, and he is from Hawaii. And you know, people talk about long flights, and I remember we used to fly a lot together. And I would get off the plane after 5, 5.5 hours, and he still 

had 5, 5.5 hours to go, and we had to be back in a couple of days. 

So I can understand why he wants to spend a little more time 

at home. He has been doing that for a long time. 

But the thing that has really struck me—I served on his subcommittee for a long time, and both when he was ranking member 

and chairman, and he, along with these other chairman of these 

subcommittees, ranking members of these subcommittees, have 

really done a great job of keeping this committee bipartisan. 

And Neil has been one of the leaders in that effort, and I commend you for that, Neil. You have really bent over backwards to 

do that, as has our chairman with the whole committee. That is 

why it is such a blessing to serve on this committee. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Secretary John McHugh, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, SECRETARY 

OF THE ARMY 

Secretary MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The distinguished ranking member mentioned the privilege it is 

to serve on this committee, and I can tell you very honestly, I have 

never missed more serving on this committee than I do right now, 

but I am honored to be here. 

And, I want to thank both you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking 

member, my two good friends, for your very gracious comments. 

And I want to begin by adding, if I may, my words of best wishes, high respect, and friendship to Neil Abercrombie. 

The chief and I had a chance to stop by his office yesterday. We 

weren’t sure if he would be with us here today. We got the obligatory chocolate-covered macadamia nuts and promised when all of 

this was through, we would come out and say hi to him. 

And Ranking Member McKeon was absolutely right. I never 

knew what Neil was going to say, but I knew what he said—when 

he said it, he believed it. And it was not couched in partisan politics. It was couched in a belief as to what the right thing was to 

do for our men and women in uniform. 

And that, to me, is the highest tribute that any member can have 

attributed to him or her. So, Neil, we will miss you. God bless you 

for all you have done, and thank you for being such a great friend 

to our Army, and indeed, all the services. 

I would say, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, distinguished 

members of this great committee, it was just a few short months 

ago that I appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

That was a rather unique experience for me. 

And, I appeared, of course, as President Obama’s nominee to be 

the 21st Secretary of the Army, and at that time, I assured those 

distinguished members of my commitment, my dedication to support our men and women in uniform, Army civilians, and, of 

course, those great families who stand with them. 
6 

And as I pledge to work with each of them in pursuit of those 

objectives, I also want to promise to work with each and every one 

of you, my former House colleagues, my former Armed Services 

Committee colleagues, on behalf of America’s greatest. 

It is about five months now since I first walked into the Pentagon, and I want to reaffirm that vital commitment that I made 

just a few short months ago. I do it, now, having an even greater 

appreciation of those amazing men and women within the Army 

who play the vital role in keeping our Nation strong, in keeping 

our Nation safe. 

And as I know you know, 1.1 million soldiers, some 279,000 civilians, and yes, those incredible families, probably serving in nearly 

80 countries dispersed across the planet. They continue, each and 

every day, to be at the forefront in ongoing counter-insurgency operations against our enemies, assisting other nations to build their 

own security capability, supporting Homeland Defense, deterring 

and defeating hybrid threats and state actors. 

And as I know all of you have witnessed, as we have, so proudly 

in Haiti providing humanitarian assistance in response to natural 

disasters. 

I may be stating the obvious, but it is true, and I think I can 

speak with some authority in this regard, each and every one of 

you is key to that success, key to the vital missions in your capacity as our Congressional overseers. 

As I said, I know full well from my 17 years on this esteemed 

committee that a strategic partnership with Congress is absolutely 

critical, essential to the success of the United States Army, and you 

have partnered with us. You have partnered with our soldiers, civilians, and families, and ensured that they receive the very best 

in training, equipment, health care, and vital family programs. 

And I want to say most importantly this morning, on behalf of 

a grateful Army, thank you for your leadership, and your unwavering support. 

If I may Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the 

committee, I would like to share just a few of the priorities that 

I think we need to pursue, and some of the perspectives that I have 

gained in the last five months, and where the Army is at this moment, where it is heading in fiscal year 2011, and talk a bit about 

the future as well. 

Now, I have been on a crash course. I thought I knew the Army, 

and I knew a great deal about it, but it was more broadly spread 

than deeply spread—but, in studying our programs, and visiting 

our installations, and going overseas in the theater in Iraq and Afghanistan, and examining all stages of what we call ARFORGEN— 

Army Force Generation—and talking, most importantly, to those 

soldiers, to those families and civilians. I have learned more. 

And, by so doing, I have been both impressed by what I have 

seen, but also, challenged by what is out there, and what you can 

find. 

First, I found an Army that, clearly fatigued by nearly nine years 

of combat, through it all still remains resilient, amazingly so, determined, and extraordinarily effective. Today, our soldiers have 

more expertise, more education, more training and lethal capabili-
7 

ties than ever before, and that is due, in large part, because of the 

actions of this committee. 

And due to advances in equipment, training, and doctoring, they 

are more likely than ever before to return safely to their loved ones 

and to a grateful Nation. 

Those are tremendous gains, but we have to be honest with ourselves. In spite of those gains, the stress on our personnel and their 

families is all too real. For all our efforts, as has been recognized 

here appropriately this morning, already the chief has said time 

and time again, we remain out of balance. 

I know all of you clearly understand the all-volunteer force is 

truly a national treasure. And, I will tell you what I think you realize is obvious, as well. If we wish to sustain it, supporting critical 

family and quality-of-life programs for our soldiers and our families 

must be top priority. And, I want to assure you, for those of us in 

the Army, it is, indeed, a top priority. 

The proposed 2011 budget rightly focuses on those initiatives 

that support those soldiers and families and civilians. The submission requests $1.7 billion in 2011 to standardize and fund those 

vital programs and services. We are attempting to aggressively address the causes of stress on individuals resulting from the effects 

of multiple deployments, including the essential effort to increase 

dwell time. 

As you know, with continuing deployments in multiple theaters, 

this has been no easy task. But, I also want to assure you in the 

strongest terms, the Army is committed to those objectives, and 

equally committed to our wounded warriors, and the programs that 

support them. 

We fully believe that it is our solemn obligation to provide worldclass care and transition services to our wounded, ill, and injured 

through our properly led and sufficiently resourced warrior transition units. Your Army is committed to ensuring the quality of life 

for those who have served, and those who are serving today, and 

doing it in a way that is commensurate with the level and quality 

of their service to us and this Nation. 

On the subject of family programs, I have heard from many of 

you about reductions in base operations support, BOS budgets at 

installations around the country, and I would say I understand. 

Earlier this month, General Casey and I announced the Army’s 

plan to increase BOS funding by $500 million in this fiscal year, 

2010. The Army’s Installation Management Command continues to 

work with each installation to guarantee essential base operating 

support, and the needs that derive there from are met. 

The Army will also conduct a comprehensive mid-year review of 

all BOS accounts to ensure that adequate funding is maintained to 

meet Army priorities through the remainder of the fiscal year. I 

want to make it clear that as our installations look for ways to operate more efficiently, which they should—I would argue which 

they must—family programs will be sacrosanct. They will not be 

touched. 

That is not to say that we won’t ask, ‘‘Is this program working? 

Is this money well-spent? Are there better ways to provide necessary care?’’ But where change is required, we will change things. 

Where money is best directed, we will say direct it. 
8 

But through all of that, the Army families must not—Army families will not be left behind. 

Secondly, I found an Army with equipment, systems and networks in need of reset, while simultaneously requiring significant 

modernization to ensure our soldiers maintain a decisive edge on 

the battlefield today, as well as superiority over threats tomorrow. 

Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in continuous efforts over the last eight years to repair, replace, and recapitalize 

equipment affected by the harsh environment of war. As a responsible drawdown in Iraq continues, and the flow of forces and equipment to Afghanistan grows, we will confront this reality anew. 

Beyond that, we have to strive to modernize efficiently in an era 

of growing fiscal challenges. As such, with this year’s budget, the 

Army is embracing what I believe is an affordable yet effective 

modernization strategy designed to revamp our vehicle, network, 

aviation, and logistical systems. We have requested $3.71 billion for research, development, and acquisition, which includes $3.2 billion for brigade combat team 

modernization, as the chairman mentioned, $2.7 billion to fund 

Army network systems, and $6.41 billion to fund aviation modernization. 

Fully supporting these programs is vital to our soldiers’ welfare 

this year and beyond. 

Thirdly, I found an Army acquisition system, that while improving, still lacks the workforce and flexibility needed to efficiently 

and affordably purchase the right weapons, services and equipment 

to our soldiers. Here, too, the proposed budget will help us better 

meet our continued commitment to growing the Army’s acquisition 

workforce by thousands of positions over the next few years, thereby ensuring that we have the best available equipment for our soldiers, while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. 

But I have to tell you, workforce improvements are not enough 

to fix our procurement system. I know everyone on this committee 

understands the entire process has to be retooled. We need a more 

agile system that rapidly develops, purchase and fields innovative 

solutions, and this process, this demand, will require more streamlined procedures and flexible rules, and for that we need your help. 

You have already set us on the right path. I remember fairly 

clearly how the distinguished Chairman, Rob Andrews, Mike Conaway, led the effort in this House to bring forward a reform bill 

that took the weapons acquisition process and put us on the right 

path. 

It is now time to address how we purchase services, and on that 

front, we look forward to partnering with you to develop a better 

system that achieves that critical objective. 

In the end, I would tell that we have an Army that is strong in 

spirit, strong in ability and results. We need to recognize, too, that 

this is an Army, after eight years of uninterrupted war, that is 

tired, stressed, and too often burdened by inefficient bureaucracy. 

This has to change, and with your help, we will make those 

changes. 

Let me just highlight, in closing, my deep appreciation for those 

brave men and women, and by so doing support this Nation and 

every thing and every action they make. Every day, I am humbled 
9 

by their dedication and service to our Army and to our Nation, and 

I am truly blessed every morning to walk into a building to go to 

work where the word ‘‘hero’’ truly means something. 

All of you on this great committee, and I mean that, great committee, have so much to do with that. Thank you, again, for your 

support of our men and women in uniform, civilians, and their families, and I appreciate and am humbled by the opportunity to be 

here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary McHugh and General 

Casey can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

I can only say, after hearing your excellent presentation to our 

committee from that side of the table that the President of the 

United States made a wise choice in choosing you as the Secretary 

of the Army. We wish you well. 

General George Casey. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, CHIEF OF 

STAFF, U.S. ARMY 

General CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would associate 

myself with your comments about Secretary McHugh. 

Before I start, Mr. Chairman, I would like to do two things. I 

would like to add my praise to the farewell of Neil Abercrombie, 

and I would like to introduce 4 men and women who are representative of the 1.1 million soldiers of this great army. 

First of all, Congressman Abercrombie, it is no secret that you 

and I differed, fundamentally, on some pretty important issues. 

But our conversations were always issues-based, never personal, 

and always focused on doing what was right for the men and 

women of the Army as rapidly as we could. And you can’t ask for 

anything better than that. So, although I never quite thought I 

would say this, I will miss you. Good luck to you. [Laughter.] 

Now, Chairman, I would like to introduce four men and women 

who are representative of this great Army. First of all, Kimberly 

Hazelgrove. 

Kimberly’s husband, Brian, was killed in Iraq six years ago in a 

helicopter crash. She was a staff sergeant in the Army at that time, 

and now she has left the Army to raise her four children, and as 

you can see, she is very active in the Gold Star Wives organization. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

General CASEY. Next to her is Staff Sergeant Christian Hughes. 

He was wounded in Afghanistan last October, and he is recovering 

here at Walter Reed from his wounds and looking forward to rejoining his unit as quickly as he can. 

[Applause.] 

General CASEY. Next is Sergeant 1st Class Shana Tinsley. 

Shana’s husband, Arthur, leaves for Afghanistan today, and she 

will remain here, working for us in the Pentagon and raising her 

two small children. Thank you, Shana. 

[Applause.] 

General CASEY. And lastly, Sergeant 1st Class Jeff Lawson. Sergeant Lawson has recently completed our Master Resilience Train-
10 

ing program at the University of Pennsylvania, one of only 600 

Master Resilience trainers we have trained as part of our comprehensive soldier fitness program, which I will talk about here 

later in my presentation. He has got three tours in Iraq. 

Thank you, Sergeant Lawson. 

[Applause.] 

General CASEY. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, as you said, for the last three years, I have 

said that the Army is out of balance. That we were so weighed 

down by the current demands that we couldn’t do the things we 

know we need to do to sustain this force for the long haul, and to 

provide the strategic flexibility to do other things. 

I can tell you that with the help of this committee, we have made 

progress over the last three years to get back in balance, but we 

are not out of the woods yet. 

That said, this 2011 budget contains the procurement funding to 

finish the modular conversion that we began in 2004, and the 

growth that we began in 2007. It also contains the military construction funding to complete the 2005 BRAC [Base Realignment 

and Closure] realignment. 

So your continued support will allow us to meet the goals we set 

six years ago to build an Army more relevant to 21st century challenges, and to restore balance to this great Army. 

You will recall that we centered our plan to get back in balance 

on four imperatives. We felt we had to sustain our soldiers and 

families, the core of this volunteer force. We had to continue to prepare our soldiers for success in the current conflict. We had to reset 

them effectively when they returned, and then, we had to continue 

to transform for an uncertain future. 

And let me just give you a quick update that you asked for on 

how we are doing. 

Our first objective was to finish our growth, and you will recall 

that January 2007 we were instructed to increase the size of the 

Army by 74,000. Originally, we were going to do that by 2012. 

With Secretary Gates’ help, and the help of the committee, we 

actually completed that growth last summer. And, when that didn’t 

prove to be sufficient, we received another temporary increase of 

22,000 soldiers, and we intend to evaluate whether we need the full 

22,000 later this year. 

This growth, coupled with the drawdown in Iraq, allowed us to 

meet the additional increase of troops in Afghanistan without having to go to 15-month deployments, and with having to not come 

off the stop-loss. 

Our second key objective was to increase the time our soldiers 

spend at home, and I must tell you, after almost three years on the 

job, I am convinced that this is the most important element of getting us back in balance. 

It is important from several perspectives. First, our soldiers need 

increased time at home to recover from the repeated combat deployments. What we continue to see across the force are the cumulative effects of these repeated deployments. 

We have recently completed a study that tells us what we intuitively knew, that it takes two to three years to completely recover 

from a one-year combat deployment. And that is why it is so impor-
11 

tant for us to achieve the objectives we set three years ago, to get 

to one year out, two years back for active soldiers, and 1one year 

out, four years back for Guard and Reserve soldiers. We are on 

track to meet that for the majority of the force by 2011. 

After that, as demand decreases, we plan to move to more sustainable ratios of three years home and five years home, respectively. 

The second reason it is important to spend more time at home 

is it gives you more stable preparation time to prepare for the current missions, and it allows us time to prepare to do other things, 

to restore some of the strategic flexibility that you talked about, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I recently visited a unit that had 18 months at home, and I can 

tell you that the difference in pace between 12 months at home and 

18 is striking. The additional time at home will allow us to have 

more units trained for the full spectrum of operations, and we will 

gradually rekindle some of the skills that have atrophied over the 

past several years, and regain some of the deterrent effect, again, 

that you talked about, Mr. Chairman. 

Our third objective was to move away from our Cold War formations, to organizations that were more relevant in the 21st century. 

In 2004, we set out to transform all 300-plus brigades in the Army 

to modular organizations. 

Organizations that could be rapidly tailored to fit the situation 

that existed, rather than just sending a unit that was designed to 

do something else. 

Today, we are almost 90 percent complete with that conversion, 

and these formations are demonstrating their relevance and their 

versatility on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. 

We also set out to rebalance the skills within the force, to move 

away from skills that were necessary in the Cold War to skills 

more needed today. This involved converting, retraining, and 

equipping around 150,000 soldiers from all components to new jobs. 

By way of example, in the last 6 years we have stood down 200 

tank companies, artillery batteries, air defense batteries, and we 

have stood up a corresponding number of military police, engineers, 

civil affairs, psychological operation and Special Forces companies. 

Together, this rebalancing and the modular reorganization is the 

largest organizational transformation of the Army since World War 

II, and we have done that while deploying 150,000 soldiers over 

and back to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Fourth, we are moving to put the whole Army on a rotational 

cycle, much like the Navy and Marine Corps have been operating 

on for years. This model will allow us more effectively and more efficiently, to provide a sustained flow of land forces that are trained 

for the full spectrum of operations, so that we can prevail in today’s 

wars, but also hedge against unexpected contingencies. And, we 

can do both of those things at a tempo that is sustainable to this 

all-volunteer force. 

Our fifth objective was to complete our re-stationing, and we are 

a just over halfway in these efforts. We are on course to complete 

the 2005 BRAC realignment by the end of 2011. These moves will 

affect over 380,000 soldiers, family members, and civilians. 
12 

And while this is a great deal of turbulence, new construction on 

our military installation is greatly improving the quality of life of 

our soldiers and families. 

So, the bottom line in all this, Mr. Chairman, is that we have 

made good progress in the past year toward restoring balance, but 

we are not out of the woods yet. 

Now, I would like to conclude with three priorities for us that I 

hope were also priorities for this committee. First of all, sustaining 

our people. 

This budget contains money for housing, barracks, childcare, 

youth centers, warrior transition units, and surviving spouse programs. All critically important to sustaining our soldiers and families. 

It is important to get them through this period in which our 

country is asking so much of that. 

In general, we are strengthening the programs to add resilience 

to our force, and to help our soldiers and families deal not only 

with the problems and challenges from the past, but to prepare 

them for the future. 

We have all seen manifestations of the stresses of 8.5 years at 

war: elevated suicide levels, increased demand for drug and alcohol 

counselors and behavioral health counseling, increased divorce 

rates, increased numbers of soldiers temporarily non-deployable 

from nagging injuries from previous deployments. And we have 

been aggressively moving to give our soldiers and families the 

skills they need to deal with these challenges. 

In October, we began a program that we had been actively working on for 18 months with some of the best experts in the country. 

The program is called Comprehensive Soldier Fitness, and it is 

designed to give mental fitness the same level of attention that we 

give to physical fitness. We intend to provide our soldiers and families the resiliency skills that they need to succeed in an era of persistent conflict. 

The program consists of four components. First, an online assessment to help them identify their resiliency strengths and weaknesses. This assessment has already been taken by over a quarter 

of a million soldiers. 

Secondly, there are online self-help modules that soldiers and 

family members can take in the privacy of their own home to increase their resiliency skills. 

Third, we are training master resilience trainers for every battalion in the Army, like Sergeant Lawson, to assist the soldiers in 

developing their resiliency skills, and over 600 master resilience 

trainers have already been trained at the University of Pennsylvania. 

And, finally, we will incorporate resiliency training in every 

Army leader development school. This program shows great promise, and I look forward to discussing it further in the questions and 

answers. 

Second priority—the reset of our equipment will become increasingly important as we complete the drawdown in Iraq over the next 

2 years, 2 to 3 years, and for 2 to 3 years after the end of combat 

operations. 
13 

I think it is important to note how key the reset has been to the 

high operational ready rates that we have sustained over time in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. This budget provides almost $11 billion to 

reset our equipment, and sustained funding for reset will be essential to the long-term health of the force. 

Finally, this budget contains a significant adjustment to our 

modernization strategy. I believe that we are in a period of fundamental and continuous change, as we have to adapt to ever-evolving enemies. 

And so, in close consultation with the Secretary of Defense, we 

have transitioned from the Future Combat Systems program to 

what we believe is an achievable, affordable modernization strategy 

for our brigade combat teams. This program leverages the lessons 

we have learned at war, and from the Future Combat Systems program, itself. 

It includes four elements. First, incrementally modernizing our 

network to take advantage of rapidly developing changes in technology. Second, incrementally fielding capability packages to put 

the best equipment into more of the force as rapidly as possible. 

Third, incorporating MRAPs into our force, and fourth, rapidly developing and fielding a new ground combat vehicle that meets the 

requirements of the 21st Century Army. 

We intend to make this program a model for the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, and we look forward to working with 

the committee on this. 

So, I would like to close by saying how proud I am of what the 

men and the women of this great Army have accomplished at 

home, and abroad. We have made progress to restoring balance, 

but we still face a tough road ahead, and so, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee, we couldn’t have done this without you. 

Thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions with the 

Secretary. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Casey and Secretary 

McHugh can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And General, thank you for your excellent presentation. 

Some time ago, General, you and I had a conversation about the 

attempt by the Army to be prepared for a full-spectrum combat. On 

the one end, force-on-force en masse, and on the other end, guerrilla insurgency force. And I think I told you at that time there are 

only two problems that you have with it; the first was time, and 

the second was money. 

So, let me ask, what is the status for the proposal for a full spectrum Army, and what are the prognoses for the days ahead, General? 

General CASEY. Thank you, Chairman, and as always, you take 

the intellectual approach to this. 

Our discussion started with February 2008, when we published 

our first major revision of our doctrine since September 11. The 

doctrine lays out an operational concept of full-spectrum operations, as the Chairman said. And, it says that Army units will simultaneously apply offense, defense, and stability operations to 

achieve success no matter where they are operating on the spectrum of conflict. 
14 

And, as the Chairman suggests, this is a tall order. It is a tall 

order from a doctrinal perspective, it is a tall order from a training 

perspective, and it is a tall order from a leader-development perspective. And we have, since that time, continued to develop and 

evolve our doctrine. We have continued to develop and evolve our 

leader-development programs and training, and we have continued 

to evolve our training. 

But as I suggested in my opening comments, we won’t have units 

home long enough to begin full-spectrum operations training 

against hybrid threats, probably, until the end of this year, first 

part of next year. 

But we have already begun adapting our training centers to be 

able to replicate the hybrid threats that we are most likely to face, 

and to develop the training programs for our units. 

The other piece of this, Chairman, is it has rightly set off a lot 

of internal discussion and debate within the Army about how to do 

this. And I will tell you that we are still working our way through 

this, but I have directed that it be discussed and debated in all our 

war colleges and staff colleges. 

So, it is a work in progress. 

The CHAIRMAN. And General, thank you—Mr. Secretary, I have 

been waiting a year to ask the general that question. Thank you 

for your thorough answer. 

Secretary MCHUGH. May I add just a bit to that. I think, as your 

opening comments suggested, both clearly and correctly, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to guess what the enemy of 20 years or 30 years 

from now will look like. But you need to take into consideration the 

widest possible range of variables. 

And the Chief’s comments in his opening comments, he talked 

about our new way of trained, ready, equipped, and making troops 

available. And part of that, in our modernization strategy, couples 

up with what we are calling incremental packages—a means by 

which our smart people can look at emerging threats, and quickly 

put together and then field packages of capabilities that can respond more quickly, and obviously, hopefully, more effectively to 

those emerging threats. 

So this isn’t just a matter of what you are doing today. It is a 

matter of putting into place a process by which you can evolve the 

equipment, the tool level, to provide those soldiers as they go out 

into the field, with whatever they may need that is capable and responds sufficiently to the enemy threat of the moment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, let me ask you a tough question. You were such 

an able member of this committee, and also serving as ranking 

member, and you saw the Army through the eyes of an acting 

member of Congress, and now you see the Army as the leader of 

the Army. What surprise, or surprises you, both good and not-sogood, do you see now that were not apparent to you as a member. 

Secretary MCHUGH. That is a great question, and just as I am 

honored every day to walk into that building, I am surprised every 

day to walk into the building. 

The biggest surprise is, when you say something, people actually 

do it. That was never my experience as a member of Congress, so 
15 

I have had to be careful what I say because it has potentially disastrous consequences. 

I don’t think the Army, and it is probably understandable when 

you are at war, has done a good enough job paying attention to the 

professional development, paying attention to the stress and strain 

that has been placed on the civilian side of this force. 

We understandably look at those folks we deploy, look at the 

folks we put into their hands the weapons, think, as we absolutely 

must, as you heard in my opening comments, about their families. 

But there are civilians too that are under enormous stress. And 

whether they are deployed out in forward theater or they are back 

home working on the bases, helping the troops get ready to ship 

out, or whether they are in the Pentagon, or dispersed along with 

those military heroes across the 80 countries I mentioned. 

I don’t think we have applied well enough stress relief and counseling opportunities and benefit programs that we are making 

available to our soldiers, their families, to the civilians, as well. I 

was a little bit surprised by that, not so much that I thought it was 

being done, but frankly, I didn’t think much about it. 

And I think this is an Army team, and we cannot just focus on 

one part of that team. The 1.1 million in uniform has to be where 

it has to starts, but these are amazing civilians in the acquisition 

force, and elsewhere that are just—they have been at war too, and 

surprise may not be the exact word, but I think we have got to 

begin to focus on that, and we have begun to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Secretary. 

The ranking member, gentleman from California, my friend, 

Buck McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also would like to associate myself with your comments about 

the Secretary. From my view, you are doing an outstanding job, 

and we are, as I said, proud of you. 

General Casey, in your personal opinion, do you believe the current law prohibiting service by openly gay and lesbian personnel 

should be repealed? 

General CASEY. Congressman, I have got serious concerns about 

the impact of the repeal of the law on a force that is fully involved 

in two wars, and has been at war for 8.5 years. We just don’t know 

the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness. 

I am also well aware that I owe the Secretary of Defense, the 

President, and this committee my advice, my military advice on 

that, and I would prefer it to be informed military advice. So, I 

fully support the program that Secretary Gates has laid out, to look 

at this and to study this, and then I will come back to the committee and give my informed advice on this. 

The last thing I would say, Congressman, is that if Congress repeals the law, the Army will implement it in the same professional 

and disciplined way that has characterized our service for 234 

years. 

Mr. MCKEON. And I don’t think there is any question about that. 

Given the strain on our forces in fighting two wars, as you mentioned, would a repeal or moratorium this year, in your opinion, 

improve our readiness, or have effect on our readiness? 
16 

General CASEY. First, on the moratorium, I do not support a moratorium before the law is actually repealed. It would put us in a 

position of implementing while we are studying the implementation, and it is a difficult enough issue, and it will only complicate 

things. 

As I said, I do have concerns. I don’t know what the impacts on 

readiness and military effectiveness will be, but I am concerned. 

And so, I would say right now that I don’t believe it would increase 

readiness. 

Mr. MCKEON. Secretary, do you care to comment on those questions? 

Secretary MCHUGH. As you know, Congressman McKeon, I work 

at the pleasure of the President. And I think, for whatever agreement or disagreement may appear in this room with his intentions, 

his intentions were clearly made, both during the campaign and 

the early days of his presidency, that he feels this policy is fundamentally unfair, and is absolutely committed to changing it, recognizing, of course, that it is a law, and changes can come only 

through an act of Congress and as signed by the President of the 

United States. 

Having said that, I entered this job fully recognizing and having 

discussed that intention with the President, and I intend to fulfill 

my responsibilities, and that is to engage, as the Secretary of Defense has directed us, to bring back the information, to inform the 

way forward, do it to the best of my ability, and then whatever policy decisions are made from the Secretary of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief and the White House—try to do my best to explain those and to carry them forward. 

On the moratorium, I am strongly opposed to a moratorium. I 

would view it as, personally, very unhelpful, and I would tell you, 

having discussed this personally with the Secretary of Defense, it 

is the policy of the Department of Defense and the Secretary that 

that is a place of opposition, as well. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, very much. 

General Casey, a couple of questions about brigade combat 

teams. In his first hearing in front of this committee, General 

Shoemaker, your predecessor, testified that he thought the Army 

might need 77 to 82 BCTs [brigade combat teams] to support the 

needs of the combat commanders. He came back a year later and 

said the number was 70 BCTs. Then, a couple of years ago, the 

number was changed to 76 BCTs, and, as you know, the year before QDR, the number was changed to 73 BCTs, and the current 

QDR reflects the 73 BCT number. 

First question, is 73 BCTs the right number, or is that the number because that is what we are resourced for? 

General CASEY. Congressman, the 73 BCTs organized on a rotational model will give us the number of BCTs to deploy, almost 

meet current requirements, but to meet what we see as the sustained requirements over time, and do it at a deployment ratio that 

is sustainable for the force. 

Let me explain that a little bit. At 73 brigade combat teams, that 

gives us 26 heavy brigades, 40 light brigades, and seven Strykers. 

Now, that is a pretty versatile capability, and we are very much 

interested in versatility. 
17 

And if you look at some of our divisions that are in Iraq and Afghanistan today, you will see. You will have a heavy brigade, a couple of light brigades and sometimes even a Stryker brigade. That 

is the flexibility and versatility that we want to build into this. 

If you take that force, and organize it on a rotational model of 

1 year out, 2 years back for the active force, 1 year out, 4 years 

back for the Guard and Reserve, that allows us to routinely generate 20 brigade combat teams. 

Now, in Iraq and Afghanistan today, we have 24 brigade combat 

teams deployed. So, that means the deployment ratio is not exactly 

what we want to be. But, with the drawdown in Iraq, we will not 

only be able to meet the total number of brigade requirements for 

Iraq and Afghanistan, but also have brigades available for other 

combatant commanders to do security assistance and other training. 

So, right now, given the strategy and given the demands that we 

foresee, I believe that 73 brigades is the right number. It may 

change. 

Mr. MCKEON. Good. 

Second question, then. Do we have the right mix between the infantry and the Stryker and the heavy BCTs? 

General CASEY. Two answers to this—one is, we are studying it. 

You know, we started it in 2004 to build to a mix. We are almost 

finished doing that. Now, we are assessing are the decisions we 

made back in 2004 still relevant? 

And I will tell you right up front, I would like a few more 

Strykers. I would like to be able to put three Stryker brigades in 

a rotation, and that means that we need to get to nine to do that. 

And, we are already adding an eighth one, and we are debating 

right now whether to add a ninth one with a 1217 program. 

Mr. MCKEON. In regards to the BCT mix, the budget requests 

funds for the conversion of one heavy BCT to a Stryker. There is 

talk that you may convert additional heavy BCTs. Is our force 

structure adequate for high-end conflict? In other words, are we too 

focused on the near-term with Iraq and Afghanistan versus something that could happen else where in the world? 

General CASEY. If you take that 20-brigade combat team that we 

could provide in a rotation, that is 11 infantry equipped with 

MRAPs, 2 Strykers and 7 heavies. So, that is two-plus divisions of 

heavy forces. 

And then, you would have another similar packager available in 

the next pool. 

So, we have quite a lot of combat power still available, and I 

think the mix, the way we have it now, possibly slightly adjusted 

in the near-term, gives us the versatility that we think we need. 

Mr. MCKEON. You mentioned decisions made in 2004, and now 

you are reviewing them. I think we are always going to have—nobody can sit, even right now, as I mentioned in the opening statement, and know what things are going to be like in 2015 or 2030. 

And so, there will be constant evaluation, and reevaluation, and 

it sound to me like you are right on top of that and doing what 

needs to be done to keep the Army current. 

General, as you know, the ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] remains one of the top priorities for Afghanistan. 
18 

Certainly, Secretary Gates has testified to this. I see that the budget request includes $459 million for the Extended Range/Multipurpose program. I also understand the program recently conducted a 

successful milestone decision. 

Can you talk a little bit about how this program is progressing? 

General CASEY. I can, Congressman. I mean, the whole unmanned aerial vehicle program is something that we have been 

working very hard on, because of its relevance, not only in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, but across the spectrum. 

And we have set up an unmanned aerial vehicle strategy that 

starts down at the platoon and company level and goes all the way 

up to the division and core level. This extended range multipurpose 

aircraft program is very much on track. As you mentioned, we are 

adding two more companies in this budget, and we have explored 

a new design for our combat aviation brigades that incorporates 

these companies into those aviation brigades, and so what we are 

doing is increasing our capability of manned and unmanned 

teaming, and I think that is going to be the wave of the future. 

We are already doing it to a degree in Iraq and Afghanistan, but 

I think we are increasingly going to see the potential offered by the 

unmanned systems. And matching them with the manned systems 

is, as I said, is the wave of the future. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, I don’t really have a lot to add except 

that I know that many of the members here have, as I did—15 

times to Iraq and 4 times to Afghanistan—one of the first things 

you hear out of any commander is, ‘‘What do you need? ISR.’’ 

And we are attempting to meet that commitment, and the ranking member correctly noted the rather substantial on the high level 

ERMP [extended range multipurpose aircraft], but we are taking, 

again as the chief said, down to the platoon level. This is the force 

multiplier that we are very committed to. We have the problem of 

the technology so quickly advancing, by the time we are ready to 

field something, it is not out of date, necessarily, but could be improved, so we have got to get our systems under control a bit better. But, this is something that a lot of folks in the Pentagon spent 

a lot of time focusing on, as rightly they should. 

Mr. MCKEON. I think you have done an outstanding job of getting some of these vehicles into the theater quickly without, you 

know, delays with constant testing, and I think it has saved a lot 

of lives, and I want to commend you on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I have one last question before I go to the other members. General, in your discussion this morning, as well as other discussions, 

it seems the Army is brigade-centric. We talk about a brigade here, 

a brigade there. What in the world do divisions do? What does a 

division chief do? He certainly doesn’t play pinochle all day. 

General CASEY. Wow. No. 

And in fact, I know you have visited divisions in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are very, very gainfully employed. In fact, when 

General Odierno was here last week with us, he made the point of 

saying that he had to keep three divisions in Iraq until the end because of the capabilities that those divisions bring. 
19 

Now, I get this quite a bit from a lot of old retired folks, but the 

division headquarters still remains our highest tactical level headquarters, and it is capable of overseeing numerous brigade combat 

teams and enabling brigades like aviation, military police. And 

they are the ones that organize for—half of Iraq. They are responsible for organizing the U.S. efforts in about half of the country. 

The reason we went to brigade combat teams is because in the 

old division headquarters the supporting enabling forces were part 

of the division. And so if you wanted to send something smaller 

than division, you had to break apart the division base to send it. 

So now you had a division that you couldn’t deploy. 

And what we have done is we have taken the enabling forces out 

of the division and put them in brigades. But we have still left the 

supervisory capability. In fact, we have increased the supervisory 

capability of the divisions. And so what we are able to do is put 

a very competent tactical headquarters in and then give it the brigade combat teams and the enabling brigades to suit the mission 

that it is doing. 

And so it is brigade-centric but there is very much a role for divisions. And there are 18 two-star commanders out there that feel 

very strongly that they have a significant role to play in what we 

are doing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General. I have been wanting to ask 

that. We are going to break tradition a bit today and ask our friend 

from Hawaii to ask questions and then we will go back to regular 

order. 

Gentleman from Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I know this will come as a great surprise and shock to everyone 

in the room, but I think I will make a statement rather than ask 

a question as such. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Ranking Member, my good friend Buck. 

Thank you General Casey and John for your comments. 

If I had known that I was this respected, this admired, even beloved, I would have left a lot sooner. [Laughter.] 

But, Mr. Chairman, this is the last time I will have an opportunity to participate in the Armed Services Committee hearing 

process and be with you and the rest of the committee. I hadn’t realized that it is totally a coincidence but a happy one, perhaps 

fated that it would involve the United States Army as well. 

I have been privileged now to serve since the Democrats became 

the majority as the Chairman of the Air and Land Subcommittee 

which has particular responsibility where the Army is concerned. 

And as noted by Buck and yourself, I have served as a member, 

ranking member, and chairman of the committee. And as a result 

I have had the opportunity to work. I don’t like to use the word 

bipartisan. I like to use the word nonpartisan. I have never 

thought about it. 

I think we are all partial on the side of trying to serve the strategic interests of this Nation with regard to the United States military and more particularly to meet our responsibilities and obligations as Armed Services Committee members toward the fighting 

men and women of this Nation. 
20 

I served with a committee staff both from the Armed Services 

committee staff and with the air-land staff, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to state as I take my leave, my profound, deep respect and admiration for the staff of this committee, and more particularly for the 

last couple of years now with the air-land staff, the subcommittee 

staff. 

It is without question and I don’t think necessarily the public appreciates fully—I don’t mean appreciates in the fact of being grateful for—I meant comprehends and has knowledge sufficiently as to 

what service is provided to the Nation and its interests and most 

particularly to the members of this committee by the staff. I can’t 

name all of them. I wouldn’t attempt to do it. They know how much 

I appreciate and care for them. 

In that context I have had the privilege of serving with—as ranking member and taking as my role model perhaps much to the 

great regret of some others on this committee, Curt Weldon. And 

it was his staff, the armed services staff that came from people like 

Duncan Hunter and our predecessors that are in the portraits here 

around the room. 

They put together these staffs. We took it over whole because 

they were professionals. We don’t have a Democratic staff and a 

Republican staff, a majority and minority staff. We have people 

dedicated to the work in the Armed Services Committee. 

I had the privilege of having Roscoe Bartlett as my friend and 

ranking member and working with him. 

Roscoe, your service to this Nation, not just this committee but 

to this Congress and this Nation can serve as a standard and a 

model. 

And to have your friendship, yours, Buck, and the others on this 

committee is something that I treasure. I don’t want to slight anyone, believe me I don’t, but I have to make particular mention of 

my seatmate to my left. 

One of the consistent elements of the Congress and in the committee is the seniority process. And so no matter what I do I am 

always going to be seated to the right of Gene Taylor. 

I find myself today, Mr. Chairman, recognizing what Gene has 

reminded me of is that if I was drawing a parallel, we went to kindergarten together and now we have gone all the way through elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and graduate 

school, and we are still sitting next to one another. 

And in that process have become the dearest of friends and colleagues and I have the greatest admiration and respect for Gene, 

for Solomon, John Spratt, and Mr. Chairman, yourself. 

I want to say that I was sworn in, I was the last person sworn 

in by Tip O’Neill before he retired. And he indicated to me in no 

uncertain terms of whether you serve for a short time, as I did at 

that time having won a special election and lost a primary in the 

same day. That whether you serve for 3 weeks, 3 months, or 30 

years in the Congress of the United States that as a Member of the 

House of Representatives you were a member of the people’s house. 

Every Member here has his or her seat because of the election by 

constituents in their districts. 

You can be appointed to the Senate but you cannot be appointed 

to the House of Representatives. This is the people’s house. And as 
21 

such we have the faith and trust of our constituents and I want 

to indicate to every Member here that they have my faith and 

trust. 

And most particularly Mr. Chairman to you, your friendship to 

me, your mentorship, your council to me, has been nothing less 

than something that I treasure. Your leadership and your chairmanship has come to you as a result of a long and faithful service 

to this Congress, to the Nation, to your constituents in Missouri. 

I am very, very happy to have played a role in seeing that the 

USS Missouri now occupies its rightful place next to the Arizona 

memorial. The alpha and omega of World War II which I think set 

the pattern for all of the work of the Armed Services Committee 

and the Congress of the United States with regard to the military 

posture of the United States. All that was set at Pearl Harbor on 

December 7, 1941. 

And I am happy as I take leave that the goal I had coming to 

this committee of being able to have an integrated presence at 

Pearl Harbor of the Arizona Memorial Visitor Center, the Arizona 

Memorial itself, the USS Missouri, the Air Land Museum and the 

USS Bowfin at Ford Island has now been completed. And so we 

will have, not just a monument but a living object lesson for the 

United States of America and all the generations to come who visit 

Hawaii and visit Pearl Harbor as to the direction the Nation must 

take in terms of preparedness. 

And with that I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that 

every committee in this Congress is important. Right now the 

President of the United States and Members of the Congress in 

both parties are conducting a health care summit, obviously vital 

to the welfare of the Nation. We have the finance committee. We 

have the judiciary committee. We have discussions even in the 

comments this morning by the Secretary and General Casey about 

policy implications for the Army and the military—all important. 

But only this committee, only the Armed Services Committee 

deals with life and death issues. Every decision we make has the 

direct implication of life and death. 

The gold star wife that is here today is living three-dimensional 

testimony to that responsibility and obligation that we have. And 

I want to say that, as I take my leave, that every moment of my 

service on this committee has been devoted to that obligation and 

that responsibility as I know every Member has when he or she 

takes his seat on this committee. 

We try to exercise our best judgment to meet the strategic necessities of this Nation and that we have first and foremost in our 

hearts and minds the fighting men and women of this Nation. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I bid you, the Members, and the 

House of Representatives, the people’s house, a fond and deep and 

faithful aloha. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii. As we bid 

an affectionate farewell to our friend, he leaves with the knowledge 

and the satisfaction of having written a bright page in the history 

of the United States military. 

We thank you again, Neil Abercrombie. 

Mr. Bartlett, we are under the five-minute rule. Mr. Bartlett. 
22 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. When I came to the Congress 17 

years ago, knowing no one and having never served in a legislative 

body, I was here but a few days and I attended a briefing, poorly 

attended then by Members as they are now. 

But one of the Members there was Neil Abercrombie. And he 

spoke with such knowledge and wisdom I thought ‘‘Gee, this guy 

must have been here a really long time.’’ I learned a bit later that 

it hadn’t been a really long time, and so he brought a lot with him 

when he came here and he has grown a lot since he has been here. 

Neil, I value our friendship for these 17 years. Thank you. Thank 

you so much. 

The Secretary and I came together in the class of 1992 and for 

17 years we sat together on this committee. And I served for a 

number of years on his personnel subcommittee, the most challenging committee of this full committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your service then and your continued service now. I have four brief questions that I will ask as 

quickly as I can to give time for your answers. 

As you know our soldiers today carry more and more weight, two 

and three times the weight they carried in Vietnam. Everything 

they carry is there to make them more efficient and to protect 

them. But clearly this increased weight encumbers them and I 

have no idea how many more casualties because of the high weight 

that they carry. And one of the weightier things they carry is body 

armor. And we had fought very hard on our subcommittee to make 

this a dedicated R&D [research and development] and procurement 

line. 

We thought this would enhance the focus on this and we think 

this is really needed. This didn’t happen. You know, why didn’t it 

happen and how can we make it happen so that we can have the 

focus? We believe we need to reduce the weight and increase the 

effectiveness of this body armor. 

A second question relates to something that many of these servicemen carry and that is the M4 Carbine. You have a dual-path 

strategy both enhancing the current weapon and procuring a new 

one. Where are we on this dual-path strategy? 

A third question deals with the future combat systems. This was 

the Army’s largest procurement program. It was canceled and, you 

know the tragedy was that many of the things that it focused on 

were urgently needed by the Army. And we understand that you 

are now developing an RFP [request for proposal] for a combat 

ground vehicle and we wonder where is that RFP and when can 

we see it hit the streets? 

General, you mentioned—no, it is the Secretary who mentioned 

that we could not see what a future enemy might look like. I will 

tell you sir that I am sure that one of his characteristics will be 

a characteristic shared by all of our potential enemies today. In all 

of their open literature and in all of their war games an EMP [electromagnetic pulse] event is an early use. How well are we prepared 

to continue to fight after a robust EMP lay down? Thank you and 

I will wait for your answers to these four questions. 

Secretary MCHUGH. I am going to, if I may, Congressman Bartlett, jump around a little bit and the chief will come in and tell you 

actually what is happening. 
23 

But I want to start with the M4. There has been a lot of concern 

about the reliability of that weapon, and I have received letters 

from concerned members of this committee based on reports that 

they have heard and things that they have seen. And we are in the 

Army concerned about the reliability of everything we put into our 

soldiers’ hands, not the least of which is the key weapon when they 

are forward deployed and out in the field of battle. When the M4 

was first developed it had a requirement of 600 rounds of what we 

call mean rounds between stoppages, MRBS. 

Through those years of fielding and through the improvements 

that capability has now grown, not the requirement. The requirement has stayed essentially the same but the capability has grown 

to over 3,500 rounds mean rounds between stoppages. That I think 

is fairly described as a remarkable improvement. 

After Wanat there were discussions about the reliability of that 

weapon and we have looked at is very carefully and we want to ensure that we are doing right by those brave men and women. And 

as you mentioned that is a critical component of it. As to the way 

forward you again correctly mentioned two steps. The first is an 

RFP is being prepared to call out to industry to bring to the Army 

suggestions for—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Please answer. 

Secretary MCHUGH. You haven’t bothered me up there but that 

was—suggestions from industry as to how they can bring improvement packages immediately to the weapon to continue to improve 

it and in the long term is the analysis and development of requirements for a new personal carbine. So we are working that very 

hard. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, may we continue or—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Please do as briefly as possible. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Weight. Weight is critical. Body armor 

weight is critical. We are testing each and every day where the 

edge exists between reliability and breakdown. And it is a technical 

question. It is something we challenge, you are right, not through 

set requirements but through dialogue with the industry as each 

and every year, frankly, each and every month as to what can we 

do with the technology to take weight down and maintain reliability? 

We are working on E–SAPI [enhanced small arms protective inserts], X–SAPI [X small arms protective inserts], the means by 

which we test to ensure that we fielded plate carriers that reduced, 

I believe it is by about six pounds just through how we place the 

plates on the soldiers. And that is one of the most important things 

that we consider each and every day and we are working hard. 

Any suggestions, Congressman, you might have as to how to pursue that we would not would just entertain them, we would deeply 

appreciate them. So I will turn to EMP and FCS [future combat 

systems] with the chief if he would care to field those. 

General CASEY. Very briefly, the RFP for the manned ground vehicle should be on the street within the next 30 days. With respect 

to the EMP I think two aspects of it, training and testing. We test 

all our major systems for their ability to operate in an EMP environment. As we get more time at home and begin training for the 

full spectrum operations our training will increasingly include the 

ability to operate in an EMP environment. 
24 

Secretary MCHUGH. Could I just add too, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Bartlett, I am deeply aware of and greatly in admiration of your 

technical background. 

We do test all equipment against DOD [Department of Defense] 

standards. And I would imagine your question would be what are 

those standards as I am sure you appreciate that that is classified 

material but we would certainly be able to and be happy to discuss 

that with you in a classified environment, or any other member. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ortiz. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, Chief Casey, thank you so much for joining us 

today and there is no question that the right choice was made 

when the Secretary was elected. We served together for many years 

and we traveled to many places around the world. I will keep quiet, 

okay. And we went to see the troops to see what their needs were 

and not only those of the troops but of their families as well. 

So congratulations and there is no doubt among the members of 

the committee that you are going to do an outstanding job. Thank 

you so much for joining us today. 

General Casey, due to the current demands on the force you have 

said that the Army’s readiness posture is out of balance. And that 

has been brought up during this testimony today. And that the 

Army is not ready to meet other large-scale ground combat contingencies as fast as plans require. 

You also have stated that the Navy and the Air Force can provide forces to mitigate the late arrival of Army forces in some of 

these scenarios. As you all well know that everything revolves 

around the readiness of our troops. 

One of the things that come to mind is if we do that we have 

to worry about the sustainability that we are able—to be able if 

those troops are waiting there for help that they can sustain themselves and defend themselves. Another thing that worries me is the 

pre-positioned stock, that we are very well stocked so that our 

troops would not be lacking equipment, ammunition, and so on and 

so forth. 

However, given the declining state of readiness of the Navy and 

the Air Force, are you still confident of the assessment that was 

made? And if not, how can we help? What can we give you so that 

we can be more ready to defend our positions when we do take 

command and control? Any one of you that would like to answer 

the question. Thank you, sir. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Go ahead. 

General CASEY. Congressman, thanks. Couple of points that I 

talked about in my opening statement that get at some of your concerns. First of all is reset and the continued funding for reset, as 

I said, is absolutely essential to the long-term health of this force. 

And aviation vehicles and the $10.8 billion in this budget keep us 

in the right direction. I worry over time that people, as we decrease 

the number of soldiers people will think about reset in different 

ways but it is essential that we sustain that. 

The other thing I would tell you on the readiness to commit 

forces for other things. That is why it is so important that we com-
25 

plete the move of the Army to this rotational model. And in this 

rotational model readiness will be progressive. And when a unit is 

available they will be fully ready. Manned, trained, equipped. 

In the next phase, when they are in their training phase, they 

will be manned and equipped at a level sufficient for them to complete the training phase and to deploy rapidly if there is a contingency. We don’t have that capability now. 

And then lastly, when they are in the reset phase, we will have 

no readiness expectations. They have six months to basically recover themselves and their equipment, to put themselves in a position where they could begin to train for something else. And so that 

is the whole rotational cycle and readiness model that we are moving to. And I do believe that it will allow us to meet the current 

demand and to provide forces to hedge against the unexpected contingency. 

Secretary MCHUGH. If I could add, Congressman Ortiz, the budget contains over a $102 billion dollars over the next five years to 

build on those readiness components, to restock the forward deployed pre-positioned stocks, et cetera et cetera. And that begins to 

take the Army from start to finish it is about 80 percent. 

We rate the readiness on equipment right now. That will begin 

to build it up into the mid-80s and it will take time. It is hard to 

maintain that when you are at war. But we think this budget gives 

us the opportunity to head out in the right direction. 

Mr. ORTIZ. My time is up. Thank you so much. Good to see both 

of you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary and 

General, we have heard a lot of accolades today and all of them are 

well deserved. And can’t tell you how much confidence it gives us 

sitting over here to know that we have two individuals with the 

kind of integrity and competence that both of you bring sitting on 

that side of the table. 

One of the things that often bothers me though is that there are 

a lot of accolades we are not able to give to people in serving in 

the Army because they are not here. I still think some of the unsung heroes that we have are the people that deal with logistics. 

And I just want to compliment both of you for the great work 

that the Army has done logistically across the wars that we are 

fighting. I think when all the smoke clears that is going to be one 

of the great stories that we write, particularly in Fort Lee. You 

have done a wonderful job down there in standing up the new Logistics University. And I just want to compliment you and all the 

people that serve in that area. 

I just have one specific question. And this is something you may 

have to get back to me on. But the Army has a requirement for 

lightweight body armor. But none of the services have yet solicited 

for lightweight body armor to my knowledge. The Section 216 of 

the Fiscal Year 2010 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] 

required that the Secretary of Defense ensure that within each 

RDT&E [research, development, test, and evaluation] account of 

each military department a separate, dedicated program element is 

assigned to research and development of individual body armor and 
26 

associate components. The P.E. [program element] as far as I know 

has not yet been established. 

As you know, we have got a lot of these companies that really 

came to bat for us when we needed them to produce, you know, 

some of these products. And so my only question to you, and I don’t 

expect you to have answer today—you might have one—if we can 

just make sure that the Army complies with that fiscal year 2010 

provision and establish that separate P.E. for a robust research 

and development of lightweight body armor because we want to 

make sure it is available and there for our troops when we need 

it and—— 

Secretary MCHUGH. I appreciate your allowing us some flexibility 

there, Congressman. We will certainly check on that. I have been 

up to Aberdeen, and I know our friend from Maryland is familiar 

with that. But I think you are correct. The major focus is on the 

more protective plates we are issuing in the theater. But we will 

check on the NDAA requirements under that section and try to get 

back to you. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. FORBES. Good. And with that I just thank you for what you 

are doing. And Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, 

for being here. 

My friend, Mr. McKeon in that last several hearings in his opening statement first time when we were talking about ‘‘don’t ask, 

don’t tell’’ he used the phrase a special interest, which I found perplexing. In the second hearing he used it, I found it irritating. And 

being used today, I just find it plain wrong. 

And you know, the thousands of men and women, gays and lesbians that are serving honorably today that want to be able to put 

down the next of kin to be notified in case of their death. They are 

not a special interest. They are patriotic soldiers. 

Or the thousands of men that are serving honorably that all they 

want to do is to know that they can talk about their personal life, 

the things that go on back home when they are deployed. They are 

not a special interest. They are patriotic Americans serving in the 

military. 

So I think we need to conduct this debate respectfully of all sides 

and recognize that these thousands of men and women that are 

serving, we ought to not try to denigrate them by referring to them 

as a special interest. They are our soldiers and airmen and sailors. 

The topic has come up, General Casey, about this issue of moratorium. I understand Senator Levin’s goal. I think that if you are 

going to do a moratorium, you might as well just do the repeal and 

move ahead. I mean, that puts you all in kind of a strange situation that you would have a waiting list for people to be bumped out 

if somehow it doesn’t get repealed. 

But you also have this muddled up situation I am sure familiar 

with by now, the Ninth Circuit case, which I have talked about 

here in the last several hearings that has conferred constitutional 

protections on gays and lesbians who are in Oregon, California, 
27 

Washington, or Idaho. And it already is a muddled up legal situation for you. 

And we all know you have commanders out there that are looking the other way because they have troops that are gay and lesbian, are doing a good job and so that already creates this situation 

where we know you have people in the military. 

I have two specific questions for you, General Casey. One, the 

topic has come up. How are gays and lesbians going to be able to 

participate in any kind of a study? I asked that question yesterday 

and Secretary Mabus said he thought they would come up as being 

constructed some way where they could participate anonymously. 

And I don’t see how some kind of an anonymous statement from 

gays and lesbians who are full bird colonels or even general officers 

would have the same impact as you sitting down with a heterosexual folks who can express their views more fully. 

My staff, as I was heading out the door, stuck this mask in my 

hand that suggested perhaps we could have Army-issued masks for 

people. I think they were secretly trying to get me on Daily Show 

with Jon Stewart and hoping I would wear it. But I just don’t see 

how you can have that kind of full discussion you want when the 

gays and lesbians in the military are going to not be able to express the kind of view and give you idea of what it is like. So I 

would like your comments there. 

I would also like your comment on the following question. As I 

hear this discussion about readiness, and the discussion about 

readiness really started in the early 1990s when this policy was 

put in. I would like to hear your response to leadership. It seems 

to me, General Casey, I have more confidence in your leadership 

skills than you do. Or Admiral Mullen has more confidence in your 

leadership skills than you do. 

Because when you have—there are thousands of gays and lesbians serving but they are such a small minority of the force. All 

they want to do is to be able to do their job, get in their 20 years 

or longer time after that if they have the skills and ability. 

It is difficult for me to see how with your leadership skills and 

the incredible leadership we have in the military today that somehow that group of people having a shift in their legal situation in 

the military would somehow cause a decrease in readiness, unless 

the leadership skills at the highest levels of military leadership are 

not what I think they are. 

So we throw out this phrase of this negative impact or potential 

negative impact on readiness. Why is it that I have more confidence in your leadership skills than you do? 

General CASEY. Senator, excuse me, Congressman. It is that time 

of the year. 

Dr. SNYDER. About 8 or 10 months from now, it is going to be 

neither one so go ahead. 

General CASEY. It will be an issue of leadership. But as I mentioned, I have concerns. And the fact of the matter is we haven’t 

looked at this in 17 years and we don’t know the impact. And we 

are in the middle of a war and it is my responsibility to provide 

the Secretary of Defense, President, and Congress my views on the 

military effectiveness and readiness of the Army. 
28 

I don’t know the answer to that, to the question on readiness. 

And when I do and I have informed myself and informed Congress, 

then I will lead. But I find it difficult to lead at the level that I 

am informed at currently. 

Dr. SNYDER. My time is up but I have great confidence in your 

skills, General Casey and—— 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Conaway, please. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. General Casey, thanks for 

bringing great examples of why we all want to do this and do it 

right with those four soldiers behind you and the wife that former 

soldier. Thank you for bringing them to us today to let us see it. 

It is important. 

My issue is going to be very mundane. It is not very glamorous. 

But it reaches across everything you do, both of you. And that is 

financial systems, internal control systems, and the auditability of 

all the data and things that you guys make decisions with is currently you can’t do it. Department of Army does not have audited 

financial statements. And for lack of a broader description let’s just 

say that because it is a broader issue than that. 

John, you mentioned responsible stewards of the taxpayers dollars. We can’t be as good as responsible stewards if we don’t know 

everything we ought to know and the systems aren’t there. I am 

pleased with the acquisition process review that you are doing because this goes hand in hand with that process. And it is not going 

to be easy. It will require tough decisions. It is going to require 

some tie breakers and that is what, General Casey, you do everyday is you have got competing interests within the team and you 

have got to make a decision. That is going to have to happen as 

well. 

And so basically what I would like to hear, a couple of comments 

from you about the importance of this issue to the system—the 

level of involvement that you sense that the Business Transformation Agency, which has the unenviable task of having the responsibility to get this done and no authority to get it done. They 

basically have to cajole the folks in your teams to make that happen. 

But every dollar that gets saved goes to sustaining families. It 

goes to reset and it goes to modernization as opposed to maintaining archaic legacy, out-of-date systems that, because folks are comfortable with them, they defend. But we could do all of that work 

much better, much more efficiently than we are doing it but it is 

going to require protracted effort to get it done. So comments from 

both of you about that? 

Secretary MCHUGH. If I may start. You know, the chairman graciously asked me what I was surprised about. I gave the answer 

on the civilians—that I was more than a little surprised when I 

found out you couldn’t audit the Army. 

Mr. CONAWAY. You are not alone. Nobody can—the Navy and the 

Air Force aren’t auditable either but the Marines have taken the 

task of getting it done. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Well, I will stick to the Army wing at the 

Pentagon. 
29 

Mr. CONAWAY. Sure. 

Secretary MCHUGH. But it is something we are focused and you 

mentioned a number of the components. So this Congress directed 

us and I think wisely so to create a chief management officer, the 

CMO, which is by law the Undersecretary of the Services. I have 

taken the steps necessary to execute the stand-up of that. 

We are fortunate, very fortunate to have a very able Under Secretary Dr. Joe Westphal who has actually been in the building before, served as Acting Secretary and knows the building and knows 

the challenges. And we are setting up the Office of Business Transformation. I have executed the documents for that. So I think that 

kind of professional leadership is a critical first step. 

Beyond that, our FM&C [financial management and Comptroller]—we just got a new ASA, new Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, Ms. Matiella and she is focused on this like the proverbial 

laser and her Principal Deputy, Bob Speer brings an enormous 

wealth. And that is his objective to try and work through and bring 

auditable systems into the Army. We are working with Bob Hale, 

the Comptroller of DOD to try to improve our internal control and 

processes. It is called the GFEBS [General Fund Enterprise Business System]. It is a general fund system. 

We hope to have that set up by 2012 that will start to harmonize 

ourselves with regular accounting systems. We are trying to bring 

an integrated personnel pay system into effect. Just overall internal controls that I would defer to your expertise, sir, as I understand it. We will bring us in line to auditability, although it is a 

long, long road. But we are breaking out toward it, and I am to this 

5 months into the job, I think we are on the right track. 

Mr. CONAWAY. General Casey, any thoughts? 

Secretary MCHUGH. If I could, Congressman? 

Mr. CONAWAY. Sure. 

Secretary MCHUGH. The systems are important but the mindset 

is also important. And about 2 years ago I started sending flag officers, one and two stars to University of North Carolina business 

school for a week to change their mindset. To get them more involved in thinking about cost and thinking about benefit, and then 

thinking about overall value. And we have been embarked on a 

program to grow an enterprise approach inside the Army so that 

we can reduce our spending and take the money that we do spend 

and get most value to the Army. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope to be here a 

long time gentleman to continue to niggle you about this deal because it is important. Thank you for being here today. Yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Gentlelady from California, Susan Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is good to see both of 

you here and we certainly appreciate your comments. I know that 

you are very concerned about the flexibility that you have in the 

balance. And I hope that we can continue to work through that because, as you suggest, there are many risks that you are still trying 

to balance out there. 

What I appreciate is that so much of your focus is on the men 

and women who serve and their families and the role that they 

play. And I continue to want to work with you on that. I wanted 
30 

to follow up for just a brief moment on the issue that we are looking at in terms of ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ and the year or the time 

that we are going to take to try and look at this issue. And particularly General Casey, what do you hope to learn from that? And 

what is it that you think will most inform you? 

General CASEY. Senator I think the three elements of the Secretary’s program are exactly what we have to inform ourselves 

about. 

First of all, we have to hear from our soldiers and families. We 

need to get a better understanding of where they are on the issue. 

We don’t know that now. I mean as you can imagine we go around 

the Army, we talk to groups, we form our views but it is not something where I am comfortable enough looking at the Secretary of 

Defense and the President in the eye and say we shouldn’t do this 

or that. So the first is getting the views of the soldiers and families 

on this. 

Second is understanding all of the implications of implementation. We need to understand them so—because I think some of the 

implementation, if it can be mitigated—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. How, I guess, how do you hope to get to that? And 

I think also in terms of trying to understand the issues from the 

men and women who serve’s point of view. Is it through questionnaires that we hope to get that information? 

General CASEY. I don’t—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. I am just trying to get a handle on it so we can respond better. 

General CASEY. I think you understand—that the Secretary has 

put the Honorable Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham in charge 

of this. They are working the modalities of this now. I would assume it would be some surveys. Probably some online surveys and 

things like that. But I don’t know. 

And the last thing, when we inform ourselves on where the soldiers and families are and on implementation that will give us the 

sense of what the impact on readiness and military effectiveness 

will be. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. I hope that you will have the opportunity to bring whatever tools, personnel to make certain that 

your perspectives and others’ perspectives are part of that discussion because we need to know really what is the most salient issue. 

And in the past when we have changed policies is that the way 

that we have done necessarily and how—you know, how compelling 

is that in terms of the way that information comes back. I think 

we just want to be sure that people have faith in it, that they believe that that is the best way to try and obtain that information. 

So I appreciate that. 

I want to turn to another issue of controversy, if I might. And 

as you know, the DOD recently notified Congress that the Pentagon is removing the ban on allowing women to serve on submarines. And at the same time we have female Marines stationed 

at Camp Pendleton who are receiving training as part of the frontline engagement in Afghanistan. 

You recently stated, General Casey, that you believe the Army 

should take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and 

Afghanistan and then take a look at our policies. In your opinion, 
31 

how vital are women in the war efforts that we have in Iraq and 

Afghanistan today? And what does the Army need from us, from 

the Congress to help the Department reassess the role that women 

are playing in today’s Army? 

General CASEY. Thank you. Obviously women are an integral 

part of the force. And so they are integral to everything that we 

do. And we have a process where we, about every 3 years, we periodically go back and we look at the policy. 

We, Secretary McHugh and I, have been kicking this around for 

awhile and I am sure he will want to comment on this in a second. 

But we in our policy some years ago, we went beyond what the Department of Defense has said in terms of participating in units that 

participate in ground combat. And we have added a restriction on 

co-location with units who participate in ground combat because of 

what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel it is time to go 

back and re-look at that co-location provision. 

Secretary. 

Secretary MCHUGH. If I just may—General is absolutely correct. 

This is something we have been talking about since soon after I 

walked in the building. I was surprised to find out that the Army 

did have a more restrictive policy than DOD recommendations. Not 

that we weren’t allowed to do it but it was unnecessary. 

And the question we have again as the Chief indicated, does it 

work? Does it match up with the reality of today’s battlefield? So 

we met yesterday with the G1, the personnel head. New on the job, 

General Bostick, who is carrying forward this study that we do 

every 3 years to look at the MOSs [military occupational specialties] and matches against women serving in the United States 

Army. And when we get that back we are going to take a hard look 

to try to realign ourselves with reality, whatever that may mean. 

We need to see the study. 

Mrs. DAVIS. What do you think that timetable is going to be? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I expect we will have it no later than early 

fall. I would hope it would be quicker than that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. We would love to follow up with you on it. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

being here today and for your service to our country. I would like 

to ask a question that we have already had conversations on and 

that concerns the combat aviation brigade situation in our country 

and specifically as relates to Fort Carson in my district. 

The 4th ID [infantry division] is stationed there, the only infantry division without a combat aviation brigade in the Army. Now 

the Army budget request supports the addition of 2 new CABs 

[combat aviation brigades], a 12th in the fiscal year 2011 budget 

and a 13th in fiscal year 2015. And the Army indicates that the 

existing assets will be used to create—well anyway, I will go on. 

What criteria is the Army applying to determine where to locate 

these new combat aviation brigades? And when do you expect to 

make a decision regarding where they will be located? 

Secretary MCHUGH. As we discussed when we appeared before 

the Senate between Senator Udall who remarkably shares your 
32 

perspective on this and Senator Begich from Alaska who has a 

somewhat different perspective. We are trying to work this through 

on a—normal parameters by which we base, not just CABs but 

Army assets anywhere. In other words, how does it facilitate training? 

What if, any effect is placed through deployability, the training 

opportunities, lack or presence thereof, encroachment, freedom of 

flight, et cetera et cetera. Those are evaluative systems that have 

been employed for quite some time and we are engaged on that 

right now. I am not aware that we have a specific timeline. 

Obviously the 12th CAB has more immediacy and concern than 

the 13th. The 12th is being formed out of available Army assets. 

It is not a new acquisition program. So we want to be able to move 

forward with that fairly quickly. 

That is, as you know, a very high demand and low density capability that we want to grow. The 13th will be further out and we 

have not even begun the process as far as I am aware of stationing 

decisions but the 12th is underway. Again, I would defer to the 

Chief. If we have an established deadline on that stationing, I am 

not aware of it. 

General CASEY. No, I think it is sometime within the next 60 

days though. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And you will keep us posted on how that develops? 

Secretary MCHUGH. We have a system of IMCs [information for 

Members of Congress] that we absolutely will, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, well I appreciate that answer. And in a sort 

of related vein, in light of the recommendations in the QDR that 

the Department is reevaluating its force structure requirements, 

particularly in the European theater. At this point in time we have 

not changed our—well, anyway. There are two BCTs there in the 

European that are going to be transitioning back to the United 

States. How is the status of that looking and what are your 

thoughts as far as going forward on those European BCTs? 

General CASEY. The QDR pushes the decision on that back until 

after the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] discussion on 

the strategic concept. I expect that to be done sometime in the fall. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Just for the record, that is not an Army decision. The basing, should they be redeployed back, and we are still 

programming for that return, just so we are prepared for whatever 

decision comes down, is our decision. But the actual redeployment 

decision is not Army. It is DOD. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you once again for being here and 

for your service. And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentleman. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to both 

of the gentlemen before us today once again for your service to our 

country. I had to step out for awhile so I am sure, I know that 

some people have asked some of the questions that I had. I just 

wanted to sort of reiterate a couple of things and then ask one particular question. We started out when Mr. Bartlett asked about the 

body armor. And I think that is an incredibly important issue. I 
33 

know that I worked a lot—we have several manufacturers in California with respect to body armor. 

We work a lot, in fact we are doing a pilot body armor issue with 

our law enforcement to have them have armor with the weight 

across the shoulders as we do in the military because it is pretty 

important with respect to health issues that are going on. I just 

wanted to reiterate how important. 

And every time that I have gone out, and I have recently visited 

Afghanistan and I have talked to our soldiers out there. They talk 

about the weight of everything that they have to have on them. I 

know the minimum weight for example on a law enforcement officer, and believe me the minimum. There is a lot more that gets attached to that person. It is 38 pounds. 

So I am sure in the military when you start to talk about carrying around rifles and everything it is probably closer into the 

three—possible three figures. So again, body armor incredibly important. And I will admit. We have factories that we are running 

at three shifts who are now running at one shift because there isn’t 

the type of procurement going on. 

And I will also remind you that the conditions of Iraq, the heat, 

exposure, et cetera, makes that body armor deteriorate in its effectiveness after awhile. So please, this committee has been very interested in body armor from the very beginning. It is one of the 

lifesavers we have out there and we really want you to make sure 

that you get a budget and the procurement for that. 

Also, the M4—I don’t read blogs but my staff has looked at blogs 

by our veterans who come back. And I can’t tell you how every 

other one is about my M4 jammed. And we know we have seen 

tests where there is an effectiveness of less jams by other manufacturers. So we really need to dust off that RFP that was done, you 

know, 5 years ago and 1 year ago. And let’s get this—our act together and let’s look for a weapon that doesn’t jam on our soldiers. 

I also had spoken to you, Mr. McHugh, Secretary McHugh earlier 

about the sexual assault language that you and I had—you so graciously allowed me to work on and shepherd through. I know that 

we have some problems with some of that and I would like to work 

with you, as I said, this year to try to ensure that nobody is being 

assaulted in our military, mostly women, of course. 

And I guess my last question for you would be back to this issue 

about Afghanistan and the plus-up that is going on with troops out 

there. A comment by our President that he thought we would be 

withdrawing them, these new troops, this surge within 18 months. 

Can you speak a little to how you think things are going in Afghanistan and whether that 18 months down surge or bringing back of 

the troops could really happen? And I will leave it to either one of 

you, probably the general. 

General CASEY. Okay. On the surge, we have already begun moving the forces in there, into Afghanistan. And we would expect to 

close those forces here probably by the end of August. You also recall at the time that the policy was changed there was a discussion 

about when and how many of the troops would begin withdrawing. 

And it was said that it would be conditions-based and it would be 

appropriate to the conditions on the ground. And so I don’t think 
34 

there is an expectation that all of the forces going in in the surge 

would start coming out next summer. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Well, there may not be an expectation among you 

who have been sitting in the room. But I will tell you, I think there 

is an expectation by the American people. And I think one of the 

ways this 30,000 new troops into Afghanistan was sold was that we 

would get them in right away, within 6 months I believe was said, 

and you are telling me in August that is beyond the 6-month period. And then start a withdrawal within 18 months. 

So I mean, this is not the first time I have asked this question. 

But I want to put it clear on the table that I think our troops are 

going to be there a lot longer and Americans need to know that 

given the economic and financial constraints that our individual 

families are feeling. 

General CASEY. Yes. And I would just say that there still has 

been no change to policy that the withdrawal would start when it 

was—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Policy is one thing. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Perception is another, General. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, General Casey, thank you so much for joining us 

today and thank you for your service to our Nation. 

You know, today I think we are all concerned about the capabilities that our warfighters carry to the battlefield with them. I know 

one of the challenges you all have is the transition from the future 

combat systems to the Army brigade combat team modernization. 

And I am just wondering, you look at the FCS technologies that 

have been developed and my curiosity is the transition that is happening between FCS and the brigade combat team modernization 

programs. 

And an issue many of my colleagues and I are concerned about 

is the impact on the Army’s operational concept, force structure, 

and doctrine. And within the FCS or the brigade combat team modernization effort, I am also interested in hearing your thoughts on 

the unattended ground sensor development program. 

I want you to know I fully support any effort that puts these mature, enhanced capabilities into our combat units as soon as possible. And I believe the Army should pursue the most cost-effective 

methodology prior to making full-rate production decisions. However, I do have some concerns. 

As you know, the most recent Army field range tests, I understand that the program is behind schedule and not performing very 

well. In fact, January 21st, in Congress Daily it stated that unattended ground sensors do not meet the Army’s reliability requirements, a fact that could adversely affect operational effectiveness 

and increased life-cycle cost. 

And as you know the fiscal year 2010 NDAA directs the Army 

to provide a report to this committee by March 15th of this year. 

And this report could address the potential business case analysis 

for or against multi-source procurement of FCS unattended ground 

sensors prior to making a full-rate procurement decision. 
35 

And within that context, General Casey, has the Army completed 

that report and do you expect it to be delivered on time? And what 

do you think will be the results of the business case analysis? And 

also, it seems like to me that it would just make good sense for the 

Army to integrate the so-called current force unmanned ground 

sensor into the development program and to have a full competition prior to reaching any kind of procurement decision. And I 

want to know if you would agree with that particular scenario? 

General CASEY. Thank you. First of all, on the transition from 

the future combat systems program, I think it is important for 

folks to recognize that the majority of that program, with the exception of the manned ground vehicle, did transition forward and 

continues. And the network work that was done is a major part of 

our effort as are the capabilities packages. And the things you are 

talking about, the unattended ground sensors, are part of those capabilities packages. We have expanded what we put in these capabilities packages to include things that are proving useful to the 

current force. 

And as I said in my opening statement it is part of our attempt 

to put as much equipment into the force as rapidly as is ready. The 

unattended ground sensors did have reliability problems during the 

last test. And they are also just—they are a bit heavy, a bit heavier 

than we wanted. And so we are looking at them and we are looking 

at other alternatives. 

I mean one of the things, Chairman, that I talked about in my 

testimony was about technology advancing so fast that we have to 

proceed incrementally. We have been developing these sensors for 

a long time. And as we have been doing that others have come 

along and developed sensors that can be smaller and may be as effective. And so we are going to incorporate some of those into our 

tests to make sure that we get the best value for the Army. 

Secretary MCHUGH. If I could add, you know those were initial 

unit testing. And they were the first round. And actually they are 

intended to and generally be bad news stories so we can learn a 

way to go forward. I was the ranking member when Secretary 

Gates pulled the plug on FCS. And he called me and frankly I 

wasn’t surprised but I was disappointed. 

But he made a commitment to take and refinance and recapitalize the spinouts. He promised money and he has been good to 

his word as has the President and provided us $934 million just 

this year to work on the development of the ground combat vehicle. 

So I think this is a lemons to lemonade kind of story if we can continue forward because the Army has to have a credible modernization strategy and we have to prove we can do it. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Secretary, one question on a little bit different 

issue. I know as we transition, move units around, relocating units 

around the country, obviously BRAC puts a number of those efforts 

in place, the BRAC from 2005. And the Department programmed 

$73 million in fiscal year 2011 and $65 million in 2010. 

However, at the end of the year 2008 the Department indicated that $1.4 billion is required to complete their environmental remediation activities there for BRAC. And I understand the Army is 

making its best effort to conduct environmental impact statements 

to ensure local communities aren’t adversely affected. 
36 

And as you know, I represent the district where we have Fort 

A.P. Hill located and there has been the movement of the EOD [explosive ordnance disposal] facility there. There is some concerns 

about folks there in the community about making sure that environmental impact is well understood and well taken into account 

as far as that movement. 

And we all want to make sure we got that school there, that capability because IEDs [improvised explosive devices] we know are 

a big issue today. I was just wondering what other steps are being 

taken on a larger scale with the Army to remedy concerns about 

BRAC moves and environmental impact concerns of local communities? And do you know will there be any additional resources to 

complete your BRAC moves at the statutory completion date of 

September 2011? 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you answer very briefly? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes. We feel we are sufficiently resourced to 

pull through by September of next year what you rightly described 

as the largest BRAC in the history of BRACs. It is bigger than all 

the others combined but we are on time and on target. The stewardship of communities affected by moving, particularly on environmental issues, is something we take very seriously. I want to make 

sure we are working with communities. And if we are not meeting 

that expectation that is something I need to hear about and I 

promise you we will try to make it right. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. I am told that we will 

have one vote in the very near future, but let’s roll on. 

Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And John, congratulations on the new job. It is well deserved. 

General Casey, as always, thank you for what you do and your 

willingness to stay in touch with us. 

John, 2 years ago we were in the middle of a crash program to 

build MRAPs. Now we have the great luxury of bringing them 

home from Iraq. But we are still training people to go to another 

war and another place and it is my understanding that almost 

every one of our training installations is short on MRAPs as far as 

training. 

My Camp Shelby has 18 to train approximately 5,000 troopers on 

a given day. That is nothing more than show and tell. So now that 

we have this luxury of an excess of MRAPs in Iraq I would ask 

that you give serious consideration as getting as many of those that 

you don’t need in Afghanistan to the training installations so that 

we do fight as we train. 

Secretary MCHUGH. That is something, in fact, the chief and I 

discussed just yesterday with the G3 General J.D. Thurman. And 

we do have training packages, about 85 MRAPs in CONUS [continental United States] that we are utilizing in addition to those 

available on a base by base basis. But we recognize we need to do 

better. As I know you understand, sir, we are flowing everything 

into theater to protect those troops and to build that up. But the 

next absolute essential component of that is to provide sufficient 

training bases here at home. 
37 

Mr. TAYLOR. Secondly, recent visit to Balad. A particularly honest National Guard colonel tells me that he held an amnesty day. 

Doesn’t care how it got to Iraq, if the government paid for it, you 

can turn it in, no questions asked. He had a two-mile long line of 

vehicles, generators, everything under the sun. In fact, he cut it off 

when it got to when the line got two miles long. 

Having sat in this room and knowing how difficult it is to get the 

dollars from our colleagues to buy those things, I would ask you 

now in this capacity to do everything we can to make sure that 

they all return to good use, either inside the United States Army, 

the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, a fellow service, or 

made available to local communities. 

And I told General Casey this. He doesn’t need to ship anything 

to Afghanistan that is not going to work for at least a year. I understand that the costs of getting it there are enormous. But for 

our local communities whether it is a blizzard in New York, a hurricane in Mississippi, they don’t need a generator that is going to 

run for a year. They need a generator that is going to run for 3 

weeks. 

But for 3 weeks until the power is restored, they really need it. 

And so I would hope that given the vast amount of expertise that 

you have in your force, people who held elected office either as a 

country supervisor or road crew, chief or emergency responder back 

home, that you make every effort to find just enough people in Iraq 

to go through what is being turned back in. 

And if the Army doesn’t need it, the military doesn’t need it, let’s 

make every effort to make it available to our local communities 

who could use it, and we both know they are cash strapped in today’s environment. 

Secretary MCHUGH. As someone who started in local government, I fully agree and understand. We in fact are working to try 

to integrate a local government and state government disposal program. One of the challenges we are facing is working through the 

association that has been stood up to represent the local and state 

governments. They need to have some—this is John McHugh. 

They need to have somebody in theater. There is just too much 

of a geographic disconnect for them to try to—ferret through all of 

these platforms so we are working with them. I am hopeful, I can’t 

promise, but I am hopeful that is going to happen which will greatly facilitate the flow—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, having laid down that challenge, 

anything I could do on this side of the room to help, you let me 

know. 

Secretary MCHUGH. I appreciate it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, lastly, wounded warriors, we have been trying—I am not so sure successfully, to get as many as them who 

wish to continue to serve in a different capacity to our military 

academies as gym instructors, as squad level officers, plumbers, 

electricians, whatever their skill is, if they wish to remain in the 

force. But since you have the luxury of two of the academies in 

your home state, and most of them tend to be in the north, what 

I would ask you to consider is expanding that program, and this 

is the Chairman’s suggestion, to the different ROTC [Reserve Offi-
38 

cer Training Corps] programs since there are multiple ROTC programs in every state. 

We can get that warrior closer to home as he makes that transition from military life to civilian life. Let him continue to do meaningful work within the United States Armed Forces, but again, it 

is going to take the intervention of someone like you to see to it 

that this happens. I would ask that you give it every consideration. 

Secretary MCHUGH. Absolutely will. I will tell you I have two 

wounded warriors on my personal staff at the Pentagon. It is something we encourage, and we want to try to reintegrate those great 

heroes in every way we possibly can. I think that is a very interesting suggestion. I promise you we will look closely into it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, congratulations on the job. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I hope you will get back to Mr. Taylor on that in 2 or 3 weeks, 

and see the status of it. Thank you. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, General Casey, thank you so much for coming in for 

your service. 

General Casey, I have got a question about post-traumatic stress 

disorder and the soldiers that are being discharged with that. 

First of all, I want to thank you for putting an emphasis on it 

through this resiliency training, and I hope that has a mitigating 

effect on PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]. 

But my discussions with some mental health professionals tell 

me that it is a reversible syndrome, given the proper treatment. 

And so I think, my question to you is, if in fact it is reversible, 

why are we still discharging soldiers with PTSD and giving them 

disability? 

And number two, and this may be beyond your pay grade in the 

sectors as well because I think it goes to the Veterans’ Administration that I have talked to soldiers that have been discharged with 

PTSD, and that not having adequate treatment available to them 

once they discharge them. 

This is, you know, we have discharged quite a few folks with 

PTSD and not provided adequate treatment to them. I think it is 

unfair to those soldiers, and it is unfair to the taxpayers of the 

United States to have to pay for disability payments for a condition 

that is reversible. 

General, could you answer that, and Mr. Secretary if you have 

any comments as well. 

General CASEY. Well, first of all, thank you for your interest in 

this. In fact, we started out back in 2007 to try to reverse the stigma associated with getting help for post-traumatic stress because 

all our studies said exactly what you say. That it is reversible. 

The other thing that our study showed us was that the more 

often you deployed, especially with small times between deployments, the more likely you would become to get post-traumatic 

stress. And so we felt it was usually important to get people to the 

treatment as soon as we could. So that is the first one. 

Second point, we have established resiliency centers on several 

of our installations. The most prominent one being at Fort Bliss, 
39 

Texas, this really was the original one. And they take a very small 

number of soldiers, about 16 to 20, about a platoon size with more 

severe post-traumatic stress, and they work with them for periods 

up to 6 months. And they have had very good success. 

But while it is reversible, everyone does not necessarily recover 

on the same timelines or on timelines that make sense. So we recognize the challenge presented by this. I think we have attacked 

it aggressively, and in the last part about it, I would say, is the 

resiliency program that I talked about. 

It is designed to give soldiers and family members the skills to 

prevent them from getting post-traumatic stress to begin with, and 

I think that is the only way we are going to succeed here over the 

long haul. One of the principal tenants of this program is the recognition that most people—the vast majority of people deployed to 

combat, they have a growth experience. 

And there is a misperception out there that everyone that goes 

to combat gets post-traumatic stress, which is not true. 

Secretary MCHUGH. If I may, it is an absolutely critical issue. If 

you go to any warrior transition unit in this country and we have 

29 of them, and building 9 more complexes. You will find soldiers 

there who have been diagnosed with PTSD, and we provide treatment. 

The challenge we have, it seems to me, is that too often or very 

often, people aren’t diagnosed with this and they really don’t demonstrate symptoms until months after redeployment, and they have 

by their own design processed out of the military. 

That is where the critical challenge is. What we are trying to do 

is educate the force. We are trying to intervene early, destigmatize 

it and provided a continuing of care and treatment so that the 

sooner you get it like most diseases, and it is, it is a mental disease 

that can be treated. 

But there is a stigma and so we are trying to do that. That is 

not to suggest we are doing it perfectly, and I am sure we have 

mishandled far too many cases, but we are getting smarter on it 

and I think we are making progress. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well, General Casey and Secretary McHugh, 

thank you so much for concentrating your energies on this issue in 

terms of solving it. I think it is a travesty in the past to have discharged so many soldiers for something that is reversible. 

And thank you, Secretary McHugh for your explanation, and I 

think certainly the other half of the equation rests with the Veterans Administration in terms providing treatment for those that 

are discharged with that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen for being 

here. 

Mr. Secretary, it is wonderful to see you. I know the commitment 

that you have to the military families and you are in the right job. 

We are glad you are here. 

I am disappointed that the Army has not expanded the small 

arms production industrial base to encourage competition and give 

taxpayers a better deal. As you know, Title 10 limits the companies 

allowed to bid on critical small arms components for specified small 
40 

arms to just three companies, and one of them is a foreign company. 

Two years ago, the National Defense Authorization Act required 

a report on the small arms production industrial base. The report 

is now more than a year overdue. 

Last year, my language in the NDAA again required the report 

due at the beginning of April and gave the Secretary of Defense the 

authority to expand, modify, or change the companies in the small 

arms production industrial base. 

When can we expect to see the first report which is very long 

overdue? Is the second review on course to be delivered on time? 

General CASEY. I honestly am not in a position to respond to the 

Defense Department’s position on the report. I would be happy and 

will check for you and get you that information, but I am sure you 

understand that that is a DOD equity. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I do and that is the response I hope to hear 

from you that you would check, so I thank you. 

General CASEY. Okay, I can tell you generically we want to encourage competition. There is a process by which manufacturing 

firms, writ large, regardless of what platform they are interested 

in participating in, including personal arms, can apply for certification and thereafter participate in the bids. 

Whether there is a glitch with respect to that particular segment, 

I can’t tell you, but again, we will look at that and try to get back 

to you. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

And then I wanted to bring up ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’’ and I know 

that you have heard this frequently, but I have some concern about 

how the decisions will be made and what the questions will be, and 

who actually will be making these decisions, because I believe that 

when we have a civil rights issue it is something that we have to 

adhere to a sense of responsibility to all the men and women, all 

of them, including those who are gay. 

And we also have to make sure that we don’t fit in any kind of 

judgment on anybody regardless of their affiliation, their sexual 

orientation or anything else. 

So, I just wanted to say for the record, and I know that we will 

be studying this, but I want to associate myself with my colleague’s 

comments, Mrs. Davis from California. 

And I also wanted to say that I do believe that individuals who 

love this country, serve this country honorably, have given their 

lives to this country, should be held in the same regard as everybody else without a sense of judgment from others. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Platts, please. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary McHugh, General Casey, I appreciate your being here 

today and John, I especially appreciate you being there because by 

you being there, it opened up the seat here for me. 

So I am probably most delighted that you are the Secretary of 

the Army. 
41 

I appreciate your great leadership, and General Casey having 

visited with you in Iraq when you are in command there and now 

as Chief of Staff, both of you are—we are as a Nation indebted to 

both you for your service. 

First issue, and I apologize having to go back and forth with 

other meetings, and if I repeat anything that was already asked. 

But it is specifically the rules in engagement issue. 

In my visits to Iraq, I have been there nine times now, six times 

to Afghanistan, I remain concerned that we are asking too much 

of our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, and we certainly 

mourn the loss of every civilian life lost in combat operations. 

But I am worried that we are going to a point where we are putting our men and women in uniform at greater and greater risk, 

and tying their hands in how we expect them to find and defeat 

the enemy. 

I didn’t see the details, but in my morning paper back home this 

morning in New York, I saw something quick about maybe prohibiting night time raids now in civilian population areas in Afghanistan because of the risk to civilians. 

I am not a veteran myself, but there is one thing I appreciate is 

that the American military owns the night and when it goes after 

the enemy, being able to defeat enemy, our advantages at night is 

huge. 

And so, I guess, I want to just raise that concern with you and 

that we are in a deadly battle here. And those men and women 

who are out there in the front lines deserve to have everything 

available to them. 

I think the analogy to World War II—if we put the limitations 

on our military in World War II that we now place on our military, 

we wouldn’t have defeated the Nazis as we so successfully did. And 

so a concern, and I would ask both of you, I guess, how do you feel 

about where we are today with rules of engagement, including 

what I believe is the most recent announcement about night operations? 

General CASEY. Rules of engagement are put in place by the combatant commanders and General McChrystal. I tell you I have had 

this—I get this feedback periodically from Members of Congress. 

So I recently talked to General McChrystal about this and let 

him know the concern was out there. Well, he knows the concern 

is there because Members share that with him when they are 

there. 

But he feels very strongly, and I would support this, having been 

in Iraq and having worked with the rules of engagement. There is 

no rule in engagement that prohibits a soldier from using all 

means available to him to protect himself. And nothing that General McChrystal has put in place takes that ability away for many 

soldiers. 

It is indeed a complex environment, and I know that there, at 

the lower levels of the force, there are concerns with the interpretation. But it is a concern about interpretation, but they have the 

rules to protect themselves. 

Mr. PLATTS. General Casey, I certainly appreciate that and agree 

with that, but I would contend that if we let the bad guy get away 

because we don’t go after him at when we have the advantage, that 
42 

is putting our guys at risk because he is still out there, able to 

come after our guys because of how we tied their hands in that 

sense. 

So, you know, most recently I saw that President Karzai made 

the comment and tragic story of a young girl losing many family 

members in an attack in Afghanistan and holding up the picture 

of that young girl. 

The equivalent would be to hold up the picture of all the American children who have given their fathers or mothers in Afghanistan liberating that country, defending that country and our security here at home. 

And I just worry that the politics of Afghanistan and President 

Karzai’s politics within that country are impacting the security of 

our courageous men and women in uniform. And I appreciate your 

conversation with General McChrystal, and that is part of high priority for leading our Nation. 

General CASEY. I wouldn’t want people to leave here thinking 

that the politics there is putting the lives of our soldiers at risk. 

Again, I—— 

Mr. PLATTS. I don’t think by you, I mean by President Karzai, 

that he is trying to leverage us by his actions in Afghanistan. 

General CASEY. Again, I having been where General McChrystal 

is, I know that he feels, and I have spoken to him. I know he feels 

very strongly about making sure that every soldier has the ability 

to accomplish his mission and defend himself. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thanks, General Casey, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Loebsack, please. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to both of you for being here today in particular Secretary McHugh. 

While I am only a sophomore, I got to know you a little bit on 

those first 2 years when I was here and know you and respect for 

everything you have done, and I know you are going to be doing 

a great job in this position, so good to see you there. 

I do first want to highlight the funding that is included in this 

budget for upgrades and improvements to the infrastructure at the 

Iowa Army Ammunition plant. 

It is in my district—the Iowans who worked at that plant I think 

provide a great service to our country, and I am really gratified 

that these investments are included in the budget. I want to thank 

you for that first thing. 

Also, I want to raise an issue that is very close to all of us in 

Iowa and also folks in Minnesota. In fact I think if my colleague, 

John Kline had been here today—he is over at the White House 

dealing with health care issues—if he had been here, I think he 

would have brought up the issue I am going to bring up before me. 

And I would have reiterated this issue at that point, and that is 

the issue of the PDMRA [post-deployment/mobilization respite absence] benefits for our National Guard. There about 750 Iowa soldiers who have yet to receive their PDMRA benefits, and many of 

them are now preparing to deploy yet again. In fact I just met in 

the anteroom with our Adjutant General, General Orr, about that 

and other issues. 
43 

I am very glad that the processing of the payments is moving forward after nearly 2 years, but I also believe that we need to make 

sure that these payments are processed as expeditiously as possible 

and as accurately as possible so that no soldier is underpaid or is 

forced to repay part of their benefit later on. 

So Secretary McHugh, I just want to make sure that you can assure me and these troops and their families in Iowa and in Minnesota that the Army is doing absolutely everything that it can to 

process these payments as expeditiously and accurately as possible. 

Can you speak to that? 

Secretary MCHUGH. I can indeed and you can be assured not just 

great Iowans but across this country and you mentioned Minnesota, and you are absolutely right. Congressman Kline has been 

understandably very forward leading on this. 

We have a challenge here. The Army is processing as quickly as 

we receive these packages as we call them from the various Guard 

bureaus. One of the hurdles we have to get over is the workings 

with the Guards and the states to validate the packages to get 

them to the Army. 

I have spoken directly to both the chief of the National Guard as 

well as the director of the National Guard. In fact, I was talking 

to the director last evening—all the TAGS, all the adjutant generals, from the states and the territories were in town this week— 

and he has reaffirmed our interest in getting those packages as 

quickly as possible. 

So if you can help us facilitate those transmissions, we will get 

those funds to those soldiers, that as you said and you are absolutely right, Congressman, did some hard work to earn those benefits and we want to make sure they get them. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Another question I have is about the equipment for the National 

Guard. The budget request does not include any funding for the 

National Guard reserve equipment account. That is my understanding at least. 

Meanwhile, the Army National Guard is not currently slated to 

equip all brigade combat teams to 100 percent of their requirement 

until 2015. Can you please explain to me how this budget supports 

both the National Guard’s ability to respond to their homeland and 

their overseas missions? 

In the case of Iowa, you may recall, that in 2008 we had a great 

flood and a lot of those National Guard folks did a lot of great work 

in Iowa. So can you answer that question? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes, I have to get back to you on the details 

for the National Guard Iowa component. As I had mentioned earlier, we do have over the next five years, just over $102 billion 

scheduled for equipment readiness improvements. According to the 

data, I have been shown that right now the National Guard national equipment readiness is about 75 percent. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Secretary MCHUGH. And once these investments are made, it will 

improve to over 81 percent. So 81 percent is a significant distance 

from 100, we all understand that, but it is something that we are 

trying to turn the tide on and as the drawdown in Iraq continues 
44 

hopefully, successfully, and we can bring troops home and redirect 

investments, that will be an opportunity for us to not to continue 

to burn equipment readiness as soon as, with your help, we have 

been able to turn it out. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay, thank you very much. 

General CASEY. Can I just add one point here on, you asked 

about homeland security. To ensure that the states had enough 

equipment to take care of homeland security missions, we established a category of equipment called dual-use equipment. 

It is equipment that goes to the Guard that could be used for either wartime missions or homeland security type of disaster relief 

missions. In September, we were about 83 percent in filling up 

those dual-use items and we put a priority on that. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

General CASEY. The other thing, the last point I would make 

with you is the National Guard and Reserve will be on the same 

rotational equipping model as the active force, and so they are not 

going to just have a bunch of old equipment as they approach and 

get ready to deploy. They are going to have the best stuff that we 

have. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And I would like to say, we don’t have any large 

bases on Iowa as you might imagine, right? But we have a lot of 

National Guard troops who are just doing a fantastic job, and as 

it becomes an increasingly operational force, I think we need to do 

everything we can, you know, to take care of them, their families 

and make sure they get the equipment they need as well. So thank 

you very much to both of you. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. Regarding the National 

Guard, I have had the opportunity, the last several weeks to visit 

with Missouri National Guardsmen and two things are very apparent. The first is the very positive attitude that each of the units 

had, without exception, and the second was the fact that so many 

of them have been deployed one, two, or three times in several 

units. Nearly everyone had been deployed at least once so I hope 

they get the proper recognition all the way to the top, and that is 

why I am suggesting that. 

Mr. Owens. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. First, I would take umbrage with those 

who have said they were most happy that the Secretary is in that 

seat. I clearly am the most happy. 

I would like to ask a question that relates to the facilities. This 

year, there was about $500 million shortfall in facilities funding 

and that appears to have been restored which is of great benefit 

to Fort Drum and a number of the other installations. Does the 

current budget take into account that situation so that it doesn’t 

reoccur this coming year? 

Secretary MCHUGH. By current, you mean the proposed budget? 

Mr. OWENS. Proposed budget, that is correct. 

Secretary MCHUGH. And by the way, it is good to see you there 

too. And I appreciate it truly, you are one of the first to contact us 

about the effects of this so called BOS [base operation support] 

funding that caused these challenges. It resulted as a result of a 

required migration from these OCO [overseas contingency oper-
45 

ations], from the surplus accounts, for these base operations into 

the base budget, and it wasn’t adequately accommodated for. 

So this gives us another year, by the time this budget is adopted 

and put in place to accommodate that. So I think we will be in a 

much better position. It is important to recognize though it is not 

unusual for an underfunding to happen in these budget lines and 

the reason for that is we simply don’t know the operations tempo 

at a base by base to make a full and complete judgment. So what 

we will do this year, and what we have always done is to go in midyear, see where the shortfalls are, make the necessary adjustments 

as I said in my opening statement. 

Because these funds go right into caring for our soldiers’ families 

and we want to make sure that those are not the funds that are 

part of the cuts that probably we are going to have to deal with 

in a broader sense in the years ahead. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you very much and I didn’t mean to slight 

you, General, but thank you for testifying and thank you for your 

service. That is all I have. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you gentlemen. 

Wrap it up, Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, sir, and I want to thank the Secretary 

and the General for being with us and thank you for bringing the 

four individuals that you did. 

And I would like to thank them for their service to our Nation 

and sacrifices and wish them well in the ways they go. 

Being from North Carolina, obviously Fort Bragg is a great interest to me and being my district does not include the base itself, it 

includes the majority of the reservation in Camp McCall and many 

of the soldiers and their families that serve our base. 

We are also very appreciative of BRAC and what it is bringing 

to Fort Bragg and in Fort Bragg will have 10 percent of all the 

Army and when all is said and done, but with that brings challenges too especially in some of the areas surrounding the base. 

I want to talk about education for just a second. We talk about 

our families. The children of these families and their education has 

to be upmost of concern and it has been. We have done a good job 

probably on base in getting some new schools built, but the surrounding counties don’t necessarily have the money where they can 

just go out and build new schools because populations are coming 

in. 

I recently went to Rockfish Elementary School in Hoke County 

which is outside the base, outside Cumberland County. I was talking to the fourth graders and asked how many of them had either 

one or both parents in the military, and I think three-fourths of the 

students raised their hands. 

We can’t have schools designed for 500 students hosting 1500 

students without a loss of education. This is not so much a question but just we have got to find a way to help some of these poor 

counties that are benefiting for new people coming in but also having to do transportation, police and fire, water and sewage. They 

are being challenged and education is a way we just can’t afford 

to lose out on. So just wondering what your thoughts may be on 

how can we go outside the normal perspective of helping off-base 

school systems? 
46 

Secretary MCHUGH. That is a question with which I have some 

familiarity and more than a few bruises, and I suspect Congressman Owens will soon pick up a few of those himself because Impact Aid is the mechanism by which localities are, in theory, compensated for this influx of military students and there is a variety 

of programs in that initiative. 

I think there is no question that it has its shortcomings, not the 

least of which in New York for example where the local education 

aid is on a per capita basis. You don’t get credit for that student 

being in the seat until at least a year after he or she has been 

there even though you are providing services and teachers, classroom space for that student from day one. 

That is set in concordance with law. It is a Department of Education program and while the Secretary of Defense has worked 

very hard to try to encourage improvement of all school facilities 

where our men and women in uniform’s children are being educated. It has been a struggle. There is a good substantial amount 

of investment in this proposed budget for schools for DODEA [Department of Defense Education Activity] schools, the Defense Department schools over which the Army and the Department of Defense has jurisdiction. 

But it is a challenge with the Department of Education programs 

and if there is anything we can do to support your efforts to modernize, and I would argue to make that law a little bit more reflective of these base BRAC movements, we would be happy to talk to 

you about that. 

Mr. KISSELL. Well, I appreciate that. We will be following up, 

and I know time is an issue right now. I congratulate your working 

with the University of North Carolina in the business school, but 

also I was with General Mulholland when he signed the letter of 

the understanding with the university system to help our special 

forces. That is our great systems working together. 

I congratulate you on the civil affairs unit with the special forces. 

That is very important and encouraging if you look at civil affairs 

with just the regular army too because as we work in Afghanistan 

and other places making sure that we are doing the things with the 

civilian population there that enhances their lives. 

It is so important to what we are doing overall. Thank you so 

much and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentleman from North Carolina. 

Secretary McHugh you are now a veteran. We thank you so 

much for your excellent testimony, and you are in good hands there 

with General Casey. 

And we thank you, General, for your continued service. 

We will be discussing various issues with you in the days ahead 

as we glue our authorization bill together, but you have given us 

an excellent start and an excellent insight into the United States 

Army. 

We thank you. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

(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 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

(121) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES 

Mr. JONES. The FY09 National Defense Authorization Act encourages the Army 

to compete its small arms requirements. Page 201 of the Army Procurement Justification Book for Weapons and Tracked Vehicles indicates that the Army requests 

$15.042M to procure 11,494 M4 carbines and that the carbines will be procured 

from Colt Manufacturing Co., Inc. with sole source, firm fixed price contract. Is the 

Justification Book accurate? What are the Army’s requirements for M4 carbines in 

Fiscal Year 2011 and how does the Army plan to complete the requirements? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Yes, the Justification Book is correct. The Army is pursuing 

a dual track strategy to provide our Soldiers the best carbine in the world. Track 

One is initiating continuous competitive upgrades of the M4, and Track Two is the 

competitive procurement of a new Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 

System (JCIDS) requirement for an individual carbine. For the funding year FY11, the requested total program funding is $20.2M. $15.042M of that will procure 11,494 M4 Carbines equipped with the Modular 

Weapon System, which includes six additional magazines, the M4 Rail Assembly 

and the Back-up Iron Sight per weapon. The remainder of the funds procures combat optics and provides production, logistical and fielding support. 

In 2008, then Secretary of the Army Pete Geren directed continued procurement 

of the M4 carbine until the Army Acquisition Objective (AAO) was met. Once the 

AAO was reached, M4 procurement would be limited to only those M4s necessary 

to maintain the current fleet of weapons. The procurement requirement also includes the minimum required to maintain the industrial base until the individual 

carbine competition is complete and in production. 

A quantity of 12,000 carbines is the yearly Minimum Sustaining Rate (MSR) for 

Colt Defense LLC. The Army will continue to maintain Colt’s operational capability, 

and does not plan to pursue an M4 competitive procurement. The Army will conduct 

M4 upgrade competitions and will compete the new JCIDS requirement for a carbine when the requirement is eventually approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. The budget submission for the Army’s end strength is programmed 

for 547,400; with an additional funding for 22,000 personnel in the OCO. How long 

will this additional end strength funding in the OCO be required? Does the Army 

intend to ultimately return to end strength of 547,400 and is that the end strength 

envisioned in the Quadrennial Defense Review? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army’s current authorized end 

strength is 547,400, and that is the end strength envisioned in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The FY10 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding includes 

money to support a temporary end strength increase of 15,000 personnel (total end 

strength 562,400), and the FY11 OCO request includes funding to support a total 

additional end strength of 22,000 (total end strength 569,400). However, the Secretary of Defense has not yet authorized the additional temporary end strength increase from 15,000 to 22,000. If the Secretary of Defense authorizes the additional 

7,000 in temporary end strength, the Army’s plan is to reach 569,400 by Spring of 

2011 and maintain that level through the Spring of 2012. End strength would then 

decrease over an 18 month period through the Fall of 2013 to put the Army back 

at 547,400. 

Mr. MILLER. The Chief of the Army Reserve recently said that the Army Reserve and Army National Guard need at least $1.5 billion more in training funding per 

year to achieve the ‘‘operational reserve’’ status they have been tasked to achieve. 

Do you agree with that estimate? In the future, will the Army be able to accommodate increased levels of funding to keep the Army Reserve and Army National 

Guard as ready as they are today? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army is committed to maintaining 

a trained and ready Reserve Component force as full participants in the 

ARFORGEN process. Steady state funding to achieve this goal is a topic for our 
122 

FY12 budget deliberations. We anticipate working with the Army National Guard 

and the Army Reserve to come to a consensus position on this issue. 

The Army is currently evaluating the resource requirements to achieve an ‘‘oper- ational reserve’’ in the FY 12–17 POM. The Army has not yet validated the $1.5B 

training cost estimate and anticipates there are cost impacts beyond training that 

must be evaluated. Decisions on fill level for full time staff, funded training days, 

and type of training are factors which will drive the cost of operationalizing the reserve component. 

In addition to the resourcing implications, the Army is assessing the requisite authorities and policies associated with achieving the most effective operational reserve. Mr. MILLER. What is the extent of the Army’s R&D effort to reduce the weight 

of body armor systems? What are your thoughts in establishing a task force similar 

to the MRAP Task Force and ISR Task Force to accelerate these efforts? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army is looking to lighten every 

piece of equipment a Soldier carries. Accordingly, the objectives of the Body Armor 

R&D projects are to develop a lighter system with more protection than what is currently available. 

The Army is focused on enhancing the strength of ballistic fiber, which has the 

potential to reduce the weight of soft armor by 20%, and will continue to explore 

materials to create lighter ballistic plates. Most ballistic plate R&D is conducted 

independently by industry. 

Body armor is not a Program of Record and is therefore 100% funded with Overseas Contingency Operations funds with no RDT&E dedicated funding line. The 

2010 NDAA directed that each of the services establish a RDT&E line for Body 

Armor, which the Army is currently working with DoD to establish. 

We do not think a Task Force is required to address the issue of lighter body 

armor. The Army and the Marine Corps Board, which meets quarterly, focuses on 

force protection issues, to include initiatives for lighter body armor systems. This 

group meets to discuss issues related to body armor and to leverage production and 

R&D efforts for both Services. 

Mr. MILLER. Could you comment on what changes have been made in the way 

the Army equips Guard and Reserve forces to accommodate the operational role? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army has made tremendous strides 

toward converting the Reserve Component (RC) from a strategic reserve to a force 

that can provide operational capabilities and strategic depth across the full spectrum of conflict and missions. The new equipping structure—codified by the Army 

Force Generation-based equipping strategy—establishes acquisition and distribution 

goals that ensure all units, regardless of component, have the right amount and 

type of equipment to meet their mission requirements and support Department of 

Defense Directive 1200.17. 

The Army is committed to equipping all Soldiers going into harm’s way with the 

most capable systems possible. This equipping strategy is designed to equip and 

modernize the RC on par with the Active Component. It should be noted that much 

of the modern equipment going to the RC displaces legacy items, and therefore, has 

a modest impact on the overall equipment on hand (EOH) percentages. 

Modernization percentages are measured against the Army’s requirements at the 

end of the Program Objective Memorandum (Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17)). The Army 

has programmed approximately $102.4 billion over the next five years to alleviate 

shortfalls and modernize equipment, which is anticipated to bring the Active Army 

to 86 percent, the Army National Guard (ARNG) to 83 percent and the U.S. Army 

Reserve (USAR) to 81 percent EOH by 2017, based on current operational requirements. 

Equipment funding for the ARNG averaged $5.7 billion per year from FY06 to 

FY10. During that same time period, USAR equipment funding averaged $2.0 billion per year. In September 2010, the ARNG equipment modernization levels will 

be at 68 percent, a 12 percent improvement over their September 2008 levels. The 

Army Reserve is 65 percent modernized, an 8 percent increase over the 2008 levels. 

Mr. MILLER. Do the equipping and manning strategies for the National Guard’s 

new operational role also take into consideration the strategic reserve role the National Guard has historically played? For example, do National Guard units that are 

not immediately scheduled for deployment have sufficient equipment to perform domestic missions and serve as a strategic reserve, should new global demands unrelated to the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan emerge? Are there reserve 

units dedicated to a strategic reserve role and, if so, how are they equipped? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army continues to improve the 

equipment on hand (EOH) rates and modernization levels of the Reserve Component 

(RC). This is critical to the transformation of the whole RC to an operational reserve 
123 

while simultaneously ensuring that it can provide the Army with strategic depth. 

The Army Force Generation-based equipping strategy ensures that the RC can provide operational capabilities and strategic depth across the full spectrum of conflict 

and missions, as required by Department of Defense Directive 1200.17, dated October 29, 2008. The Army is committed to fully executing Congressional and Department of Defense directions to operationalize our RC. Consequently, RC units are not 

specifically assigned to a strategic reserve mission. 

Additionally, the Army is committed to allocating and distributing Critical Dual 

Use (CDU) equipment (Modified Table of Organization and Equipment items that 

also support Homeland Defense and Defense Support to Civil Authorities missions) 

to maintain a minimum 80 percent fill during this period of persistent conflict, recognizing that the end-state goal is 100 percent of the Guard’s CDU items to ensure 

their preparedness to support their civil support missions. To that end, the CDU 

EOH will increase from 83 percent in 2009 to 87 percent in 2011. The Army National Guard has determined that it currently has sufficient equipment to meet this 

hurricane season’s support requirements. 

Mr. MILLER. What is the status of the payback plans the Army is required to provide the National Guard and Reserve components? If the Army has not provided 

payback plans, what do the units who left the equipment overseas use for training? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army has made significant progress 

in replacing Reserve Component (RC) equipment diverted to wartime needs. Currently, the Army has returned a total of 67 percent (57,000 of the 84,000) of the 

Secretary of Defense approved Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1225.6 requirements to the RCs. For the remaining DoDD 1225.6 requirements, Headquarters, Department of the Army and the RCs have developed plans that project 

the payback of all the equipment by the end of fiscal year 2013, based on known 

operational requirements. If operational requirements change, the Army, in coordination with the RCs, will adjust the payback plans to support both theater and 

homeland defense requirements and missions. All Army units, to include the RCs, 

are cross-leveling available equipment and utilizing pre-deployment equipment sets 

to mitigate training equipment shortfalls until the cessation of all hostilities and full 

reset of theater equipment is accomplished. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. The past eight years have highlighted the unique way in which the 

National Guard and Army Reserve forces can augment the active force, especially 

in unique skill sets. However, due to their commitment to the overseas fight, the 

historical role of the National Guard as the Nation’s strategic reserve has waned. 

In the QDR, the first of the six key mission areas is ‘‘Defend the United States and 

support civilian authorities at home.’’ Does the Army plan on supporting this notion 

and returning the Guard to its historical role? And, if so, how will training and 

equipment in both the short and long term change to reflect the need to focus on 

the domestic defense? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The National Guard’s historic role of defending the homeland 

remains the same as it always has—the Army National Guard responds to a domestic crisis when called by their Governors while preparing to augment the Army for 

overseas contingencies. No better example of this enduring capability exists than 

the National Guard’s response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when Guardsmen 

from every State and Territory—and their equipment—flowed into the Gulf States 

when much of the affected States’ own Army National Guard was deployed overseas. 

The Army National Guard had approximately 100K Soldiers mobilized and still provided 50,000 Soldiers to support hurricane relief efforts. 

Since 9/11, the National Guard’s ability to respond quickly to domestic contingencies is better understood and appreciated at the national level. Most of the Army 

National Guard’s force structure is designed to augment the Active Component, and 

its equipment and training requirements follow suit. But when budget constraints 

force hard acquisition decisions, the National Guard’s unique role in support of civilian authority is now better accounted for in terms of its Critical Dual Use equipment, which supports the Essential Ten Capabilities that the governors have decided are critical during a domestic contingency. In addition, Guard unique capabilities, such as the Civil Support Teams, have been resourced at a higher level since 

9/11. 

The Army National Guard is actually better able to respond to domestic emergencies than it was prior to 9/11. It has more modern equipment, its unit strengths 

are at higher levels, and its Soldiers are better trained. Furthermore, the National 

Guard has been proactive in improving its ability to respond to homeland missions. 
124 

For example, Emergency Management Assistance Compacts have been strengthened 

in order to facilitate units in one State assisting another State during a crisis. 

Mr. WILSON. I am concerned that the current plans for wounded warrior support 

at the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center when it opens at Bethesda in September 2011 is not at the same level of support currently furnished 

by the Army at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Wounded Warriors who move 

to the new medical center will experience a significant degradation of services and 

support. This is unacceptable. As an example, I understand that there will be a 

shortfall of 150 barracks spaces when the new medical center opens for the wounded 

warriors who are currently in the Warrior in Transition barracks at Walter Reed. 

What steps have you taken to ensure that all of the wounded warrior support now 

provided at Walter Reed will be available when the new medical center opens in 

September 2011? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army, along with the other Services, has taken multiple 

steps to prepare for the support of the Wounded, Ill and Injured Soldiers as they 

transfer from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center at Bethesda. Approximately half of the Wounded Warriors assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center will move to Fort Belvoir in September 

2011. Accordingly we are focused on delivering proper services and support to 

Wounded Warriors both at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir. 

New Warrior Transition Complexes are being built at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir 

with estimated completion dates in August 2011 for both locations. These Warrior 

Transition Complexes include all the services and support found in Army Soldier 

Family Assistance Centers, administrative space for the Warrior Transition Unit 

cadre, and barracks for Wounded Warriors. The Warrior Transition Complexes will 

provide non-medical case management and support assistance for each Services’ 

Wounded Warriors and their Families. These activities will be consistent with what 

is currently provided at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 

We share your concerns regarding lodging facilities at Bethesda. We are comfortable with the planned lodging facilities for single Wounded Warriors. At this 

point in the planning, there will not be a shortage of rooms for these Soldiers. Our 

primary concern, however, is lodging for Wounded Warriors with Families. Naval 

Support Activity Bethesda (NSA Bethesda) conducted a lodging analysis and concluded that Bethesda currently has sufficient rooms to accommodate the entire 

Wounded Warrior population and their Families. Nevertheless, the Army, has requested that further detailed analysis be done between NSA Bethesda and the Army 

to validate that the lodging facilities will meet the specific needs of Army Wounded 

Warriors and their Families. 

Mr. WILSON. In the past, you’ve said that the Army’s readiness posture is ‘‘out 

of balance,’’ due to demands placed on it by the operational tempo of the current 

wars, and that the Army is not ready today to meet other large-scale ground combat 

contingencies as fast as various plans require. You’ve also said that the Marine 

Corps, Navy and Air Force can provide contingency forces to mitigate the late arrival of Army forces in some of these scenarios. However, given the declining state 

of readiness of all services, are you still confident in that assessment? How much 

risk is the nation assuming by having the Army essentially 100% committed to the 

current wars? When will this situation begin to improve? 

General CASEY. The Army is providing forces needed to prevail in the current 

fight, and we are increasing forces in Afghanistan as we responsibly draw down in 

Iraq. Thanks to the support of Congress and the American people, the Army is receiving adequate resources to restore readiness; however, the pace of operations is 

requiring the Army to consume readiness as fast as we produce it. In committing 

the Army to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Nation has limited choices if another crisis— 

whether humanitarian or conflict—arises. Additionally, at today’s high operational 

tempo, the Army cannot train all units for the Full Spectrum of Operations, which 

reduces trained and ready Army forces that we have available for the variety of 

other possible missions in a world of persistent conflict. 

Under the projected levels of demand, we will continue making progress in restoring balance, and plan to reach a sustainable and predictable force rotational cycle 

in 2012—two years at home station for every year deployed for our Active Component and four years at home station for every year mobilized for our Reserve Component. We expect a few challenging years of recapitalizing and repairing equipment, re-integrating our Families and training forces for Full Spectrum Operations, 

before we can provide robust strategic flexibility to our leaders. 

With Congress’ continued support, the Army will restore its balance during these 

challenging years by achieving sustainable deploy-to-dwell ratios; adequately providing for Soldiers, Civilians and Families; and resetting our equipment and pre- 
125 

positioned stocks. Together, these measures will restore Army readiness and strategic flexibility to our Nation’s leaders. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. My understanding is that 63 percent of the Army National Guard’s 

(ARNG) HMMWV fleet will be over 20 years old by FY11. In fact, over 60 percent 

of the Ohio National Guard’s HMMWV inventory are the original A0 model 

HMMWV and are between 20 to 25 years old. These older models are not as capable 

as current production vehicles. Specifically, they have significantly less payload, 

cannot be armored (which hinders the Guard’s ability to train on them before being 

deployed overseas), and do not have the capability to mount critical systems needed 

to perform increased multi-mission requirements filled by the HMMWV. As you are 

aware, the National Guard’s military training, homeland security, and state emergency missions rely on the I–IMMWV. Despite this critical role, the FY 11 budget 

request does not include any funding for the Army to procure new HMMWVs. With 

this in mind, I would like to know how does Army plan to ensure the National 

Guard has the modern equipment it needs, including current HMMWVs, to successfully carry out its many critical missions? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army National Guard (ARNG) currently has an excess of vehicles in its High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle 

(HMMWV) Fleet. This allows us to divest older models using Fiscal Year 2010 

(FY10) procurement and recapitalization (RECAP) funds, and thereby lower the percent of older ARNG vehicles to 43 percent by second quarter FY11. We will further 

lower this figure to 30 percent through the Program Objective Memorandum. Over 

the course of the war, the ARNG has conducted excellent pre-deployment training 

at mobilization sites using equipment provided in pre-deployment training sets. 

These sets include the most modern equipment available. The Army’s strategy is to 

ensure modernization levels are compatible with mission roles across all components: active, guard and reserve. To ensure HMMWV modernization, the Army will 

continue the RECAP program, ultimately improving the capability of the existing 

fleet without an increase in the HMMWV inventory. 

Mr. TURNER. The QDR specifically identified ‘building partnership capacity’ as one 

of the top three areas of operational risk. We have observed important lessons in 

Afghanistan over the last many years and recently have made strides to stress the 

importance of cultural awareness, force cooperation, and integrated multi-national 

training and exercises. One specific example, in which this concept has manifested 

itself organizationally pragmatic execution, is through the implementation of Advise 

and Assist Brigades (AABS). What steps should the Army take in terms of institutionalizing, educating, and training soldiers for building partnership capacity beyond our current efforts in Afghanistan? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army is taking steps to institutionalize our ability to build partnership capacity. 

In general, the Army continues to refine our doctrine to emphasize that all operations are conducted with the ultimate objective of transitioning to a stable environment. We are developing standard lists of Mission Essential Tasks that require various types of Army units to include ‘‘stability operations’’ when preparing for any 

mission. Beginning in FY12, we will adjust model training strategies to ensure unit 

training resources include ‘‘stability operations.’’ 

We also plan to align certain units with specific geographic combatant commands, 

which will enable these units to develop some degree of regional expertise and facilitate combatant commanders’ ability to build coalitions through targeted exercise 

and engagement programs. In support of these efforts the Army recently approved 

a Culture and Foreign Language Strategy, which provides a holistic approach to 

building and sustaining the right blend of language and cultural skills. 

The Army is also working to institutionalize training for units given specific responsibilities for building partnership capacity (i.e. a Brigade Combat Team asked 

to advise and assist the security forces of another nation). The Army has established 

the 162nd Training Brigade, which is co-located with the Joint Readiness Training 

Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana, as an enduring capability to train personnel to augment Army brigades, and to train other U.S. Army specialized teams (e.g. training 

teams for military police, engineers, medical, etc.) to mentor the functional staff of 

another nation’s Army. Trainers from the 162nd will also facilitate a unit/team integration into the operations of deploying Army formations primarily through support 

of mission rehearsal exercises at Army Combat Training Centers. 

Finally, Army future efforts at building partnership capacity will be significantly 

enhanced by the recent appointment of Commander, Combined Arms Center, Fort 
126 

Leavenworth, Kansas as the Army’s proponent for security force assistance, as well 

as for stability operations. 

Mr. TURNER. Regarding BMD, please provide detailed plans, logistical footprint, 

and associated timelines for deploying the planned Patriot battery in Poland. 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Government of Poland recently ratified the Supplemental Status of Forces Agreement which triggered a POTUS-directed suspense to begin regular Patriot unit training rotations to Poland. The Joint 

Staff Planning Order released 16 FEB 10, established the Patriot to Poland Phase 

I requirements to conduct training and exercises with the Polish Air Defense Forces 

and U.S. European Command is preparing to begin regular training rotations. The 

logistic footprint for the training will be the organic unit field requirements and will 

expand to include a small contingency site in a subsequent phase. United States 

Army Europe is now refining the training rotation plan which is due by the end of 

May 2010. Planning will include an analysis regarding Phase II site location and 

requirements in accordance with the Declaration on Strategic Cooperation between 

the United States of America and the Republic of Poland. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCMORRIS RODGERS 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. The Quadrennial Defense Review directs our nation’s 

Armed Forces to be capable of conducting a wide range of operations including 

homeland defense, defense assistance to civil authorities and major stabilization operations. As an operational force, National Guard Heavy Brigade Combat Teams 

continue to leave their armored vehicles at home while they deploy overseas to conduct stability operations. Would the Department of Defense consider converting a 

second National Guard Heavy Brigade Combat Team into a Stryker Brigade Combat 

Team so that they can deploy and fight with the same equipment that they train 

on, as well as being much better equipped to conduct domestic missions? If so, 

would the Department of Defense consider converting the 81st Heavy Brigade Combat Team of the Washington Army National Guard that is collocated with the 

Army’s Stryker Center of Excellence at Joint Base Lewis McChord? 

General CASEY. The Department of Defense has considered the Army National 

Guard request to convert a second Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) to a 

Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). However, the Army has no plans to execute 

a conversion at this time. The number of future Brigade Combat Team conversions 

was considered in the Quadrennial Defense Review and will continue to be assessed. 

The management of both the designs and the total mix of the Army Brigade Combat 

Teams is a continuous process. 

If the Department of Defense justifies the requirement to convert additional 

HBCT to SBCT within the Army National Guard, the unit and location(s) would be 

determined and staffed by the Army National Guard. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Wouldn’t you agree that spouses relying on the Military Spouse Career Advancement Account (MyCAA) program to further their academic goals should have been notified prior to the temporary stay in order to make 

the necessary arrangements with their school. 

General CASEY. The Army agrees that providing as much notice as possible when 

making program changes is always preferable. On March 13, 2010, DOD resumed 

MyCAA operations for military spouses who currently have existing MyCAA accounts. As the Army works with DOD on the way ahead for MyCAA policy/program 

management, Military OneSource Spouse Education and Career Consultants will 

continue to be available to provide education and training, career exploration, assessment, employment readiness and career search assistance. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ELLSWORTH 

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Secretary McHugh and General Casey, last year, Congress sup- ported the Army’s request and provided $1.3 billion for the Army to procure new 

Humvees in Fiscal Year 2010. What is the status of those funds and what are the 

Army’s plans to put the Fiscal Year 2010 funds on order? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army is planning to procure 2,122 

HMMWVs in FY10 using FY 2010 Base and OCO funding. The FY 2010 base budget ($281M) will procure 1,410 HMMWVs to support systems that use the HMMWV 

as their prime mover, commonly referred to as ‘‘data interchange’’ vehicles. The 

FY10 OCO funding ($150M) procures 712 HMMWVs for U.S. Army Special Operations Command. The Army plans to seek reprogramming approval for the remaining FY 2010 OCO procurement funding for recapitalization of HMMWVs returning 

from theater and other Army priorities. 
127 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. GIFFORDS 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to Secretary McHugh 

and General Casey for being here today. As you know, Fort Huachuca in my District 

is the home of Army Intelligence. Since 9/11, the Fort has grown exponentially and 

now hosts around 15,000 servicemembers, civilians and contractors. Each year, 

thousands of servicemembers and operatives from the other intelligence agencies 

come to Southern Arizona to learn their tradecraft. Over the last year, we have 

begun to adjust mission sets at the Fort to concentrate our precious resources on 

training intelligence warfighters and relocating other non-core functions to other facilities where they are needed more. In doing so, we have relocated the final acceptance mission of Unmanned Vehicles to Mr. Bishop’s district in Utah and next year 

we will prepare the 86th Signal Battalion to relocate to Mr. Reyes’s district in 

Texas. There have been rumors circulating that additional elements will be relocating to Mr. Smith’s District up in Washington. I know that we have talked quite 

a bit about this over the last few weeks but I want to be sure that we’re on the 

same page. 

Do you anticipate relocating the other pieces of that unit—the 40th Signal Battalion and the 11th Signal Headquarters—in the near future? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. The Army currently has no programmed 

moves for the 11th Signal Brigade or 40th Signal Battalion. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. I met earlier this week with a team of trainers we have on-post 

at Fort Huachuca and they specialize in teaching the Border Patrol and other State 

and local law enforcement agencies how to think and work like intelligence officers. 

Right now they are funded through a combination of programs but ultimately 

through NORTHCOM and JTF–NORTH. I have heard interest expressed by both 

the Homeland Security side and the Army side, but right now the program is ad 

hoc. Would you be willing to work with me on establishing a regular funding stream 

for this program? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. Combatant Commander’s and Homeland 

Security Department’s specific operational intelligence mission training requirements vary from year to year. Placing a specific funding line into the Army’s base 

appropriation locks the Army into providing training that may no longer be required 

by the Combatant Commander or Homeland Security. Keeping the training reimbursable provides the Army and the requesting agency with the flexibility needed 

to meet current operational requirements. The Army appreciates your interest in 

this training, but believes that the training should remain reimbursable and not be 

included in the Army’s base funding. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Army’s Culture Center is also located just off-post in Sierra 

Vista. They are the foremost cultural experts in the Department. I know that both 

Chairman Smith and I have received extensive briefings from them in the past before one of our trips into some hostile areas in Africa and the Middle East. They 

really are doing some excellent work down there. Given the importance of culture 

and cultural awareness in the wars we are currently fighting and the ones we will 

fight in the future, and the unique capabilities provided by the Culture Center, does 

the Army plan to formally make it a Center of Excellence? If not, why not? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. Training & Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) conducted a thorough analysis to determine what should constitute a 

TRADOC ‘‘center’’ versus a ‘‘center of excellence.’’ The specific functions of the 

TRADOC Culture Center (TCC), which include assistance in developing culture capabilities to support current and future operations as well as concept development 

and experimentation, fall within the definition of a ‘‘center.’’ Although the TCC provides unique capabilities, it is a subordinate element of the U.S. Army Intelligence 

Center of Excellence (USAICoE) and the Army does not plan to designate the TCC 

a center of excellence (CoE). 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Fort is also home to the Army’s Network Command and oversees the security and integrity of the Army’s U.S.-based computer networks. Can 

you comment on how you see their role growing as the Army and the Department 

grows their cyber defense capabilities? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. In a memo dated 23 June 2009, the Secretary of Defense stated that cyberspace and its associated technologies offer unprecedented opportunities for the United States, and are vital to our Nation’s security and, by extension, to all aspects of military operations. Yet, our increasing dependency on cyberspace, alongside a growing array of cyber threats and 

vulnerabilities, adds a new element of risk to our national security. The Secretary 

therefore approved establishment of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), a Department of Defense sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic Command, to integrate 

DoD’s cyberspace operations into a single entity. 
128 

To support CYBERCOM and to provide the unique capabilities that Army operations require, the Army will stand up a three-star command, Army Forces Cyber 

Command (ARFORCYBER). ARFORCYBER will create unprecedented unity of effort and will synchronize all Army forces operating within the cyber domain. 

ARFORCYBER will focus on planning, coordinating, integrating, synchronizing, directing and conducting network operations and defense of all Army networks to ensure that U.S. and Allied forces have freedom of action in cyberspace. 

ARFORCYBER will capitalize on existing Army cyber resources. Network Enterprise Technology Command/9th Signal Command, Army (9th SC(A)) and its global 

forces will be assigned as a subordinate unit to ARFORCYBER. The Commanding 

General, 9th SC(A) will serve as the ARFORCYBER Deputy Commanding General 

for cyber operations. A combined Army Cyber Operations Integration Center 

(ACOIC) also will exist underneath ARFORCYBER. The majority of forces for 

ACOIC are already in place at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to include elements of the 9th 

SC(A) Army Global Network Operations and Security Center. Additionally, U.S. 

Army Intelligence and Security Command will be under the operational control of 

ARFORCYBER for attack and exploit-related actions. 

The 9th SC(A) and its global forces provide a wide range of network and cyber 

capabilities necessary to execute ARFORCYBER’s missions, and are charged with 

establishing, provisioning, sustaining and defending the Army’s portion of the Global Information Grid, LandWarNet (LWN). LWN, which is critical to 21st century operations, provides secure and assured information access across joint strategic, operational and tactical echelons, thereby enabling warfighter decision dominance. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. You recently announced a significant shift in base support funding 

to take care of Army families. Can you talk a little about this effort and touch on 

the specifics of which programs are in the greatest need for additional funds and 

are high demand services? 

Secretary MCHUGH and General CASEY. We thank the Congress for its steadfast 

and continued support of our Soldier and Family programs. The programs we are 

executing in fiscal year 2010, and our request for fiscal year 2011, are funded to 

ensure our Soldiers and Families continue to enjoy the full spectrum of services they 

so richly deserve. Army Spouse Employment, New Parent Support, Exceptional 

Family Member services, expanded child care and youth services are examples of 

these valuable, high-demand programs. 

The Installation Management Command will continue to work closely with each 

installation to ensure its essential Base Operating Support (BOS) needs are met. We 

will conduct a comprehensive mid-year review of all BOS accounts to ensure we 

maintain adequate funding to meet Army priorities throughout the remainder of the 

fiscal year. We will look for efficiencies and best practices in the use of BOS funds, 

but will not shortchange Soldiers and their Families in the process. 

The health and welfare of our Soldiers and Families is tremendously important, 

and we recognize the incredible sacrifices they make every day. As a result, and 

under the Army Family Covenant, we have taken great strides by standing up and 

bolstering numerous programs to provide Soldiers and Families a quality of life commensurate with their level of service and sacrifice to the nation. Not only do these 

programs ease the stress of everyday military life, they also enhance readiness, recruiting, and retention. Our programs support all Soldiers—single and married, Active and Reserve Component, geographically dispersed and those on or near installations—and their Families. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. The FY2010 NDAA (Sec. 141 and Sec. 216) directed that within 

each military service, a separate, dedicated budget line item for body armor procurement would be established in the FY2011 Budget submission. It also articulated the 

same requirement for a separate, dedicated program element for RDT&E. Mr. Secretary, understanding that none of the military services make the final decision on 

what is or is not included in the budget request, please explain why the Army does 

not have a separate account for procurement and RDT&E of body armor? Did you 

include the separate accounts in the budget request that you submitted to the Secretary of Defense? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army did not create separate body armor funding lines 

in RDT&E and procurement in the FY2011 Budget because we were awaiting guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on how to implement the 

FY2010 NDAA language. Previously, body armor has been an expendable and not 

an investment item, and therefore purchased with Operation and Maintenance, 
129 

Army funding. The Army is exploring options with OSD for subsequent fiscal years 

and will implement in accordance with OSD guidance. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Military officials have testified that the Army has a requirement 

to lighten the load carried by soldiers particularly during dismounted operations in 

Afghanistan. I understand that despite this stated requirement, that none of the 

military services are actively soliciting for lighter weight body armor enhanced 

small arms protective inserts. The FY11 OCO budget request included $327.0 million for body armor. Body armor requirements have been funded primarily through 

OCO supplemental appropriations with no long term investment strategy. Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether there has been a comprehensive effort from Department of the Army to accelerate and properly resource weight reduction initiatives to body armor. There is no evidence in the budget documents that the Department of Defense or any of the Services have a research and development program 

to reduce the weight of body armor. Please describe what steps you have taken to 

ensure that there is a robust R&D program to develop lighter body armor products? 

Please explain how you coordinated your efforts with the ongoing efforts of the other 

services? What are your thoughts in establishing a body armor task force similar 

to the MRAP Task Force and the TSR Task Force to accelerate these efforts? 

Secretary MCHUGH. Body Armor is not a Program of Record and is therefore 

100% funded with Overseas Contingency Operations funds with no RDT&E dedicated funding line. The 2010 NDAA directed that each of the services establish a 

RDT&E line for Body Armor, which the Army is currently working with DoD to establish. 

To coordinate on-going Body Armor initiatives, the Army participates in the 

Cross-Service War fighter Equipment Board (CS–WEB). This group includes representatives from the Military Departments (U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force Research Laboratories, and Office of Naval Research); U.S. Special Operations Command; Defense Logistics Agency; the Department of Homeland Security; and the 

U.S. Coast Guard Clothing Design and Technical Office. The coordinating agency for 

the CS–WEB is Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center and 

the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command. 

The CS–WEB functions as a collaborative body to coordinate Joint war fighter 

equipment investments to ensure the most effective solutions are acquired and fielded to war fighters by the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard and 

Special Operations Command. The CS–WEB provides a forum that encourages a 

dialogue on all aspects of full systems life cycle acquisition management to include: 

science and technology plans; technology transition planning; system design and development; initial production; procurement strategies; raw ballistic fiber/material 

usage forecasts and shortage issues; ballistic testing protocols/issues; production 

rates; and operational support concepts. 

We do not think a Task Force is required to address the issue of lighter Body 

Armor. The CS–WEB and the Army and the Marine Corps Board, which meet quarterly, focuses on force protection issues, to include initiatives for lighter Body Armor 

Systems. 

Ms. TSONGAS. The MEADS program was initiated to provide replacement for the 

Patriot Air and Missile System in the U.S. Army, as well as Patriot, Nike Hercules 

and Hawk in Germany and Italy. However, the MEADS development program has 

not delivered on promised timely and cost-effective fielding of new air and missile 

defense capabilities. Since the program’s initiation, the time to field the First Unit 

Equipped (FUE) has repeatedly been revised resulting in increased costs and delays 

to fielding warfighter capability as follows: 

• In 1996, the expected RDTE cost was $2B to $3 B, with a planned FUE in 2008 

• In 2002, the expected RDTE cost was $7B to $9B, with a planned FUE in 2012 

• In 2008, the expected RDTE cost was $10B, with a planned FUE in 2015 

In 2008, the GAO reported that the FUE date will slip an additional two years, 

to 2017. In addition, recent GAO reports (GAO–08–467SP & GAO–Q9–326SP Assessments of Major Weapon Programs) found that only two of six critical MEADS 

technologies were maturing at an adequate pace to meet program schedule. Based 

on the performance of the MEADS program to date, OSD commissioned reviews of 

the program to understand what is driving MEADS over budget and behind schedule. 

Two OSD studies, one conducted by the Hon. John Young (former USD AT&L) 

and one conducted by Hon. Paul Schneider (Chertoff Group consultant and former 

DHS Deputy Secretary), were both critical of NAMEADSMA and the U.S. Army 

management and oversight of MEADS. What changes to management’s procedure 

and structure have been implemented? What objective criteria will be used to deter-
130 

mine whether MEADS successfully completes the system-level CDR? Will affordability, risk and performance figure prominently in deciding whether to continue or 

to terminate the program? 

Secretary MCHUGH. The Army assumed responsibility for MEADS late in Fiscal 

Year 2003. During the Preliminary Design Reviews in 2007, significant concerns 

arose about the program’s progress, management and risk. These concerns led to 

two independent reviews on the health of the program and a path forward. The assessments validated that change was necessary. 

Since the conclusion of the reviews, the Army has been working with the OSD 

(AT&L) to negotiate with international partners to substitute an exportable version 

of the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) for the 

MEADs battle manager, and also a change in the management governance Memorandum of Understanding with the NATO Medium Extended Air Defense System 

Management Agency (NAMEADSMA) partners. This approach would meet the current System requirements and achieve an improved governance structure. 

Some changes have already been implemented. The Joint Steering Committee has 

been replaced by a Board of Directors, which now focuses on strategic program direction and execution oversight. The NAMEADSMA General Manager has been provided the necessary authority for effective day to day program management and 

execution. 

The Department is in the process of conducting a detailed multi-faceted assessment to support the fall System Program Review. The OSD Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation team is reviewing program costs and preparing a new cost estimate. Both the Army and OSD are jointly conducting an independent external Critical Design Review (CDR) assessment. It will review multiple aspects of the CDR 

such as percentages of drawings completed, software coding status, and integration 

and test progress. 

The Army and OSD are reviewing requirements and threats to ensure the 

MEADS program is delivering a needed capability. The assessments will provide the 

Department leadership with detailed information to support program decisions. 

Æ